Conservative UK Paper Calls Afghan War Lost
By Nicole Belle Sunday Jul 12, 2009 1:00pmAs Gen. McChrystal calls for an increase of troops to Afghanistan in order to see "victory" (although I'm still waiting to hear what constitutes a victory) the Sunday Express, a conservative paper in the UK, says the war has already been lost:
In case anyone hadn’t noticed, there is a war on. And when this nation is at war it has a tradition of pulling together in support of the troops. But as far as the campaign in Afghanistan is concerned there is precious little sign of that. The death toll of British troops there this week is horrendous.
And yet the Government has been put under almost no pressure to explain what our soldiers are doing and when it expects their mission to be completed.
Gordon Brown does not appear to know whether this war is worth prosecuting with the full might of the nation’s military resources or not. He has already turned down a request from Barack Obama to send significant reinforcements, while the shameful inadequacy of the equipment supplied to our soldiers has already been well documented. After the losses of the past few days, this half-hearted approach has become utterly unsustainable. Britain and indeed the whole of Nato must now decide whether this fiendishly difficult bid to tame a hitherto untamable land is worth all the blood that is being spilt.
This newspaper’s assessment is that the chance of outright victory in Afghanistan vanished the moment US and British forces went into Iraq. The focus on Afghanistan was lost and the coalition against terror broke up. There is now little prospect of the rest of Nato committing wholeheartedly to the fight against the Taliban. In a war of attrition, such as is presently being fought, victory will not be achieved, but heavy losses will certainly be sustained. Our brave soldiers deserve far better than that.
Wow...some honest assessment. Of course, it's not coming from our country, where we still hang on these nebulous phrases like "victory" and "security" without actually explaining what that means. Cernig at Newshoggers:
It was always the conservative establishment who were most against Britain's continued enmiring in Bush's Iraq occupation - and now it appears that conservatives will lead the way in calling for an exit from Afghanistan too. There's certainly a part of that which is just the cynical politics of opposition, but there's also a part that's just good sense. The British populace are, if anything, more generally accepting of foreign wars than their American cousins but there's a limit to what even the "fighting Blitz spirit" will countenance when a military entanglement has no plan, no metrics for success and no end in sight. The Tories are just getting out ahead of the curve.
Update: As Gordon Brown defends the UK's involvement and insists the Afghan war is being won (the credibility of that claim being dependent on how credible you think Brown is in general), renowned British military historian Correlli Barnett has an op-ed in the pages of the very conservative Daily Mail in which he argues that Britain must unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan.
Why won't an American journalist confront the Obama administration and simply ask them, "How will we know when we've won?" Unless they can answer that in tangible terms, all we're doing is condemning more troops to death.
Login or Register to post comments.
He is exactly right, any chance of victory did disappear when we invaded Iraq. It compounded what would have been an extremely elusive "victory" even if we did not invade Iraq, a 'victory' that was always in doubt under the best circumstances and prosecution of a war there.
Blair and Bush instead were intent on making them into worst case scenarios by invading Iraq. Its so tragic and Obama is exacerbating the problem immediately upon taking office
...like 3 fucking years ago when he started voting time and again to give Chimpster & co. all the war cash they ever asked for!
"Immediately upon taking office" ...(yeah right!)
How about "immediately upon taking office three years ago"...? Better?
Whatever floats your boat
Cheney 'ordered CIA to hide plan'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146466.stm
.
Another victory for the Bush plan...
... Operation Freedom Agenda.
R E M E M B E R:
THOSE WERE NOT VIALES OF FREEDOM AGENDA POWELL HELD UP AT THE UN.
.
Many nations have tried to conquer Afghanistan and all have failed. Say what you want but they are fighters and they know the area. You can't defeat them on the ground. You're only chance is to blow the entire country up or swarm the country like a D-Day invasion losing thousands of soldiers. Not gonna happen. So what do you do? Leave and let the Taliban take over and start beheading people in a public square again? Tough call.
