> From the research I have done, the majority of
Afghans want peace to the point where they would
accept a Taliban strict rule of law over the
continued war. Its confusing, but it just shows the
war really needs to end.
As I looked at US efforts at essentially 'nation
building', often on the other side of the world, to
try to contribute to US national security, I came up
with a simple observation:
In a country with a government and economy that
function at all, there has to be and is a 'culture'
with social structures, education, economic
activity, leadership, laws, government, usually
religion, etc. While such a culture has to exist,
it may be very different from that in the US.
In Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world, the
'culture' is heavily just Islam: Islam controls
social structures, e.g., sex, marriage, child
rearing, the role of family, etc. Islam also
controls most of education, much of the economic
activity, essentially all the laws, the police, the
justice system, the government, the foreign policy,
and, of course, religion. We can toss in
architecture, what people eat, and what they wear.
Basically from how people dress, eat, work, etc.,
its all Islam. So, in an Islamic country, take away
Islam, and there's no culture at all and, then, just
chaos, e.g., criminals, gangs, civil war, etc. Net,
in an Islamic country, for a government leader can
have an Islamic king (e.g., Kuwait), Islamic strong
man dictator (Saddam, Assad), or Islamic cleric
(Iran). That's about it.
One can try to set up a Western, secular government
in an Islamic country, but the leader will have no
cultural foundation to stand on and, thus, will be
trying to sell pie in the sky. Meanwhile the
clerics will be working 24 x 7 to get their people
up on their hind legs against the guy, and too soon
he will lose, maybe his head.
For anything like US democracy, laws, police,
secular government, freedom of religion, etc., just
f'get about it. We need to understand: In the US,
our 'culture' of democracy is much more than just
our Constitution and elections. Instead, in
addition, nearly all of us have 'bought into' a
'social contract' where we believe in, invest in,
and trust in our democracy. So for most significant
transgressions against the 'culture', the voters get
indignant, outraged, incensed, infuriated, and up on
their hind legs and vote! E.g., each member of the
House has to stand for election each two years,
which is darned short, and keeps him on a very short
leash, and if he messes up then likely he's out'a
there. To borrow from a Bond movie, getting caught
in a motel room with a cheerleader does nicely.
Really the Islamic countries are about 500 years
behind the history of Western Europe, e.g., when
Western Europe was fighting wars of religion and
starting to develop respect for humanism, individual
freedom, secular government, and democracy. Moving
ahead 500 years is not easy. The rivers of Europe
ran red with blood for hundreds of years before we
got to 'Western Civilization'. Europe has been the
most effectively bloody place on the planet until
finally it started to learn to live in peace,
recently, hopefully.
Net, Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country,
some version of an Islamic country, but still an
Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man,
or cleric. Sorry 'bout that. We won't like such a
'culture': Some of the men use boys for sex. They
marry off their daughters at age 7 or 13 or some
such. They refuse to educate females. They use
Islamic laws and justice. Islam runs essentially
everything.
That's just the way it is. That's the reality. We
need to face the reality. We don't like it. We see
it as a 500 year out of date sh!tpit, and we are
correct. Right, it sucks. We know that.
Then, facing that reality, we can look for how to
get what we need, e.g., US national security, that
is, to keep Afghanistan from being the base of
operations of another 9/11 attack on the US.
Okay, then, that's what we really need, our real
'bottom line': Keep Afghanistan from being the base
of operations of another 9/11 attack on the US. We
need little or nothing more than that from
Afghanistan. Can we get that? Sure. How? Two
steps. Step 1. Put in place a bunch of INTEL. Step
2. Leave. [It took the US 12 years to figure this
out?] If our INTEL tells us that they are starting
to attack the US again, then level them, appropriate
places plus some for good measure, from the air.
Done.
What will happen after we leave? Mostly we don't
give a sh!t. But I'd put my money on a government
run by an Islamic cleric, e.g., the Taliban.
Now, US military, welcome home. Well done.
Yes, we can be sure that the Muslim clerics will get
their people up on their hind legs shouting "Death
to America". Sounds like a declaration of war to me
for which some USAF guy in a container room in
Nevada should push a button on a drone control and
stop that stuff. But if all they do is shout, then
we don't always have to push the button.
England was long smart enough to work effectively in
that part of the world, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria,
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India,
Burma, Singapore, etc., without getting all bent out
of shape trying to bring English culture to those
places.
The US needs to quit being so darned simplistic,
wise up, learn from the English 150 years ago,
update the lessons a little, use our drones, INTEL,
etc., do the smart things, and quit bleeding the US
white on absurd foreign adventures from just totally
unrealistic, head in the sand, simplistic foreign
policy nonsense. We will not get what we have
wanted in Afghanistan. Instead we will wise up and
get what we can and need or just go broke on
nonsense.
Have you ever been to an Islamic country ever? You just made up the whole history like a simplistic comic book story.
> In Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world, the 'culture' is heavily just Islam: Islam controls social structures, e.g., sex, marriage, child rearing, the role of family, etc.
I am from Pakistan. Our culture is massive mix of Indian/sub-continental traditions, Islamic values and most recently westerns customs. There is a strong case that our marriage, sex etc. are more inclined towards traditional indian culture than islamic (e.g. second marriages or marrying a divorcee is a taboo in Pakistan while in fact is encouraged in Islam). There is so much diversity in our provinces on how they deal with women (e.g. in Punjab in rural areas, it is very common for women to have jobs, unlike in the Pashtuns) that your claim of sweeping all Islamic countries under one broom is laughable.
> We can toss in architecture, what people eat, and what they wear. Basically from how people dress, eat, work, etc., its all Islam.
No it's not. Sorry that's just show your lack of research. Again the 'shalwar kameez' we wear here in Pakistan has more in common with Hindu lineage than Islam with the urban areas are totally jeans/suits. We have huge interest-based banks since forever where banks are a total no-no in Islam.
>Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or cleric
Not sure you can lump up kings with clerics and make an argument out of that. The only thing common between then is opportunist. They wanted to be on the throne and they might've used religion in some cases or maybe sheer power in other. In Pakistan, more than half of our history, we've been ruled by dictators but not once we got an Imam or a cleric.
> I am from Pakistan. Our culture is massive mix of Indian/sub-continental traditions, Islamic values and most recently westerns customs
Apparently the main part of Pakistan relevant to
Afghanistan is the 'tribal regions' mostly not
governed by the rest of Pakistan. There your
claims of a "mix" seem to be not correct.
Further, much of the problem the US has had with
Pakistan is from the strong role of Islam there
and in Afghanistan. For reasons of religion, culture,
domestic politics, and foreign policy, Pakistan
has been mostly on the side of the Taliban, that is,
wants to dominate Afghanistan.
My comments about Islam were focused on Afghanistan.
The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq.
For Pakistan, sure, it used to be part of India
which is wildly mixed from Muslim, Hindu,
what it got from the British, and the old
cultures from before the British. India
is a forbiddingly complicated place, and
Pakistan has been influenced by that.
But the main reason for the formation of
Pakistan was just Islam -- they wanted
an Islamic country. Net, the main culture
in Pakistan is just Islam.
Italy is heavily a Roman Catholic country,
but the church does not run everything.
Turkey is an Islamic country, but
the clerics don't run everything.
An Islamic country can have a culture
more varied than just Islam. No doubt
the culture of Pakistan is more varied
than that of Afghanistan.
The main interest in this tread is what
the heck is the US going to do about
Afghanistan and why? The main content
of why is just the role of Islam.
The US brought to Afghanistan
constitutional government, free elections,
roads, schools, hospitals, training and
equipment for police and a military,
but Afghanistan is about to throw
away all of that and return to
an 'Islamic state' run by the Taliban. Thus,
I and much of the US are losing patience
with both Afghanistan and Islam.
No, it doesn't. I don't disagree with you on the whole (and certainly appreciate that you are even attempting to understand the issue, which is more than almost anyone does), but like neebz I think your narrative is very simplistic and out of touch with reality.
Islam is not as powerful in the "Islamic world" as you portrayed. Taliban is the exception, not the rule.
I currently live in Tehran, and TBH I personally know less than 8 people (less, because it's been a while since I've talked to a few of them) who are supportive of the government, or in general of Islamic rule. And the number of "religious" (as in, religion is more than something theoretical for them - you believe in Quran, and even though you don't follow it's instructions, the mere belief gets you a place in paradise) people I personally know is probably no more than 20 (most of them friends at college).
The reason for Islamic rule (at least in Iran), is not because they have the support of the people, but simply because they have the money and power. You don't sell hundreds of billions of dollars of crude oil every quarter and get rich and powerful, only to allow to be overthrown! You do everything you can to prevent that.
> Islam is not as powerful in the "Islamic world" as you portrayed. Taliban is the exception, not the rule.
Sure. But I was talking mostly about Afghanistan. And
the US got 'impatient' with the Shiite/Sunni fighting in
Iraq. And the Shiite yelling and screaming, "Death to
America" from Iran is difficult to respect.
For the connection between the clerics and the economy in
Iran, there was an article in, maybe, 'Forbes' long ago
explaining that basically the clerics get a 'cut' of
nearly everything in the economy, control who gets to
do what, etc.
But, why? That is, why are the Islamic clerics in Iran
running the economy with a short leash and
running an aggressive military and foreign policy
at great cost to their domestic standard of living?
Is this just religion? No. But Islam is not just
religion and, instead, is often also economic, legal,
military, foreign policy, etc. That's not new: The
Roman Catholic church was doing that in Europe for
hundreds of years. They owned a major fraction of all
the farm land in France which has a major fraction of
all the good farm land in Western Europe. They built
little things like the cathedrals, while the people
were living in, what, mud huts? They built the Bishop's
Residenz in Würzburg, awash in some of the fanciest art
and architecture in all of civilization -- not cheap,
and built by citizens in, what, mud huts? The Roman
Catholic church was running everything. E.g., to be
a king, had to have the Pope tap you on the head or some
such. And they were corrupt. So, they had the Protestant Reformation, religious wars, etc. Lots of blood. Finally they learned their lessons about religion. In the US, we
borrowed those lessons -- the state will establish no religion; there will be separation of church and state; there will be freedom of religion. Done. Iraq, Iran, and
Afghanistan still have to learn these old lessons.
Sorry about the Shah; he was a pawn in the Cold War. The
US had just finished WWII and, thus, took the Cold War
seriously. We spent a LOT of money, and blood, winning
the Cold War.
Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the other Arab oil
states, should all do the same thing: Cool down. Relax.
Embrace peace. Get the clerics into religion only.
No more clerics measuring the lengths of women's skirts
or censoring the Internet.
Pump oil. Enjoy life. Then work on culture, good
government, education, technology, and a strong economy
for when the oil runs out. And stop shouting "Death to
America". Want nuclear power for electric power, taking the
salt out of water and growing vegetables? Fine. Just
accept the usual international rules, safeguards, and inspections, and light up your cities and have
fountains and big swimming pools of pure water.
All this fighting is over nothing, wasteful, and absurd.
(sorry that this comment is not at all coherent - I have a bad headache right now)
I agree. But the problem is that those who chant "Death to America", like the status quo; they don't want change! If things change (like you said in the second to last paragraph), they'll be out of their jobs and have to do an honest day's work. They don't want that. And do everything they can to prevent that. They "have" to portray US as the "Great Satan", that is behind all their economic, cultural and political mistakes.
It might be strange and unfathomable to you and me, but some people prefer to be King in a wasteland, than to be an ordinary citizen in a country with much greater standard of living. They'd rather be a powerful Mullah in Taliban, than to live normally in a western country. Many of these clerics have spent years studying in European countries, but after finishing college they've left the west and now are living in a shack somewhere in Ghandahar and are the local commander of Taliban. Why? I don't know.
