Afghanistan, now!

Action. Anything. (9.50 / 2)

Now.

Thanks!

---

by: vox humana @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 23:54:53 PM CST

Just a couple of questions (0.00 / 0)

(made with my apologies to Tom Lehrer)

You say:

join with the pro-peace majority in calling for an end to this war.

1)  Can you name anyone who does not want to see an end to this war?

2)  Is it your contention that unless one calls for an immediate end to this war that one is "anti-peace?"

And:

Do you think that people who would be in an organization called "United for Peace and Justice" really believe that unless you agree with them on every cause they espouse that your are against peace and against justice?

Remember the lyrics from Tom Lehrer's "Folk Song Army," an earlier instance of of this kind of thinking:

[From the leadup]  It takes a certain amount of courage to get up in a coffee-house or a college auditorium and come out in favor of the things that everybody else in the audience is against like peace and justice and brotherhood and so on......

We are the Folk Song Army.
Everyone of us cares.
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice,
Unlike the rest of you squares.....

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 04:36:14 AM CST

Well... (0.00 / 0)

1) I cannot speak to others' motives, though it is always good to assume good faith on the part of others. This diary is intended for those who believe the best way to peace is to stop fighting now. For those who believe the best way to peace is to continue the war, they may move on to other diaries and will not do the suggestions given here, I would imagine.

2) I have to say I do not much care right now what the members of "United for Peace and Justice" believe overall, so long as they are assisting in what I believe to be the worthy goal of getting the US out of Afghanistan now, at least as a military presence. The fact that many organizations have endorsed these actions does not mean that I in turn endorse all of their several beliefs. We are united in this one concern, though we might differ in others, I don't know.

Now that's politics.

---

by: vox humana @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 08:16:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep, that's politics (0.00 / 0)

Even Realpolitik.

Falls right in there with "any enemy of my enemy is my friend," and "they may be bastards, but they're our bastards."

But i am still interested in political arguments for the proposition that the best way to peace is to stop fighting now.  Remember, it's the consequences, short, medium, and long term, regarding everyone who would or could be affected by whatever decision is made (that is, one must consider the consequences of every possible proposal).

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 08:29:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I would turn that on its head (0.00 / 0)

and simply say that we do not have a clear objective in being there, nor do we have a "winnable" goal that would promise a cessation to our presence in the country. The very definition of quagmire.

What are the goals I hear people put forward for being there? Eliminating the Taliban? How? Special Anti-Taliban Devices? ...Helping women? What kind of closed goal is that and how exactly does a military achieve it? ...Rooting out Al Qaeda? What is Al Qaeda? Giving it a name like that implies that it is something tangible and structured, when it is not.

So, I hear the following as justifications for remaining:

Helping women. Not a military goal.

Improving infrastructure. Not a military goal.

Eliminating terrorist threats. Not achievable through conventional military action.

Establishing a new government. Has been done. Will its stability perpetually be guaranteed by the force of the international community? Is that a military goal? How does it end?

Why is our military there? It seems to me that I don't need to justify my position so much as those who feel we should be there need to clarify theirs.

That and... ummm... it's not our country.

---

by: vox humana @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 10:20:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

V. humana (0.00 / 0)

You say:

we do not have a clear objective in being there, nor do we have a "winnable" goal that would promise a cessation to our presence in the country. The very definition of quagmire.

Let's, for the sake of argument, take this as absolutely true.  Now you should argue that the only possible answer to this problem is to "stop fighting now."

Serious arguments only.  Nothing like the snarky:

What are the goals I hear people put forward for being there? Eliminating the Taliban? How? Special Anti-Taliban Devices? ...Helping women? What kind of closed goal is that and how exactly does a military achieve it? ...Rooting out Al Qaeda? What is Al Qaeda? Giving it a name like that implies that it is something tangible and structured, when it is not.

(Really, vox, i think that the situation in Afghanistan is serious, and deserves serious discussion.  As in 'discussion.')

The goal is containing the Taliban.  How about keeping women from being abused and denied basic human rights?  Not a worthy goal to you?  What, you just don't care about Afghan women?  (See, I can be snarky, too.)  Who named al-Qaida?  I would say that it is as real as La Cosa Nostra.  Remember, J. Edgar Hoover denied it existed.

Helping women. Not a military goal.

Improving infrastructure. Not a military goal.

Eliminating terrorist threats. Not achievable through conventional military action.

Of course these are not military goals.  These are policy goals.  And you must realize that these are policy goals with which i disagree!

however, i still can't let this pass.

Military goals (often called "objectives") serve policy goals.  The military seeks to achieve their objectives through strategy and tactics.  For instance, the president may task the military with the objective to help (the word is used because no one thinks that only military action is sufficient to achieve the policy goal)women in Afghanistan to achieve basic human rights and education by developing strategies to prevent, as much as possible, the Taliban and others from attacking and destroying schools for girls and the people in them.  Seems to me that if you are into doing good for people in other countries, this is a worthy objective.  It makes more sense than simply donating books that will be used for fuel of a Taliban fire!

Your argument should be that for each of the policy goals you mentioned, the military intervention proposed is unnecessary to achieve that goal, or has a negative influence on reaching the goal.  One does this with facts and argument, not by moral fiat.  You must also argue that no change in military objectives, strategy, or tactics would help any problems.  Again, with specific facts and argument.

Let's look at this one:

Establishing a new government. Has been done. Will its stability perpetually be guaranteed by the force of the international community? Is that a military goal? How does it end?

I say that before we start making these arguments for Afghanistan, we look at Korea.  Heck, we wouldn't want Afghanistan to end up like South Korea, would we?

Why is our military there? It seems to me that I don't need to justify my position so much as those who feel we should be there need to clarify theirs.