You seem to think there are only two options here: nuke the entire country into a sea of glass or abandon them to a genocidal bunch of maniacs. Well, if all you've got to offer is killing and war, then I suppose that's a simple enough choice.
There is never going to be an easy solution to Afghanistan, in part because no matter what the country does, it isn't going to be what WE want them to do. Before the UK and the US invaded Afghanistan, I knew some people deeply involved with trying to improve the lives of ordinary Afghanis through peaceful means, working with UNESCO. I have a prayer rug made in Herat which I'm actually proud to say was made by child-labour; orphans being taught reading, writing, maths and hygiene half the day, and the other half being taught how to spin, dye and weave wool rugs in the traditional Afghani styles - which had to be taught to them by Westerners because most of the people these boys would have learned the skills from - fathers, brothers, uncles - were dead.
I got to read the reports that came back. At one point, the ateliers in Herat were so successful, there was a near riot - the women of the village insisted that they, too, be beneficiaries of the UNESCO ateliers, because most of the men who would have ordinarily been their breadwinners - fathers, sons, husbands... were dead. And here was UNESCO taking away one of the last ways women had of making a living. UNESCO found women who could teach these skills, and others, and sent them into Herat and neighbouring areas. The rugs being made were of exceptionally high quality, and being sold at good prices in the West, bringing in enough money to start supporting families. Even the local warlords were seeing the improvements, and were actively resisting the Taliban. It was slow, it wasn't perfect, but it was working...
... until the war started. The ateliers now are gone. A lot of the boys have been absorbed into the fighting, the women are even worse off than they were before, and the Taliban are back, in force.
It's their country. We are not ever going to, nor should we think we have a right to, 'fix' it for them. Given peaceful alternatives, like making rugs or growing pomegranates, the ordinary Afghan will opt for being able to make a living and care for his family, rather than fighting to the death over ideology he barely understands. Take away everything, and fighting to the death ends up being all that's left.
There is no perfect solution. There's barely even an adequate one. But continuing to fight this war only produces dead Brits and Yanks, and an increasingly powerful fanatical Taliban. Maybe the Taliban will behead a bunch of people again - but it isn't up to us to stop them. It is up to the Afghanis.
"You seem to think there are only two options here: nuke the entire country into a sea of glass or abandon them to a genocidal bunch of maniacs. Well, if all you've got to offer is killing and war, then I suppose that's a simple enough choice."
You really think the Taliban is going to hold peace talks? They are the worse of the worse. They will die before agreeing to anything we can offer them.
Secondly this isn't "their country". This country is run by fighters from all over the Muslim world. Afghanistan is a training ground more than it is a country.
Lastly, abandoning this war will also allow the Taliban to regain control, mutilate and murder. I highly doubt anyone was better off when the Taliban was in power than they are now.
Look, I'm not defending this war but what do you really do? What Clinton did? Every 3 or 4 years launch a cruise missle attack at empty camps? That didn't seem to work either. 9/11 training camps were in this country and it didn't stop them.
"I highly doubt anyone was better off when the Taliban was in power than they are now."
Yes they were. The repression of the Taliban has been replaced by war. Women especially are worse off. They are still treated like dirt, but now they have to fear our bombs also. They are definitely worse off now.
Really? Wasn't it not that many weeks ago woman in Afghanistan held a protest? I would have loved to have seen that under Taliban rule. I'm not saying it's perfect, far from but quit blaming the US for this. Bush fucked this up to begin with and it was not the invasion. It was what we did after the invasion. These were a group of people that supported Bin Laden and let him train in the country they claimed. They had the option of turning him over. What happened after was their own making and Bush's fucked policy. Not the fight against them. Leaving now will cause a genocide.
There will be no genocide. The Taliban are outnumbered even in Afghanistan. As per my note below, they filled a void. There was no genocide after The Soviets left.
with the Taliban:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn81969.htm
This is simple history folks.
not even when the U.S. first gloriously rode into Afghanistan to catch the Saudi Arabian terrorists.