Most of these people won't "cool down, relax or embrace peace", because they are enjoying their shitty lives. And that's the problem, because they have the power to make life miserable for others too. They'd sooner bomb their people (Saddam, Ghadafi, Assad) and ruin their own country, than to "let it go".
There are exceptions like Mubarak or Bin Ali (or Iran's Shah) that fought furiously, but in the end decided not to completely ruin their countries and fled. But not all dictators are like that; some are like Assad.
I hope you are very careful, your commentary is really interesting but I worry for you writing things like what you said about Shah and Assad from there.
Turkey is a secular state. While the population is muslim, the state has historically resisted attempts at islamification. That resistance is being eroded, however.
Off-topic: You seem to be using the word "net" a lot in a way that seems odd to me. Net as in "the net effect of which is"?
"Net" is partly from accounting where
we calculate, say, earnings, and have
already subtracted off expenses, etc.
More generally "net" means a summary
or a very simple statement of the
core point.
In writing to be understood, often it
is good be clear, and even too simple,
about the main 'points'. Otherwise
it is too easy that no 'points'
at all get across.
Your comment and at least two 'siblings'
are far more thoughtful than mine was
so that my oversimplifying with "net"
is not appropriate.
Back here in the US, after 9/11 and now
12 years in Afghanistan, we need to make
some difficult decisions: We tried, hard
but in total ('net'!) not hard enough, to
make Afghanistan a "shining city on a hill"
but apparently have failed and maybe even
'net' have done more harm than good.
Bin laden is gone. The Taliban government
that let Bin Laden use their country as
a base to attack the US is not gone but
is out of power. There are stories that
some even in the Taliban now understand
that it was a big mistake to let Bin
Laden use Afghanistan as a base to attack
the US.
The US has tried 'nation building' in
several countries of the world. We were
largely successful in Germany and Japan.
With US military protection, Taiwan and
South Korea have done well. The US has
tried hard to have peace with both
Russia and China and not have them become
another 'Axis' like Germany and Japan in
the 1940s. Still, in Viet Nam, Cambodia,
Iraq, and Afghanistan, the results of US
efforts been from frustrating and/or poor
(Iraq) down to worse.
Viet Nam is the grand tragedy: I have
a nice 600 dot per inch black and white
printer from Brother, made in Viet Nam.
Terrific for Viet Nam. The US couldn't
be happier. The Brother printer is much
better than the HP printer I bought in
1994. That Brother and Viet Nam are
at least in part beating HP in the printer
business is mostly fine in the US (except
for HP stockholders!). As far as I can
tell, what Viet Nam is now is just fine with
the US. The big, huge point for the US is
that Viet Nam is not part of some Axis
of Moscow, Peking, and Hanoi that seemed to
be a threat starting just after WWII where
the US had just defeated the Axis and didn't
like things that looked like an Axis. The
WWII Axis also hurt Viet Nam -- Japan occupied
Viet Nam.
But,
the way Viet Nam is today, it is clearly
no threat to its neighbors or the US, and
that's really all the US wanted. The
US didn't want a colony, and for the
rubber or lumber, wanted to pay fair prices
for it.
The tragedy
is that Viet Nam and US relations as they
are today could have been just the same in
the early 1970s, the 1960s, ..., back to
just after WWII (to heck with the French)
just by both sides just deciding to and
shaking hands on it.
In summary ('net'), the US has tried,
sometimes at great expense in US blood
and treasure, often with much more expense
in blood in the other country,
sometimes been successful,
and sometimes not. When we have failed,
we didn't really know why.
For why the US was successful in Germany
and Japan, both countries had very strong,
highly disciplined cultures, suffered just
devastating, horrible, defeats, with
homeless people wandering cold and hungry
in the streets with rotting bodies under
piles of rubble, and then used their
discipline to say "never again", mean it,
implement it, do a lot of really hard
work, and rebuild themselves.
So, 'culture' played a part. So, why
not success in Afghanistan? My view:
Culture. The culture was different;
either the US didn't understand it
or it was insufficient. What was that
culture? In a word, Islam; it runs
nearly everything. The US tried to build
a 'secular' (independent of religion)
democracy, and the Taliban have Islam
on their side. The US has B-52 bombers
from 40,000 feet, GPS location, A-10
airplanes that reduce tanks to piles of
scrap iron in seconds, supersonic F-16
airplanes that can reduce a tank to scattered
scrap iron in even less time, schools, hospitals,
etc. and lose, and the Taliban have sticks, stones,
some RPGs, and rusty AK-47s and win. To me,
the main difference is that
the Taliban have the 'culture', in this
case, Islam, on their side.
Whatever, likely the US will be leaving Afghanistan,
fairly soon.
For the US, it's much more difficult to attack
us now. In particular, it's difficult even to
have nail clippers on a US commercial airplane.
And I can believe that in many Islamic countries,
anyone shouting "Jihad! Death to ..." will quickly
get a 'corrective lesson' they won't forget, maybe
even can't forget.
For Turkey, if they become more fundamentally
Islamic, then they will find that the US,
NATO, the EU, and maybe even Russia will become
much less friendly.
> Apparently the main part of Pakistan relevant to Afghanistan is the 'tribal regions' mostly not governed by the rest of Pakistan. There your claims of a "mix" seem to be not correct.
They do. The 'tribal regions' are known 'tribal' for a reason. They are dominated by tribes, who have there own traditions & rivalry. They have affiliations with Taliban because of Pashtun traditions. This affiliation goes back even before the Pakistan came into being. Islam is a cultural part of this region but not the sole driving force. They used poppy/heroine for ages but Islam strictly prohibits using drugs. So yet another sample where your nice little narrative doesn't fit.
> Further, much of the problem the US has had with Pakistan is from the strong role of Islam there and in Afghanistan
erm ..US played an important role during the Afghan-Russia war. They actually pumped up the Jihadist sentiment at that time. Religion in the grand scheme has just been a tool to achieve interest.
> For reasons of religion, culture, domestic politics, and foreign policy, Pakistan has been mostly on the side of the Taliban, that is, wants to dominate Afghanistan.
