BS: Afghan War mistake or wise

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM

The fact that the United Nations authorised the Afghanistan war may have made it legal, unlike what happened in Iraq, but it didn't make it
the right thing to do, and it didn't stop it being a public relations response to 9/11 required by American domestic politics, with other countries falling in line.

Sooner or later the armies from abroad will pull out, and the people running Afghanistan will include the people who are currently fighting on the other side. The only real difference between sooner or later is in the number of deaths from explosive devices and drones. That is, apart from the benefit to the Al Qaeda franchise worldwide which a continuing war represents.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:21 PM

T~

More bogus assumptions based solely on census data... Sorry, pal, but if we're gonna invade countries on censes data then I'd strongly recommend every country in the world to get a nuke and get it quick because T & Co. gonna blow the crud outta you if they don't like yer demographic makeup...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:28 PM

I simply picked a German officer whose name is well known and therefore recognizable to demonstrate a principle, Teribus, not to make any comment on Guderian's character. (I've never been under the impression that he had a bad character...) The principle is this: military officers and people from families with a military tradition generally tend to strongly support the official line that their country takes in regards to its waging a campaign on foreign ground. That's partly because it's their job to do that (if they are presently in uniform). It's partly because they tend to assume their side is right and the other side is wrong.   

I did not pick out Heinz Guderian to say anything about Heinz Guderian in a personal sense. I was saying something about the way the traditional military mind often works, period.

Why would I see Heinz Guderian as a stereotype? I've always admired the man for his intelligence and his military expertise and the way he had the guts to stand up to Hitler on certain occasions, though I don't admire the political cause he fought for. If he was morally or otherwise opposed to launching some of those invasions (as you seem to suggest), then I admire him all the more for it. If it makes you happy, replace him in my original statement with some other German officer who better fits the fictional "stereotype" you imagine I see Germans as embodying.....maybe Reinhard Heydrich? Or Heinrich Himmler? I'm sure there is someone who would fit it to your satisfaction.

The point is...loyalists support empires. They support their empire when it's right, they support their empire when it's wrong. You are supporting the Anglo-American Empire and it is very wrong in what it's doing in Afghanistan and the Middle East. You believe the Empire's propaganda. Well, so have millions of others believed imperial propaganda down through the ages, so you are not alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Alice
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:46 PM

On MSNBC.com today, an interview with Greg Mortenson, author of "Three Cups of Tea", builder of schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

'Three Cups of Tea' advice for Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Alice
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:46 PM

btw, that link is to an article, not a video.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 12:49 AM

The principle is this: military officers and people from families with a military tradition generally tend to strongly support the official line that their country takes in regards to its waging a campaign on foreign ground. That's partly because it's their job to do that (if they are presently in uniform). It's partly because they tend to assume their side is right and the other side is wrong.

Look up the meanings of the words "Principle" and "Stereotype" and tell me honestly which fits the above better. What you describe up above is a "Stereotype":

"a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group"

"tend to strongly support the official line that their country takes in regards to its waging a campaign on foreign ground. That's partly because it's their job to do that"

No their job and primary purpose is to defend their country from attack. While under that obligation they are perfectly free to individually make up their own minds and form their own opinions regarding "the official line" taken by their Government, they are perfectly free to individually make up their own minds and form their own opinions regarding whether or not they think the Government of their country is right or wrong on any given issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:23 AM

Yes, of course they are free to make up their own minds. Everyone is free to do that. I'm just saying that empire loyalists are more likely to be found among some professions than among others. For instance, more military officers are usually gungho about a war their country is engaged in than the poets or singers are, wouldn't you say? You'll find some in either camp who will go either way, but I'm suggesting that the average response would not be the same, and anyone knows that is so.

When I speak of empire loyalists, you know perfectly well what I am talking about. Some people will rush to support any war their country is involved in...every time...no matter what the issues are. Others will not be so quick to do so. Some Germans didn't question what Hitler did, they just supported him without thinking. Others did question it. It's like that in any nation.

Now...you said that "their job and primary purpose is to defend their country from attack".

Yes. That is supposedly what their job is and should be...only it doesn't work out that way about half the time in real life. There is generally a pretty clear aggressor in a war and someone who receives the effects of that aggression. The soldiers who are fighting for the one who's been attacked are indeed doing as you say, legitimately defending their country from attack.

But.....it is invariably the case that the soldiers in the aggressor force also believe to their core that THEY are defending their country from attack (either an attack that has already happened...or one that they think is going to happen). They ALL imagine they are defending their country.

The error that supporters of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan have made is that error. They have imagined...and they were TOLD...that Iraq and Afghanistan were a real threat to their country and either had attacked or were planning to attack their country.