Don't you think that everyone with a position should clarify and fortify their positions?  NO ONE should be able to just assert their position, poke holes in other positions, and just sit smugly by in the assumption that they have the truth.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 19:50:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah, I see. (0.00 / 0)

So I should assume good faith from those who see benefit to continuing war in the name of peace, but when I wish to point out the problems with such a policy, I am being "snarky" and refusing to contribute to the discussion in a substantive manner? I am now to discuss this in a tone you deem to be appropriate? Alas, my crystal ball is at the cleaners at present, but I shall endeavor to discuss this in a way you will find satisfactory.

My argument was precisely what you laid out for me above - and I made it pretty explicitly, as far as I can tell. These are not military objectives and cannot be achieved by such a body especially with conventional military strategy; that body may even be deleterious to the stated goals. One can do brain surgery with a sledgehammer, I suppose (properly sterilized): but why, when there are other tools much better suited for the job?

The last time I checked, Madsci, South Korea was country which recieved/s assistance from the UN. Not the US unilaterally. Not even NATO. The UN. If you want to argue that the UN has a role in Afghanistan under some sort of policing mission, I would have a much more difficult time arguing against that due to myriad precedents and even occasional uneasy successes, if by peace you simply mean relative absence of fighting.

If the United States were serious about protecting the rights of Afghani citizens and the objectives claimed above as justification to further this incursion, they would use diplomatic channels to convince the UN to take a policing function, while simultaneously pledging to up its contributions to NGOs doing substantive work in the country - perhaps even up to the full current military budget (currently estimated at 1 billion dollars a year per 1,000 US soldiers)! Can you imagine what could get done with their input as rightful members of a currently recognized UN nation, for the sake of Afghanistani citizenry?

---

by: vox humana @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:29:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey, Vox (0.00 / 0)

So I should assume good faith from those who see benefit to continuing war in the name of peace

You will show me where i said you should assume good faith in anyone.  I often counsel against reading minds.  Nor is their any reason for anyone to assume good faith in someone of your position.  You DO realize that, don't you?

However, if we have to guess good faith, one way to do it is to see where others accurately reflect what one says.  So, just where did I tell you that you had to assume good faith in anyone?  On the other hand, do you think it good policy to assume bad faith in anyone just because you don't agree with their position?  Think about it, por favor.

when I wish to point out the problems with such a policy, I am being "snarky" and refusing to contribute to the discussion in a substantive manner?

As i am sure you could figure out, 'snarky' doesn't refer to your "pointing out problems with such a policy," but with the manner of your doing so.  Let's look again at the passage I brought down:

What are the goals I hear people put forward for being there? Eliminating the Taliban? How? Special Anti-Taliban Devices? ...Helping women? What kind of closed goal is that and how exactly does a military achieve it? ...Rooting out Al Qaeda? What is Al Qaeda? Giving it a name like that implies that it is something tangible and structured, when it is not.

First, you state one goal offered by a small minority of those who want to continue.  There are many others, even with regard to the Taliban.  And, as i am sure you know, this is not a primary goal in any case.  So, here, what is snarky is misrepresenting the position of others in the debate.  Do you think that doing so is "contributing to the discussion in a substantive manner?"

Then you run with this misre[presentation, and ask how we would do that.  Ok, if that really was the goal, it would be a good question.  but you couldn't even leave it there.  You had to add the very snarky , "Special anti-Taliban devices?"  Do you think such snark contributes to a substantive discussion?

Then the bit about women.  You missed the point, and I am close to assuming that you missed it on purpose.  (That would be bad faith.)  Helping the women of Afghanistan is a policy goal.  No one, as in NO ONE claims it is a military goal.  So, here you are creating a straw man argument (it's a logical fallacy often used in arguments).  Some people think that in the situation in Afghanistan now, to help women requires security intervention.  You can argue that, arguing, say, that the women would be better off if we simply left Afghanistan tomorrow.  As they were before we came.  And as they are now in areas of the country where the Taliban hold sway.  (Now that's some snark!  Sorry.  I just don't see you discussing this outside of your own ideology.)

Finally, you offer a non-argument, a sort of verbal game, when you state that naming al-Qaida gives them substance, that it makes them seem tangible and organized.  Sorry.  They have organized some vicious attacks around the world using tangible member human beings, which attacks had very tangible results.  The name doesn't matter.  I can't believe that you think that that kind of stuff is going to fly on a board like this.

These are not military objectives

Of course, i discussed the meaning of policy and military objectives, and you ignored what i said.  You seem to be in love with this argument of yours, and unwiulling to see that your argument is based on false understandings of terms like military objectives.  It's a shame, really, because the actual argument i think you could make has merit, although it is much harder to make.  And i even told you what it was!  Let me repeat:

Your argument should be that for each of the policy goals you mentioned, the military intervention proposed is unnecessary to achieve that goal, or has a negative influence on reaching the goal.  One does this with facts and argument, not by moral fiat.  You must also argue that no change in military objectives, strategy, or tactics would help any problems.  Again, with specific facts and argument.

Note that if even one military intervention at the tactical level, say, helps a woman in Afghanistan, this argument fails.  You seem to argue that no military intervention of any kind by anybody (and certainly not by the US) could ever do any good at any time for any Afghanistan woman.  Again, this is one of those extreme generalities that i would hate to have to try to support.

The last time I checked, Madsci, South Korea was country which recieved/s assistance from the UN. Not the US unilaterally. Not even NATO. The UN.

And that makes a difference...how?  The fact is that Korea was Truman's war, and would not have occurred with or without UN backing without Truman pushing for it and promising to provide most of the troops.  He convinced the UN that this was the first great test of the notion that they could enforce peace in the world.  You know, just what you like (snark alert), using war to enforce peace.  The UN participation in this war would not have happened had it not been the case that the USSR was boycotting the UN at the time, and could not cast any vetoes!

