downward spiral in afghanistan - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

roachboy · 09-09-2008, 05:14 PM

i'm not sure folk have noticed some of the strange doings in the world beyond the lint-storm around sarah palin...over the past few days the americans have been staging raids into pakistan, right in the middle of the transition in government. today, there's two new elements, both covered in this article:

Quote:

Bush urges Pakistan to 'take responsibility' for extremists
President announces withdrawal of 8,000 Iraq troops and shifts military focus to fight Taliban in Afghanistan

George Bush today described Pakistan as a central battleground in the so-called war on terror, alongside Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a barbed message for the new Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, Bush said Pakistan had a "responsibility" to fight extremists "because every nation has an obligation to govern its own territory and make certain that it does not become a safe haven for terror."

The remarks are not likely to go down well in Pakistan, which has been in uproar after a raid by US ground troops on Pakistani territory – the first foray of its kind since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Zardari, who was today sworn-in as Pakistan's new president, is an outspoken advocate of tough action against extremists in Pakistan, despite broad public dislike of US foreign policy in the region.

Bush's comments came in a speech to the US National Defence University in Washington, where he announced the withdrawal of 8,000 combat troops from Iraq by next February.

But there will be little respite for an overstretched US military as Bush also announced a troop rise in Afghanistan, currently home to 31,000 US soldiers. He said he was sending roughly 4,500 more troops to face a resurgent Taliban.

More than half of Bush's address was devoted to Afghanistan, which the US president described as "the front where this struggle first began".

Bush highlighted decisions to vastly increase the size of the Afghan national army, which will grow from its current size of 60,000 troops to 120,000, instead of 80,000.

"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world," he said. "And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more."

Bush said a marine battalion scheduled to go to Iraq in November would instead be sent to Afghanistan. One army combat brigade will follow.

The Iraq troop cut will probably be Bush's last major decision in a highly unpopular war that has seen his ratings plummet. He hinted that more troops could return to the US in the first half of 2009 if conditions improve.

"Here is the bottom line: while the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, and Iraqi forces are becomingly increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight," Bush said.

US commanders have been divided on the rate of troop cuts in Iraq and today's plan is a compromise. General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, had argued in favour of maintaining current levels until next June.

Others, including Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, believed a faster withdrawal from Iraq represented a small risk compared with the gain that could be made by sending reinforcements to Afghanistan.

Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the plan reflected the concern of US commanders that a rush to reduce US forces could lead to instability at a crucial moment in Iraq.

"This plan does, however, mean continuing stress on both the active and reserve forces," said Cordesman.

Democrats today criticised the slow pace of withdrawal from Iraq as the troop cut will still leave about 140,000 combat troops - about the same level as before last year's troop surge.

The party's presidential nominee, Barack Obama, said Bush's decision to divert resources to Afghanistan was slow, insufficient and "comes up short".

"It is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency," Obama said, adding that he believed Bush did not understand that Afghanistan and Pakistan were the central front in the "war on terror", not Iraq.

Obama has advocated pulling all combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office. John McCain, his Republican rival, has said he would rely on the advice of US military commanders to determine the timing and pace of troop reductions. Both agree on the need for more troops for Afghanistan, amid growing concern that Nato is losing ground to Taliban insurgents.

Bush urges Pakistan to 'take responsibility' for extremists | World news | guardian.co.uk

the only up side of this i can see is that it may represent a de facto abandonment of the bush people's iran aspirations--but that is not obvious.

either way, this appears to me to be another example of self-defeating american action--nato action---by which i mean the continued american presence in afghanistan has enabled the taliban to regroup by providing it with an enemy around which to rally. the fact of occupation generates it's own momentum--machiavelli knew this in the 16th century.

now, if you accept the idea that afghanistan was a legitimate target in this "war on terror" nonsense--which i have never accepted---then (a) iraq was obviously a bad idea because it hobbled this other campaign and in so doing opened up the space for this regrouping of the taliban. but that's not the curious thing.

the problem here is pakistan. over the past few days, reports have surfaced of at least two american raids into pakistan, each resulting in civilian casualties. this directly after cheney was in georgia chastizing russia for moving into another sovereign nation. this while the american press is entirely distracted by the lint-storm generated by the palin nomination.

