Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Next Afghan Decade: Return of the Raj

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Next Afghan Decade: Return of the Raj

    Recent news in the states indicates that Trump has been listening a bit more to his own intuition against sustained US involvement and to Rand Paul who always viewed the war as a lost cause.

    Two years ago reports began to surface that Erik Prince, the very religious founder of Blackwater who has viewed this phase of American interventionism abroad as a Crusade sorts, was lobbying Trump on his own plan.

    Prince's sister is Betsy Devos, the Education secretary. The Prince-Devos ties helped fund Trump heavily in the Midwest and Michigan especially.

    This combination of processes (Trumps recent meanderings back to his original views + Erik Prince's lobbying + recent reported US troop casualties due to insider attacks) makes me think that next step is going to be something worse in the eyes of all Afghans whatever their political persuasion:

    Mercenary armies running amok + less nation building funding is going to be the new paradigm.

    This slim profile of a privatized approach will make the war more palatable for most of the Euro-American public and probably satisfy the emerging (and surprising) unexpected republican critics of the war like Ann Coulter.

    Basically, the technocrat Afghan emigres will begin to also find a funding squeeze going on and realize that they too have been had. The goal of the US will not be improved governance or a better Afghanistan but rather to fund a war industry that makes a few Americans (and maybe some Afghans) rather wealthy.

    Afghanistan will be far less spoken of than it already is and be treated the way Colombia and other Latin American nations were in the last 2 decades (low intensity conflicts involving intelligence agencies and mercenaries and misery for most of the common people).




    BC News reported that Prince hopes the new video reaches "decision makers."
    “We have to get it right. Pulling out of Afghanistan is not the answer,” Prince said in the video. “A smaller more unconventional approach is necessary.”
    Exclusive: Blackwater founder's plan to privatise America’s $76bn, 17-year war in Afghanistan | The Independent

    Mr Prince, who insisted the meeting was purely by chance, said he has “no concern at all” about the probe, and has voluntarily given investigators access to his telephones and computers.

    He remains, he said, focused on Afghanistan and wanted to give his project a historical context. There are British elements to that. His suggestion is that there should be a viceroy figure, as it was under the British Raj, who would command policy and budget and report directly to President Trump. This will prevent near constant changes in command and lack of continuity in policies, said Mr Prince.
    He will attempt to sell this to the Afghan government as a support force for their development and as a way to counter balance Pakistan buy eliminating the need for NATO supply routes through that country.

    The Afghan government officials should do some serious thinking about the historical context Prince presents and the US history in Latin America and current destabilization going on there before embarking on this sort of agreement. Right now they rely on American largesse and this plan will dry that tap up and push some nasty Pinochet type of actors into power escalating the misery of democratic minded and resistance/insurgency minded actors as well.

    So in summary, this is what is on the horizon and is probably going to be implemented for a decade plus but the Afghan elite should realize that this is a situation where saying NO is in the best interests of all Afghans including themselves. Perhaps the way to avoid it is threatening to rescind the SOFA agreement and then doing so if need be followed by forging stronger links to other regional and European powers if they still want to play the losing long game they (the Kabul émigré elites) currently are.
    "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

  • #2
    Originally posted by BarakzaiAbdali View Post
    Recent news in the states indicates that Trump has been listening a bit more to his own intuition against sustained US involvement and to Rand Paul who always viewed the war as a lost cause.

    Two years ago reports began to surface that Erik Prince, the very religious founder of Blackwater who has viewed this phase of American interventionism abroad as a Crusade sorts, was lobbying Trump on his own plan.

    Prince's sister is Betsy Devos, the Education secretary. The Prince-Devos ties helped fund Trump heavily in the Midwest and Michigan especially.

    This combination of processes (Trumps recent meanderings back to his original views + Erik Prince's lobbying + recent reported US troop casualties due to insider attacks) makes me think that next step is going to be something worse in the eyes of all Afghans whatever their political persuasion:

    Mercenary armies running amok + less nation building funding is going to be the new paradigm.