Yes, the troops, then and now, enforcing the truce border are UN troops.  But all the troops in the UN Command are Americans or South Koreans.  Other American soldiers are merely stationed in Korea to support and protect the South Koreans.  50 Americans (and over 500 South Korean soldiers) have died defending the DMZ since the truce was signed.  (And North Korea recently abrogated the truce, meaning that Korea is in a state of war.)

If the United States were serious about protecting the rights of Afghani citizens and the objectives claimed above as justification to further this incursion, they would use diplomatic channels to convince the UN to take a policing function

Lots of assumptions here.  First, what makes you think that the United States hasn't used diplomatic channels to try to get the UN involved?  You remember that they did in Iraq, but the UN pulled out when their headquarters was bombed, and its leader killed.  Given the UN's abysmal record with peacekeepers where a conflict is hot, it might be just handing on the over the problem to someone else bound to fail.  Frankly, I'm all for it, but that won't meet the arguments of those who think we should stay.

(This reminds me of something a Muslim told me about our problems in the Middle East.  he said that all the problems, including Iraq, would go away, if we just gave them jobs.  I get the idea, but i had to ask him to what address we should mail them.  To me, arguments that start out "America should use diplomacy to...." are almost always completely unrealistic.  they usually depend on the notion that American diplomacy can accomplish anything.  In fact, we are lucky when it accomplishes anything substantial.)

As for throwing money at the problem, we're already doing that.  It is actually the American way.  My suggestion would be for everyone who thinks we should pull out now to simply go to Afghanistan and start working in ways they think would benefit Afghanistan.  In fact, many Americans, including many who oppose the war, have already done that.

if by peace you simply mean relative absence of fighting.

If by peace you mean the absolute absence of fighting, there never has been peace, and there never will be.  It's sort of like wishing for a world without disease.  But despite this, it is still a noble thing to fight for peace and to fight against disease.

We can't attain the perfect (and, to be sure, pulling out of Afghanistan now would cause more war, not less), but we can always work to perfect.

Unfortunately, in this life, we are most often not given a choice between the perfect and the corrupt.  Many times, we are left to choose the lesser of two evils.


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 04:13:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Da capo: (0.00 / 0)

You will show me where i said you should assume good faith in anyone.

I thought that was your intent in the first comment in this thread:

1)  Can you name anyone who does not want to see an end to this war?

2)  Is it your contention that unless one calls for an immediate end to this war that one is "anti-peace"?

In my next comment, I responded - in my first sentence even, in answer to your questions posed above:

I cannot speak to others' motives, though it is always good to assume good faith on the part of others.

After which we moved to other topics. This led me to assume we were in some form of agreement on that point. I apologize for the apparent misunderstanding.

As to the rest of what you write here, I'm sorry Madscientist, but there just is no "there" there. That is unfair though: there may be a point you are trying to make for me, but it is wrapped in so much contradictory sophistry that I find it difficult to untangle.

Attempting to simplify what I read as your point of view (trying very hard not to appear snarky) I get the following:

I (vox) should not misrepresent the points of view of those who favor military action. I must be able to guess their points; but when I guess wrong, I will be illogical. Worse, snarky.

It is wrong to attempt to guess others' points of view. Except, see above. In which case, after having guessed, return to this paragraph. Repeat.

"Helping" women in Afghanistan is a policy goal. It is not a military goal. Military involvement is not the same as "security intervention," which may be necessary to help women in Afghanistan. The latter is a laudable and understandable action. The former is a straw-man argument. "Helping women" is not a moral imperative; it is a political one.

The fact that Al Qaeda is not in fact an organization with a recognizable hierarchy is irrelevant to any argument as to whether one can "attack" them as an organization with a recognizable hierarchy. Though this point should be important to any discussion in which one would know how to recognize progress or even minimal achievement of any military action against the "organization," such arguments are "verbal games."

Speaking of verbal games:

Your argument should be that for each of the policy goals you mentioned, the military intervention proposed is unnecessary to achieve that goal, or has a negative influence on reaching the goal.  One does this with facts and argument, not by moral fiat.  You must also argue that no change in military objectives, strategy, or tactics would help any problems.  Again, with specific facts and argument... Note that if even one military intervention at the tactical level, say, helps a woman in Afghanistan, this argument fails.  You seem to argue that no military intervention of any kind by anybody (and certainly not by the US) could ever do any good at any time for any Afghanistan woman.  Again, this is one of those extreme generalities that i would hate to have to try to support.

No, I most certainly do not have to support any such assertion. Let's try this one, pares forma:

Your argument should be that for each of the policy goals you mentioned, murder is unnecessary to achieve that goal, or has a negative influence on reaching the goal.  One does this with facts and argument, not by moral fiat.  You must also argue that refusing to murder would help any problems.  Again, with specific facts and argument... Note that if even one murder, say, helps a woman, this argument fails.  You seem to argue that no murder of any kind by anybody could ever do any good at any time for any woman.  Again, this is one of those extreme generalities that I would hate to have to try to support.

Really? Though you may feel that I need to prove such a negative, I must disagree. If that is where our conversation has gone - that I must argue against war by proving in every instance that war never benefited anyone - then our work here is done (speaking of straw men), and I suppose you have proven your point, whatever it might have been. Was it contained in the above?

Conversely, I could ask you to prove with facts and figures that withdrawal of occupying military forces never helped one single person, but I have not done so. I wonder why?

Let me keep it simple:

1) Afghanistan is not our country.
2) We should not have gone there in the first place. It is not our country.
3) We cannot determine what is best for its people before they have asked us for assistance. It is not our country.
4) When they do ask for assistance and we decide to provide it, such assistance should remain under their control as any sovereign nation might have the right to expect. Afghanistan is not our country.
5) Finally, and most important: Afghanistan is not our country. It is not our right to choose why or how long we must stay there.

