Interesting, isn't it, how the UN rates so highly with those poeple, when it was demonstrably the UN who mucked it up in the first place.

That point aside, it's encouraging to note that the US is not viewed a the 'great satan' that the American press likes to suggest.

"The troops have started training with American soldiers in intensive 15-day boot camps."

This should have been done over a year ago. This was one of the key screwups that led us to where we are. Iraqis should have been trained as a real army, not a militia. A major mistake was having them patrol their home towns instead of taking them far away, mixing all ethnicities, and having them train and serve under American officers and NCOs . That is starting to happen now, why it didnt happen immediately is one of those unanswered questions such as why i can open an industrial magazine here at home and find 400 MW diesel generators on sale but the average Baghdad citizen still gets less than half a day of electricity, 80 billion dollars notwithstandig.

"Meno, the platoon leader who directed the recent joint patrol, noted that only one of the 24 Iraqi soldiers on the patrol had a flak jacket."

And most of the IP have heretofore been armed with pistols against AKs and RPGs. Small wonder their police stations keep getting overrun. Unforgiveable.

That being said, it seems the ING is making incrediable strides of late. Its inexplicable how easilly forseeable things have been bungled so badly for the past year plus, but finally the cream seems to be rising to the top. Chris Dickey may be a snark, but he surely had this much right:

"But Proconsul L. Paul Bremer, based in the American city-within-the-city known as the Green Zone, lived in a world of self-serving denial every bit as delusional as that of his betters in Washington. His constant blather about free markets and democracy, mouthed in Iraq but meant to be heard inside the Beltway, was matched by a persistent failure to stabilize and revitalize Baghdad itself."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5431857/site/newsweek

'Interesting, isn't it, how the UN rates so highly with those poeple, when it was demonstrably the UN who mucked it up in the first place.'

What on Earth does the UN have to do with 'mucking' Afghanistan up ? Their role has generally been limited to relief efforts, helping Afghanistan set up elections and the like.

erq;

It's called 'inaction'.

By that logic, it's the Chinese who screwed it up.

Be more specific, bithead.

What specifically could or should the UN have done in Afghanistan ? You claim

'it was demonstrably the UN who mucked it up in the first place'

What exactly is the 'first place' here and how did the UN muck it up ? What is the nature of the demonstration in "demonstrably" ?

Given that we (US) have essentially far more control in Afghanistan (and far more responsibility), why haven't we done what the UN should have done instead ? Who bears responsibility for that ? US ? UN ? Neither ? Both ? Pakistan ? The former Soviet Union ?

Also,

'That point aside, it's encouraging to note that the US is not viewed a the 'great satan' that the American press likes to suggest.'

I wasn't aware that the US press had generally claimed that we were viewed as the great satan in Afghanistan. The press hasn't actually covered it much (the so-called forgotten war), but most press that I've seen has indicated that we've worked well with local Afghan groups when engaged. I also saw 2 pretty positive documentaries about our troops there on BBC and CNN. The only real problem is in the Taliban provinces and border areas, but no one ever expected those to be friendly either.

One concern is that the US has left too much to the militias (as karzai pointed out this week), but that may be precisely the reason that Afghanistanis do not have a negative view of the US -- because we've not been indulging in open fighting outside of the Taliban friendly areas.

Now, iraq is a different story.

'By that logic, it's the Chinese who screwed it up.'

Nah, its Iceland and Chile.

Seriously, I think the crucial part of the screw up was in 1989, after the Soviet Union withdrew. We decided at that point that we had no interest in Afghanistan any more and withdrew (With the benefit of hindsight, it was the wrong move, but I don't know if I would have done anything differently at that time). There was a power vaccum in Afghanistan. Pakistan sought to use it to neutralize Iranian and Indian influence in Afghanistan. The militant Islamic groups hitherto encouraged by the US and Pakistan to fight Russia didn't all vanish -- some returned to their home countries to spread radicalism, others were reshaped by Pakistan into groups to control Afghanistan and create havoc in Kashmir.

In terms of commission then, the real blame goes to Pakistan and in terms of omission to the US. After the war, I think the US and the UN have both done moderately credible work in Afghanistan.

"We decided at that point that we had no interest in Afghanistan any more and withdrew "

We didnt 'withdraw' because we didnt have anything there outside of a few CIA assets. The only thing we were providing was weapons and training, the continuation of which wouldnt have improved the situation certainly.

Here's the problem, Afghanis have been fighting each other since before Alexander, the only time they stop is when they get a chance to fight an outsider. What were our choices? We could have backed the side that opposed what became the Taliban, but they were generally the side that supported the Communists. Even assuming we did, history would strongly suggest they would be just as nasty as the Taliban (or close to it), and needless to say our always fair 'progressives' would have taken our aid of that side with the same dim view as they took our aid of Saddam, the Contras, and the original Afghani resistance. There is no room for the 'my enemies enemy' in their little clean-handed world.
We could have supported the Taliban, but surely no-one would be applauding that at this juncture.
We could have supplied humanitarian aid, which in fact is what we did. Needless to say much of this was snatched away by the thugocrats as invariably happens, always to the surprise of the UN.
Ultimately, there were simply no good solutions. The way things turned out might just be the only one that has any longterm prospects of success. I cant think of any other scenario where internation troops would be tolerated in the least on Afghani soil. They have a chance now, and that is no small thing.

Where to start?

What specifically could or should the UN have done in Afghanistan ?

Wouldn't you agree that the situation of leadership vaccum there, was years in the building? Say, 89 and 90... and the reslt was a brutal situation, all through the Clinton years. I

What would the UN nomrally ahve done, if by some weird twist, the Taliban were alligned with the US? You know full well the UN would come donw on the Taliban like a truckload. As it was, the decided to sit back and do nothing.

I say again, inaction during that period was the proximate casue of the final action being as severe as it was. Anc certainly the 10 years or so before our action there would have been far less brutal, as well.

As to China, etc... unlike the UN, they're not charged with dealing with situations of that like.

One can only wonder how many of the women -- in any of the provinces -- the pollsters may or may not have reached. You probably caught the story last week of the bomb attack by Taliban on a bus carrying women election workers. As Robert Spencer writes at Dhimmi Watch today:

As the United Nations tries to organise the registration of up to nine million voters, the number of women coming forward is limited. So far, of the 4.5 million registered, only 36 per cent are female. That figure has increased from 15 per cent from a few months ago but women are still made nervous by the extreme attitudes of men.

Those darned men and their attitudes. Why don't they get a life?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002515.php

'What would the UN nomrally ahve done, if by some weird twist, the Taliban were alligned with the US? You know full well the UN would come donw on the Taliban like a truckload. As it was, the decided to sit back and do nothing.'

This has to be one of the most bizarre messages I've read. I can't even really parse it, because it seems to imply
-- That if the Taliban had been pro-US, the UN would come down on it
Reality: There are and always have been plenty of pro-US occasionally unsavory regimes (including neighboring Pakistan) and the UN does not normally come down on them. In fact, given the US veto, thats bloody impossible.
-- That the UN was somehow being very friendly to the Taliban.

Reality: In fact, the UN imposed sanctions on the Taliban twice over the drug trade and its support for terrorists. It also condemned its human rights record.
-- That the UN has some capacity to come down like a ton of bricks.
Reality: The UN of course has no real capacity to come down like a "ton of bricks" on someone unless the security council members want really badly to do so and no one opposes it. I'd also be fascinated to hear futher comments about how the UN has come down on someone like a ton of bricks without approval from the Sec. Council.

'As to China, etc... unlike the UN, they're not charged with dealing with situations of that like.'

China actually shares a border with Afghanistan. And of course, they have a great deal of influence with Pakistan and could have reigned it in. Probably they figured that Pakistan was helping to neutralize India, and so took no action.

'I say again, inaction during that period was the proximate casue of the final action being as severe as it was.'

And who is responsible for that inaction ? The UN does not take action (and does not take real action) unless its member states, and that includes powerful member states, especially the most powerful member state takes a strong position. Sometimes not even then (see Iraq). But in this case, the UN basically went along with most of the US goals (sanctions etc.). How the UN can be held to be more responsible for inaction than the US defies my comprehension.

And you still haven't explained where and how the press is saying that we're the great Satan in Afganistan.

