Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Who should lead Afghanistan?


Timur
 Share

Who should lead Afghanistan  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Who should lead Afghanistan

    • The Taliban
    • Ashraf Ghani
    • Hamid Karzai
      0
    • Abdullah Abdullah
    • Amrullah Saleh
    • Ahmad Massoud
    • The US
    • Russia
      0
    • China
      0
    • ISIS
      0
    • Other (please specify)
    • The borders are badly drawn by colonial powers, and the discussion can only happen if they are redrawn properly


Recommended Posts

  • Timur changed the title to Who should lead Afghanistan?

I think Afghani leaders should create their own partition plan. This would have to be mediated and led by the UN since I doubt the Taliban will comply. I think the Taliban should have a Rep, former government should have a rep, and the leaders of the various groups and tribes should have a rep. They should then redraw the lines  in the most cohesive manner that allows each group autonomy, if they wish for it. There's probably a lot of other factors that might prevent a complete cultural redraw, such as resources. What if one group has been sort of driven into a relatively resourceless place through the decades and can't function as an autonomous country without being linked to a country with resources. Stuff like that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

The international community should recognize Amrullah Saleh as the only legitimate president. 

I kind of agree, him and give a statute to Massoud

Yes Talibans are in conflict with ISIS but I prefer secular religious (like Ghani and Saleh) than extreme traditionnalists like the Taliban

Edited by Edouard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

The international community should recognize Amrullah Saleh as the only legitimate president. 

Doing that will create another war and cause a lot of death. More death than will likely happen as is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Doing that will create another war and cause a lot of death. More death than will likely happen as is. 

Interesting debate

By now the resistance to the Talibans has began in some parts of the country so there will be deads, the question is, should it be better that Talibans win a crushing victory to establish a "kind of" law and order in Afghanistan?

It's the same question many countries were faced of with a lot of conflicts, and it is never easy to answer

For the US public opinion, and most of the british and french ones, it was better to prevent a world war in the initial stages of nazi germany. Now, of course Hitler was expanding, not like the Talibans, but their regime is crual and their ideology is to spread a radical islamic view of the Coran everywhere in the world

Edited by Edouard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

Doing that will create another war and cause a lot of death. More death than will likely happen as is. 

I see your point, but the free world can't sit there and look at the Taliban building up an entire terroristic nation, can they? I believe this is more dangerous than to act now. If the free World doesn't stand at Saleh's and Massoud's side they are bowing to the Taliban. Any nation which recognizes a Taliban government is committing a great error. The resistance army needs to be supported, ideally militarily but I doubt most nations want to go into Afghanistan (again). It's sad that a war could not be won after 20 years while the need for it to be won greatly increased during the last few months. Afghanistan was always dangerous but as long as the Taliban didn't hold real power and territory the imminent danger for world peace was quite limited. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Doing that will create another war and cause a lot of death. More death than will likely happen as is. 

There will be death either way. Is there anyone who seriously thinks that Afghanistan won't dissolve into fighting again, no matter who's involved? In fact, I wouldn't blame anyone who wants to fight for their rights and their lives under an Afghan opposition. "Give me liberty or give me death" could apply in this situation. It's easy to say as a third party that they should just sit back and stand by, but in the end, they can make the decision for themselves. Giving international recognition to it wouldn't matter either way in my opinion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

The Soviets already practically tried that. And they even had a land border. Trying to annex, "the Graveyard of Great Empires," will make the freshly dug grave closer to home and sooner to enter.

Not so much of a commodity there. I think you're stereotypically confusingly it with some other countries.

The lines one would hypothetically divide it on are not clear, and never really have been.

 

The International Community has a tendency, at times, to recognize leaders as, "official," who never once, in that period, hold control of the majority of the land area of the nation they're recognized as heading. Chiang Kai-shek from 1924 until Nixon visited Mao in 1973 comes to mind as a classic example.

 

 

Uh, guys? It's already started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjshir_resistance

As I said back here on another related thread, on Sunday:

"It's not over. It never is in Afghanistan. This is a nation that rarely knows internal peace or stability. But hopefully the next phase will be between Afghans vs. Afghans, and that all outsiders, as well-meaning or not as they may be, will be so foolish as to jump in again, outside of maybe indirect supplies, arms, and funds (which is what the colonel who was the mentor of the title character in Rambo III was delivering to the Mujahedeen when he and his convoy were caught at the Pakistani border in the middle of the night by a Soviet patrol)."