I have plenty of other arguments, but it appears best to keep things to an absolute minimum in this thread. If you can provide me with facts and figures as to how Afghanistan is in fact the United States' country and that we have a right to be there, I will be happy to further the discussion based upon those facts. At that point I will graciously concede the irrelevance of the United Nations as well. Goodness knows others have!

Finally, apropos this:

My suggestion would be for everyone who thinks we should pull out now to simply go to Afghanistan and start working in ways they think would benefit Afghanistan.  In fact, many Americans, including many who oppose the war, have already done that.

Ah, touché, Madsci, touché! And not snarky at all - not one bit! Is the inverse true as well: that those who support military action should already be there?

---

by: vox humana @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 18:31:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here we go, Vox... (4.00 / 1)

You said, quoting yourself (always a wonderful thing to do!):

I cannot speak to others' motives, though it is always good to assume good faith on the part of others.

Exactly.  Avoid speaking of others' motives (let's take presuming that people vote for or against a bill because they are getting money from a supporter or opponent of the bill), and presume good faith, good will, and good intentions.  It's the way of Peace!

(Side note:  I have noted many times that when one posts an essay here, and accesses the drop down menu of topics, he will find "antiWar" but not "Peace."  Since my days in the antiVietnam War movement, i have noted that many people are anti war, while not being pro-peace!  Many people on this site are antiwar and not peaceful.  btw, as many times as I've mentioned this, the "Peace" option has not been added.)

I'll take Obama's words to heart here, from an interview on This Week, referring to the opponents of his ideas on health care reform, but applicable to any political discussion:

OBAMA: I think they're wrong. The one thing I hope is, is that we can have a civil argument about it and that we are able to acknowledge good motives on both sides. Everybody is a patriot. Each of us are Americans that care deeply about this country. ...[20Sep09]

You go on:

there may be a point you are trying to make for me, but it is wrapped in so much contradictory sophistry that I find it difficult to untangle.

Quite a charge.  And one I take seriously, more seriously than if you had charged me with murder.  I didn't intend any sophistry.  It seems you are saying that my arguments weren't clear and convincing.

But you try.  let me try to assist you.

I (vox) should not misrepresent the points of view of those who favor military action. I must be able to guess their points; but when I guess wrong, I will be illogical. Worse, snarky.

I would say that we should not misrepresent the views of others, period.  (That's a moral argument.)  No, you shouldn't guess their points; you should take their points as they delineate them.  If someone says, "we should keep a military presence in Afghanistan (or Korea) because of A, B, and C," you can argue with A, B, and/or C without assuming that there is some nefarious motive (the weapons industry won't give him money for his campaign if he votes to get out, say, so he is voting to stay for that reason, really).  If you guess wrong, you will merely be wrong.  Whether you are snarky or not, depends on whether you are snarky or not.

It is wrong to attempt to guess others' points of view.

It is wrong to misrepresent others' points of view.  One can use what they have said, or ask them.

"Helping" women in Afghanistan is a policy goal. It is not a military goal.

Correct.  Those who have this policy goal may decide that there is some military goal whose accomplishment could serve the policy goal.  Stopping Hitler is a policy goal.  Defeating Hitler-led Germany in a war is a military goal meant to serve the policy goal.  It is not the only way that we would try to accomplish that particular policy goal.

Military involvement is not the same as "security intervention," which may be necessary to help women in Afghanistan.

That is correct, which is why I was careful to use the term.  For instance, training of Afghan police by German police would be one strategy for meeting a security goal which is not a military intervention, but a civilian intervention.

"Helping women" is not a moral imperative; it is a political one.

No.  Helping women may indeed be a moral imperative.  one would look to his own morals to determine that, and one would take action on that basis.  But it is not a political imperative.  It may well be a political goal, as it is in our policy in Afghanistan.  The point is that anything that involves the body politic is about politics.

The fact that Al Qaeda is not in fact an organization with a recognizable hierarchy is irrelevant to any argument as to whether one can "attack" them as an organization with a recognizable hierarchy. Though this point should be important to any discussion in which one would know how to recognize progress or even minimal achievement of any military action against the "organization," such arguments are "verbal games."

This isn't close to what i said.  Nor are your "facts" facts.  I'm not sure that you mentioned anything about "hierarchy" in the quote to which i was responding, not that it makes a difference.  (Your argument seems to be that unless an organization has a "recognizable hierarchy," then it cannot be attacked.  That all an organization need do to shield itself from any and all attacks is to dispense with a recognizable hierarchy.  I, myself, have been in such organizations.  We were attacked.)  The "verbal games" had to do with the "just because we can name it" stuff.  This has nothing to do with practical questions of the difficulties of dealing with a diffuse and decentralized organization, or the metrics of measuring progress, nor even with the appropriateness of using the military at all to deal with this organization.  itr was a side venture made for reasons that i guess had to do with being snarky.  (Note here that i was snarky in return.  Snark isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It expresses emotions.)

Then you redid my very fine argument by inserting 'murder' for 'military intervention.'  I think 'assassination' would be a better term to insert.  What if we had assassinated Hitler in, say, 1937?  The argument holds, but not in the general way you want to characterize it.  The point is not to look at all history, but to look at the specific situation.  It's not about "proving a negative," but about making a realistic assessment of the facts and possibilities.  When making policy decisions, we want to assess whether the policy will meet the goals.  Those who say it won't must argue for that view.  i just laid out how that would be done.  More likely, those arguing against a policy aregue that it won't do it well enough, or will have such cost that it is not the best policy.  This argument is not so absolute, and leaves room for disagreement.  And THAT is called politics.