[[i took out a couple sentences later because i thought i had already taken them out...]]

this paper gives an interesting and detailed overview of the spiral into which the americans have found themselves getting drawn--it presents far more complex a picture than this post does, but the main line of interpretation is consistent:
The Rise of Afghanistan's Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

and here is a link to an extensive list of articles about this overall situation, which effectively stops in 2007:

Afghanistan Watch

what do you think is going on here?
what do you think the options are facing the bush people? the next president?
how do you think mccain or obama would handle this?

ASU2003 · 09-09-2008, 06:29 PM

I have never liked the way Afghanistan was handled. Well, it started off ok with covert ops and intel gathering. But the execution didn't go the way I thought it should have. It was too overtly military that stopped way short of controlling the whole country and the Pakistan border region.

It should have been kept covert and after a few months of intel gathering from a far, people just start dying in their sleep. Or from accidents. Or from rare diseases.

Tully Mars · 09-09-2008, 06:39 PM

1.) I think we're playing a giant game of whack-a-mole. Once we secure Afghan Iraq or some other country will "need" our help. It's a never ending reason to maintain huge spending & funding for the military and their contractors.

2.) I think Bush and Neocon's are leaving the next POTUS (and the country) one giant shit sandwich. How and who gets the first or biggest bite is any body's guess. But given the size of the debt being left by this I'd say the middle class will end up paying the most and hurting the most. Though the bill may not come completely due for another generation.

3.) I think McCain will keep playing the whack-a-mole game and attempt to use the military at every opportunity he's given. I thin Obama is more likely to use diplomacy prior to sending in the troops.

Willravel · 09-09-2008, 06:50 PM

I guess I'm glad that they're taking their attentions away from Iran, but the government has repeatedly demonstrated that they couldn't fight a war on terror even if it was legitimate.

Obama has started speaking publicly about what we've all been thinking all along: Pakistan is housing violent extremists, and could be housing senior leadership of these radical organizations. The question is (and always has been) how exactly to deal with this. Pervez Musharraf has been an interesting character to watch; he was very vocal about supporting the US against the Taliban and al Qaeda, even going so far as to allow the US to have military bases in Pakistan. Of course later on it was made clear that Pakistan was under unbelievable pressure from the US and that Musharraf was concerned that the US might just tag team with India, which would put Pakistan directly in harm's way.

What I'm left thinking is that Pervez Musharraf never really had full control on the goings on in Pakistan, in fact he really didn't stand a chance in that area. Pakistan is still a very unstable place. I don't really have an official "he's good" or "he's bad" statement about Musharraf. He was about what I expected in many ways.

Now we have Asif Ali Zardari, who I trust even a bit less than Musharraf because of his history, but I find myself unsure of how he will attempt to deal with the tension turning into excursions across the border by the US. Clearly civilian casualties are completely unacceptable, but what can he bargain with? I might try to invite the UN to get involved, but that could be seen unfavorably with the Pakistani people. If they're anything like Americans, they'll want more useless and stupid posturing, which won't serve anyone.

Regardless, my attentions over the next few days will be fixed on google news for "Pakistan".

jorgelito · 09-09-2008, 06:53 PM

But would leaving Afghanistan be worse? If US-NATO decided to up and leave would that just doom the current Afghani gov't? Would they be torn by civil war? Would the Taliban take over?
-----Added 9/9/2008 at 08 : 54 : 27-----
Yes one of the reasons I support Obama is his commitment to the Afghanistan campaign.

Charlatan · 09-09-2008, 07:09 PM

The campaign in Afghanistan feels like it was the right thing to do. That it was not handled properly is not a surprise.

I figured it was only a matter of time until NATO decided to fly missions into Pakistan and it is no surprise that they would choose to do so while Pakistan is in political transition. Musharraf was very much against letting the US into Pakistan but the new President seems to be on board with crushing the Taliban (it could be that his biggest political opponents are the ones allegedly harbouring the Taliban so if a few of them die or thrown into turmoil in the process all the better).

The thing to remember is that nobody can conquer Afghanistan and it is never likely that it will resemble a Western democracy... ever. This is a nation that, with the massive financial support of the US, brought the Soviet Union to its knees. This is now a nation, the massive financial support of certain gulf state interests (with deep pockets made deeper by oil profits), that may bring NATO to its knees.

Tully Mars · 09-09-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The thing to remember is that nobody can conquer Afghanistan and it is never likely that it will resemble a Western democracy... ever. This is a nation that, with the massive financial support of the US, brought the Soviet Union to its knees. This is now a nation, the massive financial support of certain gulf state interests (with deep pockets made deeper by oil profits), that may bring NATO to its knees.