/snark
I don't think anyone in the previous administration cared one whit about 'victory',
it was just a chance to show the world how very little America has learned from history.
..Bush promised to go after the terrorists who attacked our nation. I could care less about Afghanistan and their problems; all I want is justice for a dead friend, dead patriots, dead citizens and others. We identified the culprit and knew where he was. We asked politely and the Taliban thumbed their nose at us. We had the sympathy of the world and had we used that sympathy and employed Russia, Iran, Pakistan, India and everyone else to surround that country, nothing in, nothing out, reduced the terrorist hideouts from caves in the mountains to piles of rubble in valleys, then sent in troops to find the remains of the Taliban INSTEAD OF LETTING THE AFGHANS DO IT, we might be at home re-building the towers at this very moment. And then, as the repeat of 60 Minutes reminded us, he let OBL go.
W F**K'd EVERYTHING HE EVER DID UP. WHY WAS THIS CAMAPIGN GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT? HE WANTED TO MAKE RICH PEOPLE RICHER AND INVADE IRAQ; WHAT THE F DID HE CARE ABOUT AMERICA or al-QAIDA? AND HE COMMITTED WAR CRIMES DOING IT!
George W. Bush is not only the WORST PRESIDENT EVER; he's the WORST HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET!
Since the reason we're there is not really the Taliban but private corporate interests in a pipeline, I tend to agree because Bush took us into another corporate war for oil in Iraq the "war" is lost.
Here's another Uk article that takes an anti-war point of view.
Stop bombing us: Osama isn’t here, says Pakistan
The pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India was proposed in the '90's, but Unocal and Gazprom pulled out in '98. It was proposed again in 2002, but the first pipe was supposed to be laid in Turkmenistan in 2006 and that hasn't happened.
It really isn't worth the investment. Afghanistan is so splintered internally- and it has been for centuries or even millenia- that the pipeline's security can't be guaranteed.
While it would cost more to lay, the Trans-Caspian Pipeline (from Turkmenistan, under the Caspian Sea with a link with the South Caucasus Pipeline, ending at the Turkish port of Erzurum) would do the same job with less security risk, and, in the long run, less cost.
"This newspaper’s assessment is that the chance of outright victory in Afghanistan vanished the moment US and British forces went into Iraq."
I think that could very well be true, which is a key reason why impeachment of Bush should have never been taken "off the table".
However, I think there are risks in leaving this festering sore on Pakistan's door. While Pakistan is driving in the Swat Valley, we should not be allowing the Taliban to fall back over the border into Afghanistan. I'm all for taking a few swings at them, the swings we should have taken years ago, and see if we can knock them down a peg or two, but I am not in favor of Obama's 10 year plan. A 2 year plan is more like it.
There is a Northern Alliance in that country, I think. The Ruskies hooked us up with them, back in the beginning. I hope Obama did a lot of listening to the Russians on Afghanistan when he was in Moscow. The ideal situation is to leave the Northern Alliance in charge, I think.
Another gift of the Bush/Cheney administration.
Those who will not learn from history...
This is all just the messy end-game of the Iraq disaster that BushCo and its enablers foisted upon the US & its allies.
The one most responsible for this epic failure is Dick Cheney.
Why isn't this self-confessed criminal in jail already?
The USA has, and will have, no moral standing in the World until Cheney is prosecuted by the DoJ and made to stand trial for his crimes.
Be in no doubt. The eyes of the World are watching how you handle Cheney.
we can't stop because lobbyists won't let it.
SO now we're so desparate to prove that Obama is wrong that we're listening to Conservative rags?
Also, characterizing this as a 'war of attrition' is nonsense. This is not Vietnam. The pool of people willing to actually fight and die is tiny by comparison.