And that was a lie. Afghanistan never attacked the USA and never planned to. Iraq never attacked the USA, never had the capability to, and never planned to. Someone attacked the USA on 911, all right, but it was not the governments or armed forces or agents of either Iraq or Afghanistan. It was someone else entirely, and it was not an act of war, it was a crime. It should have been responded to AS a crime, not as an act of war...by international police work....but not with armies, navies, and air forces, because it was not a military attack. It was an attack by a hidden group of conspirators, not by a nation.

So the soldiers who are honestly believing that they are defending the security of the USA or the UK by fighing in Iraq or Afghanistan have been lied to by their own governments and are being used as instruments of aggression on those nations...and they are greatly damaging the security situation in much of the world by so doing.

I don't blame the soldiers for this. They've been lied to and used. It's the politicians who sent them there...Blair, Cheney, and Bush, whom I blame. And Obama now...because he is simply continuing the folly.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: kendall
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:02 AM

Terribus, what is the source of all those "Myths" you listed?

Here is a fact which no one can deny:
No foreign invader has ever defeated Afghanistan. Alexander the great, arguably the greatest general of all time conquored the known world and was stopped dead in Afghanistan. Great Britain, the most powerful force in its time was humiliated and forced out. The Russians killed over a million of them and they were forced to leave. Now, here comes America, Mr Clean, Goody Two shoes thinking we can do what no one else ever could. This is the arrogance that gets us hated all over the world.
Spin that, sir!

Afghanistan will be Obama's Viet Nam.The republicans know it and they are wringing their hands with glee. Damn, I gave him credit for more brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: ToeRag
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:19 AM

Nonsense;you don't suppose the authorities are in
any way interested in the contents of your comments,or will
give themselves any extra trouble about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lox
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:49 AM

The war in Afghanistan is obviously a horrific mess.

I'm glad I don't live there and I that i won't be serving there.

The credibility of the whole affair is badly undermined by admissions of electoral fraud.

But the way that the Taleban "ran" Afghanistan before the war was equally horrific.

At least in the case of the war there is a glimmer of hope for the future.


As for Obama, he could be great - his problem isn't his policies, it is his lack of backbone.

He is succeeding to some extent, and he is right not to fall for the lure of the power of the bully tactics employed by Bush and the otheer puppets of the cheney dynasty, however it would reassure me to see him be a bit more assertive.

Its a tough balance to achieve on rough political seas.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:58 AM

At least in the case of the war there is a glimmer of hope for the future.

The Russians would have said the same thing about their war. The outcome was the Taliban regime.

There is no reason to think that the present war has done anything to improve the prospects for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lox
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 08:13 AM

"There is no reason to think that the present war has done anything to improve the prospects for the future."

If I was investigating this, the first witness I would call would be any Afghani woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 08:29 AM

And the Russians would have said precisely the same, about how women in Afghanistan under regimes backed by them had far more freedom than in previous times. But as it turned out "the prospects for the future" turned out to be the Taliban.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 08:58 AM

Western forces initially saw the Taliban as a better option than the Russians and Iranians. By supporting the Taliban they hoped to keep Russian influence out of Afghanistan, to ensure that the west kept access to the huge oil and gas riches of central Asia.

The Taliban massacres of Hazaras were embarrassing to western countries - this alternative to the Russians were even more brutal.

The Allied invasion had one good outcome - for the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who were being subject to genocide prior to the UN invasion. The Taliban particularly targeted the Hazara people,kidnapping their teenage boys and putting them in the front line of their operations, brutally slaughtering Hazara villagers and leaving their bodies to rot in mass graves across the country.

The United States is the largest contributor to a United Nations relief effort in Pakistan, but US money in Pakistan does not always go where it's meant to. While the Taliban continue to be backed by Pakistans' Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the US, through Aid programs to Pakistan, is effectively funding the same people it's fighting in Afghanistan, the Taliban.

A better way would be to put the money into education, hospitals and schools in Afghanistan, to shift the local loyalty away from the Taliban and build up something stable for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 11:37 AM

And what was wrong with pre-1979 Afghanistan MGOH? Why exactly did the Soviets have to interfere?

"Western forces initially saw the Taliban as a better option than the Russians and Iranians. By supporting the Taliban they hoped to keep Russian influence out of Afghanistan, to ensure that the west kept access to the huge oil and gas riches of central Asia."

WHY? WHY? WHY? do people keep coming out with this sort of rubbish.

The West, The Northern Alliance, The Warlords, The Drug Barons, The-World-and-its-dog none of them had any inkling at all about the Taliban until after Mullah Mohammed Omar formed them as a result of what local ex-Mujahideen fighters did to a family travelling to Kandahar in 1994.

Let everybody get it into their thick heads once and for all the Taliban NEVER, EVER, fought the Soviets, they never met the Soviets, the Soviets had been gone from Afghanistan for FIVE YEARS before the Taliban were ever even thought of.

