Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NickSE who wrote (5751)	8/23/2003 12:19:38 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793636

the new American plan would boost assistance in Afghanistan by $1 billion a year Those of us that have been crying for such an aid increase for more than a year have been ridiculed by the "up by their bootstraps" contingent. Of course, by now, $1 billion is too little too late for Afghanistan. The Taliban are resurgent, the government controls Kabul only and even that control is getting shaky. Our troops essentially control only their bases and a few surrounding miles. The main economic activity is heroin production, which has reached new highs -- twenty times what it was under the Taliban. My theory is that the need for aid in a nation-building endeavor increases geometrically, the longer we wait after the regime-change combat ends. The need in Iraq is by now in the $10s of billions -- up from maybe $5 billion when "major combat" ended in April. By the time the administration wakes up, we will not be able to afford Iraq, and Carl Rove will be desperately scrambling for a spin to save the reelection.

To: NickSE who wrote (5751)	8/23/2003 12:24:11 PM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 793636

"failure of the international community to provided urgently needed assistance." It is also understood that even with nato taking over they will not go outside Kabul.. so the rest of the country is for the taking back by taliban and region murders... Bush needs to get more money from congress and the international community has to come up with support other than Kabul.. after all they win if this doesn't go back to being a terrorist state.

To: NickSE who wrote (5751)	8/24/2003 1:41:51 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793636

Fairbanks expects to see a greater effort by the U.S. to challenge renegade forces in Afghanistan. But the professor says that Washington is unlikely to try to confront major "entrenched" warlords, such as Ismail Khan or Abdul Rashid Dostum. What's the incentive to do so? Until the central government is strong enough, attempting to unseat the mujahadeen warlords is more likely to add fuel to the fire. Afghanistan is a live test of political philosophy. The warlords maintain their armies as a means of influence and protecting their interests against other warlords in the absence of an alternative mediator. Their armies stay with the warlords because they provide protection and patronage, and there is little else to do for employment. In the absence of a disinterested central authority with sufficiently powerful force to coerce any of the factions, Afghanistan is in a State of Nature. Until the central authority is powerful enough to assert a monopoly on the use of force, and convince all the parties that it can protect their interests and act as an objective mediator to disputes, that's the way it will remain. It's like we're observing the evolution of the State in fast-forward... Derek