Getting Out Of Afghanistan

[autigeremt 6,593]

I believe it's a combination of poor planning, failed Intel, a lack of understanding in the region, emotions, politics........politics. At least on our side. When you don't have a clear objective and a good contingency plan in place you end up with a mess.

If you set an unrealistic goal the planning doesn't really matter.

I knew it would happen one day. Homey...I agree.

You two are more alike than you think!

:-\/> We're both Auburn fans.

I think that pretty much covers it.

Lmao!

[alexava 6,973]

As caleb has said, nation-building is a very long-term and expensive endeavor. Afghanistan is probably one of the worst places in the world to attempt it. It is not possible to achieve a quick victory and "democratize" people to the extent that they become self reliant in a matter of years by occupation, when they have had nothing resembling stability since the late 1970's. Also, they have Iran to the west and Pakistan to the east. I have no doubt that there were powerful interests in both of those countries doing all they could to help undermine our efforts. Finally, Afghanistan was not really a modern society before the country devolved into chaos. No one there under the age of 55 is likely to have any recollection of what it was like there when the United States and Soviet Union were both vying for influence by developing their infrastructure.

Germany and Japan are oft-cited examples of successful nation-building, and to an extent, they very much are. However, they are also not remotely comparable with nation-building in a place like Afghanistan or even Iraq. Prior to World War II, Germany was still reeling from World War I (which ended their empire), but they were every bit a modern society. Japan was the head of an aggressively expanding modern empire. In the aftermath, they quickly came to terms with the fact that most of the people that were previously destroying their country were actually now willing to help them rebuild it (and protect them from the Soviets). The people of both also had what would be a first-world standard of living and education at the time, which is important as it makes the people more likely to understand the differences between what was, what is, and what could be (and thus be more likely to cooperate).

neither country (especially Japan ) had a vast population of religious extremists.

Perhaps you forgot about kamikaze aircraft and banzai charges. The Japanese state religion (Shinto) included the consideration of the Emperor as divine. That's one of the reasons MacArthur had it removed as their state religion.

i have a friend through work who did his mormon mission in japan 20 years ago and he said those people believe nothing at all as far as religion.

[Strychnine 1,802]

As caleb has said, nation-building is a very long-term and expensive endeavor. Afghanistan is probably one of the worst places in the world to attempt it. It is not possible to achieve a quick victory and "democratize" people to the extent that they become self reliant in a matter of years by occupation, when they have had nothing resembling stability since the late 1970's. Also, they have Iran to the west and Pakistan to the east. I have no doubt that there were powerful interests in both of those countries doing all they could to help undermine our efforts. Finally, Afghanistan was not really a modern society before the country devolved into chaos. No one there under the age of 55 is likely to have any recollection of what it was like there when the United States and Soviet Union were both vying for influence by developing their infrastructure.

Germany and Japan are oft-cited examples of successful nation-building, and to an extent, they very much are. However, they are also not remotely comparable with nation-building in a place like Afghanistan or even Iraq. Prior to World War II, Germany was still reeling from World War I (which ended their empire), but they were every bit a modern society. Japan was the head of an aggressively expanding modern empire. In the aftermath, they quickly came to terms with the fact that most of the people that were previously destroying their country were actually now willing to help them rebuild it (and protect them from the Soviets). The people of both also had what would be a first-world standard of living and education at the time, which is important as it makes the people more likely to understand the differences between what was, what is, and what could be (and thus be more likely to cooperate).

neither country (especially Japan ) had a vast population of religious extremists.

Perhaps you forgot about kamikaze aircraft and banzai charges. The Japanese state religion (Shinto) included the consideration of the Emperor as divine. That's one of the reasons MacArthur had it removed as their state religion.

i have a friend through work who did his mormon mission in japan 20 years ago and he said those people believe nothing at all as far as religion.

Shinto and Buddhism are still quite popular in Japan. However, Japan before, during, and immediately after World War II is very different from what it is today. People without an extreme religious motivation do not take off on suicide flights, lead suicidal mass charges, or commit suicide over failure. Look into Bushido if you would like to understand it.

