Why does Iraq need an interim American governor and not Afghanistan?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well?

(Bonus points if you can formulate an answer without using the O word)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 24 April 2003 11:50 (twenty-two years ago)

The proposition in afghanistan is much harder and in far greater risk of failure. There is quite literally nothing there apart from people growing poppies. Because the scope for failure is that much higher, much better to let the UN or other nations fail.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 April 2003 12:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Also in Iraq there are civic and governmental structures which can be ressurected. In afghanistan there is nothing.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 April 2003 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

What Ed said, and also, because we never put in any of our ground troops in significant quantities and relied on local warlords, who are not likely to give up power to the Americans.

And because the big O does has a part in it: Caspian reserves turned out to be less than estimated and low-quality, causing energy companies to ditch plans to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

― fletrejet, Thursday, 24 April 2003 12:31 (twenty-two years ago)

and Afghanistan is kind of remote... people are less inclined to notice the fact that most of the country is still ruled by warlords.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Howver smore and more of them are going to say it was better under the Taliban.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

And Taliban allies still control a significant number of regions. And the process by which the country was supposed to develop a new constitution, a head of state, and a legislature has bogged down.

― j.lu (j.lu), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:02 (twenty-two years ago)

short answer: the taliban weren't in power nearly as long as the baath party, and their opposition was much larger and better organized (ie the same answer as if you asked 'why did Iraq need American ground troops and not Afghanistan?')(and it might be noted that the one facet of the Iraq war that resembled the Afghanistan war was the northen front where you had a large, organized resistance, Kurds=Northern Alliance basically)

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)

But afghanistan is arguably in even more need of some kind of govenor. Its had no central government, other than the Taliban for about 15 years, even longer if you go bck to the russian invasion. There just isn't the administrative culture there thata there is in iraq, which garner is busy resurrecting, teelling the civil service to come back to work on american pay.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not arguing Afghanistan isn't a more difficult task than Iraq (in some strange way this is why it's gotten less effort than Iraq), just noting the rationale behind it.

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry, I should have put the but in there. Becuse we are more or less in concurrence.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

The control (NOT access) of oil.

― Tim Stewart, Friday, 25 April 2003 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Hint: the hijackers were Arab, not Pashtun.

― Stuart (Stuart), Friday, 25 April 2003 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Stuart you are so ridiculously fucking ignorant it is beyond funny or sad and is now just sort of numby-tingly.

― chester (synkro), Friday, 25 April 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Taliban killed two american soldiers today. Wonder what the occupation of Iraq will look like a year from now.

― fletrejet, Friday, 25 April 2003 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

My hint is a correlation, not the cause itself. That's why it's merely a hint.

― Stuart (Stuart), Friday, 25 April 2003 20:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, I know that explanation as well. If you're actually interested in arguing for it, go ahead. "Hinting" at an line of thought that everyone is already aware of, and which I don't think many people around here are convinced by, seems a bit pointless and more than a little condescending.

btw, answering a question that begins with "Why..." usually means answering to causes, so you should hardly be surprised if your vague hint was misread.

― chester (synkro), Friday, 25 April 2003 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Ridiculously fucking ignorant people can't be expected to give straight answers. Sorry, pookie.

― Stuart (Stuart), Friday, 25 April 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

It's ok. The tingly was kinda nice on such a grey and rain-pelted morning.

― chester (synkro), Friday, 25 April 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.