Western forces MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT see the Taliban as being a better option than the Russians or the Iranians. In 1994 nobody in the West had even heard about the Taliban, nobody in the West was even interested in Afghanistan. After 1989 the Russians could not give two figs about Afghanistan so where does keeping Russian influence out of Afghanistan enter the equation, Russia in the 90's was as poor as a church mouse. The iranians have never been interested in the place, ever.

As for doing this to ensure - "that the west kept access to the huge oil and gas riches of central Asia."

My giddy Aunt, not this old chestnut about it, or whatever, all being done so that the USA can steal somebody's oil, etc, etc, etc. You mean like they were supposed to have done in Iraq but didn't.

One small point they didn't have access to it before so how did this ensure that they kept it? I take it that you recognise the logic of not being able to keep something you never had?

Kendall Afghanistan as a country has only existed for 260 years Alexander the Great ramped right through it on his way to India. Study the history of the region and you will find that the country known today as Afghanistan has been successfully invaded and conquered many times.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM

So, ahhhhhh, other than the demographics, exactly why are we in tyhis war again, T???

And if you can't state your reason in one paragraph then forget it... One should be able to state the reason simply without a bunch of academic BS...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

"A better way would be to put the money into education, hospitals and schools in Afghanistan, to shift the local loyalty away from the Taliban and build up something stable for the future."

Absolutely! That I would be entirely in favor of. Anyone read Greg Mortensen's book "Three Cups of Tea". It's about doing precisely that, and he has great great effect in providing an alternative to people like the Taliban...an alternative that has proven enormously popular with the tribal people in that region.

Military force will not solve anything in Afghanistan, it will just arouse further resistance to the occupation. Educational and economic assistance help, on the other hand, can do wonders for that region and the people themselves will turn the situation around and improve their society if offered that sort of help. Fanatics like that Taliban draw their strength from people's poverty and ignorance. Give people a clear way out of poverty and ignorance, and they will not give their support to the Taliban.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: ToeRag
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM

That would be a matter of the first importance, in
a work involving so many nice calculations.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:48 PM

I agree in principal with Little Hawk's comments above. Much more effort needs to be put into educating the Afghanis and helping with projects that provide clean water, medical care, agricultural assistance. I do however also believe that a measure of security is required to accomplish such goals. There are those who view such positive intervention as contamination by western civilization. When you have willful sabotage and assassination being employed to subvert attempts to accomplish these improvements in the people's lives, measures must be taken to eliminate those saboteurs and prevent their actions. Despite what many of us have stated, there has been success with this strategy in Iraq. I back Obama's, and General McChristal's, plan for Afghanistan wholeheartedly.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM

PS There's your one paragraph summation, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 02:19 PM

A measure of security is certainly required, LEJ. I'll agree with that. I think it would be better if such security was provided by local troops, rather than foreign troops. The USA ostensibly went into Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy Al Queda camps and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda commanders.

How did that morph into "nation-building"? And why?

The USA ostensibly went into Iraq a couple of years later to stop Saddam from building "weapons of mass destruction". Ha. Ha. The weapons were never even there.

How did that morph into "nation-building"? And why?

I don't believe the public was ever told the real truth about why the USA and the UK have gone into either Afghanistan or Iraq. I think they went into both those countries with the intention of occupying them and staying, building permanent military bases, and permanently controlling those regions (by proxy through political puppets like Karzai)...partly because of oil, partly because of wanting to surround and eventually attack Iran, partly because of wanting to establish a sphere of influence on Russia's southern borders and mainly just to control that whole area.

I don't think there was ever any real intention to confront WMDs in Iraq, and I think Al Queda is primarily a red herring that is used to scare people (although I'm not saying Al Queda is totally fictional, I'm just saying they are relatively unimportant in the greater scheme of things because they are a very small outfit with very little real capability).

The USA has no business nation-building anywhere except within American borders. That's where Americans need to apply their skills nation-building, and that's where they have a right to do it. This other stuff isn't nation-building, it's empire building, plain and simple. It's colonialism under another name.

The Americans and Brits are doing in Afghanistan what the Russians once did in Afghanistan, and the Pashtuns are resisting them. Naturally this is of some benefit to the Hazaras, because the more numerous Pashtuns have always been very hard on the Hazaras, but that does not justify what the USA and the UK are doing, because they did not go there to help the Hazaras, they went there to help themselves.

The Hazaras are coincidental beneficiaries of the imperial strategy, just like the Montagnards in Vietnam were coincidental beneficiaries of the American presence there during the Vietnam War. It's a standard tactic of imperial invaders to befriend local minority groups in a colonized nation and to use them as allies against the local majority. The Americans did that in Vietnam, using Catholics and Montagnards as allies against the majority of Vietnamese Buddhists. The Spanish once did that in Mexico, using Tlaxcalans and many other weaker tribes of Mexican Indians against the more powerful Aztecs.