[alexava 6,973]

As caleb has said, nation-building is a very long-term and expensive endeavor. Afghanistan is probably one of the worst places in the world to attempt it. It is not possible to achieve a quick victory and "democratize" people to the extent that they become self reliant in a matter of years by occupation, when they have had nothing resembling stability since the late 1970's. Also, they have Iran to the west and Pakistan to the east. I have no doubt that there were powerful interests in both of those countries doing all they could to help undermine our efforts. Finally, Afghanistan was not really a modern society before the country devolved into chaos. No one there under the age of 55 is likely to have any recollection of what it was like there when the United States and Soviet Union were both vying for influence by developing their infrastructure.

Germany and Japan are oft-cited examples of successful nation-building, and to an extent, they very much are. However, they are also not remotely comparable with nation-building in a place like Afghanistan or even Iraq. Prior to World War II, Germany was still reeling from World War I (which ended their empire), but they were every bit a modern society. Japan was the head of an aggressively expanding modern empire. In the aftermath, they quickly came to terms with the fact that most of the people that were previously destroying their country were actually now willing to help them rebuild it (and protect them from the Soviets). The people of both also had what would be a first-world standard of living and education at the time, which is important as it makes the people more likely to understand the differences between what was, what is, and what could be (and thus be more likely to cooperate).

neither country (especially Japan ) had a vast population of religious extremists.

Perhaps you forgot about kamikaze aircraft and banzai charges. The Japanese state religion (Shinto) included the consideration of the Emperor as divine. That's one of the reasons MacArthur had it removed as their state religion.

i have a friend through work who did his mormon mission in japan 20 years ago and he said those people believe nothing at all as far as religion.

Shinto and Buddhism are still quite popular in Japan. However, Japan before, during, and immediately after World War II is very different from what it is today. People without an extreme religious motivation do not take off on suicide flights, lead suicidal mass charges, or commit suicide over failure. Look into Bushido if you would like to understand it.

thx, i will. My Mormon friend said many of the Japanese identity as Buddhist or Shinto but don't truly believe it.

[homersapien 11,357]

I don't think the suicide ethic of the Japanese was powered religious motivation. The code of Bushido was more a militaristic culture than one of religion. But I am not that familiar with the subject.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I don't think the suicide ethic of the Japanese was powered religious motivation. The code of Bushido was more a militaristic culture than one of religion. But I am not that familiar with the subject.

In the manner that it existed in World War II-era Japan, militarism WAS religion. I found you a pair of decent reads on the subject if you'd like, I always thought it fascinating myself:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_no_surrender_01.shtml#four

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_propaganda_during_World_War_II#Bushido

[homersapien 11,357]

I don't think the suicide ethic of the Japanese was powered religious motivation. The code of Bushido was more a militaristic culture than one of religion. But I am not that familiar with the subject.

In the manner that it existed in World War II-era Japan, militarism WAS religion. I found you a pair of decent reads on the subject if you'd like, I always thought it fascinating myself:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...r_01.shtml#four

http://en.wikipedia...._War_II#Bushido

Thanks

Well, regardless of what the definition of what a religion is, it was conducted with religious fervor, which is ultimately the point.

I guess my point is that religion is not the only thing that can inspire fanatical behavior, just the most common. Thus the very term "religious fervor".

[Strychnine 1,802]

I don't think the suicide ethic of the Japanese was powered religious motivation. The code of Bushido was more a militaristic culture than one of religion. But I am not that familiar with the subject.

In the manner that it existed in World War II-era Japan, militarism WAS religion. I found you a pair of decent reads on the subject if you'd like, I always thought it fascinating myself:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...r_01.shtml#four

http://en.wikipedia...._War_II#Bushido

Thanks

Well, regardless of what the definition of what a religion is, it was conducted with religious fervor, which is ultimately the point.

I guess my point is that religion is not the only thing that can inspire fanatical behavior, just the most common. Thus the very term "religious fervor".

True. However, the reason that I would consider them religiously motivated is that they held a belief in the Emperor as a living deity, where war served to purify, and death the ultimate accomplishment. Without that culturally indoctrinated belief structure, which constitutes a religion, you would not see suicide pilots or suicide charges. The North Koreans are indoctrinated to view the Kim dynasty in a similar way, and it is the only thing about them that concerns me.