    This slim profile of a privatized approach will make the war more palatable for most of the Euro-American public and probably satisfy the emerging (and surprising) unexpected republican critics of the war like Ann Coulter.

    Basically, the technocrat Afghan emigres will begin to also find a funding squeeze going on and realize that they too have been had. The goal of the US will not be improved governance or a better Afghanistan but rather to fund a war industry that makes a few Americans (and maybe some Afghans) rather wealthy.

    Afghanistan will be far less spoken of than it already is and be treated the way Colombia and other Latin American nations were in the last 2 decades (low intensity conflicts involving intelligence agencies and mercenaries and misery for most of the common people).






    Exclusive: Blackwater founder's plan to privatise America’s $76bn, 17-year war in Afghanistan | The Independent



    He will attempt to sell this to the Afghan government as a support force for their development and as a way to counter balance Pakistan buy eliminating the need for NATO supply routes through that country.

    The Afghan government officials should do some serious thinking about the historical context Prince presents and the US history in Latin America and current destabilization going on there before embarking on this sort of agreement. Right now they rely on American largesse and this plan will dry that tap up and push some nasty Pinochet type of actors into power escalating the misery of democratic minded and resistance/insurgency minded actors as well.

    So in summary, this is what is on the horizon and is probably going to be implemented for a decade plus but the Afghan elite should realize that this is a situation where saying NO is in the best interests of all Afghans including themselves. Perhaps the way to avoid it is threatening to rescind the SOFA agreement and then doing so if need be followed by forging stronger links to other regional and European powers if they still want to play the losing long game they (the Kabul émigré elites) currently are.
    Why should the Afghan elite/government say no to this new strategy? Taliban refuse to join peace talks. After Eid, Afghanistan extended the ceasefire but the Taliban did not. If they were true patriots and true Muslims they would join the government and help to create a better country. Instead of that they choose war.

    I have some respect for the average Taliban fighter. Most of them are poor peasants stuck in the middle of an ugly game. But if they choose war, then must be obliterated. Them and all their followers. Period.

    I agree with the rest of your comment. Very good points.
    "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
    I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

    -Ferdowsi.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Firdousi View Post
      Why should the Afghan elite/government say no to this new strategy? Taliban refuse to join peace talks. After Eid, Afghanistan extended the ceasefire but the Taliban did not. If they were true patriots and true Muslims they would join the government and help to create a better country. Instead of that they choose war.

      I have some respect for the average Taliban fighter. Most of them are poor peasants stuck in the middle of an ugly game. But if they choose war, then must be obliterated. Them and all their followers. Period.

      I agree with the rest of your comment. Very good points.
      Thank you. Its about perception.

      Sure, good question above. I can only surmise why their instinct may not lend itself to do that or perhaps why those that have some understanding of recent events would decide its not worth it to work with the government.
      That reasoning is not the usual set quoted in the press about how they now control more land than they did, they heard of time tables, etc.

      Taliban insurgents pledge to continue fight in Afghanistan despite hopeful respite - ABC News

      So I would say that despite the prevailing western media narrative that the "fighters are tired" and that "they are ready for a peace deal" - the limited data we have shows the opposite.

      Here is some of that data through media lens obviously:
      Taliban insurgents pledge to continue fight in Afghanistan despite hopeful respite - ABC News

      Now, these men are in a notorious jail and even still they say:
      Speaking exclusively to ABC News from their prison block, a group of Taliban fighters said that they had taken up arms because foreign forces had invaded their country.
      and

      Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan say they will never surrender until American troops leave the country.
      So now many here have relied on a narrative of utter dehumanization and repeatedly claimed that these men (who are obviously Afghan and in other videos speak clear Eastern dialects found in Afghanistan) are ISI zombies who are poor beggars marching to the tune played by Rawalpindi.

      Rather, what we see here is the exact opposite that even in jail, even with death sentences they are not stating anything other than what their perceived true motivation is, which is namely, "the presence of kharijaan" on actual Afghan soil - a clear tangible, palpable claim versus the difficult to prove Kabul government claim of ISI boots on the ground.