Empires do this because it's a smart temporary strategy for dividing and conquering a native people, but they don't do it to help anyone but themselves, and the local people end up paying the price for it in blood and sorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 02:22 PM

Obviously Russian intervention in Afghanistan was a bad mistake, with some good intentions, which ended up making things worse. Like the present business.

The events that led up to the Russians moving in troops in 79 were pretty complicated, pretty murky, and pretty bloody - and backing by the USA for opponents of the pro-Russian government played a major part. And a major motive of these opponents, along with tribal rivalries, was the fact that the Kabul government was in favour of women having rights.

For America the aim was a Cold War victory and a defeat for the Soviet Union, and the interests of the Afghan people just didn't come into the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 02:46 PM

Well, I hear what you are saying LH, but I have to disagree.

I don't think that the Bush administration's plan for Afghanistan and Iraq was nearly that pragmatic. Read Rise of the Vulcans. What is evident is that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, and even Powell were convinced from before 911 that a democratic republic needed to be established in the Middle East, and that Iraq was the likely objective.
But they were actually idealistic about this concept, and not pragmatic or logical in the least. Yes, there was some notion of offsetting Iran's growing influence. Yes, there was some concept that a large democratic muslim country(Iraq) would stabilize the oil fields. But the basic philosophy was one that came from Jean Kirkpatrick: Democracy as an all-powerful force for good, working its magic through the will of the people and the operation of the free market. Iraq was the main target for this half-baked plan, and Afghanistan was an afterthought based on opportunity and involvement as an Al Qaeda traing ground and headquarters.
You don't need to convince me that the US went into both countries in near ignorance of their cultural and religious dynamic. Neither do you need to tell me that false information lay at the heart of the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Bush and his cohorts used inductive reasoning. The solution to the problem of Iraq was arrived at long before the problem was defined. Evidence was gathered to prop up a preconceived conclusion.
This is not to say, however, that those who inherited the great mess that was the American occupation of Iraq did not eventually achieve stunning results. General Petraeus eventually evolved and implemented a strategy that worked. MacChrystal is on the same track in Afghanistan. Will the result be ongoing American control? I for one think not. Should we succeed fully in realizing the Vulcans' aim of establishing a true democratically elected government in Iraq and Iran, I believe that those governments will reflect the will of their people for sharia-based rule, a concept that is essentially incompatible with at least the Vulcan concept of democracy. For both Iraq and Afghanistan, that reult would mean governments much more closely tied to Iran than to the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:03 PM

That's very interesting what you say, LEJ. There may be something to it allright.

I do think that there were very pragmatic and longterm plans behind all this that considerably predated the Bush administration, I think those plans began to take form by the early 80s, but as far as the personal motivations of Bush, Cheney, and the others you mention, you may be quite right.

What I wonder is...how can these American politicians imagine that they can export "democracy" to places like Iraq or Afghanistan when the present two-party system running the USA is (just in my opinion you understand) anything but a real and healthily functioning representative democracy??? ;-) I guess they must believe in the game they play? It's laughable to me. It's like Mussolini trying to export humility...

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:18 PM

Well, for these people, it is a concept based in Faith. In that regard, they are closer to their Al Qaeda enemies than they could ever admit. They certainly would not share your assessment. To them, the proof that American government was a healthy and functioning entity was evidenced by the election of Bush and Cheney. In fact, this trend in American politics in the nineties toward conservatism was to them a realization of the rightness of their cause and of God's divine blessing. To this end, measures were taken by them with other useful tools like Karl Rove, who devised strategies to personally attack and defame the opposition, and Chuck Delay, who was instrumental in congressional gerrymandering in an attempt to make their continued dominance inevitable.
Thanks to their own all-encompassing incompetence, corruption, and hubris, they were overthrown. Therein lies the ultimate strength of this country, in my esteem. We are in fact a functioning democracy, and the American people do harbor both common sense and a deep belief in fairness.
That Barack Obama was elected is my argument with your hypothesis that we are anything but a real and healthily functioning representative democracy . And I hope you aren't cynical and jaded to the extent that you can't see the improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:20 PM

"A measure of security is certainly required, LEJ. I'll agree with that. I think it would be better if such security was provided by local troops, rather than foreign troops."

So you have a country that has known nothing but strife and full scale civil war for 22 years, it has no Government, no administration and has been declared a "failed State" by the United Nations.

With the agreement of the tribal leaders and other representatives of the Afghan people The UN reach agreement to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan at Bonn In Germany in December 2001.

The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan is formed (UNAMA), everybody involved realise that this effort must be protected and that job the United Nations gives to NATO, and the International Security Assistance Force is formed under NATO leadership. Their tasks as detailed in their mission statement and in the mandate given them by the United Nations Security Council also tasks them with the job of training and making ready the new Afghan Security Forces. In that way the job could be handed over to local troops.

The Mission Statement and Mandate of NATO-ISAF does not mention Osama bin Laden; Al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

"The USA ostensibly went into Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy Al Queda camps and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda commanders."