If that is where our conversation has gone - that I must argue against war by proving in every instance that war never benefited anyone - then our work here is done (speaking of straw men), and I suppose you have proven your point, whatever it might have been. Was it contained in the above?

I hope not.  No, that is not contained in the above.  What i am saying is that if you are making a political, practical argument against a particular action or war, you have to make arguments on practicalities and the good of the nation.  This is not necessary, even a bit dishonest, if you are making a moral argument.  (You might argue that making use of political and practical arguments that suit your morality on the issue helps the moral cause.  I have certainly believed that at times in my life, but my morality has changed since then.)

So, I am merely saying that if you argue, as you have tended here, that military action cannot help Afghan women, then you are open to an argument of one instance.  But you could argue that helping Afghan women is not a good policy goal, or that use of the military, although it could accomplish some good toward the goal, has sufficient negatives to rule it out, or that the goal can be accomplished without the use of the military.

It almost seems straightforward to me. But then, i am a slow learner.

Conversely, I could ask you to prove with facts and figures that withdrawal of occupying military forces never helped one single person, but I have not done so. I wonder why?

Maybe because i have not asserted that withdrawing military forces immediately (what we are talking about) would help no one.

Interesting points of argument, presented for easy answering:

1)  Afghanistan is not our country.  That's right.  Same as Kosovo or Bosnia or Haiti.

2)  We should not have gone there in the first place. It is not our country.  The former is not entailed by the latter.  the question of whether we should have gone there in the first place is an argument about which rational people can and do disagree, but, in any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether we should leave Afghanistan immediately or later.

3) We cannot determine what is best for its people before they have asked us for assistance. It is not our country.  The question of whether we can determine what is best for another country has nothing to do with their asking assistance.  The epistemological problems (if you will) are the same whether they ask for assistance or not.  in this case, some in Afghanistan were asking for our assistance in their civil war aghanit what we and they saw as the illegitimate government of the Taliban.  however, the argument for going in had to do with our being attacked by an organization that was in Afghanistan and being shielded by their government.

4) When they do ask for assistance and we decide to provide it, such assistance should remain under their control as any sovereign nation might have the right to expect.  What makes you think that our assistance is not under the control of the Afghan government?  Do you think that if they asked us to leave by a certain date, as Iraq's government did, we would refuse?  We recently made changes to our rules of engagement at the request of the Afghan government, such changes probably costing us men.

5) Finally, and most important: Afghanistan is not our country. It is not our right to choose why or how long we must stay there.  I agree.  No matter how much they want us to stay, no matter how much their government asks us to stay, if we decide to leave, it shouldn't make any difference.

If you can provide me with facts and figures as to how Afghanistan is in fact the United States' country and that we have a right to be there, I will be happy to further the discussion based upon those facts.

I haven't made any such assertion.  For that matter, what right does the UN have to be there?  Or al-Qaida?

Ah, touché, Madsci, touché! And not snarky at all - not one bit! Is the inverse true as well: that those who support military action should already be there?

No, it wasn't snarky.  It simply follows what I've been saying:  morality is a set of rules governing one's conduct.  It informs one's own actions.  I should have been more careful and said that i suggest that those who thinks we should pull out now (while still holding that we can do good in Afghanistan without the military) should undertake actions to do good in Afghanistan.  That doesn't necessarily mean going there.

As for those supporting keeping the military there:  they absolutely should be willing to accept sacrifices involved in our doing so, like extra taxes.  If they can support the actual goals in Afghanistan by going there, they ought to consider it.  that's been one of the problems with these military actions:  only those fighting and their families are really sacrificing for it.

I'll leave you with a prayer associated with (but not written by) a famous pacifist:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 06:31:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite.... (0.00 / 0)

In the beginnings of our conversation, nobody was making statements on behalf of those who wish to continue the killing in Afghanistan. Yes, I am afraid I was asked to come up with justification for that point of view. I did the best I could. Not surprisingly, it wasn't very good. Alas.

Miles down the road...

Your argument seems to be that unless an organization has a "recognizable hierarchy," then it cannot be attacked.

Almost. We were, I believe, discussing military action. Yes indeed, I do believe that at the very minimum a standing army will prove very ineffective (next to useless, actually) against a loosely organized amorphous "other." And yes, naming the "other" as if it had some sort of structure leads people to think that it is then an entity that actually exists, that could be attacked and destroyed by conventional military force. it isn't a game. it's quite serious.

1)  Afghanistan is not our country.  That's right.  Same as Kosovo or Bosnia or Haiti.

Ah, we at least agree about something here!

2)  We should not have gone there in the first place. It is not our country.  The former is not entailed by the latter.  the question of whether we should have gone there in the first place is an argument about which rational people can and do disagree, but, in any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether we should leave Afghanistan immediately or later.

You are absolutely correct that it is irrelevant as to the question of whether we should leave immediately or later. But the two sentences I posited are related and build into the final justification later. We should not have entered; therefore, we should leave.

3) We cannot determine what is best for its people before they have asked us for assistance. It is not our country.

I think you might not have seen my point here. Again, we entered and have at least in part (I would say in entirety) ignored the wishes of the Afghanis since arriving.

4) When they do ask for assistance and we decide to provide it, such assistance should remain under their control as any sovereign nation might have the right to expect.  What makes you think that our assistance is not under the control of the Afghan government?  Do you think that if they asked us to leave by a certain date, as Iraq's government did, we would refuse?

When we are put in the position of telling the Afghans how we want their government to work, they are not in charge. As to the latter question, I am afraid I do think that. And I would say the same in Iraq. I'll believe we are out when we are out.