I brought this up with a friend one day. He said "This is the USA there's no way some little rock and dirt country's going to take us out. No way, no how." Bet there were a lot folks in the old USSR that thought the same thing not so long ago.

I get the feeling if this were a Simpson's episode Nelson Muntz would be saying "Ha Ha, you're funding your own demise. What? I said Ha Ha."

Charlatan · 09-09-2008, 07:51 PM

That's the irony isn't it?

roachboy · 09-09-2008, 07:51 PM

the paper i linked to is pretty precise about how the spiral went tho---it's not a question of principle, more a question of the fact that the us installed karzai whose government managed only to control kabul, which was skimming aid money off and diverting it to colleagues---lack of co-ordination in the training of police---inability of the government to deliver basic services--continuing us occupation.

machiavelli knew that occupying another country is the point at which your problems start, not end. the neo-cons obviously only read the cliff notes.

Charlatan · 09-09-2008, 08:05 PM

The neocons are not especially interested in winning a war, just fighting them in perpetuity. In the process of hollowing out and privatizing the military they have a created a massive economic sector of contractors and mercenaries. Like any sizable sector of the economy they need to protect it.

The next administration will be faced with the same issue.

Willravel · 09-09-2008, 08:30 PM

All-in-all, I see this as a devastating demonstration of the importance of high intelligence and ability in leadership. When you vote for an idiot, especially a flock of idiots, who are more concerned with unsupportable goals, this is what you can expect. Clinton was smart enough to avoid things of this magnitude, but even he screwed up repeatedly. Should I be forced to come to terms with the fact that the best leaders for our country only exist in fiction?

jorgelito · 09-09-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the paper i linked to is pretty precise about how the spiral went tho---it's not a question of principle, more a question of the fact that the us installed karzai whose government managed only to control kabul, which was skimming aid money off and diverting it to colleagues---lack of co-ordination in the training of police---inability of the government to deliver basic services--continuing us occupation.

machiavelli knew that occupying another country is the point at which your problems start, not end. the neo-cons obviously only read the cliff notes.

Good point.

Tully Mars · 09-10-2008, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

That's the irony isn't it?

It is , that and you have people in the US cheer leading the whole thing. It's almost like some people think our military can never loose and has a magical endless supply of funds.

I always thought we should go after bin Laden. To me it didn't matter if he was in Afghan, Iraq, Iran or even Moscow. I was one of those 95%+ that was behind Bush on the days after 9/11 100%. I remember thinking who the hell are these other 5%? Bush is going to go get this guy, we need to go get this guy. But Bush didn't really focus on Afghan or OBL that much. Then when he started talking and trying to link Iraq to OBL and committed a much larger force to that task instead of taking out the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks he lost me. The way he's handled Iraq has been proved to me he's one of the worst POTUS we ever had- and we've had some real losers in the oval office.

Now, 8 years later, we're going go back and committing more troops to Afghan. Of course OBL likely isn't there anymore. Hopefully the new President in Pakistan will actually help us find him.

jorgelito · 09-10-2008, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

It is , that and you have people in the US cheer leading the whole thing. It's almost like some people think our military can never loose and has a magical endless supply of funds.

I always thought we should go after bin Laden. To me it didn't matter if he was in Afghan, Iraq, Iran or even Moscow. I was one of those 95%+ that was behind Bush on the days after 9/11 100%. I remember thinking who the hell are these other 5%? Bush is going to go get this guy, we need to go get this guy. But Bush didn't really focus on Afghan or OBL that much. Then when he started talking and trying to link Iraq to OBL and committed a much larger force to that task instead of taking out the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks he lost me. The way he's handled Iraq has been proved to me he's one of the worst POTUS we ever had- and we've had some real losers in the oval office.

Now, 8 years later, we're going to go back and committing more troops to Afghan. Of course OBL likely isn't there anymore. Hopefully the new President in Pakistan will actually help us find him.

Stop reading my mind

. Yeah this is pretty much how I felt too.

loquitur · 09-10-2008, 07:53 AM

We sent troops into Pakistan this past week. The Paks said very little about it. Apparently Bush has decided that one way or the other he's going to take out OBL before he leaves office.