This was a completely separate force US-Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan and it was mandated for precisely that purpose by the United Nations. They have no role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan their job is to make sure that neither Al-Qaeda or the Taliban re-establish themselves as a power in Afghanistan until after such time that the Afghan Government can stand on their own feet.

"How did that morph into "nation-building"? And why?"

The US-OEF-A mission has not morphed into "nation building" or anything else you still have two distinct military missions operating inside Afghanistan.

US-Operation Enduring Freedom Forces operate as part of US CenCom under the command of US General David Petraeus, their job is best described as Counter-Terrorist.

ISAF operate as a NATO formation under the command of US General Stanley McChrystal, their job is best described as Counter-Insurgency.

UNAMA is the United Nations organisation tasked with "nation building".

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM

Yes, I know full well that the American people do harbor both common sense and a deep belief in fairness...so the potential is always there for a healthy and functioning democracy. My argument is with the Democratic and Republican Party machines and the lobbyists who control Congress...NOT with the American people who are being very badly served by those parties and by Congress.

I agree that Obama is a huge improvement over Bush...but I am not well impressed by his support of the bank bailout, his war policy, and various other policy decisions he has been making. I like his personal style, but I am less impressed by the content of what he seems to be doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:38 PM

First of all, I am sure that had the US been so interested in the health and welfare of the Afgan people it surely could have taken the billions and billions it has pissed away in Afganistan, put it into a UN fund, gotten other countries involved, talked nice with the Afgan governemnt and I'm sure tyhat the Afgan governemnt would have been more than happy to takes the money, even if it meant some level of verification that the money was being spent for the good of their people... Face it, It's easier to stay in power when you are providing for the needs of yer peopole than when you are not...

(But Boberdz... The Taliban are terible people who kill and torture people...)

So??? So is the US so where's the bigass difference... Not to mention that we have our own Taliban right here in the good ol' USA with their Confederate Flags and their assasinations of doctors and their pulling gay guys behind their pickup trucks thru the streets and down dirt roads...

No, the reason that the US is in both Iraq and Afganistan comes down to geo-politics and oil and pipelines and all that kind of stuff... LH is absolutely correct... Tghis ain't about 9/11, 'er nation buildin', 'er WMDs... Its about imperialism and stealing other folks stuff... The US has a long history of doing just that... Ask any indiginous person and they can tell ya...

As for resolutions and NATO and all that bull??? They are just oganizations which are in place to facilitate imperialism...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: kendall
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 04:43 PM

Alexander the great invaded the Indian sub continent which included Afghanistan.He failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM

Face it... There are just some places where it ain't all that easy to win a war...

Ya'll think that any country in the world would like to try occupying the US even if they could wipe out the US military??? Heck no they wouldn't... Too many folks with too many guns... Same in Afganistan...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 06:00 PM

"I am sure that had the US been so interested in the health and welfare of the Afghan people it surely could have taken the billions and billions it has pissed away in Afghanistan, put it into a UN fund, gotten other countries involved, TALKED NICE WITH THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT and I'm sure that the Afghan governemnt would have been more than happy to take the money, even if it meant some level of verification that the money was being spent for the good of their people... Face it, It's easier to stay in power when you are providing for the needs of yer peopole than when you are not..."

For that to have happened, for that approach to have been taken - First of all Bobert you would have had to have had an Afghan Government to talk nice to. Fact was there wasn't one, there wasn't one until 2004.

Particularly liked this though:

"Face it, It's easier to stay in power when you are providing for the needs of yer people than when you are not"

Tell that to the Taliban they, and the 58% majority of the Afghan people will be able to verify that statement of yours Bobert, between 1996 and 2001 both parties will be able to atest to the fact that during that period the only people the Taliban were looking after was themselves, their house guests, Al-Qaeda managed to piss off some powerful people in a particularly nasty way and they didn't stay in power for long.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 06:51 PM

The only people any Aghan government has ever looked after was themselves... ;-)

Karzai, the American puppet, is serving the same purpose for the USA that Najibullah, the Russian puppet, did for the Soviets. They all look after themselves. So do the Americans and the Russians. Self-interest is THE key motivator behind what they do.

The recent Afghan election was extremely corrupt. It cannot be taken as having been a legitimate election, and everyone knows it, but the charade goes on, because the US media wish their people to believe that the war there is intended to build a "democracy" in that country. There's a droll notion if ever there was one.

I'd have been delighted to see the Taliban driven out if I were an Afghan, but I'd have been equally dismayed to see the Americans in. There has to be a better solution than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:46 PM

Of course there was a governemnt, T... Even in what we call "failed states" there is a governemnt... Okay, maybe not a governemnt of yer likin' or your European thinkin' but there are governements... Sometimes, like in Somalia, it's warlords who control things but make no mistake about it, it is a government... I think this is important for people with European menatl limitations to absorb because Afganistan (and Somolia) are not only the west's pests but also the west's opportunities... What we have is an ethnocentric midset that prohibits us from solving conflicts with folks who, ahhhh, don't view the world as we view it...