Only foreign policy. Pakistan cannot afford to fight with neighbors on both sides of border. That's the sole reason Pakistan wants to friend whoever comes into power in Afghanistan (apparently the notorious double-game Pak army has been playing with US is because once US goes back they would have to deal with Taliban ..and they want to be in there good books).
Pakistan has also been super-friendly with China but no religion, culture, domestic politics play any role in that. It's only foreign policy.
> My comments about Islam were focused on Afghanistan. The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq
You do know Iraq fought war with Saudia Arabia ..the be and end all of all things Islam ? You do know how things were in Iran before the revolution ? If you start looking things from an economics-perspective then everything fits in place. There are some nut-jobs who leave everything to go and fight for the sake of religion but the majority of the population doesn't do that. They just want good food and good living style regardless of whose in power. Iranian revolution can be traced back to that as well.
> But the main reason for the formation of Pakistan was just Islam -- they wanted an Islamic country. Net, the main culture in Pakistan is just Islam.
then how come there hasn't been any Islamic governing system in Pakistan since the creation? There are gazillion open things in this country which are against the very premise of Islam yet no one talks about that. Pakistan wasn't created by an imam or cleric. The most ironic thing (and I would suggest you should go and study that) is that creation of Pakistan was opposed by virtually every single cleric at that time. Founder of Pakistan (Jinnah) lead a very secular life & wasn't a fan-favourite of Islamic imams at that time. Pakistan was created because Muslims were living a second-class life in all of India. Again economic reasons.
> The main interest in this tread is what the heck is the US going to do about Afghanistan and why? The main content of why is just the role of Islam.
That I agree. But that is not something which you can use as a reason to justify how things work in every Muslim country out there. US invaded Afghanistan at a time when they had right-wing extremists in power. So obviously they'll have to deal with problems in the same domain. You don't need to create grand conclusions out of it.
But, somehow while supposedly trying to help the
US bring peace to Afghanistan, Bin Laden lived
in a relatively large and nice house for some
years about a good golf shot from the Pakistan
army college. And no one knew he was there?
And when President Clinton fired cruise missiles
at the Bin Laden training camp in Afghanistan,
US Secretary of State Albright
(also known as Half-bright)
informed the Pakistan government since the
missiles would have to fly over Pakistan
territory. Then somehow Half-bright's information
made it to Bin Laden who was well out of the area
when the missiles arrived.
Of course Islam is not all there is to it, not
in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, or even Afghanistan.
And clearly economics is also important.
But my
point was about 'culture'. Or just why have US
efforts to create democracy in Afghanistan failed?
My answer, culture: There's no real basis for
democracy in Afghanistan culture. Does this mean
that Afghanistan has no culture? No, they do.
They have a strong culture, one that runs nearly
everything, Islam. Get rid of Islam and they
don't have much except maybe a few goats, some
poppies, some rusty AK-47s. So, they don't
get rid of Islam. Not all of Islam is against
democracy, but the culture in Afghanistan
is Islam with no foundation for democracy.
This thread (sorry about the times I typed
'tread' instead) has mentioned that in part
the Taliban act like the Mafia in Italy and
at times parts of the US. That's some of
what I thought, and, yes, it's not from Islam.
But the main reason for a Mafia is that
there is no good alternative system of police
and government. With a good system of police,
when a Mafia guy comes to a store owner and
asks for a monthly payment, the store owner
can go to the police who will be waiting when
the Mafia guy comes and accepts the money
and then ... lock up the Mafia guy for a long
time. But this system needs a good culture
to support such good police and, thus, good
police to protect the citizens. In contrast,
all Afghanistan has in culture is just Islam;
Islam doesn't provide good support of
police that support the citizens;
there's no other culture; so the
Taliban get to use Mafia tactics.
Neither the Taliban nor the villagers
believe that a democracy should be
better. So, Islam and Mafia tactics
are what's there.
It's not that Islam is against good
police protection; it's mostly just that
Islam doesn't provide good police
protection, and in Afghanistan Islam is essentially
all the culture. So, no good police
protection. And it's not that an
Islamic country can't have good police
protection; I can believe that some
Islamic countries have some very
strong police. But in Afghanistan,
about all there is is Islam and
next to nothing about good police
or democracy. And the Islamic
clerics? It's not in their interest
to see the growth of strong, secular
institutions such as good police.
So, again, no good
police force can grow up.
Or Islamic Sharia law: Try to implement
something descended from Napoleonic law
or British Common law, etc., and,
in a country that has essentially only
Islam, many
Muslims will keep asking for Sharia law.
So, get a 500 year old legal system.
Education? Try to set up a 21st century,
or 20th century, education system, and,
in a country that has essentially only
Islam, a lot of Muslims will insist on Islamic
education instead. Halt: Again out
of date by 500 years.
Look, if Islam were only religion, then
it would be much less of a road block to
progress in Afghanistan. Instead, Islam
is running nearly everything there and,
thus, is able to block nearly any
change or progress.
A big point about Islam for people
in the US is that Islam is not just
religion but is also how to dress,
what to eat, how to run a marriage,
education, architecture, system of
laws, government, etc. So, in
the less developed Islamic countries,
Islam is a roadblock to change.
E.g., in Iraq, there are two sides
to Islam, the Shiites and the Sunnis.
So, since they have little more important
in their lives than just their religion,
they fight. They would just rather
have a civil war than get on with
pumping oil and living a life of
milk and honey. They did that
already in Europe, been there, done
that, got the T-shirt, and had the
rivers running red for hundreds of years
from religious wars. Finally they
learned: Have politics and government
separate from and largely independent of
religion; have freedom of religion;
and don't fight over religion. Done.
When the Muslims in, say, Iraq learn
that lesson, they will be ahead some
hundreds of years.
