Michael Moore on Afghanistan and ObamaFollow

Carlin doesn't count Italians as "white people"

I'm slightly curious as to why the US hasn't started annexing stuff instead of fighting proxy wars.

And they can't be offered more freedom to do the same in recompense?

The Cold War ended a long time ago.

Yes, and Russia's still upset over that loss.

That making moral calls about a nation's military on the basis of spending is kind of flawed? I'm glad we agree because that was my only point.

Because they don't have the stomach for it. As soon as Americans invade a country, they start talking about getting the fuck out as soon as possible. The public wouldn't buy it either, I don't think. This is one of those things they've professed to believe in for so long they've started to in earnest. The US could probably get away with protectorates, more directly pulling the strings of its puppet states rather than letting them slink away to do un-American kinds of evil, by just, you know, pulling an Iraq and then never leaving. The US would have to say it was going to leave, of course - it's amazing how long you can say you're going to leave without actually leaving - the British Empire did this in several places for over half a century.

Another reason is that the US is not in the habit of making the benefactors of a war/annexation pay for it. A lot of the annexations of the British Empire (India, for example) came from this. Potentially, there are plenty of places not playing ball that would be profitable to invade - Bolivia, for the deposits of Li, for example - but the annexation is unlikely to benefit enough people in Congress to get it approved.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 3:59pm by Kavekk

I think this best sums up what I've been thinking about this thread.

The reason why the US is in Afghanistan is mostly because the Talibans were harbouring AQ: letting them setting-up training camps, creating networks, giving refuge to Bin Laden, etc... I don't think this is really debatable. The "gas" conspiracy, explained by Michael Moore and alluded to by Paulsol doesn't make much sense, primarily because Afhanistan is such an unstable place. I'm not saying it never entered the US's thinking, just that it wasn't a primary reason for intervention.

Because that's the key to understanding most acts of foreign policy. There is never one reason for a country to do something. It's always a multitude of reasons, some which obviously weigh more than others. I think the main reason for Obama continuing the fight in Afghanistan which hasn't really been mentioned yet is Pakistan. Pakistan is probably the country most at risk from Islamic extremism. Not only do they have **** loads of them in their country, both in the frontier regions but also inland, but they also have loads of them going back in forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In case you hadn't noticed, Pakistan is by far the country which has suffered the most at the hands of Islamic terrorism in the last few years.

The US can't really afford the let Pakistan fight these guys alone, because if Pakistan loses and falls, we're all fucked. Iran is a stand-up comic compared to Pakistan controlled by Islamic fanatics, or even torn by civil war. So the US must make sure Pakistan wins. But at the same time, because this battle is also for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims, Pakistan can't be seen to be a pawn of the US, and therefore can't let the US fight inside Pakistan. Or at least, not too blatantly. So, the US in Afghanistan.

And because the Talibans make good bedfellows with the Muslims fanatics of Pakistan, you can see why the US can't really afford to let Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the Talibans. The US doesn't really care if Karzai is corrupt and selling heroin, as long as he keeps the Talibans out. This is the real key of the regional struggle.

It's complicated. More so than the summary I've made, because there are plenty of other factors: drugs, human rights, India, Iran, winning the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims, it's all tied and inextricably linked together. It's obvious that if we withdraw from Afghanistan tomorrow, the country will fall into a civil war, which the Talibans will probably eventually win. It's not obvious that if we stay there, the Talibans will be wiped out, or that the Karzai government will be able to be strong enough to eliminate them. We could potentially negotiate will some of the Talibans to get them on our side, but how effective that strategy will be in the long-term is anyone's guess.

So yeah. Complicated. It's not just AQ, it's not just gas and oil, it's not just a matter of nuking the place, or sending more troops, or catching Bin Laden, there is no silver bullets because this isn't a Hollywood movie. I totally agree that right-wingers will criticize Obama no matter what he does. But his decisions are stupidily tough. There is not really a "right" answer. It's a fucking mess. And as tempting as it is to blame Bush and the invasion of Iraq, it goes back much further than that. It goes back to the USSR and their own invasion of Afghanistan, to the Pakistani secret services creating the Talibans, to the US arming the Mujahadeens, to the India/Pakistan problem, including Kashmere, to the relations between the different ethnicities of Afghanistan, to the British decolonisation of India, and to, you guessed it, the fukcing Israel/Palestine conflict. We could even go further and talk about the Saudi funding of Maddrassas in Pakistan which contributed to the spread of their devastatingly dangerous and backwards version of Islam. It's a mess, and if I was Obama, I would be properly thinking this through too.

So yeah, good luck Barack, because whatever decision you make, you're still gonna need tons of it.

Do you want to elaborate, Vaguey McVaguerson?

Nor do the Taliban. Which is who, analogously, his forces are. You were being compared to the Aremnian army, not him.

Keep up.

The reason is that the US actually still has more land than we know what to do with.

Individual states have quibbles over land, and water rights, and things like that. But there's still plenty of room for us to grow without thinking about taking over other places.

If we ever do get to that point, well, Canada has a LOT more land and is a hell of a lot closer than Afghanistan.

Edit: As nice as it would have been for Bush to "take over" Iraq for oil, it's still a ***** to rule a country from the other side of the globe, and just easier to force them to cut you a really good trade deal. I think that was ultimately his plan, which failed.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 3:26pm by catwho

Yea, but it's full of ice. And those damn Canadians.

Um... Except to follow the analogy, the Roman forces won because they had vastly superior troops, with much better training, better weapons, and better military leaders. Which doesn't really match the analogy at all, does it?

Um... But to address the topic... Obama is considered "Far left" by most Conservatives. But that has nothing to do with the military. A far left position in current US politics indicates a desire to focus inward, and not outward. It's all about domestic policy. Foreign policy decisions are made purely to minimize the amount of distraction or drain they might take away from those domestic goals.


Obama's decision is perfectly in keeping with that position. He needs to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a distraction from his domestic policy agenda. This requires that he do "something", and that the something **** off the fewest number of people possible. His tepid, somewhat half-measure decision is pretty consistent with this. It's enough that he can say that he's trying to "win" in Afghanistan, but includes language designed to appeal to moderate liberals as well. The far right and the far left will cry about it, but most Americans will be satisfied with the position, so he can move past it and on to what he really cares about.


I think it's a mistake to go this route, and will cost us more in the long run, but his position on this really isn't about winning or losing in Afghanistan. He doesn't really care one way or the other, as long as whatever outcome occurs inflicts the minimum amount of hindrance to his domestic agenda.