This is our failing more than the Taliban or the Somolian tribal warlords... They only know what they know but we have, or should have, the upper hand in that if we can bridge our gaps between our mindsets and theirs then we can go forward...

Think about it this way, T...

In the US we have some very right winged ignorant people who think iot is pertfectly okay to yell "Hang him" at a Sarah Palin rally in regards to Barak Obama... Now the more enlightened has the benefit of greater experiences and knowledges to draw fromn... The redneck who has just yelled "Hang him" doesn't... He has come about as far as he is going to come in terms of understanding the world or critical thinking... He is reacting... Think "reactionary" here... The Taliban is not all that different from that redneck... Now we can think with our righteuosness that the Taliban and that redneck should be able to see "our" side... Problem is that they aren't wired to see "our" side... So that leaves "our" side, if it is indeed more enlightened and intellegent, to do the heavy lifting... Everyone understands vilence... It is as base a behavior as humans can stoop... So when we allow ourselves to be drawn into a military response to conflicts with unenlightened people what we are, in essence, doing is saying "Screw it, we give up on reason so lets fight it out..."

That is the problem with this war in Afganistan... Yeah, we can maybe make things very uncomfortable for the Taliban... We can outfight them... We can out kill them but in the end they will do what Ho Chi Mihn taught: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day..." Yes, the Taliban, though not enlightened or educated or Europeanized, will blend right back into the general population if things are going bad, wait out the storm and then it will be business as usual for them...

Now I agree that humanitarian aid is the way to beat them but the problem is that this war has created so much bad kharma that changes course will be be seen as just another tactic and not seen as offered in the interest of humanism... That is why it won't work... Especially with the Taliban in hiding/dormancy...

No, the Afgan War is lost... It was lost on Day One... It was flawed in ethnocentricity... It's now too late for US to say to the Afgans "We care for you as people"...

Maybe next time we want to steal someone's stuff we come in with the candy bars, not bullets...

Too late here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 03:47 AM

1. The only people any Aghan government has ever looked after was themselves

Well before 1978 things ticked along quite nicely 1919 to 1929 was period of reform under a monarch. 1929 to 1933 the focus was on agrarian reform and rate of modernisation slowed. 1933 to 1973 the longest period of stability Afghanistan has ever known say increased political freedom, advancement in education and opportunities for women which had begun in 1927. 1973 saw a bloodless coup in which the country unfortunately moved from being a monarchy (which suited Afghanistans tribal set up) to a republic. One of the main supporters of this coup was the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) a communist party originally formed in 1965. They in turn staged their own coup in 1978 and from that point forward Afghanistan knew nothing but strife. In essence the coup in 1978 was a continuation of the feud between two Pashtun tribes the Ghilzai (PDPA) and the Durrani (monarchist).

On the balance I would say that previous Afghan Governments from 1919 to 1978 served THEIR country rather well, it has only since 1978 that that the clique in power was only ever interested in looking after NOT the country as a whole but THEMSELVES.

2. "Karzai, the American puppet, is serving the same purpose for the USA that Najibullah, the Russian puppet, did for the Soviets."

Then you obviously have not read anything about Hamid Karzai and how he came to lead Afghanistan.

I would love to hear your version of how the USA selected him and promoted him into the position of first interim (April 2002), then elected (2004) President of Afghanistan.

Right up until November 2001 Karzai was in Afghanisatn fighting the Taliban. He was brought out of the country to attend the Koenigsee Conference in Bonn Germany after having been nearly killed by the USA in a "Friendly Fire" incident.

At the Bonn Conference where various Northern Alliance leaders, representatives of the Afghan people and the United Nations met, Hamid Karzai was selected as candidate for the post of Interim President to be confirmed by a vote to be taken at a Loya Jirga to be held in Kabul early in 2002.

Now where in this process did the US come into the picture, I mean apart from nearly killing the man?

The "foreign" influence on Karzai is Karl Eide the Norwegian Head of UNAMA.

The recent Afghan election was extremely corrupt. It cannot be taken as having been a legitimate election, and everyone knows it, but the charade goes on, because the reality of the situation is that after the last thirty-one years of civil war and destruction you have to start somewhere.

To say that Afghanistan has never known democracy is false, they enjoyed to varying degrees liberal secular government that rubbed along quite nicely for nearly 60 years before the Soviets moved in. It is now up to them, the Afghan people and their leaders, to try and work back to that state, the United Nations is helping them in that task, the Taleban are trying to hinder and halt that process.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:06 AM

Dec. 22/ 2001:

"Prime Minister Hamid Karzai takes power in Afghanistan.
It had been revealed a few weeks earlier that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal (Union Oil Company of California), as well as deputy foreign minister for the Taliban for a time."