> But, somehow while supposedly trying to help the US bring peace to Afghanistan, Bin Laden lived in a relatively large and nice house for some years about a good golf shot from the Pakistan army college. And no one knew he was there?
again, very trivial story. there is an argument to be made that how plausible it is for OBL to live in hiding in Pak but lets for a second we assume that Pakistan were providing a lovely cushy place for him to hide. The reasons are not Islamic, cultural, brotherhood ..it's plain old foreign policy. The war in Afghanistan brings aid and modern technology to Pak Army. And they are suckers for that. Our Army did the same when you guys funded Afghanistan in Russia war (and guess what they build a whole Atomic bomb out of it) and they did the same this time. Nothing to do with your grand illusions of how Islam runs thing here. It's all money. The generals will spend there weekend drinking & dancing (again banned in Islam!) to celebrate there achievements.
---
and as for all your other points which is basically how Islam is hindering progress in Afghanistan: so at least you started with Islamic countries and then narrowed it down to the failed ones and now we are in Afghanistan only. So I'll say that's good progress. You can't compete me on Pakistan on details but you can't do that for Iran, Afghanistan or any other Islamic country. And these are not some hidden research which I did. You only need to visit the country once & meet with common people to understand how your nice little good (democracy) vs evil (religion) doesn't fit. It'll be an eye-opener.
Yes..Islam covers every aspect of life but the number of people who follow Islam like that are less than 0.1% of the world population. And I've given you gazillion examples of that (heck! we have a bigger red district area in Lahore than Amsterdam). Afghanistan was fairly happy with their system a few decades ago. They had universities, tourism, working-women ..all sweet. But then the Russia war happened & it's been downhill since then. Have you ever talked to an Afghani all your life? I can only assume no. Your total knowledge seems to come from watching OBL/Taliban released video speeches.
And I can't even fathom how you think Iraq learned the lessons. The only thing your ill-fated war brought to Iraq is more "love for religion" and more "Death to America". Maybe you have to make these sweet conclusions to make you sleep at night or something but it's hilariously unfounded and naive.
If you think Salafist Afghanistan, Kohmeinist Iran and Baathist Iraq had anything in common then you know jack shit.
That's like comparing Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and the US colonies in Cotton Mather's time, sticking them all into one big pot because they are all "Christian". Idiocy.
You miss the point: It's not that all the
versions of Islam and Islamic governments
are alike. Instead, it's that in the more
backward Islamic countries, Islam is essentially
all the culture there is. And Islam is not
just a religion but is also into law,
government, education, etc. So, in such a country, Islam
is about all the culture there is and can
block, actively or just passively by default,
essentially all progress.
As you point out, there are still some differences.
But what is in common is that Islam, in whatever
flavors, is so strong, and not just a
religion, and essentially all the
culture there is, is able to block progress.
Look, to be more clear, the problem is not
just Islam. Instead, the Roman Catholics ran
everything in Western Europe for hundreds of
years, were corrupt, blocked progress, and
finally Europe got out of it, after religious wars,
etc.
The point is not that Islam is a bad religion,
even if it is. Instead the point is that to
run a good society, need a good culture, and that
culture needs to come from much more than just
some religious clerics. A religious state,
Roman Catholic, Islamic, or anything else, just
will not be a successful state. In the countries
where Islam is the only culture, Islam needs
to shrink back to being just a religion, hopefully
one of several, and let the culture have other
inputs besides just religion. Got it now?
Don't patronize me. You wrote a screed justifying bombing the hell out of civilians because you didn't like their speech. Somewhere in your moral bankruptcy, you wrote
So, in an Islamic country, take away Islam, and there's no culture at all and, then, just chaos
This was your characterization of Iran and Iraq, which showed that you don't know jack. It also won't work for Turkey or Malaysia.
By the way, "nation building" failed in Germany as well, largely because Americans are hypocrites who SAY "nation building" and DO war profiteering, corruption and vindictiveness. The result was Adolf Hitler.
So the US had to fight another World War with Germany, and after getting their asses kicked so badly by the Axis, and coming close to losing in several ways, the US decided in 1945 to do actual nation building in half good faith, hence the Marshall Plan. This time round, it succeeded in Germany and Japan.
Unfortunately, the US forgot this lesson by 9/11, so when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan, they went back to "nation building" by Blackwater XE and Halliburton, with predictable results.
"Really the Islamic countries are about 500 years behind the history of Western Europe... Moving ahead 500 years is not easy.Net, Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or cleric. Sorry 'bout that. We won't like such a 'culture': Some of the men use boys for sex."
Yes, for a while, parts of Afghanistan
started to look modern.
But the point is, to have a good country,
need a good culture. But about all
Afghanistan has is Islamic culture, and
it is more than just a religion -- it
is also about food, clothing, education,
laws, government, etc. Just can't have
a good culture, good enough for a good
country, from just a religious culture.
E.g., people in Afghanistan do not have
enough information to have any good
reason to believe in democracy so don't.
So, the Taliban with Islam and Mafia
techniques can run the place better than
the elected government the US helped
set up.
Right, the Taliban are not 500 years old,
but Islam is. If Islam were just a religion,
then the 500 years might not be so bad.
But with Islamic culture, also get Islamic
laws, education, and government, and those are
500 years out of date and bad.
Talk to a guy 500 years ago about US
democracy in the 21st century, and he
will think you've been smoking funny
stuff. Well, that's about what the
US faces in Afghanistan.
> For anything like US democracy, laws, police, secular government, freedom of religion, etc., just f'get about it.
Clearly you haven't read much history about Islam and can only see the world from what the US media feeds you. Somehow you've been led to think that US 'democracy' is the epitome of a civil world and if a nation is unlike it- then it is some dystopian society.
Islam had all of those things during its founding and up until the Mongols came- during its reign the most controversial land were once governed by peace and had all Christians/Jews/Muslims living side by side. To not cut too much from your time watching Fox News, here's a primer on history;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpcbfxtdoI8
> Clearly you haven't read much history about Islam
and can only see the world from what the US media
feeds you.
