The War in Afghanistan

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
CIA proxies or true believers? In any case, this really isn't gonna end well for them.
There a plenty of Uighur and Baloch extremists willing to join either Al-Kaida or ISIS. Now since the policy of local Al-Kaida franchise is to play nice with Talibans, who are not looking for trouble abroad, those whose goal is making trouble abroad (Xingyang or Balochistan) are switching to the local ISIL franchise, which is not burdened with realpolitik.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong

Bad time to be an Afghan, eh?

Although in some respects, it is partially our fault. We're the ones who shoved an inept democracy on them that couldn't survive and paved the way for these lunatics to return to power. Should have just restored the monarchy.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
As well as given the tribes a lot more autonomy.

In essence, treat Afghanistan like a feudal state. Have the tribal chieftains be their versions of Dukes and Barons who swear fealty to the King, whilst maintaining their own lands and militias. In return they'd uphold the King's laws and raise taxes. The King meanwhile has a small but powerful army that can smack into line any warlord who gets above his station.

That might have actually worked in all honesty.

Edit: In addition to this, the various governors, chieftains and lords of Afghanistan would be summoned to a Parliament of sorts where they'd sit as the Upper House. The Lower House meanwhile would be elected by the taxpaying public. Of course, power would be heavily slanted towards the tribes and the crown, but Afghani subjects wouldn't be voiceless.

Yes, this is a semi-recreation of medieval England. That system worked quite well for its time though, so it might work in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
In essence, treat Afghanistan like a feudal state. Have the tribal chieftains be their versions of Dukes and Barons who swear fealty to the King, whilst maintaining their own lands and militias. In return they'd uphold the King's laws and raise taxes. The King meanwhile has a small but powerful army that can smack into line any warlord who gets above his station.

That might have actually worked in all honesty.
Still doesn't solve the Pakistan problem.
As for them seeking help...
Same shit, different decade.
 

TyrantTriumphant

Well-known member
The reason that Afghanistan is starving is that while we occupied it we exported massive amounts of food to them. Before that their population was just at a level that domestic agriculture and what imports they could afford was capable of sustaining. But with the availability of American food in our two decade occupation the birth rate skyrocketed.

Now Afghanistan has far more people than they can actually feed and no way to pay for more food. Unless someone gives them free food, huge amounts of people are going to die.

Though I do despise the Taliban, I have to admit that this mess is not entirely their fault. Afghanistan would be screwed no matter who was in charge.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
The reason that Afghanistan is starving is that while we occupied it we exported massive amounts of food to them. Before that their population was just at a level that domestic agriculture and what imports they could afford was capable of sustaining. But with the availability of American food in our two decade occupation the birth rate skyrocketed.

Now Afghanistan has far more people than they can actually feed and no way to pay for more food. Unless someone gives them free food, huge amounts of people are going to die.

Though I do despise the Taliban, I have to admit that this mess is not entirely their fault. Afghanistan would be screwed no matter who was in charge.
No, that is clearly wrong. As i've linked, this is just simply exactly the same problem they had right before 9/11.
Now its the same country, the same government, the same people, and the same problems, just 20 years later.
As for population growth, well, Afghanistan had a lot of it before Americans came, it had a lot when Americans were there, and i'd guess they will continue to have a lot now too.
 

TyrantTriumphant

Well-known member
No, that is clearly wrong. As i've linked, this is just simply exactly the same problem they had right before 9/11.
Now its the same country, the same government, the same people, and the same problems, just 20 years later.
As for population growth, well, Afghanistan had a lot of it before Americans came, it had a lot when Americans were there, and i'd guess they will continue to have a lot now too.
When we arrived in Afghanistan there were about 21 million people living there. As of now there are about 40 million. An extra 19 million mouths to feed is not insignificant. However the birth rate may have changed, (and after investigating it looks as if I previously may have been wrong on that) population growth like that without an increase in food production will cause problems.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
What's lost in all of this conversation about what we did wrong, or what we should have done, etc is the fact we never should've been there in the first place.
Depending on your definition of "being there", you may have a point. This should have been a Osama capture raid/punitive expedition, fuck the nationbuilding stuff, that part was a total waste.
When we arrived in Afghanistan there were about 21 million people living there. As of now there are about 40 million. An extra 19 million mouths to feed is not insignificant. However the birth rate may have changed, (and after investigating it looks as if I previously may have been wrong on that) population growth like that without an increase in food production will cause problems.
From what i can find, food production has also increased considerably, and the increase is in area farmed, not so much efficiency. Still, it was not enough then, and is not enough now.
Afghan_Yield_Prod_chart.jpg
 

TyrantTriumphant

Well-known member
From what i can find, food production has also increased considerably, and the increase is in area farmed, not so much efficiency. Still, it was not enough then, and is not enough now.
Interesting. Though it would be fascinating to know how much of these new areas farmed are marginal land only made useful through American fertilizers and equipment which will no longer by available. Because if they were good agricultural lands before then they would have been in use already. Look up the Soviet Virgin Lands campaign for what happens when you use land for something it is not meant for.

Another difficulty in the area is the difference between official statistics and actual conditions on the ground. With a lot of the information gathering left to corrupt local Afghan officials it could be difficult to get good information while we were there. I know for a fact that Afghanistan's production of opium has increased dramatically since we invaded. I wonder how much of the land listed as used for grain is actually used for drugs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top