      So to answer your question using the above:

      1) They won't stop because their perception is that Afghanistan is physically occupied country the way the Koreas, Vietnam, et al. were.

      So to them on an honor or nang basis, the question of why they probably wont work with the Kabul government is the latter's insistence on maintaining the SOFA to some extent.

      I can only explain this in terms of the following emotional language/the Pashtun concept that land is very very very important and someone encroaching on your land is big dishonor. Zar, Zameen, Zan is a bit of a stereotype but it certainly has a basis in reality.

      In their minds what I would guess is that giving up the fight and working with a propped up government boils down to the mental equivalent of a thief (NATO powers) walking in to the house trying to molest the property and the women and children and to use the house to potentially launch raids on other houses nearby and then a translator for the thief (Kabul government) "OK, OK we promise we wont do horrible physical things to your wife - but she has to accept walking around without her clothes on until we work out something better because the thief decided that I am in charge and he wants to make sure I have enough strength to implement his most important objectives but I promise I will be more local and nicer than he is."

      Basically brother, some men might say obliteration is a better fate than to accept that sort of arrangement.

      The above is an assumption from these sorts of now common main stream interviews and what I personally witnessed when land disputes/family disputes, women issues surface.

      Perhaps as these talks that Trump unveiled today proceed, we will know more about the motivations:
      White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations - The New York Times


      2) Reason 2 is a bit more far-fetched and I will create another thread in a few minutes to give you a historical bent to why they may hesitate to lay down arms that you may have more familiarity with than I do.
      "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Firdousi View Post
        Why should the Afghan elite/government say no to this new strategy? Taliban refuse to join peace talks. After Eid, Afghanistan extended the ceasefire but the Taliban did not. If they were true patriots and true Muslims they would join the government and help to create a better country. Instead of that they choose war.

        I have some respect for the average Taliban fighter. Most of them are poor peasants stuck in the middle of an ugly game. But if they choose war, then must be obliterated. Them and all their followers. Period.

        I agree with the rest of your comment. Very good points.
        Link to other thread extending on the other responsive commentary:



        Hope your fasting/eid went well.
        "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

        Comment


        • #5
          Nice to see you back Barakzai.

          I do not believe Trump will listen to Erik Prince. Trump has always said and continues to say Afghanistan war is a big waste of money. In fact, he has been very blunt with his generals about this.

          Lets hope an end is near. Trump with all his flaws is the only President that has gone against his own Pentagon- deciding to disengage from conflicts and military involvement here and there. He wants to remove US troops out of N. Korea, Germany, and Japan.

          Trump is the one that can do this.
          "The past is not my concern. The future is no longer my concern either. One minute. One minute of everything at once. And anything before is nothing. Everything after nothing. Nothing in comparison to that one minute."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BarakzaiAbdali View Post
            Thank you. Its about perception.

            Sure, good question above. I can only surmise why their instinct may not lend itself to do that or perhaps why those that have some understanding of recent events would decide its not worth it to work with the government.
            That reasoning is not the usual set quoted in the press about how they now control more land than they did, they heard of time tables, etc.

            Taliban insurgents pledge to continue fight in Afghanistan despite hopeful respite - ABC News

            So I would say that despite the prevailing western media narrative that the "fighters are tired" and that "they are ready for a peace deal" - the limited data we have shows the opposite.

            Here is some of that data through media lens obviously:
            Taliban insurgents pledge to continue fight in Afghanistan despite hopeful respite - ABC News

            Now, these men are in a notorious jail and even still they say:


            and



            So now many here have relied on a narrative of utter dehumanization and repeatedly claimed that these men (who are obviously Afghan and in other videos speak clear Eastern dialects found in Afghanistan) are ISI zombies who are poor beggars marching to the tune played by Rawalpindi.