The question is, if we leave, do we have a plan for dealing with the terrorists that will inevitably take up residence there again? I want to hear the plan before I accept that leaving is the best option. Right now all I'm hearing is a chorus of "Bush started this war, therefore it's wrong, so let's leave now, consequences be damned".
was a fiction created by the Bush administration. The only "plan" we as a country need to deal with terrorists and terrorism is damn good intelligence, sincere and intense diplomacy, outreach and common sense. Not wholesale slaughter of innocent people.
"intense diplomacy, outreach and common sense."
We're talking the Taliban and Al-Queda. These people don't understand things like that. Pacifism in theory is great but in reality there are certain groups that it just will not work with. You have to use containment and infiltration to destroy their leadership and make them unorganized to a point they can't attack. Unfortunately with containment a certain population must pay the price. That population would be the Afghans if we were to pull out.
...about becoming a soldier? because the American Imperial Armed forces are desperate for soldiers and have resorted to enlisting street gang members, convicted felons, and nazi skinheads.
personally I think more liberals who understand how to "contain and infiltrate and destroy the leadership" of native middle eastern peoples, need to join up and show the Bush conservatives how to win a war.
why dont you enlist and show us all how its done? (make obama look good?)
Why don't you become a broker for peace, travel to Afghanistan and try and talk the Taliban into living a life of peace and non drug related industry for money. If you come home with your head in tact, we can talk and you can tell me all about it. I'll say it again, we are talking about people that are two centuries behind us. Giving them a box of chocolates and a hug is not going to work. They understand one thing. To make this clear, I'm talking about Al-Queda and the Taliban, not Muslims. They are two different people. And why your at it, ask Kim jong-Il to give up his nuclear program and the Myrammar government to free their people.
Gump you oversimplify. Diplomacy is a multidimensional strategy. The pakistanis want India off their backs. We pressure India, they ease off the Pakistanis. The Pakistanis in turn reduce or eliminate the support for the Taliban. The Taliban are a minority. They exist because of our support for them in the 80's. The majority of Afghanistan is a tribal society. The Taliban filled a void. They can be replaced. But only the indigenous population can achieve that.
Additionally, changing our overall imperialist actions in the ME and near east will exponentially decrease support for extremists like AQ. They feed off of the animosity of the muslim world to our imperialist actions. It all comes back to hegemony and the militant factions of our own society wanting war for peace.
I'm not oversimplifying anything. If anyone you are. Blah blah blah, the imperialist US policy. Guess what, it's too late to look at it that way. We have done our damage through out the years. A simple handshake and a promise will not make groups like the Taliban and AL-Queda forgive us. It's 2009 and we have been at them for 70 years. There are not options for us. Bush got us there and we are there forever. If not, hundreds of thousands die with Bush blood on their hands. But they wont see it as Bush blood, they'll see it as US blood, Obama blood.
OK well I tried. But I cannot debate blah,blah, blah. And no options.
You can't debate with the facts. It's way to easy to say just leave instead of dealing with the reality of just leaving. The blah blah blah was just that. The typical use of US imperialism as an argument. WE can't take back 70 years of imperialism with trust with a fanatical group of people. It's just not reality.
To quote a phrase: Yes we can! You, sir, are a fatalist. That is indeed the easiest way out of a rational solution to this problem.
I wont post a quote that has nothing to do with the debate but I will ask where is your rational and realistic solution?
That was all mine. You can quote me if you want.
See my post at 16:36. But don't fret. The powers that be and their other minions are doing exactly what you want. Which is nothing but dissing the opposition.
Don't fret it either
Yes I read your solution.
"There are not options for us."
Think that up all by yourself?
and you have been fed lies, just like the rest of us.
Uhmm, it's India that's been infiltrated over the last couple of decades, from Pakistan, and in the case of the 1999 Kargil War, by Pakistani soldiers.
So since you've got it backwards, I guess we should pressure Pakistan, right? And it seems that's what's been happening: Pakistan is going after the Taliban inside of its own borders.