The idea of sending more troops into Afghanistan is not a good one, in my view. Historically it's been proven to be a mistake. We succeeded in taking down the Taliban at the end of '01 because the fighting was done by Afghans, with Special Ops and air support from the US. But we can't do well in a long-term large-scale fight there because we don't know the culture and haven't embedded with it - but the Taliban and AQ have. That doesn't mean there is no military solution - to the contrary, the use of force has to be part of the solution, simply because of the nature of the foe, but it has to be part of an integrated approach that uses a lot more tools. Classic counterinsurgency as developed by Gallula and perfected by Petraeus counsels that dispersed small forces in support of local groups is the most effective way to suppress an insurgency. Fact is, we can never be as bloodthirsty and ruthless as the AQ/Taliban, but we can try to be smarter.

Another part of the problem is that this is a NATO operation, which means everyone and no one is in charge, and different countries' politics will govern which forces are available when for what purpose. Too many cooks and all that. I believe the technical term is "clusterfuck."

host · 09-10-2008, 09:40 AM

loquitur, can you post the most compelling reason(s) that persuades you that "AQ" or bin Laden were the principles in the 9/11 attacks, or that WTC 7, as lead NIST investigtor Sunder concluded, was a collapse that was the first of it's kind....ever....?

Frankly, I'm having the same kind of reaction I had when the operations of the "tooth fairy", were first explained to me.... I wanted to believe, and there was "money in it", but I needed more in the way of a credible explanation...

Quote:

Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11? // Current
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?

* added September 9, 2008

Much of America's foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks. But it is still widely believed that the US attack on Afghanistan was justified. For example, the New York Times, while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a "war of choice," calls the battle in Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Time magazine has dubbed it "the right war." And Barack Obama says that one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to "go after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on 9/11." ....

Quote:

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

....This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. ....

loquitur · 09-10-2008, 09:57 AM

host, conspiracy theorizing about WTC is OT in this thread. I was discussing the [lack of] progress of the war in Afghanistan, which is what this thread is about. So I decline to engage here on that issue.

roachboy · 09-10-2008, 10:01 AM

another vicious circle which cannot be helping anything at all for anyone, anywhere:

Quote:

Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes
Airstrikes Cause Public Backlash, Undermine Protection Efforts

Human Rights Watch Report Cover
(New York, September 8, 2008) – Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban’s use of “human shields” in violation of the laws of war.

Though operational changes advocated by Human Rights Watch have reduced the rate of civilian casualties since they spiked in July 2007, continuing tragedies, such as the July 6, 2008 strike on a wedding party and the August 22, 2008 bombing in Azizabad, have greatly undermined local support for the efforts of international forces providing security in Afghanistan.
The 43-page report, “‘Troops in Contact’: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,” analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.

“Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the chance of a mistake,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans.”

The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war. Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.

In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In 2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least 321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.

In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.

Human Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban. US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to assist civilians harmed by US actions.

“The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many civilians,” said Adams. “The US must also take responsibility, including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian deaths, the US shouldn’t use this as an excuse when it could have taken better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the killing.”

Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in support of “troops in contact” – ground troops who are under insurgent attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special forces units – normally small in number and lightly armed – came under insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US “anticipatory self-defense” rules of engagement applied.

The effects of airstrikes go beyond civilian deaths. For example, an investigation by the Afghan government found that two battles over a three-day period starting April 30, 2007 in Shindand district resulted in the destruction of numerous homes. In every case investigated by Human Rights Watch where airstrikes hit villages, many civilians had to leave the village because of damage to their homes and fear of further strikes. People from neighboring villages also sometimes fled in fear of future strikes on their villages. This has led to large numbers of internally displaced persons.

To respond to public concern and complaints from President Hamid Karzai, in July 2007 the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) announced several changes in targeting tactics. These changes include employing smaller munitions, delaying attacks where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house searches to the Afghan National Army. A review of available evidence suggests that the changes had some impact, as there was a significant drop in civilian casualties due to airstrikes in the last half of 2007, even as the overall tonnage of bombs dropped increased.

Human Rights Watch welcomed these changes in targeting, but remained concerned by continuing civilian casualties from airstrikes, particularly as the number of airstrikes has increased dramatically and the number of deaths and injuries has spiked this summer.

Human Rights Watch called for the US and NATO to address the rising civilian death toll from unplanned airstrikes, and to fix continuing problems with field collateral damage estimation and the inconsistent application of their Rules of Engagement.