(Le Monde 12/13/01,   CNN 11/22/01

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: ToeRag
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:23 AM

Oh,it's verry well by way of a change, but i cannot say i should like it for a continuance, there is nothing substantial to be got;

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: bankley
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM

correction: Karzai served as minister under Rabbani... but tried to broker a deal later between the Taliban and Unocal

either way you slice it, it's a dog's breakfast

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:33 AM

December 3, 2009) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich delivered an alternative approach to National Security in a speech to Congress - National Security starts at home in America. The war is a threat to our National Security.

Congressman Kucinich stated:

"America is in the fight of its life and that fight is not in Afghanistan - it's here. We are deeply in debt. Our GDP is down. Our manufacturing is down. Our savings are down. Our trade deficit is up. Business failures are up. Bankruptcies are up."

"The war is a threat to our National Security. We'll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our soldiers' lives on the line. Meanwhile, back here is the USA, 15 million people are out of work. People are losing their jobs, their health care, their savings, their investments, and their retirement security. Trillions in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war; when are we going to start taking care of things here at home?"

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:55 AM

Teribus, you are absolutely correct in what you said about this:

"Well before 1978 things ticked along quite nicely 1919 to 1929 was period of reform under a monarch. 1929 to 1933 the focus was on agrarian reform and rate of modernisation slowed. 1933 to 1973 the longest period of stability Afghanistan has ever known say increased political freedom, advancement in education and opportunities for women which had begun in 1927. 1973 saw a bloodless coup in which the country unfortunately moved from being a monarchy (which suited Afghanistans tribal set up) to a republic. One of the main supporters of this coup was the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) a communist party originally formed in 1965. They in turn staged their own coup in 1978 and from that point forward Afghanistan knew nothing but strife."

Dead right. And I am in full agreement with you. The troubles in Afghanistan started with the 1973 coup and the transition from a monarchy to a republic that was politically divided by party politics. The Aghans had been far better off under the old monarchy.

It is sometimes the case in these traditional third world countries that the emergence of multi-party politics, divisive in its very nature, destabilizes a long stable form of government and creates major problems in the society that weren't there before. That was certainly the case in Afghanistan.

I've read 2 books recently which gave some insight on that period of transition in Afghanistan. One was "The Kite Runner", a fictional novel written by an Afghan now living in the USA, the other was "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortensen.

So, as you point out, I was indeed mistaken to say that "The only people any Aghan government has ever looked after was themselves"

I should have said that the only people any recent Afghan government (meaning since 1978) has ever looked after was themselves. And that, in fact, is what I meant, because I am well aware of the long period of Afghan stability prior to 1978.

So, thanks for correcting that.

I still consider Karzai to be an American puppet, a form of window dressing, that's all. As long as he's considered useful, they'll protect him. When he isn't considered useful, they'll cut him loose. This is what's done with puppets. In that respect he seems very much like Najibullah to me, but I am sure one can find various differences to quibble about between the one man's regime and the other's. The point is, they both served as official rulers of a client government that was working for a superpower with regional interests in their area.

Karzai is sarcastically referred to as "the mayor of Kabul" by many Afghans.

I don't know why you would think I sympathize in any way with the Taliban? I don't. I just do not favor any external power forcing its way into Afghanistan and militarily occupying it, whether that power be Russia, the USA or the UK or China or anyone else. I do not regard the Afghan war as being in America's true interests nor as protecting American security. To the contrary, I regard it as greatly threatening American security and wasting America's strength and money to no useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:59 PM

The Mujadaheen who defeated the Soviets became the Taliban. They are related.
In effect, the Taleban was supported by the US. Omar offered to give ObL to the international court but the US refused.

Karzai is a drug dealer. The US supports this. He is also a chronic human rights violator.

Nobody from America really knows what the Afghan people want, apparently.
One thing, they don't want foreign troops in their country.

Soldiers have the right to refuse what they consider a violation of the Constitution.
The right of conscientious objection is an American right even if you are in the military.

Does anyone see the irony of offering a "Peace prize" to a wartime president?

Nobel did this for Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger.

Big hawks all.

Does anyone still care if Pete Seeger gets the Nobel Peace Prize?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 02:02 PM

Another thing, Generals Boykin and McChrystal have stated that they want to Christianize
Afghanistan. They want to destroy or at least in their terms "neutralize" Islam.
Onward Christian Soldiers!

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 02:06 PM

They are mad to even think about trying to achieve that objective.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 02:18 PM

Another thing, Generals Boykin and McChrystal have stated that they want to Christianize Afghanistan

Boykin's statements are quite well known and have been rightly criticized. He is a retired General with no duties regarding Afghanistan.
Your source for the statement about McChrystal, if I may be so bold?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 05:52 PM

"The Mujadaheen who defeated the Soviets became the Taliban."

Complete and utter bullshit!!! Please provide me with one shred of evidence that supports that view.