It's not about me. It's about current US foreign
policy with respect to the current Afghanistan and
some other Islamic countries. The movie 'Lawrence
of Arabia' claimed that there was lighting on the
streets in Damascus 900 years ago or some such.
Fine. Terrific. But that doesn't say much about
the Islamic countries today.
If you see something wrong with what is in the US
media about current Islamic countries, especially
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, then be clear
where they are going wrong.
> Somehow you've been led to think that US
'democracy' is the epitome of a civil world and if a
nation is unlike it- then it is some dystopian
society.
What I wrote clearly claims that the US has "totally
unrealistic, head in the sand, simplistic foreign
policy nonsense", thus, meaning that I don't claim
that the US is your "epitome of a civil world". But
considering Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq,
Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, I'd pick the US.
Maybe there's hope for Lebanon returning to be the
Paris of the Mideast. And maybe Jordan and Kuwait
are doing well.
I suspect that the Saudis are making a strong and
sincere effort to move forward some centuries
quickly, e.g., before their oil runs out. But they
have a long way to go and are moving slowly, as
likely they should.
Since you are interested in history, here's one from
history for you: Religion running everything and
religious governments don't work very well. Europe
figured this out after some hundreds of years of
their rivers running red from religious wars.
The lesson is still true, and the Islamic countries
need to figure this out. But a big, huge problem in
many Islamic countries is that Islam is the only
'culture' they have so that without Islam they are
left with no culture at all and quite literally
don't know what clothes to put on or what to eat
for dinner. So, they can't just throw out Islamic
culture; instead they have to replace it with
something better, slowly.
For Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea,
clearly they do some things well, but they are all
Asian, and I would never be able to figure out Asian
culture.
Sometimes I wonder considering Canada, Switzerland,
Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Scotland
and the US, maybe I wouldn't still pick the US.
Maybe. But I've been in the US so long I likely
wouldn't fit in at any of those other countries. I
suspect that, still, net, net, the US is the best
place. For France, Italy, and Austria, maybe
someday I will go on a food tour and pig out in
Paris, Marseilles, the Piedmont, and Vienna!
> To not cut too much from your time watching Fox
News
I cut out TV. For Fox, I got tired of O'Reilly and
couldn't stand Chris Wallace. O'Reilly was too
often wrong, and Wallace was just so obnoxious he
wasn't even wrong. Then my cable company offered me
TV, phone, and Internet for less than just phone and
Internet, so I accepted. The set-top box has been
sitting here for several months, and I use it for a
clock. So far I have yet to attach a TV to it. And
I have no other source of TV. I haven't watched any
TV, or Fox News, in months. On the Internet, I
don't much like the Fox Web site. Your assumption
that I watch Fox News is just flatly wrong.
> here's a primer on history
And I wrote on current events. I made it really
simple: We can't fix the culture of Afghanistan.
So, for US national security, step 1, put INTEL in
place. Step 2, leave. If our INTEL tells us that
they are about to attack us again, then level them.
Done. History doesn't have much to do with it.
The relation between Islam and society is actually a lot more complicated than that. Go to Pakistan and ask 10 Imams about honor killings[1]. Eight will hem and haw, one will say that it's against the Koran and needs to be stopped, and one will say it might be against the Koran but it's so important it needs to continue.
I do find the rules Muhammad laid down to have a lot of problems, but they were a big improvement over the existing traditions in the area and would be a big improvement over what people actually do in Afghanistan.
>Go to Pakistan and ask 10 Imams about honor killings[1]. Eight will hem and haw, one will say that it's against the Koran and needs to be stopped, and one will say it might be against the Koran but it's so important it needs to continue.
Go to the USA and ask 10 pastors about drone strikes. Eight will hem and haw, one will say that it's against the Bible and needs to be stopped, and one will say it might be against the Bible but it's so important it needs to continue.
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Mahatma Gandhi
Oh certainly they would, though I suspect the ratios are different. Mohammad was running a theocracy within his lifetime, so all the compromises and practicalities that were needed to actually govern. There's still a large amount of tradition that has to be applied, but you can talk about the Islamic way to govern much, much more concretely than the Christian way. Which if you believe in moral progress is a bit of a problem with Islam, but not one I'm going to dwell on when talking about societies that would be better off following the Koran more closely.
And incidentally, your point is somewhat opaque but I believe you're taking that Gandhi quote to mean the opposite of what he meant. That is, it isn't that politics does influence religion but that politics ought to be influence by religion.
I kept it simple. A longer description
is that with modern technology we don't
really have to occupy, run, or have
a big presence in the place to know
what's going on. And when we do see
something that is a threat to the US,
we can stop it without 100,000 troops
in the country. For the show you mentioned,
never saw any such thing!
You're pretty optimistic about those two things. The history of the past 10 years, and for that matter of the past 50 years, suggests that both are decidedly non-trivial challenges, with or without "modern technology."
> Then, facing that reality, we can look for how to get what we need, e.g., US national security, that is, to keep Afghanistan from being the base of operations of another 9/11 attack on the US.
This is just vapid bullshit. 9/11 was guys with knives. They had very little specialized training and needed less. You can't spot that from the air with drones, and it didn't need fields of poppies to fund.
There's one simple reason the USA is in the middle east - oil. Making sure it keeps flowing.
> Yes, we can be sure that the Muslim clerics will get their people up on their hind legs shouting "Death to America". Sounds like a declaration of war to me for which some USAF guy in a container room in Nevada should push a button on a drone control and stop that stuff. But if all they do is shout, then we don't always have to push the button.
So does some war-hawk talking about how we should push a button and end the outrage that we created with yet another bomb.
Maybe we should trade, the militant cleric for you, as some sort of reverse prisoner-of-war deal, to help keep the peace.
> The US needs to quit being so darned simplistic, wise up, [...], use our drones, INTEL, etc., do the smart things,
Or, you know, you could try for a foreign policy that didn't involve holding a gun to everyone's head.
Especially since you got too big for anyone to fight, and started picking on smaller enemies with less resources - meaning that everything is going to turn into guerrilla strikes against civilians, on both sides.