5) Finally, and most important: Afghanistan is not our country. It is not our right to choose why or how long we must stay there.  I agree.  No matter how much they want us to stay, no matter how much their government asks us to stay, if we decide to leave, it shouldn't make any difference.

Another point of agreement! Hurrah!

For that matter, what right does the UN have to be there?  Or al-Qaida?

Good questions, both. We can discuss them some time.

Your clarification of your point concerning those who favor one course of action or the other in Afghanistan made more sense to me. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you for the final prayer. I didn't think you were "into that," but I have always loved St. Francis' words.

---

by: vox humana @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 18:42:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When first I to the college went (0.00 / 0)

a recitation of this prayer could be demanded of any freshman by any senior at any time.  Should one fail to properly recite this prayer, certain minor penalties would ensue.  (Like you might have to wear that beanie longer, or you would be barred from certain social events.)

In the beginnings of our conversation, nobody was making statements on behalf of those who wish to continue the killing in Afghanistan.

I wonder what Francis would think of this statement.  You see, I'm not sure I know of any American who wants the killing to continue in Afghanistan.  Perhaps you know some.  Let me know.  To me, you will excuse me, your words are an unpeaceful way of describing those who think we should not end our military presence in that country immediately.

Not too long ago, I had a series of medical interventions that each time caused weeks of pain.  At no time did it occur to me to accuse the doctors involved, or the nurses and technicians, for that matter, of pushing the medical treatment because they wanted the pain to continue.  I guess our minds work differently.

Yes, I am afraid I was asked to come up with justification for that point of view. I did the best I could. Not surprisingly, it wasn't very good. Alas.

I never thought I was asking you to come up with anything.  According to my morality, (and that of Barack Obama, as well), to argue opposite any position requires a thorough and fair understanding and rendition of the opposing arguments.  Most of my life, I have hung out with people of like morality.  I confess that i haven't always followed this moral precept (for instance, when i hung out with Fourth Internationalists (like those at WSWS) and wrote purposely lying accounts of the opposition under the notion that truth was defined by what helped the "revolution."  So, out of habit, i simply assumed the best of you, and thought you had already understood honestly those opposing views and wouldn't have to "come up" with them.

Yes indeed, I do believe that at the very minimum a standing army will prove very ineffective (next to useless, actually) against a loosely organized amorphous "other."

- snark - Of course.  And army merely standing will not be effective at all! -/ snark -

Really, though, this is a little better in that it is not so absolute, so black and white.  Still, the question is just how amorphous this organization is, and whether there is any role at all for the military in operations against it.  I'm not well versed in such things, but those who are are divided, rather "arrayed," on the subject.  I see no reason to accept any argument outright, especially the extremes:  the military is the best and only instrument needed against al-Qaida, or the military is of no use against al-Qaida.

And yes, naming the "other" as if it had some sort of structure leads people to think that it is then an entity that actually exists, that could be attacked and destroyed by conventional military force. it isn't a game. it's quite serious.

Oh, I agree.  But the first part of your statement is unserious, since it is an entity (even if it is an entity like the "anti Afghanistan War movement") and it has some sort of structure (the structuralists could even provide you with a chart of the structure!).  It certainly could and has been attacked with military force.  It is difficult to see how it could be destroyed, I agree.  heck, the military of several nations couldn't destroy nazi-ism.

But the two sentences I posited are related and build into the final justification later. We should not have entered; therefore, we should leave.

I thought we took care of this fallacy with the abortion example.  nevertheless, it simply does not follow that just because you can posit truly that someone should not have entered, then it follows of necessity that he should leave.  It would be nice for your argument if that would be true, but that does not make it true.  And i take it as not true as a moral statement.  (Usually, with moral statements, we delineate a broad principle (thou shalt not kill) and then define exceptions to that rule (self-defense, execution of criminals of a certain kind, unborn babies, suffering loved ones, enemies at war, and others).  If you want to take this as a black and white absolute, you are saying that there is no possibility of an exception.  Once any exception is noted in any case, then the moralist must argue that any present case is not an exception, and do so with arguments, not by fiat.

So, here is a fun excepption:  my people entered this continent illegitamately, and helped displace those already here.  Some came from Ireland.  So, under the rule, I and those like me should go back to Ireland.  But wait, there's more!  The Celts entered the British Isles a few centuries before Christ, displacing people already there.  (Thomas Cahill, who wrote the wonderful little book, How the Irish Saved Civilization, speculates that the general fear of the "Little People" in Ireland reflects an ancient guilt for the Celtic extermination of those people they displaced!)  In fact, the Celts displaced and exterminated most of the people in Europe before they came in the ten centuries before Christ.  Only pockets remain of those already in Europe before Indo-European invaders, like perhaps the Basque.  So, we can argue that the Celts should all go back where they came from.

In fact, Indo-European peoples all came from Anatolia, originally.  That means that all Celts, Germanic peoples, including the Scandinavians and the Rus, as well as the Slavs, the Iranians, and the Indian people, along with others, should get out of where they are and return to Anatolia.  The few Armenians living there now can stay, but the Turks must leave and return to central Asia.

But wait!  let's cut to the chase.  All modern humans came from about 600 females living in northwest Africa about 80,000 years ago.  From there they spread throughout Africa and other continents, wiping out other humans as they went.  They did it so thoroughly and efficiently that there are no other humans left on earth at this time.  Still, they should all get out of these places their ancestors entered illegitimately, and return to northwest Africa.

This is your argument as i understand it.  And what I have provided is a reductio to that argument as a general principle of politics, or an absolute statement of morality.

You're welcome.

we entered and have at least in part (I would say in entirety) ignored the wishes of the Afghanis since arriving.

Entirely?  Why this need to make everything absolute and therefore indefensible?  Your moral argument does not depend on what happened after we went there, you know.  According to your argument, even if we asked each Afghan, and they all said they wanted us to stay, that it had been a wonderful experience, we should still get out, because we shouldn't have been there to begin with.

And I must admit that i don't know what each Afgani thinks.  I imagine that more than not are divided on the issue.  It may be like what happened when Iraqis were polled.  Most often they would answer a question "yes" when asked if they wanted the Americans out.  (We wanted that.)  But if asked if they wanted the Americans out immediately, for most of our engagement there, the majority would say "no."  (The exception came around 2006 when things had gotten really bad.)

At any rate, it depends on evidence, not some faith-based conviction that americans will always ignore the wishes of others.

When we are put in the position of telling the Afghans how we want their government to work, they are not in charge.

Of course in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were we in a position to tell them how we wanted their government to work.  I realize that this is a narrative floated by many, including my old friends at WSWS.  You will allow, i presume, that a nation may make its help contingent on certain things.  And so, i think it is perfectly appropriate for Obama to tell the Afghan government that if they don't get rid of  some of the corruption, our help may disappear.  the choice, however, is theirs.

And I would say the same in Iraq. I'll believe we are out when we are out.

1)  Do you really think the evil Obama is going to keep us there past the time agreed to?  why would he?

2)  Why assume either way?  We'll know soon enough, and the answer might be changed by events we haven't imagined.  After all, when Bush the candidate said that we should get out of the nation-building business, he didn't imagine that 911 would change everything.

So, you didn't know that I was into things like that prayer.

One of my heroes is Jeanette Rankin, who is the only Congressperson to vote against both the WWI declaration of war AND the WWII declaration of war.  In the latter case, she was the only congressperson to vote against the declaration.  In the first case, her suffragette sisters abandoned her because they thought that such a vote would work against the fight for the right to vote for women.  In the latter case, police had to escort her out of the Capitol building because of an angry mob.

In 1967, she led a protest against the Vietnam War!

I've mentioned her here, but she never gets mention on the daily thread.  Perhaps because she was a Republican!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 02:39:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah, Jeannette Rankin... (0.00 / 0)

a favorite of mine as well. Thanks for bringing her up!

It's funny that you attack (rightly so) all my absolutist statements. It seems to be my style of verbal arguing - to start from absolute statements and work my way into nuance. Your pointing this out every time is helping me to realize it. As you have noted before, I tend to be "big picture" and "big statement," often making tangential jumps to things I see as related.

It's strange, really, because I see things in a nuanced way immediately when I am dealing with people in the flesh. Oh, well. Anyway....

I really am not being snarky at all with my comments concerning Al Qaeda. My point seems obvious to me, but I am clearly not stating what I am trying to say very well at all. Let's drop that one, and maybe I'll do a better job in the future.

Honestly, though, Madsci, this seems a bit beyond the realm of believability:

Of course in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were we in a position to tell them how we wanted their government to work.

But we did! Though the drapery was from Iraq and Afghanistan, the underlying structure of the governments created was of Western Democracy. As such, the decisions made have been by and large those chosen to be made by occupying forces. You concede as much when you admit that coercion and threats are part of the way in which we deal with these supposedly autonomous governments. And, really now, who has the best-equipped military in each country? This wouldn't affect a government's decision-making policy?

I do not think Mr. Obama is evil. Ask me. That does not mean that I need to trust him, either, though. And in the case of his promises to withdraw from other nations, I will give them the same credence I give his promises to tell the truth about Guantanamo and give its prisoners fair and timely trials. In each instance, what is promised may or may not be delivered eventually. I see my role to be a citizen questioning whether either is being done as quickly or efficiently as it should be done.

---

by: vox humana @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 18:54:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Quickly, vox (0.00 / 0)

(I always mean that, but it often doesn't work out that way!)

You quote me:

Of course in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were we in a position to tell them how we wanted their government to work.

and respond:

But we did!

Really?  I haven't seen any evidence of it.  i know there were narratives to that effect, for instance, that we had rigged the elections in Iraq.

Though the drapery was from Iraq and Afghanistan, the underlying structure of the governments created was of Western Democracy. As such, the decisions made have been by and large those chosen to be made by occupying forces.

I don't get this logic.  First of all, during the Bremer reign, he his occupation government countermanded just one action on the part of the Iraqi authority.  (Can you remember which one?)

But your logic seems to be that if anything resembles anything that we might have liked, that is, in itself, evidence that it was done by our hand against the will of those who actually did it.  For instance, if an iraqi opened an ice cream stand in Baghdad, then it must have been forced up[on Baghdad by us.  I'm not buying it.

Remember, Iraq has had a democracy of their own making in the past.  That democracy was overthrown by the Baathists.  The idea of democracy was extant in Iraq long before we got there.  (That's why I used to want to throw up when i heard people say that "Iraq isn't ready for a democracy."  How condescending!)

Then ask yourself another question:  if we had forced Iraq to adopt a government to our liking, would it be the one they have?  I don't think so.

Now Afghanistan.  As you remember, the present government was created using a traditional Afghan process under the auspices of the UN.  What resulted was certainly not what we would have put together.  But the fact is that if they had wanted to install a king, we would have had to live with it.

You concede as much when you admit that coercion and threats are part of the way in which we deal with these supposedly autonomous governments.

I don't think I would characterize what I said as "coercion and threats."  What i said was that we attached contingencies to our help.  Historically speaking, those on the right have resisted this, saying that if we gave help to another country, we should simply consider our own well-being.  The left, on the other hand, has long pushed for contingencies.  Thus, when we gave money to Yugovia, and it mostly went to enrich the dictator, the right would say, "who cares?  At least they won't turn communist."  The left would say, "we should make our money contingent on proof that it is getting to the people for health care, as intended."