The Taleban came into being bcause of the excesses of the former Mujahideen in 1994. If you have information that indicates anything other that what I have said said please produce it!! If not, then shut the fuck up about it, and stop spreading lies about the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:43 PM

Some of the Mujahedin who defeated the Soviets became the Taliban. Other Taliban came from Pakistan. The Taliban were one among several factions of the Muhahedin, and they fought a war with those other factions which they eventually won.

Here's one lengthy article about the history of the Taliban:

history of the Taliban

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:53 PM

I could have elaborated much more, by the way, but just read the article instead, and comment on it, not on my brief statement on the previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 07:10 PM

{from the site that LH linked to, which seems reasonable impartial...}


"Most of the Taliban's leaders were educated in Pakistan, in refugee camps where they had fled with millions of other Afghans after the Soviet invasion. Pakistan's Jami'at-e 'Ulema-e Islam (JUI) political party provided welfare services, education, and military training for refugees in many of these camps. They also established religious schools in the Deobandi tradition.

The Deobandi tradition originated as a reform movement in British India with the aim of rejuvenating Islamic society in a colonial state, and remained prevalent in Pakistan after the partition from India. The Deobandi schools in Afghan refugee camps, however, are often run by inexperienced and semi-literate mullahs. In addition, funds and scholarships provided by Saudi Arabia during the occupation brought the schools' curricula closer to the conservative Wahhabi tradition. Ties between the Taliban and these schools remain strong..."

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 07:17 PM

It seemed like a fairly thorough article to me. It was amomg 3 or 4 that I found with a quick search, and I have yet to read the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 08:30 AM

"Dec. 22/ 2001:

"Prime Minister Hamid Karzai takes power in Afghanistan.

It had been revealed a few weeks earlier that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal (Union Oil Company of California), as well as deputy foreign minister for the Taliban for a time."

(Le Monde 12/13/01,   CNN 11/22/01)"

Hamid Karzai:

- Born 24th December 1957

- Graduated from Habibi High School in 1976

- Karzai took a postgraduate course in political science that Himachal Pradesh University in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India, between 1979 and 1983.

- 1983 to 1989 supported anti-Soviet Mujahideen in their fight against Soviet occupation. Karzai reamined in Pakistan throughout the Soviet occupation

- 1992 served as as Deputy Foreign Minister in the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani (The government the Taliban fought)

- 1996 Hamid Karzai refuses to serve the Taleban as their ambassador to the United Nations. During the Taleban years of power in Afghanistan Hamid Karzai lived in exile in Quetta, Pakistan.

- 1999 the Taleban assassinate Hamid Karzai's father, Karzai is working closely with Ahmad Shah Massoud to gather support for the anti-Taleban movement.

- October 2001 Hamid Karzai is wounded in a friendly fire incident involving US aircraft in South Afghanistan.

- November 2001 Karzai flown out of Afghanistan for his own protection.

- December 2001 under the December 5 Bonn Agreement Afghan Representatives formed an interim Transitional Administration and named Karzai Chairman of a 29-member Governing committee.

- The Loya Jirga of June 13, 2002, Karzai appointed interim hold of the new position as President of the Afghan Transitional Administration.

Unocal:
- 1996 Unocal opens an office in Kandahar

- 1998 Unocal withdraws from the TAPI Pipeline Project

- 2005 Unocal ceases to exist as an operating company

So merely by checking up a few facts it can be revealed Hamid Karzai could not possibly have worked for Unocal in any capacity and was never in fact deputy foreign minister for the Taliban at any time.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 08:36 AM

Counter to what the article that LH linked stated:

"The Taliban are one of the mujahideen groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89)."

Mullah Omar started his movement in 1994 (five years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan) with less than 50 armed madrassah students, known simply as the Taliban (Students). His recruits came from madrassahs in Afghanistan and Pakistan and from the Afghan refugee camps across the border in Pakistan. They fought against the rampant corruption that had emerged in the civil war period and were initially welcomed by Afghans weary of warlord rule.

It first emerged early in 1994, when Mullah Mohammed Omar led 30 men armed with 16 rifles to free two teenage girls who had been kidnapped and raped by a local warlord's group; hanging the local commander from a tank barrel.

His movement gained momentum through the year, and he quickly gathered recruits from Islamic schools. By November 1994, Omar's movement managed to capture the province of Kandahar and then captured Herat in September 1995. Kabul fell to the Taliban on September 26, 1996. Omar stayed behind in Kandahar along with the Taliban elite, while a government of his loyal followers was set up in Kabul.

Now as his fighting force consisted of his pupils, what sort of age would they be? I would venture to guess that Mullah Omar's Taliban were too young to have fought the Soviets, or if they did were only involved in the dying stages of the occupation.

But one thing is for certain:

"The Taliban WERE NOT one of the mujahideen groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89)."