![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsterI wrote this originally as a comment in a friend's LJ, she and I both agreed it would probably be more appropriate over here.
Parent thread. It's an interesting idea.
I mean, I *like* this idea. I'd like it to work. It's so brilliant, so unexpected, so great...but there's a bit of a seven-letter hole.
Ever hear of a place called Somalia?
We went to Somalia on a humanitarian peace-keeping mission. The results of that were American servicemen unexpectedly coming home in body bags. We now know today that Somalia was one of the first battlefields of a guy named Osama Bin Laden, and he won convincingly.
Now, imagine attempting to do it on his turf.
And Shrubya even said something relevant to the whole thing in his speech tonight: "The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime."
Where is that humanitarian aid going? If we pump more into the country, how do we make sure the Afghan people get the aid without the Taliban getting it?
More importantly, who gets the job of distributing it? Anybody who is American going in there risks their life to pull this off, and if we send the army in to do it...well, isn't that setting us up for Somalia all over again?
You said it yourself. The Afghan people fear us. Unfortunately, the number one response to fear is to fight.
I'm not thrilled about the idea of a military battle either. I'm searching for a middle ground myself. But if we go militarily into Afghanistan, I can deal with that, if we write a new Marshall Plan for the twenty first century and lift Afghanistan back to its feet.
As I said, sometimes it sucks to be a historian. :P
-kat
Parent thread. It's an interesting idea.
I mean, I *like* this idea. I'd like it to work. It's so brilliant, so unexpected, so great...but there's a bit of a seven-letter hole.
Ever hear of a place called Somalia?
We went to Somalia on a humanitarian peace-keeping mission. The results of that were American servicemen unexpectedly coming home in body bags. We now know today that Somalia was one of the first battlefields of a guy named Osama Bin Laden, and he won convincingly.
Now, imagine attempting to do it on his turf.
And Shrubya even said something relevant to the whole thing in his speech tonight: "The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime."
Where is that humanitarian aid going? If we pump more into the country, how do we make sure the Afghan people get the aid without the Taliban getting it?
More importantly, who gets the job of distributing it? Anybody who is American going in there risks their life to pull this off, and if we send the army in to do it...well, isn't that setting us up for Somalia all over again?
You said it yourself. The Afghan people fear us. Unfortunately, the number one response to fear is to fight.
I'm not thrilled about the idea of a military battle either. I'm searching for a middle ground myself. But if we go militarily into Afghanistan, I can deal with that, if we write a new Marshall Plan for the twenty first century and lift Afghanistan back to its feet.
As I said, sometimes it sucks to be a historian. :P
-kat
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2001-09-21 04:05 am (UTC)Here's the rest of the story, for those of you who also doubt, and see the holes in it.
* -- I don't think the Afghani civil war is so simple.
x -- I know. but then, -how- often do the public investigate before making a decision? it only needed to be stirring, to gain people's support. I'd have lost the majority of them halfway through if I'd begun listing facts and ramifications. I think the basic principle is sound.. I doubt the Afghani public is any better than the American public at overlooking the obvious to see the truth. feed them, when there are so many hungry, and you can't help but gain their support, or at least a cessation of hatred.
* --But they're not going to rise up. And the media is extremist.
x -- Mm. but will they be as quick to protest when we go in and remove the Taliban quietly? it's not a call for peace. just a smokescreen.. we disarm them, and -then- achieve our goal with less uproar.
* --I don't think that can be done. Afghanistan is well defended, and already in arms. If we conquor and do a Marshall plan-style, like we did Japan, I think they'll be happy. (Kindof relatively) But that's expensive, and I don't know if we're going to be willing to pay (through we should). We won't be able to disarm them.
x --m'eh.. wrong meaning of disarm. first the carrot, -then- the stick. when they're good and used to this aid, -then- we say, "ahem. we have some things to be settled. minor matters, but in return.. you continue getting our aid."
* -- They are proud. We can't even push most of the contries we give the biggest aids to near that far. Only those that are so poor they live off our aid. Afghanistan hurts, but they're not desperate. They won't become dependent. They may even refuse out of pride and independence.
x -- if they refuse, then they refuse and we have more justification for Operation Infinite Justice. it's not like we can't fall back on that... with the added bonus that we tried to make the magnanimous gesture, and they are more so the bad guys. it's as much or more about removing the resistance here at home and in the rest of the world, as about humanitarianism. I'm no Pollyanna. that speech is feel-good rhetoric. personally? I expect the aid to be spurned. but when it is, then -no-one- is going to say a word against us for removing the Taliban.
... for obvious reasons, I'm not attaching these comments to my post. contact me by email or realtime, and talk to me there. As it stands.. Operation Undermine rolls on. ;> it's not all my decision, after all.. just an idea I'm playing with.