Display:
Well, my incomprehension extends to what that effort is meant to be achieving in the long run.  Surely if/when the troops leave the whole thing is going to burn down again?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 12:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Surely?!

Nothing is sure.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a question.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, as was clearly indicated by the question mark at the end.  ;-)  

But with the word "surely" involved, the answer has to be no.  Without that word, it's a lot harder to answer.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you envisage disaster being avoided.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have absolutely no idea.

After the Soviets withdrew, Najibullah's regime held out longer than anybody expected, and the civil war that erupted afterward was also worse than anyone had feared.  Some of the factors that contributed to that, and to the subsequent rise of the Taliban, would not be repeated if the international troops were to leave today.  But there are a whole host of new and different factors that would affect the outcome, some for the better and others for the worse.

In short, I have absolutely no idea.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is "the taliban impose their rule over all of the country after two months of fighting" included into "the whole thing burning down" ?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That was sort of my thinking.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"over all of the country" = no.

"over some of the country" = they already have.

"over more of the country than they already have" = probably yes, though it's not clear how much more.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why "no" to all the country?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are parts of the country where the Taliban have no support base, and where the dominant ethnic groups have no love lost for the Pashtun.  I won't say they couldn't or wouldn't eventually get control of the whole country again, but it wouldn't be that fast.

Lots of factors to consider, but I think there are areas of the country where they'd run into serious resistance.

I need to log off now.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 at 01:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series