Afghanistan - how the press lies all the time...

[nuf]

Pud, in the course of our (refreshingly constructive) discussion you have chenged the topic a bit. You started more or less with "get the reporters out and drone the shitt outta that place" to "look using drones doesn´t mean you kill civilians all the time". I never disagreed with that, just with your stance that only using drones would be the way to go. And i disagree with the general stance that creating and then killing enemies is the way to get out of this (or any) conflict.

When basically everyone thinks that this war can´t be "won" by military means then there might be some truth to it. I´m convinced that the average afghan only wants to be left alone and doesn´t give a crap about the west or other powers as long as they stay out of his life - which if you know the afghan history basically never happened. You´d propably all do the same and defend what you consider your home.

One more thing where i think you both, Slick and Pud, are not understanding the situation completely is that like i said earlier Afghanistan is not your typical country with people feeling as a nation and that is why you won´t "teach" them to not attack the US again. Al Qaida - a non state actor - attacked the US. They were backed by the taliban - a non state acteur - which were not a government, they were victorious non state actors who beat the Mujaheddin in a civil war. But even they only had control in certain - albeit big - parts of the country. Because Afghanistan is hardly a state in the western sense and the taliban were not a gouvernment in the western sense bombing the country to shit (which it already was after 23 years of war btw) would not have changed anything except immediately bring the taliban back into power stronger and with more support than ever after the airstrikes stopped. Btw Slick, Pakistan would and did still support the Taliban, the region in the south west is nearly as much out of control as on the other side of the border. The pakistani government does not have a real influence there.

You know what i think would have been the right thing to do? Work closely with Pakistan (and other regional acteurs) and get them to stop supporting the opposing afghan infrastructure and only use airstrikes/drones and special forces on a small scale to get the leaders of AQ and the taliban. Forget bombing the crap out of that country, avoid attacking the normal afghans and thus creating more enemies and hate towards the west in that region and don´t put a big number of troops on the ground which for the people feels like an occupation.

While doing that support the afghan civil society (starting in Kabul, this takes time) and groups which advocate personal freedom, educate talented people in the west where they work towards a more liberal lifestyle in their home country. Work on a political scale with the relevant acteurs. This doesn´t all need to be done by the state. NGOs can do a lot of that using development aid. Take time. A generation or two are likely before the effects sink in deeper

[callmeslick]

Nuf, sorry to say, I don't agree with your approach. At this time, there is no real critical mass of civilized actors to support, just various tribal factions, all of whom basically act on the same 13th century instincts.
Sadly, once was not the case. I can remember when Afghanistan was home to a sizeable number of modern thinking intellectuals and folks willing to build a modern society. Most of them have fled or been ground under.
Your assessment, Nuf, of the situation with the Taliban, Mujahadeen, etc is pretty accurate. Still, the Taliban had enough control over enough of the key parts of the nation in the 1990's to keep Al Qaeda in check. They chose not to, largely for monetary reasons. Yes, it could be said that the US was partly to blame for completely bailing after the Russians had been kicked out, but that doesn't justify the lack of control. Further, your assessment re: Pakistan as the key driver behind the development and nurture of the Taliban is astute, as well. Why the hell we deal with Pakistan is purely a matter of political expediency run amok. They are not, nor ever will be, any sort of reliable ally, at least until they sort out their own domestic politics and the death grip the extreme Islamic factions have over the nation.
Back to my original point. We might as well have simply levelled vast chunks of the area, sent a stern message and left them to wallow in their own shit. Maybe, in a century or two, they might choose to evolve toward the modern era. Maybe not, but it shouldn't, at any rate, be something for which the US diverts massive resources toward.

[Pudfark]

Again, I basically agree with Slick on this one...I would have said it a bit different...probably, a little stronger verbiage...
The reporter thingy is simple. They show up days or hours later, film and interview the "insurgent sympathizers" who tell them lies and report it as the truth...time after time. You call this your "reliable oversight" on the military...I trust our military there, most especially when they film document their activities....

Personally, I don't give a damn about the Afghan people, no more than what they do for me or mine. It's their responsibility to sort themselves...not anyone else's. It is our responsibility to sort out the terrorists who threaten us. The use of "drones" is a proven and capable method of doing this...it denies the terrorists the capability of communication and gathering in large numbers... We need to get the vast majority of our ground troops out of there and concentrate on the terrorists not the Afghans...

I think this thread has "droned" on long enough...The final word is left to whom ever?