It's a classic military move. US pushing from Afghanistan, and Pakistan pushing from the other side.
It just took Pakistan too damn long to get on board.
Now look what they've got to deal with.
I'd luv to stay and chat. but...
Well, we should not be giving all the nuke technology to India. This is spurring the arms race in the region. Pakistan must also give concessions, as this is definitely a two way street. We should be taking the opportunity to negotiate with these two powers. There is much to be gained.
India developed their nuclear weapons on their own. Right now they're upgrading their missiles- working with Russia.
Since 1947, India has been involved in five wars: four with Pakistan and one (1962) with China. Of the four wars with Pakistan, India was attacked three times to start the wars. The other war- The Second Kashmir War, in 1965- India did indeed attack the Pakistani controlled part of Kashmir, but neutral observers will tell you that Pakistan provoked India into that one.
Which leads me to this point: India is a non-aligned nation, and has been since it's independence in 1947. They aren't a NATO client state as Pakistan has been for nearly the entirety of its existence (they bounced between the US and France for a while, but a US client since, iirc, the '70's).
What happened is that Pakistan took a lot of the money they got in US military aid and began to use it for covert operations against India. They were working with the Taliban in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but they got the Taliban to infiltrate into the western, Muslim-majority provinces of India (btw, to the hardcore Wahabis who make up the Taliban, Hindus are much worse than Jews and Christians because the two latter are, at least, of the Abrahamic tradition: people of the Book-. keep that in mind).
There's no two-way street there. It's one way, from Pakistan into India.
Andy, that is an excellent wake up for me. You may also be interested in this segment, which mostly affirms your post.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaWD...
I agree that Pakistan is often the aggressor. I guess my point is that improving relations b/w those two countries will help ease the extremism in Pakistan that seems to be leading them to a more conciliatory position with the Taliban. The recent nuke deal b/w the US and India allows the proliferation of dual use technology, which threatens Pakistan. It is in the best interests of everyone (except the Taliban) that Pakistan maintain a democratic society. I believe that they are religious, but not stupid (again like the Taliban).
This is what bugs me:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/
I'm not relly sure what concessions India could or should make. I only submit that this is an important dimension in the regional conflicts going on there. Thank you.
...should respond to someone who thinks that the "Taliban is involved with drugs" as you imply...
...Opium production increased 10 fold AFTER the taliban was ousted...
When was the Taliban ousted? I'm not sure I should respond to someone who thinks we defeated the Taliban. Karzia runs the capital only with help from mercenaries. farmers are being forced to grow poppy by the Taliban. Get your facts straight. Sorry, but this post pisses me off. On one hand people are saying we can't win and leave and then your facts say we've defeated the Taliban. What is it?
before Chimpster invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban had general control of the country...
(women were required to wear burkas or face a public beating) ...and Opium growing was forbidden!
Bush invaded in o2'...the Taliban were scattered and lost control...and now Opium production has skyrocketed!
(learn some history)
Really? you just said that? You should be ashamed of yourself after that comment. General control means beheading in a soccer stadium? Cutting the hands off of thieves? Raping? Complete oppression? Seriously? Where do you think the Taliban gets its money? From Opium production that farmers are forced to grow. The Taliban could give a shit about who grows and sells Poppy as long as they are getting weapons from it.
General control? Hitler had "General Control", Pol Pot had "General control", Stalin had "General control". Wow, that was a sick comment.
copy paste....Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004-2007), than in any one year during Taliban rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production...
You posted a Wiki page? now you're calling names? Grow up, "dingbat"? the last refuse of a failed argument. Who is profiting from the poppy growth? the Taliban. They are forcing farmers to grow it for money and weapons. If anything the growth of the opium is from the Taliban. You really think they are so righteous.
...you are just wrongous!
So I guess are debate is over because you claimed I am wrong. Great skills.
At least the Taliban has "general control" of the poppy growth. just like Hitler had General control of the extermination of the Jews.
supportive of the Taliban...
