Progress in Afghanistan: What's Next After 6 Years of War?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the complex situation in Afghanistan following six years of conflict, particularly focusing on the roles of the US and NATO, the challenges of securing democracy and stability, and the historical context of foreign involvement in the region. Various aspects of military strategy, humanitarian efforts, and regional dynamics are explored.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the need for a strategic plan to secure democracy and stability in Afghanistan, noting significant progress in areas like healthcare and education.
  • Others argue that the US and NATO are viewed as outsiders with a history of poor involvement in Afghanistan, complicating their efforts.
  • Concerns are raised about the challenges posed by the border regions with Iran and Pakistan, where the Taliban operate with fewer constraints than NATO forces.
  • Some participants reference historical US support for figures like Bin Laden during the Soviet occupation, suggesting that past actions have led to current complications.
  • There are discussions about the implications of NATO's operational limitations as outlined in Article 6 of the NATO treaty.
  • Participants express confusion over the motivations behind historical actions, questioning whether they were part of a broader fight against terrorism or influenced by geopolitical strategies.
  • Allegations of CIA connections to Bin Laden are mentioned, with some participants emphasizing the lack of definitive evidence while discussing the complexities of such relationships.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the effectiveness of current strategies or the historical context of foreign involvement in Afghanistan. Multiple competing perspectives remain regarding the motivations and outcomes of US and NATO actions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to various articles and historical accounts, indicating a reliance on external sources for context. There are unresolved questions about the implications of past US actions and their impact on current events in Afghanistan.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying international relations, military strategy, or the historical context of US involvement in Afghanistan and its implications for current geopolitical dynamics.

  • #271
the US military doesn't use those tactics anymore. We don't simply blow up houses indiscriminately. There's a hearts and minds strategy being used, and it's working a lot better.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #272
SHISHKABOB said:
the US military doesn't use those tactics anymore. We don't simply blow up houses indiscriminately. There's a hearts and minds strategy being used, and it's working a lot better.

It need not, just showing their anti-Islamic attitude like for example burning their holy book are enough to lose local support and without support from civilians or ordinary people of Afghanistan (who are almost all muslims),they can't win.
 
  • #273
shashankac655 said:
It need not, just showing their anti-Islamic attitude like for example burning their holy book are enough to lose local support and without support from civilians or ordinary people of Afghanistan (who are almost all muslims),they can't win.

the anti-islamic attitudes are held by individuals within the US military. I highly doubt that anti-islamic attitudes are written out in the training of soldiers, etc. in the US military.
 
  • #274
rootX said:
Telling him no implies losing 10 years of war in Afghanistan. I agree with Karzai, people who burned Koran should be put to trail to bring peace in Afghanistan. Letting them go free would harm U.S. interests, given U.S. wants the support of local people.
Those 'people' are US military officers. The goal of the US is not to simply to bring peace to Afghanistan! The Taliban brought peace to Afghanistan prior to 2001 by lopping off the hands and heads of those who failed to grow a proper beard. If that was the only concern the country could be carpet bombed and starved into submission. Peace along with some form of pluralistic government and rule of law, not the street mob, is the US goal.
 
  • #275
Thread closed pending moderation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K