This all remind me that the UK used to call their involvement in Afghanistan in the 1800s as “the great game,” a kind of Cold War with Russia involving Afghanistan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know me of all people choosing the Taliban is a surprising choice.  But I think that’s where we are now, and we’ll have to lean into it.

From what I’ve read and heard (for example, the NPR podcast just had a fascinating episode on this), the Taliban “government” knows they can’t repeat past mistakes and become international pariahs again.  They need investment, they need trade, they import almost everything.  They need to recognize the world is changing for women in particular.  And above all else, they need to play nicely with the US.  Or else their country will never succeed, at anything.  And the current Taliban administration  knows this, and is willing to work within these bounds (so far).

The challenge...or at least “a” challenge...is that the non-government Taliban people (including many in the new army) cling to the old ways, including beliefs regarding women and standing against western investments and all of those things that will lead them right back into a backslide again.

So the current Taliban government could actually work — they “get” it — but they have little power or influence over their own followers, and thus might not be long for their positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think Afghani leaders should create their own partition plan. This would have to be mediated and led by the UN since I doubt the Taliban will comply. I think the Taliban should have a Rep, former government should have a rep, and the leaders of the various groups and tribes should have a rep. They should then redraw the lines  in the most cohesive manner that allows each group autonomy, if they wish for it. There's probably a lot of other factors that might prevent a complete cultural redraw, such as resources. What if one group has been sort of driven into a relatively resourceless place through the decades and can't function as an autonomous country without being linked to a country with resources. Stuff like that. 

Is that not just the colonial powers drawing the borders badly again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I know me of all people choosing the Taliban is a surprising choice.  But I think that’s where we are now, and we’ll have to lean into it.

From what I’ve read and heard (for example, the NPR podcast just had a fascinating episode on this), the Taliban “government” knows they can’t repeat past mistakes and become international pariahs again.  They need investment, they need trade, they import almost everything.  They need to recognize the world is changing for women in particular.  And above all else, they need to play nicely with the US.  Or else their country will never succeed, at anything.  And the current Taliban administration  knows this, and is willing to work within these bounds (so far).

The challenge...or at least “a” challenge...is that the non-government Taliban people (including many in the new army) cling to the old ways, including beliefs regarding women and standing against western investments and all of those things that will lead them right back into a backslide again.

So the current Taliban government could actually work — they “get” it — but they have little power or influence over their own followers, and thus might not be long for their positions.

From what I've read, they're putting on a good face to the world and are doing the same horrible things, just hoping no one finds out about it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hestia said:

From what I've read, they're putting on a good face to the world and are doing the same horrible things, just hoping no one finds out about it. 

I definitely agree, of course, that horrible things are happening.  It's just definitions.  Who is "they"?  Who is "the government?"  I'm not trying to be coy, I'm saying there isn't some monolith acting as a single unit -- it's unorganized, it's some people knowing how to do it correctly and more people choosing to do it their own way and you end up with chaotic and heartbreaking results.  Understand that I, as our resident war hawk, am obviously not defending the Taliban.  But unless we're going to go in there and fight a whole other war, this is what we have so we need to figure out who we can support and who we cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad fact is you will not find one instance in the history of mankind where an occupying army completely withdraws from a war it has effectively lost, and there is no chaos. There is always chaos, and there are always huge numbers of people left behind who fought/aided that same army. It is unavoidable, and is not the fault of the military leadership. The media is full of Monday morning QB's from right to left, but none of them have a reasonable alternative plan for what's happening there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pilight said:

The sad fact is you will not find one instance in the history of mankind where an occupying army completely withdraws from a war it has effectively lost, and there is no chaos. There is always chaos, and there are always huge numbers of people left behind who fought/aided that same army. It is unavoidable, and is not the fault of the military leadership. The media is full of Monday morning QB's from right to left, but none of them have a reasonable alternative plan for what's happening there.

Right.  It's either stay forever, have the violent and heartbreaking chaos now, or have the violent and heartbreaking chaos later.

While my preference would have been to stay forever, I will give Biden credit for deciding that the violence and heartbreaking chaos would happen on his watch.  As Truman said "The buck stops here."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pilight said:

It' easy to say "stay forever" when you don't have any skin in the game.  America is full to overflowing with chicken-hawks.

I mean...I actually deployed into war, voluntarily (Iraq, not Afghanistan, but still).  I don't know what you mean when you say I have no skin in the game.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...