...Its just someone telling you you are wrong when you infer that that the Taliban is involved in the drug trade...
...the CIA is in control now that the Taliban is gone and...opium production is up10 fold...those are the facts.
It's the CIA. Now I get it. A little "Loose Change" with progressiveness. Sorry, doesn't work. Never will. And I guess LBJ was party to the RFK murder? Or something like that.
...are very naieve.
I never met anyone who had no idea that the CIA funded itself with drugs.
I guess there is a first time for everything...
So you're saying we're done talking about Afghanistan? I'm wasn't prepared for CIA questions. This post was about Afghanistan.
The two are inextricably linked.
I'd like you to quote a few. instead of that incessant rambling.
You're contribution is duly noted.
But not answered.
The gang up and the attack. I'm guessing the next comment will be either about my education or am I really a liberal. I let you two kids chose.
Poor baby!
leave us a link to back up your talk...
(I did) even though it was just a wiki...
No Wiki pages. Amateurs.
...how does it feel to get your ass kicked by an amateur who is armed with only a (pathetic) wiki?
From gump's post at 17:10
"now you're calling names?"
Link here.
Taliban
Drug Lords
Al Jazeera is run by the CIA!
/snark
From the 'Poppies' article:
[emphasis added]
Nice links, muddy.
Where Al Jazeera was gettin their info.
I like to check their site for news.
Ya get some news there that you won't find anywhere else. As with all news outlets, I take it all with a pinch of salt.
for morphine.
If everyone only realized all the unnecessary pain and suffering going on globally due to a lack of morphine...
The U.N. should make a deal with Afghanistan to grow as many poppies as possible and help guard the poppies.
It's unconscionable that anyone in 2009 should be suffering with intractable cancer pain etc.
Not a big fan of Charlie Wilson, but he hit the nail on the head when he said we fucked up the end game after the Soviets left. We screwed it big time and much of what is happening now is the result. The void was left by us and the Taliban filled it.
This was screwed up along time ago.
If they could work out some sort of agreement for the poppies for world wide medicinal purposes. That would be great. And, include alternative crops too. But the country has to be stable to do that.
If you're fighting age, enlist and ask to go to Afghanistan so you can kill yourself some Taliban and Al-Queda. Otherwise you should STFU. Srsly.
I'm not a pacifist not was I espousing pacifism. The Bush administration had their chance to catch the perpetrators of 9/11 when they were in Afghanistan and failed. Our military should no longer be there. If we have good, reliable intelligence to take out any of the remaining 9/11 players, we should do so. Otherwise, we should bring our troops home from this manufatured "war" against terrorism.
It is my belief that the Taliban did take over Afghanistan in the 90's. It's pretty much historical fact that the Taliban ruled with a very deadly hand.
Women were stoned to death and beheading's were rather common.
I think we all know this.
When the US did go into Afghanistan. They were seriously undermanned. Mullah Omar was the kingpin back then. He was the one who refused to give up OBL. OBL was in Afghanistan.
Bush screwed that all up.
But, the US forces did succeed in pushing the Taliban into Pakistan.
That's why Pakistan is now at war with them in their own country. Pakistan had a treaty with the Taliban. They threw it away.
We know that the Taliban will not just go away. They've proven that for themselves.
So? What do we do? Leave and hope it goes away? Won't happen.
Stay and lose more and more of our most precious resource, our young men and women? Can't tolerate that.
So what do we do?
We know that Afghanistan will fall to the Taliban. We know that. The Afghan govt' isn't strong enough to clean up their own yard yet. And I'm not even going to mention the corruption.
Just look at what's going on in Mexico right now with the drug wars. And that's a war between numerous drug cartels and the Mexican gov't. Tons of corruption.
And with Afghanistan having over a 4 billion dollar opium trade,per year, That just spells a whole lotta trouble.
Some areas are being swayed to grow other crops. