# US Plan:  Divide Afghanistan?



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2012)

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...hanistan-dishonor-sacrifice-of-1800-us-troops




> The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan on Tuesday condemned rumors that the United States is planning to divide the war-torn country, saying the suggestions were "lies that dishonor the sacrifice of more than 1,800 American service members who have died in the cause of a unified Afghanistan."
> Ambassador Ryan Crocker said in a statement that a "free and independent media plays a vital role in any democracy" and that Afghanistan's media and the Afghan government spokespersons were "important elements in our close bilateral relationship."
> But he then went on to say that, "rumors that the United States has a plan to divide Afghanistan or change its form of government are, frankly speaking, lies that dishonor the sacrifice of more than 1,800 American service members who have died in the cause of a unified Afghanistan, governed by its Constitution."


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 24, 2012)

The cause was always a unified Afghanistan? News to me.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 24, 2012)

I think we should start carving up a few other countries while we're at it.  lol


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2012)

The last paragraph of the article stated the following:



> "And for reconciliation to take place, we are in full agreement with the Government of Afghanistan that three conditions must be met by the Taliban and other armed insurgents: a complete break with al-Qaida; an end to violence; and respect for the Afghan constitution, including its protections for women and minorities," he added, according to the statement.


 
What if the underlined portion were to occur?  Would that be "victory" for us in Afghanistan?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 24, 2012)

The first would happen. The others would not.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2012)

Roger.  At this point, I'm not even sure that the first would happen, we're leaving anyway so there's no real need for them to negotiate that away.  Unless Pakistan makes them, which doesn't seem likely.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 24, 2012)

Yeah but AQ is on a serious backfoot as it is, they don't have the resources to offer the TB that they used to.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2012)

That's true, for sure.  And once the US pulls out, I'm not sure PK is going to want an organization as capable and motivated as AQ (who has explicitly stated its desire to obtain WMDs) in its backyard.  If PK would become a true partner in the WOT, things would go a lot smoother.


----------



## AWP (Jan 24, 2012)

OEF-A has become a giant game of Calvinball.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 24, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> That's true, for sure. And once the US pulls out, I'm not sure PK is going to want an organization as capable and motivated as AQ (who has explicitly stated its desire to obtain WMDs) in its backyard. If PK would become a true partner in the WOT, things would go a lot smoother.


 
Problem with PK actually becoming a partner in the GWOT is they've spent too much time and money using Islamic terrorism as a tool of their state craft and goals for the region. Suddenly shedding it away won't happen, and it's like a drug habit that they can't kick. Not to mention their military, government, and intelligence services are riddled with sympathizers to the islamatist causes.

AQ is on the backfoot to be sure, but it seems like the Taliban has started to become more of a threat. With the drug money flowing into them, the image they have attained as "defenders of the faith" in swathes of the Islamic world, the fact that they've started to branch out from Afghan and Pakistan, and that their brand of Islam has appeal to many in the far-right spectrum of Islam.

As for the breakup of Afghan, didn't they consider this in Iraq and deem it not viable? If it wasn't viable in a urbanized, modern middle eastern country like Iraq, what hope is there it would work in a place where there is little infrastructure, modernization, and viable resources?


----------



## AWP (Jan 25, 2012)

I thought we divided it back in 2001: with us or against us.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 25, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> AQ is on the backfoot to be sure, but it seems like the Taliban has started to become more of a threat. With the drug money flowing into them, the image they have attained as "defenders of the faith" in swathes of the Islamic world, the fact that they've started to branch out from Afghan and Pakistan, and that their brand of Islam has appeal to many in the far-right spectrum of Islam.


 
I disagree with this part. Even the Arabs training in the camps in AF during the 90s thought the Taliban were mental and took it too far (which says a lot, really).


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jan 25, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> I disagree with this part. Even the Arabs training in the camps in AF during the 90s thought the Taliban were mental and took it too far (which says a lot, really).


 
It's true, then again the non-Afghan's tended to antagonize the native Afghan's/Pashtun's simply based on their attitude and the way they treated Afghan's. It's a different ball game for all of them not what with SOF raids and predator strikes taking down their leadership left and right, not to mention the troops on the ground giving em hell. It's not necessarily the taliban in general as a group but their ideology and ways that have appeal to others. Not saying every muslim is gonna embrace the taliban way of living, but it has appeal to a certain spectrum of muslims.


----------