“The recent airstrikes killing dozens of Afghans make clear that the system is still broken and that civilians continue to pay the ultimate price,” said Adams. “Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan.”

link to the full report:
"Troops in Contact": Airstrikes and Civlian Deaths in Afghanistan

host · 09-10-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

host, conspiracy theorizing about WTC is OT in this thread. I was discussing the [lack of] progress of the war in Afghanistan, which is what this thread is about. So I decline to engage here on that issue.

You're an attorney, and you worked in this jurisdiction, SDNY....do you have no curiousity as to how the government could bring their version of such a dubious account before a federal judge? This woman was barely 5 feet tall, and 100 lbs....
Pakistani Tortured, Her Attorney Says

yet look at the government's account as to the events leading to her shooting. Consider her atorney's version of the length of her custody.... you dismiss, out of hand, my last post. Is it logic that influenced your reaction, or emotion because of a perceived threat to your belief system?

They lied about why it was necessary to invade Iraq. They've admitted to torturing the principle witnesses that they obtained the core intelligence they claim is the "smoking gun" in who planned the 9/11 attacks. They've "rendered" innocent people and others who received no fair judiciary hearings, to secret prisons and to third countries to be tortured under our government representatives' observation, and you react with a "conspiracy theory", bullshit dismissal? Why would I expect anything but that kind of reaction?

One mo' time....on what basis should anyone participate here, discussing the war in Afghanistan as if it is and was necessary, as if bin Laden was behind he 9/11 attacks, as if he is an al-Qaeda leader, and as if al-Qaeda exists as described to us by our government, because, I don't see it as compelling, and I showed you some of my reasons, and I asked why you buy into the government's narrative....where is their credibility....it looks "shot", to me. I have no "belief system" that can be threatened....I try to go with the facts....what are the irrefutable facts.....there doesn't seem to me that there are any....only farfetched bullshit, propaganda.....

Tully Mars · 09-10-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

another vicious circle which cannot be helping anything at all for anyone, anywhere:

link to the full report:
"Troops in Contact": Airstrikes and Civlian Deaths in Afghanistan

Yes, back to the topic at hand.

Almost seems the more we use the military the more we need to use the military.

host · 09-10-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars <

09-09-2008, 06:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
Tully Mars Moderator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yucatan	1.) I think we're playing a giant game of whack-a-mole. Once we secure Afghan Iraq or some other country will "need" our help. It's a never ending reason to maintain huge spending & funding for the military and their contractors. 2.) I think Bush and Neocon's are leaving the next POTUS (and the country) one giant shit sandwich. How and who gets the first or biggest bite is any body's guess. But given the size of the debt being left by this I'd say the middle class will end up paying the most and hurting the most. Though the bill may not come completely due for another generation. 3.) I think McCain will keep playing the whack-a-mole game and attempt to use the military at every opportunity he's given. I thin Obama is more likely to use diplomacy prior to sending in the troops. __________________ Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club People are always bitching about getting what they deserve... I think if they did they'd be greatly disappointed. Me

09-09-2008, 06:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	But would leaving Afghanistan be worse? If US-NATO decided to up and leave would that just doom the current Afghani gov't? Would they be torn by civil war? Would the Taliban take over? -----Added 9/9/2008 at 08 : 54 : 27----- Yes one of the reasons I support Obama is his commitment to the Afghanistan campaign. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter Last edited by jorgelito; 09-09-2008 at 06:54 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-09-2008, 07:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Drinking Your Milkshake Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lion City	The campaign in Afghanistan feels like it was the right thing to do. That it was not handled properly is not a surprise. I figured it was only a matter of time until NATO decided to fly missions into Pakistan and it is no surprise that they would choose to do so while Pakistan is in political transition. Musharraf was very much against letting the US into Pakistan but the new President seems to be on board with crushing the Taliban (it could be that his biggest political opponents are the ones allegedly harbouring the Taliban so if a few of them die or thrown into turmoil in the process all the better). The thing to remember is that nobody can conquer Afghanistan and it is never likely that it will resemble a Western democracy... ever. This is a nation that, with the massive financial support of the US, brought the Soviet Union to its knees. This is now a nation, the massive financial support of certain gulf state interests (with deep pockets made deeper by oil profits), that may bring NATO to its knees. __________________ “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

09-09-2008, 07:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Drinking Your Milkshake Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lion City	That's the irony isn't it? __________________ “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

09-09-2008, 07:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	the paper i linked to is pretty precise about how the spiral went tho---it's not a question of principle, more a question of the fact that the us installed karzai whose government managed only to control kabul, which was skimming aid money off and diverting it to colleagues---lack of co-ordination in the training of police---inability of the government to deliver basic services--continuing us occupation. machiavelli knew that occupying another country is the point at which your problems start, not end. the neo-cons obviously only read the cliff notes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-09-2008, 06:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: possibly ohio	I have never liked the way Afghanistan was handled. Well, it started off ok with covert ops and intel gathering. But the execution didn't go the way I thought it should have. It was too overtly military that stopped way short of controlling the whole country and the Pakistan border region. It should have been kept covert and after a few months of intel gathering from a far, people just start dying in their sleep. Or from accidents. Or from rare diseases.

