If the U.S. is on the verge of losing in Afghanistan, should it try partitioning it?

If the U.S. is on the verge of losing in Afghanistan, should it try partitioning it?


  • Total voters
    29

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,958
The reports below are 1.5 years or more old.... So by now its more than $5 trillion which have been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq... That's about a quarter of the US national debt (or if one prefers its 2 full years of GDP of countries such as France or the UK), meaning the US is not only "losing" in Afghanistan its also losing at home.

Question: with over 100% of GDP as debt, how long can the US afford these wars ? Normally by now , a "cut loss" strategy should have kicked in

Report: Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan cost almost $5 trillion so far

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/09/12/report-wars-in-iraq-afghanistan-cost-almost-5-trillion-so-far/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary/iraq-war-costs-u-s-more-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,958
I can understand you may have frustrations with US foreign policy. As do I.

But surely a partition of the US would be a disaster. Minus her foreign policy, the US is a great nation. Free, liberal, tolerant, rich, smart, innovative, arguably the greatest force of humanity.
The world would prefer to see a US more like.... say Canada (though the canadians are not without fault when it comes to intervention) or ideally Switzerland... or at least current Japan
 
Last edited:

Shaheen

Ad Honorem
May 2011
2,566
Sweden
That's an interesting point about tribal rivalries. Indeed, Muslim countries tend to be rather tribal, no?
Well I wouldnt generalize Muslim countries into one group. This is a quarter of humanity we are talking about. Tribal affiliations are weak or non-existant in many Muslim majority countries such as Turkey, Iran or Uzbekistan. In many Muslim countries however such as Afghanistan tribal affiliations play a hugely important role even to the extent that Jirgas especially the loya ones are more important than what goes on in the national assembly in Kabul.


The Tajik state would be created in the northeast of Afghanistan. After all, that is where there is a solid chuck of Tajik-majority areas.

Other Tajiks can stay where they are or move there.
What about the Aimaq and Farsiwan then. In a hypothetical scenario they could be integrated into Iran but large communities of Pashtuns live in the north west as well. This would be a Balochi style sunni insurgency v2.0 establishing in Iran.

A separate Hazara state could be created--perhaps with either a corridor to Central Asia or guaranteed passage to Central Asia through the mini-Uzbek state.
So it would be landlocked times 2. Hardly ideal for a new country to establish itself in especially when surrounded by groups and entities who arent pro-Hazara either.

Perhaps. Then again, though, Austria-Hungary managed to break up rather well.
It didnt really. Many of the territorial flashpoints eventually became part of World War II (Vienna Awards to Hungary, Hungary occupying Yugoslav territories, Croat fascist groups killing Serbs etc). Its just that these events became footnotes in the wider conflicts and genocides that were committed during WWII.

That might very well be correct. Still, it's worth thinking about out-of-the-box ideas in regards to this.
Perhaps but out of the box thinking really is not prevalent in that part of the world. For example Afghanistan claims around half of Pakistan's territory and irridentism is one of the biggest reasons why the country is an utter shambles today. Many AfPak "experts" these days keep harping on about Pakistani aggression towards Afghanistan without understanding that for decades Afghan governments incited civilian strife and military raids into Pakistan in the hopes of turning the Pakistani Pashtun populace against Pakistan. The strategy failed on a grand level and when Pakistan responded in kind Afghanistan could not handle it, but the strategy is an example of the mindset and the kind of things that would happen if Afghanistan were divided into smaller countries. The number of conflicts over ethnicity would mulitply with each ethnic group claiming territories far beyond its borders. Just to give an example of how intense hatred can be, when a Tajik politician suggested that Afghanistan should settle its problems with Pakistan and recognize the border (which mind you every other country in the world recognizes as the international border including the US) politicians from the Pashtun ethnic group threatened to stone him live on national TV https://www.voanews.com/a/afghan-lawmakers-call-stoning-fellow-parliamentarian/3794262.html
 
Last edited:
Oct 2016
692
On a magic carpet
The reports below are 1.5 years or more old.... So by now its more than $5 trillion which have been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq... That's about a quarter of the US national debt (or if one prefers its 2 full years of GDP of countries such as France or the UK), meaning the US is not only "losing" in Afghanistan its also losing at home.

Question: with over 100% of GDP as debt, how long can the US afford these wars ? Normally by now , a "cut loss" strategy should have kicked in

Report: Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan cost almost $5 trillion so far

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/09/12/report-wars-in-iraq-afghanistan-cost-almost-5-trillion-so-far/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary/iraq-war-costs-u-s-more-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Just think what the USA could have achieved if they had donated $5 trillion to hospitals and schools. Or clean drinking water. Or curing disease. Or cancer research. Or improving literacy. Or any number of good causes.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
The reports below are 1.5 years or more old.... So by now its more than $5 trillion which have been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq... That's about a quarter of the US national debt (or if one prefers its 2 full years of GDP of countries such as France or the UK), meaning the US is not only "losing" in Afghanistan its also losing at home.

Question: with over 100% of GDP as debt, how long can the US afford these wars ? Normally by now , a "cut loss" strategy should have kicked in

Report: Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan cost almost $5 trillion so far

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/09/12/report-wars-in-iraq-afghanistan-cost-almost-5-trillion-so-far/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary/iraq-war-costs-u-s-more-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
Invasion of Afghanistan happened just so that this $5 trillion or so can be 'spent'. Not the other way round.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
I hv been hearing rumour of California wanting to secede from US not a few times. Perhaps there are reasonable grounds for that kind of desire. Maybe Americans cud start considering a plebiscite for Californians.
The campaign that were pushing for the plebiscite had fallen flat due to allegations of .....ahh... Russian connections. :)

Others have rejuvenated the campaign, last time I checked.