WE still hear calls to make our trade policy with China contingent on their making progress on human rights issues.  Is this coercion and threats?  if it is, may I assume that you advocate free trade agreements, which are called "free trade agreements" just because they have no contingencies (if pure) in them?

So here, I don't think there is anything untoward in requiring some accountability in exchange for help that is not only monetary, but involves putting the citizens of many nations, most especially ours, at risk of death.

And, really now, who has the best-equipped military in each country? This wouldn't affect a government's decision-making policy?

It might.  How about North Korea?  Or better, how about Iran, who has large contingents of American military on either side of it?  I don''t think either of these are rolling over and playing dead.

As for Iraq, as you know, they invited us out, and we are going.  (I think that the day we leave will be a sad day for many on the left.  They want to believe that we will never leave if we don't want to so bad.  It reminds me of the end of the Vietnam War, when many who had spent maybe a decade of their young lives defining themselves by the anti-war effort sank into deep depressions.)

And i don't see Afghanistan making any decision because they fear that if they didn't do as we say, we would turn our bunker buster bombs on their government buildings.  Do you?  You know, it looks like they may have rigged an election, resulting in Karzai continuing in power.  That is not what we wanted.  Do you think anyone said, "You know, the US has a big military, so maybe we shouldn't let Karzai win.  they might take us down."  This isn't Kennedy and Diem, you know.

I do not think Mr. Obama is evil. Ask me. That does not mean that I need to trust him, either, though.

I trust him.  I trust him to do what he thinks is best for the country if possible.  I don't think there is much more we can ask of a president in the trust area.  To me, not trusting Obama means that you think it is possible that he could decide to do something that he thought was bad for the nation, even when he could do something he thought was good for the nation.

I will give them the same credence I give his promises to tell the truth about Guantanamo and give its prisoners fair and timely trials. In each instance, what is promised may or may not be delivered eventually. I see my role to be a citizen questioning whether either is being done as quickly or efficiently as it should be done.

These are campaign promises and/or early presidency promises.  I will not hold anyone to promises they can't honestly make.  (It's like trying to hold someone to "I will love you forever.")

You and I, and candidate Obama can talk in the manner of these promises, but President Obama has much more on his plate, namely reality, and the realization that he doesn't have as mu h power as he thought he would.  (Every new president goes through this.)

So, for instance, not only is it not possible to give everyone in Gitmo a fair and timely trial, in some cases, it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions!  And releasing some supposed "truth" about Gitmo, even if it was every fact that there is about Gitmo, would not solve anything.  There would be those (including some members of this board) who would look for what they expected and wanted to see, and not seeing it, would simply argue that the truth wasn't released.  You know it.  I know it.  Any honest person knows it.

When we elect a president, we should want him to do what is best for the nation.  I seriously doubt whether releasing every little fact about nearly anything is what is best for the nation.  And you must admit that he majority of those held at Gitmo have been released, and are free to say whatever they want.  And have.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:32:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

War is the most illiberal (0.00 / 0)

of concepts.  John Locke, the philosophical father of modern Liberalism said "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."  A death by war robs a man of each of Locke's ought nots.  John N. Gray, a recent Liberal thinker said "Human rights can be respected in a variety of regimes, Liberal and otherwise."  Trying to set up a Liberal state by killing your way into it is nonsensical and unjustifiable.  Peace

---

by: imhotep @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:02:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

John Locke (10.00 / 1)

was NOT the philosophical father of modern liberalism. He was one of the philosophical fathers of classical liberalism.  And classical liberals tend to be isolationists, and would certainly agree that war is illiberal.

However, the modern liberals (basically, those now calling themselves liberals in North America) have never been isolationist, and do not follow Locke, nor even claim to.  They have always espoused a foreign policy of interventionism. Some, but by no means all, of these modern liberals have rejected war as a tool in the kit of interventionism.

All the big wars we have gotten into for a century were done under those with a liberal, interventionist foreign policy:  Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Bush 43.

Trying to set up a Liberal state by killing your way into it is nonsensical and unjustifiable.

I agree, although that is exactly how our country was born.  (I take it that you would have opposed those who wanted to fight for our independence from Britain.)

But the fact is that John Kennedy enunciated exactly this approach in his inaugural.  And if Vietnam had gone better, Like WWI, WWII, or, at least first glance, Korea, it would be a rare modern liberal today who opposed war as a tool of intervention.

The problem isn't so much war, but intervention.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 04:23:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What are the negative (10.00 / 1)

consequences attached "to stop fighting now?"  There seem to be none.  Peace

---

by: imhotep @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 11:40:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, imhotep (0.00 / 0)

if you can't come up with some negative consequences to "stop fighting now," then you are neither thoughtful nor deliberative.

Just to get you started, here's one of the easier ones:

Suppose that a firefight is going on, and the order comes down to "stop fighting now."  The US soldiers and the Afghanistan soldiers working with them are then overrun and slaughtered, as are the villagers that are thought to have worked with them.

Of course, YOU may not think tht the deaths of US and Afghanistan soldiers, or villagers working with them is a negative.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 19:21:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Utter nonsense (0.00 / 0)

You have absolutely no way of 'knowing' that if the order came down and the firing stopped that everybody, or even anybody, would be overrun and slaughtered.  That conclusion, which you made up from whole cloth, came from some dark and totally unexplored region of your mind.   "The unexamined life is not worth living."  Peace

---

by: imhotep @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:50:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

George W. Obama (6.00 / 1)

is a short stride away from stepping off into the abyss and destroying his presidency.  If he escalates the war in Afghanistan by adding even one single soldier, he will have made a fatal error from which his presidency will never recover.  That will be too bad given how much promise his election just one short year ago brought to this country.  Peace  

---

by: imhotep @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 11:35:40 AM CST