The INTEL is not limited to, or even primarily from,
just drones. Heavily the INTEL will have to
be 'human INTEL'. Drones that hover for many hours
can also be part of INTEL, but mostly the drones
would be for attacks on targets identified by
INTEL mostly not from drones.
No, I meant you can't spot small knives from the air so you have no way of really knowing who you're killing - unlike bombing a missile convoy or a tank, obvious weapons. Your INTEL, that from the ground, is often - maybe usually - wrong, and without a visible clear and present danger you shouldn't be killing people.
But way to go in responding to the tiniest part of the post and ignoring the rest.
> No, I meant you can't spot small knives from the air so you have no way of really knowing who you're killing
No, you still know whom you are killing, because of the
human INTEL and not because they are carrying knives.
Another point, on your side, is that once the Jihaders
know that the US is watching with INTEL, etc., then
they will be much more secretive and not have open
air training camps and, thus, be more difficult to
detect, target, etc. Then the US has three fall back
positions: First, we are much harder to attack now
than on 9/11. Second, the attacks we are now most
concerned about are not just two wacko Jihaders in Boston but
a nuke in a boat in Boston harbor. Third, generally
our INTEL around the world is much better now than in
9/11 -- anyone wanting to slip a nuke into a boat
in Boston harbor will have a much tougher time
getting from start to finish for that project than
in 9/11. From banking, finance, electronic
communications, satellites, HUMINT, etc., the US
has a much closer eye on Jihaders now than in 9/11.
> There's one simple reason the USA is in the middle east - oil. Making sure it keeps flowing.
Likely so. Some in Israel hope not. Actually,
some in the Arab oil states should like the
US 'police' activities in their area.
But oil is not why the US is in Afghanistan.
W wasn't much on the Afghan effort, but
Obama wanted to say that the country that
attacked us was Afghanistan and not Iraq
so wanted to claim that W was wrong going
to Iraq. Once Obama was in office, he
tried a 'surge' in Afghanistan that didn't
much work and now is about just to pull out.
To me, Obama was just playing US politics
and has had no interest in either Iraq
or Afghanistan.
> So does some war-hawk talking about how we should push a button and end the outrage that we created with yet another bomb.
> Maybe we should trade, the militant cleric for you, as some sort of reverse prisoner-of-war deal, to help keep the peace.
War is hell. I know that and don't like it.
But we are in a war in Afghanistan. Then, did
I mention, war is hell? So, part of how we
do that war is push buttons on the controls
of drones. That's part of why war is hell.
But, Afghanistan was the base of the 9/11
attack on the US that killed 3000 innocent
US civilians. That was war and hell. So,
to defend ourselves, we went into Afghanistan
and eventually got Bin Laden. Then we tried
to set up a modern government there to replace
the Taliban that let Ben Laden set up a base
from which he attacked us. To defeat the
Taliban, we use HUMINT and INTEL, heavily
where the Taliban leadership is hiding
in the Pakistan tribal regions, to identify
Taliban leadership. Then we track them with
drones. When we have a clear shot at such
a bad guy, a USAF guy in a box in Nevada
pushes a button. It's hell. Sometimes
women and children get killed, like they
do in nearly all wars. Did I mention,
war is hell? I don't like it. And I
didn't like 9/11 either.
> Or, you know, you could try for a foreign policy that didn't involve holding a gun to everyone's head.
That's not nearly all there is to US foreign policy.
I don't much like US foreign policy, tries to
do too much, is too blunt sometimes, to gentle and
even naive other times, and usually too simplistic.
Still, a gun to the head is not nearly all of
US foreign policy. In Afghanistan, we could have
just leveled the place, all from the air, in weeks,
the whole place, dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, sheep,
men, women, and children. Easily. Instead, we
tried hard to give them a constitution, a freely
elected government, a freely elected parliament,
roads, schools, hospitals, trained and equipped their
police and military, tried to protect their
villages, etc. But it didn't much take root. Essentially no one in Afghanistan was prepared to sign on
and support the government we were trying to
help them have. So the Taliban was able to
run a powerful shadow government, use Mafia
techniques to keep the villages 'in line',
extract cash to pay for their war, etc. But
our efforts were far from just holding a
gun to heads.
> started picking on smaller enemies with less resources
My view is that the US has been too active
around the world. But the US is not nearly
responsible for the rise of radical Islam,
and radical Islam is not aimed nearly at only
the US. In particular, radical Islam against
the US is not seriously from the US "picking
on" anyone.
Really, radical Islam is based on a simple, old
dynamic: Some people want more power. So,
in heavily Islamic countries with a lot of
oil money sloshing around, people who wanted
more power, e.g., Bin Laden and various
Islamic clerics, saw a way to pursue power:
Use Islam to get some young people up on their
hind legs and use oil money to pursue projects.
Boom. 9/11.
There's a lot of pushing and shoving, heavily
enabled by oil money: So, Saddam wanted to
push against Iran. And Iran was eager to push
back. So the US helped Saddam. Then Saddam
wanted to push against Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia,
and the US pushed back. Now Iran wants connect
with Syria, influence Lebanon, and push against
Israel. In Egypt, the Islamists didn't like
the secular dictator and got rid of him, and
now are making an even worse mess out of Egypt.
Similarly in Libya. Similarly in Syria.
And Iran .... So, there's lots of pushing
and shoving, again, enabled by oil money.
And it helps that the culture is so heavily
dominated by Islam's 500 year old traditions
that there is so little more modern culture.
But no way is much of that pushing and shoving
due to anything the US did or did wrong.
> But, Afghanistan was the base of the 9/11 attack on the US that killed 3000 innocent US civilians.
No, it bloody was not. Many of those people hadn't even been in Afghanistan. The ones who were, and who "received training" had mostly received that in the context of fighting Russia. The myth of the 9/11 training camp in Afghanistan is entirely made up. Terrorist camps themselves are a myth. Militias train in the hills with weapons, terrorists don't execute those attacks and don't need/get that training.