Did you just misread Iraq and Afghanistan in the original message by Dan ?

Oh, come on, erq... You know as well as I the perception of the people with the biggest objection to the US's action in Iraq won't support America under ANY condition.

Yes, I agree, that kind of non-thought is rather bizarre, but such is what passes for ideas among the world's leftists.

China actually shares a border with Afghanistan all the more reason for their overt silence... while working in the background... funding for example.

Reality: In fact, the UN imposed sanctions on the Taliban twice over the drug trade and its support for terrorists. It also condemned its human rights record.

Reality; they did NOTHING concrete. Sitting around nad passing resolutions is not concrete unless such are backed by actions. Which, BTW was why Bush was finally forced to react in Iraq.

And who is responsible for that inaction ?

The UN members.

The UN does not take action (and does not take real action) unless its member states, and that includes powerful member states, especially the most powerful member state takes a strong position.

But such leaders cannot take action alone... if, that is, it's to BE a UN action. It nearly wasn't a UN action.

Bithead, why don't you simply admit that you confused Iraq with Afghanistan in Dan's original message ? If so, then your arguments make sense. Otherwise, they're just getting curiouser and curiouser. And where are all the press reports that said the US was viewed as the great Satan in Afghanistan ?

'You know as well as I the perception of the people with the biggest objection to the US's action in Iraq won't support America under ANY condition.'

I must have missed this, because in this time period (1989 - late 90s), the US managed to get a UN approved invasion of Iraq under way. I must also have been dreaming when the UN organized a mission to Somalia with US assitance. Yes, it was botched, but it was attempted.

During thus time, Kofi Annan also tried to organize some UN efforts in Rwanda. It failed, and the UN deserves blame for that, but an equal amount of blame should fall on the US, which was reluctant to take action after Somalia (quite rightly, I say).

'Yes, I agree, that kind of non-thought is rather bizarre, but such is what passes for ideas among the world's leftists.'

They must all have been out on vacation when the previous events I described took place.

'[China] all the more reason for their overt silence... while working in the background... funding for example.'

I can't even parse what you're saying here. You said initially that the "UN screwed Afghanistan up". When asked how, you said it was because of inaction. When asked why China was not responsible, despute saying that inaction would be an issue, you say it was because what 'they were working in tbe background' ? Doing what ? Stabilizing the country ? What is the evidence of this ?

' In fact, the UN imposed sanctions on the Taliban twice over the drug trade and its support for terrorists. It also condemned its human rights record.

'Reality; they did NOTHING concrete. Sitting around nad passing resolutions is not concrete unless such are backed by actions. '

So what did the US do ? The US did not ask the UN to do anything about Afghanistan except pass these sanctions ? Now if you want to claim that the US had a major agenda to deal with Afghanistan in that period, and the UN was obstructing this out of sheer bloody-mindedness, then you can substantiate your claim that the UN screwed Afghanistan up. But nothing of the sort happened. The only requests that the US made to the UN wrt Afghanistan were fully accepted. And incidentally, passing sanctions is an action.

'And who is responsible for that inaction ?

The UN members.'

Very good, now lets work that backwards. Which UN members have the real authority in such matters ? The Security Council. Which Security Council members have the most authority ? Permamnent Security COuncil Members. Which permament security council member has the most power by far (miltarily, diplomatically, financially) and should this obtain the largest share of the blame for the inaction, if blame were due ?

'But such leaders cannot take action alone... if, that is, it's to BE a UN action. It nearly wasn't a UN action.

WHAT wasn't a UN action ? In any case, the point is that the US did not really make any requests to the UN to unscrew Afgahnistan up. And incidentally, the US has always had a great deal of diplomatic leverage in Pakistan, which it could have used to reduce its support to the Taliban at key times during its growth.

It is weird and hypocticial to blame the UN (a largely toothless body) for screwing Afghanistan up through inaction, whereas absolving the US of any blame in this regard. Now me, I don't blame either -- there was no reason for the US to spend diplomatic or financical capital in Afghanistan after the Soviets left, and hence no blame ascribes to the US. Similarly, the UN had no real incentive to get involved beyond its minor role because no country really pushed for it -- the neighboring countries such as Pakistan thought a compliant Afghanistan would make a useful ally.