09-09-2008, 06:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel [wil-ruh-VEL] Join Date: Aug 2004	I guess I'm glad that they're taking their attentions away from Iran, but the government has repeatedly demonstrated that they couldn't fight a war on terror even if it was legitimate. Obama has started speaking publicly about what we've all been thinking all along: Pakistan is housing violent extremists, and could be housing senior leadership of these radical organizations. The question is (and always has been) how exactly to deal with this. Pervez Musharraf has been an interesting character to watch; he was very vocal about supporting the US against the Taliban and al Qaeda, even going so far as to allow the US to have military bases in Pakistan. Of course later on it was made clear that Pakistan was under unbelievable pressure from the US and that Musharraf was concerned that the US might just tag team with India, which would put Pakistan directly in harm's way. What I'm left thinking is that Pervez Musharraf never really had full control on the goings on in Pakistan, in fact he really didn't stand a chance in that area. Pakistan is still a very unstable place. I don't really have an official "he's good" or "he's bad" statement about Musharraf. He was about what I expected in many ways. Now we have Asif Ali Zardari, who I trust even a bit less than Musharraf because of his history, but I find myself unsure of how he will attempt to deal with the tension turning into excursions across the border by the US. Clearly civilian casualties are completely unacceptable, but what can he bargain with? I might try to invite the UN to get involved, but that could be seen unfavorably with the Pakistani people. If they're anything like Americans, they'll want more useless and stupid posturing, which won't serve anyone. Regardless, my attentions over the next few days will be fixed on google news for "Pakistan".

09-09-2008, 08:05 PM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Drinking Your Milkshake Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lion City	The neocons are not especially interested in winning a war, just fighting them in perpetuity. In the process of hollowing out and privatizing the military they have a created a massive economic sector of contractors and mercenaries. Like any sizable sector of the economy they need to protect it. The next administration will be faced with the same issue. __________________ “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

09-09-2008, 08:30 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel [wil-ruh-VEL] Join Date: Aug 2004	All-in-all, I see this as a devastating demonstration of the importance of high intelligence and ability in leadership. When you vote for an idiot, especially a flock of idiots, who are more concerned with unsupportable goals, this is what you can expect. Clinton was smart enough to avoid things of this magnitude, but even he screwed up repeatedly. Should I be forced to come to terms with the fact that the best leaders for our country only exist in fiction?

09-10-2008, 07:53 AM	#15 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NYC	We sent troops into Pakistan this past week. The Paks said very little about it. Apparently Bush has decided that one way or the other he's going to take out OBL before he leaves office. The idea of sending more troops into Afghanistan is not a good one, in my view. Historically it's been proven to be a mistake. We succeeded in taking down the Taliban at the end of '01 because the fighting was done by Afghans, with Special Ops and air support from the US. But we can't do well in a long-term large-scale fight there because we don't know the culture and haven't embedded with it - but the Taliban and AQ have. That doesn't mean there is no military solution - to the contrary, the use of force has to be part of the solution, simply because of the nature of the foe, but it has to be part of an integrated approach that uses a lot more tools. Classic counterinsurgency as developed by Gallula and perfected by Petraeus counsels that dispersed small forces in support of local groups is the most effective way to suppress an insurgency. Fact is, we can never be as bloodthirsty and ruthless as the AQ/Taliban, but we can try to be smarter. Another part of the problem is that this is a NATO operation, which means everyone and no one is in charge, and different countries' politics will govern which forces are available when for what purpose. Too many cooks and all that. I believe the technical term is "clusterfuck."

09-10-2008, 09:57 AM	#17 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NYC	host, conspiracy theorizing about WTC is OT in this thread. I was discussing the [lack of] progress of the war in Afghanistan, which is what this thread is about. So I decline to engage here on that issue.