Trump's "No Nation-Building" Folly in Afghanistan: No Nation-Building, No Peace

[James_Madison_Lives]

https://hubpages.com/politics/Trumps...lding-No-Peace

Trump's "No Nation-Building" Folly in Afghanistan: No Nation-Building, No Peace









Trump is an excellent copycat. He tends towards tough-guy themes which echo no one as much as George W. Bush Jr., saving himself from doing much original thinking beyond the political exigencies of the day. Want to appease hard right? Name Jerusalem the capitol of Israel. Want to lean left at the same time? Pull out of globalist trade agreements like TPP.

It's quite an interesting piece of political theater the likes of which we have never seen before. Trump makes it up as he goes along, following his gut for what plays well for enough voters to get elected. That's what politics is. No one said you have to know what you're doing.

The "no nation-building" in Afghanistan, we're going there to fight terrorists, not nation-build, has shown that it doesn't work so well. This is a tough guy theme Trump stole from George Bush. Now the longest running war in American history, bar none, maybe it's time to try some...nation-building. It doesn't sound as tough and flinty and no-nonsense the way Americans like. But it might save the lives of some of their sons.
....READ ARTICLE... https://hubpages.com/politics/Trumps-No-Nation-Building-Folly-in-Afghanistan-No-Nation-Building-No-Peace

[Swordsmyth]

"Nation building" is an excuse to stay forever, the only good choice is to leave.

[James_Madison_Lives]

"Nation building" is an excuse to stay forever, the only good choice is to leave.

You don't stay. You leave, and let them build their own nation. Just provide them with tools and materials, let them hire their own engineers and technicians. Some Americans perhaps, but they'll do the hiring.

[r3volution 3.0]

First, let's recognize the problem. It isn't about religion, or democracy or the lack thereof; it's about violence and chaos: the absence of order.

How might order be established?

Options:

1. Alexander the Great made order in this area by simply annihilating all opposition and ruling the territory without an illusions. This would be the colonial option, which is not necessarily a bad one (bad for American taxpayers, good for the colonial subjects, at least in the long run, as with other instances of colonialism elsewhere), but probably not politically palatable in the US. This would involve dismissing the Afghan "government" and installing an American governor.

2. Let the Taliban (contra ISIS) win and form a functional state, as existed before 2001. This would be not quite as good for the Afghans (though still better than the status quo), but much better for American taxpayers, and also much more politically realistic (with respect to US politics).

3. Unfortunately, for both Afghans and US taxpayers, we're probably looking at the third option: permanent half-assed occupation and chaos.

[James_Madison_Lives]

"Nation building" is an excuse to stay forever, the only good choice is to leave.

Besides, we already have stayed "forever," with no end in sight, due to the argument that the Taliban will "take over." Then we keep creating more of the Taliban. Real smart.

[Swordsmyth]

You don't stay. You leave, and let them build their own nation. Just provide them with tools and materials, let them hire their own engineers and technicians. Some Americans perhaps, but they'll do the hiring.

You are jumping right over the most important part, somebody has to secure control of the country. (or divide it into parts)
Committing to "nation building" will commit us to helping some side, we must pull out completely and let the power vacuum resolve itself, if the private sector wishes to do business with one or more sides that should be separate from government policy.

[Swordsmyth]

Besides, we already have stayed "forever," with no end in sight, due to the argument that the Taliban will "take over." Then we keep creating more of the Taliban. Real smart.

Forever is a long long time, we can leave any time we want, now is the time.

[Danke]

[Swordsmyth]

All very bad, but unless we went full bore 19th century Brit empire (which we can't afford) we can't fix that problem.
We shouldn't have created it.
The longer we stay the bigger the problems will be when we are forced to leave.

[r3volution 3.0]

All very bad, but unless we went full bore 19th century Brit empire (which we can't afford) we can't fix that problem.
We shouldn't have created it.
The longer we stay the bigger the problems will be when we are forced to leave.

We could pretty easily afford it, actually.

The population of Afghanistan is about 35 million. To have a soldier for every 100 persons (plenty), we'd need 350,000 soldiers. Hiring people in the third world (preferably not Afghans with their divided loyalties) at say $10,000 per year total cost (including weapons and food and so forth), this would cost $3.5 billion per year, a rounding error for the massive US welfare state.

The problem is that our present government is far too inept to manage something like this, but it wouldn't actually be hard to do.

Britain ruled several hundred million Indians with a civil service and army of about the same size.

[Swordsmyth]

We could pretty easily afford it, actually.

The population of Afghanistan is about 35 million. To have a soldier for every 100 persons (plenty), we'd need 350,000 soldiers. Hiring people in the third world (preferably not Afghans with their divided loyalties) at say $10,000 per year total cost (including weapons and food and so forth), this would cost $3.5 billion per year, a rounding error for the massive US welfare state.

The problem is that our present government is far too inept to manage something like this, but it wouldn't actually be hard to do.

Britain ruled several hundred million Indians with a civil service and army of about the same size.

Whether we could afford it monetarily by using mercenaries or not we can't afford it politically, colonialism has been thoroughly demonized for both good and bad reasons.

[r3volution 3.0]

Whether we could afford it monetarily by using mercenaries or not we can't afford it politically, colonialism has been thoroughly demonized for both good and bad reasons.

Mostly bad, but yes, I agree, it's not at all politically feasible, as I said above.

We (and the Afghans) are probably going to enjoy the worst of both words, perpetual low grade war for decades.

The point, I suppose, is that this is a choice, it doesn't have to be this way.

[pcosmar]

[video=youtube;emMrn9ja5iU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emMrn9ja5iU

Saudi Rules.

Why does everyone focus on the franchises and not on the source?

[timosman]

Mostly bad, but yes, I agree, it's not at all politically feasible, as I said above.

We (and the Afghans) are probably going to enjoy the worst of both words, perpetual low grade war for decades.

The point, I suppose, is that this is a choice, it doesn't have to be this way.

Cui bono?

[r3volution 3.0]

Cui bono?

Semper ubi sub ubi?

[timosman]

Semper ubi sub ubi?

Please clap?

[timosman]

I wonder if this wonderful nation-building technology will ever be applied domestically?