Further, you've killed over 200 people, almost every one civilian, for every person killed in the 9/11 attacks. In retribution, against people who weren't involved.
> No, you still know whom you are killing, because of the human INTEL and not because they are carrying knives.
The same HUMINT you pick and choose to justify invading Iraq? The same HUMINT that says "bomb that wedding"?
Because your intel is notoriously bad, especially in that area of the world - even now, and there's such a conflict of interest at all levels.
No, it's just straight-up murder when you drone-bomb someone without on-screen visible reasons (driving a tank) because you have such a low standard of proof - it wouldn't qualify to get a warrant to search the person back home.
But even if your intel was perfect, your leaders ignore anything that doesn't let them proceed with the already-planned mobilization. Iraq wasn't a mistake, Iraq was one of the largest cases of mass murder on the planet - second only barely to monsters from our past. And it was planned before 9/11, and before the cooked-up WMD scare, etc.
> Really, radical Islam is based on a simple, old dynamic: Some people want more power.
No, really? Because that's only exactly like every other group on the planet.
> In Egypt, the Islamists didn't like the secular dictator [that we installed] and got rid of him
Funny that. And funny how you make a big deal about secular when it's the fact that he had people abducted for secrets trials and executions, and that the USA backed him, than his religious status, that bothered the Egyptians.
Oh, and that he was a dictator, and felt he had the right to rule for life.
But yeah, just radical Islamists...
> There's a lot of pushing and shoving, heavily enabled by oil money:
Yes. Texas oil money. And other.
> But no way is much of that pushing and shoving due to anything the US did or did wrong.
You're probably wrong, but it's a tellingly pathetic defense for a pathetic position regardless.
As I looked at US efforts at essentially 'nation building', often on the other side of the world, to try to contribute to US national security, I came up with a simple observation:
In a country with a government and economy that function at all, there has to be and is a 'culture' with social structures, education, economic activity, leadership, laws, government, usually religion, etc. While such a culture has to exist, it may be very different from that in the US.
In Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world, the 'culture' is heavily just Islam: Islam controls social structures, e.g., sex, marriage, child rearing, the role of family, etc. Islam also controls most of education, much of the economic activity, essentially all the laws, the police, the justice system, the government, the foreign policy, and, of course, religion. We can toss in architecture, what people eat, and what they wear. Basically from how people dress, eat, work, etc., its all Islam. So, in an Islamic country, take away Islam, and there's no culture at all and, then, just chaos, e.g., criminals, gangs, civil war, etc. Net, in an Islamic country, for a government leader can have an Islamic king (e.g., Kuwait), Islamic strong man dictator (Saddam, Assad), or Islamic cleric (Iran). That's about it.
One can try to set up a Western, secular government in an Islamic country, but the leader will have no cultural foundation to stand on and, thus, will be trying to sell pie in the sky. Meanwhile the clerics will be working 24 x 7 to get their people up on their hind legs against the guy, and too soon he will lose, maybe his head.
For anything like US democracy, laws, police, secular government, freedom of religion, etc., just f'get about it. We need to understand: In the US, our 'culture' of democracy is much more than just our Constitution and elections. Instead, in addition, nearly all of us have 'bought into' a 'social contract' where we believe in, invest in, and trust in our democracy. So for most significant transgressions against the 'culture', the voters get indignant, outraged, incensed, infuriated, and up on their hind legs and vote! E.g., each member of the House has to stand for election each two years, which is darned short, and keeps him on a very short leash, and if he messes up then likely he's out'a there. To borrow from a Bond movie, getting caught in a motel room with a cheerleader does nicely.
Really the Islamic countries are about 500 years behind the history of Western Europe, e.g., when Western Europe was fighting wars of religion and starting to develop respect for humanism, individual freedom, secular government, and democracy. Moving ahead 500 years is not easy. The rivers of Europe ran red with blood for hundreds of years before we got to 'Western Civilization'. Europe has been the most effectively bloody place on the planet until finally it started to learn to live in peace, recently, hopefully.
Net, Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or cleric. Sorry 'bout that. We won't like such a 'culture': Some of the men use boys for sex. They marry off their daughters at age 7 or 13 or some such. They refuse to educate females. They use Islamic laws and justice. Islam runs essentially everything.
That's just the way it is. That's the reality. We need to face the reality. We don't like it. We see it as a 500 year out of date sh!tpit, and we are correct. Right, it sucks. We know that.
Then, facing that reality, we can look for how to get what we need, e.g., US national security, that is, to keep Afghanistan from being the base of operations of another 9/11 attack on the US.
Okay, then, that's what we really need, our real 'bottom line': Keep Afghanistan from being the base of operations of another 9/11 attack on the US. We need little or nothing more than that from Afghanistan. Can we get that? Sure. How? Two steps. Step 1. Put in place a bunch of INTEL. Step 2. Leave. [It took the US 12 years to figure this out?] If our INTEL tells us that they are starting to attack the US again, then level them, appropriate places plus some for good measure, from the air. Done.
What will happen after we leave? Mostly we don't give a sh!t. But I'd put my money on a government run by an Islamic cleric, e.g., the Taliban.
Now, US military, welcome home. Well done.
Yes, we can be sure that the Muslim clerics will get their people up on their hind legs shouting "Death to America". Sounds like a declaration of war to me for which some USAF guy in a container room in Nevada should push a button on a drone control and stop that stuff. But if all they do is shout, then we don't always have to push the button.
England was long smart enough to work effectively in that part of the world, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India, Burma, Singapore, etc., without getting all bent out of shape trying to bring English culture to those places.
The US needs to quit being so darned simplistic, wise up, learn from the English 150 years ago, update the lessons a little, use our drones, INTEL, etc., do the smart things, and quit bleeding the US white on absurd foreign adventures from just totally unrealistic, head in the sand, simplistic foreign policy nonsense. We will not get what we have wanted in Afghanistan. Instead we will wise up and get what we can and need or just go broke on nonsense.
What's it going to be US, wise up or go broke?