            Rather, what we see here is the exact opposite that even in jail, even with death sentences they are not stating anything other than what their perceived true motivation is, which is namely, "the presence of kharijaan" on actual Afghan soil - a clear tangible, palpable claim versus the difficult to prove Kabul government claim of ISI boots on the ground.

            So to answer your question using the above:

            1) They won't stop because their perception is that Afghanistan is physically occupied country the way the Koreas, Vietnam, et al. were.

            So to them on an honor or nang basis, the question of why they probably wont work with the Kabul government is the latter's insistence on maintaining the SOFA to some extent.

            I can only explain this in terms of the following emotional language/the Pashtun concept that land is very very very important and someone encroaching on your land is big dishonor. Zar, Zameen, Zan is a bit of a stereotype but it certainly has a basis in reality.

            In their minds what I would guess is that giving up the fight and working with a propped up government boils down to the mental equivalent of a thief (NATO powers) walking in to the house trying to molest the property and the women and children and to use the house to potentially launch raids on other houses nearby and then a translator for the thief (Kabul government) "OK, OK we promise we wont do horrible physical things to your wife - but she has to accept walking around without her clothes on until we work out something better because the thief decided that I am in charge and he wants to make sure I have enough strength to implement his most important objectives but I promise I will be more local and nicer than he is."

            Basically brother, some men might say obliteration is a better fate than to accept that sort of arrangement.

            The above is an assumption from these sorts of now common main stream interviews and what I personally witnessed when land disputes/family disputes, women issues surface.

            Perhaps as these talks that Trump unveiled today proceed, we will know more about the motivations:
            White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations - The New York Times


            2) Reason 2 is a bit more far-fetched and I will create another thread in a few minutes to give you a historical bent to why they may hesitate to lay down arms that you may have more familiarity with than I do.
            Thanks Mr Barakzai. Good post. You made very good points about why Taliban refuse to join the government. I promise you I will reconsider my thoughts and opinions about this sensitive issue.
            "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
            I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

            -Ferdowsi.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Firdousi View Post
              Thanks Mr Barakzai. Good post. You made very good points about why Taliban refuse to join the government. I promise you I will reconsider my thoughts and opinions about this sensitive issue.
              Thanks -one other facet to consider is that the interests of a mercenary group/blackwater offshoot may run counter to a fast or complete win over the Taliban or to achieve a quick peace. Their goal would be to extend the conflict as much as they could to ensure they have a government/military contract into perpetuity and keep the coffers full. The concept and ethical debate is very similar to the one behind the prison industrial complex one going on in the US where private organizations have an incentive to want to see their private prisons full and not empty of rehabilitated former criminals.
              "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Insight View Post
                Nice to see you back Barakzai.

                I do not believe Trump will listen to Erik Prince. Trump has always said and continues to say Afghanistan war is a big waste of money. In fact, he has been very blunt with his generals about this.

                Lets hope an end is near. Trump with all his flaws is the only President that has gone against his own Pentagon- deciding to disengage from conflicts and military involvement here and there. He wants to remove US troops out of N. Korea, Germany, and Japan.

                Trump is the one that can do this.
                MIC people have entered into the upper echelon of the Trump Admin. Pompeo, Haspel, Bolton and others are working hard to undo any peace deal in the Korean peninsula. Trumps base main concern is control immigration, control healthcare spending and other domestic policies. He is trying to divert healthcare and other social services funds to the MIC and if the democrats do get control of Congress, it just means they will increase spending to both.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by khushal View Post
                  MIC people have entered into the upper echelon of the Trump Admin. Pompeo, Haspel, Bolton and others are working hard to undo any peace deal in the Korean peninsula. Trumps base main concern is control immigration, control healthcare spending and other domestic policies. He is trying to divert healthcare and other social services funds to the MIC and if the democrats do get control of Congress, it just means they will increase spending to both.
                  Trump doesn't really listen to his administration though. Plus, Pompeo, Bolton, etc. are obsessed with invading Iran. The US wont be able to keep their occupation of Afghanistan up if they seriously try to invade Iran.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X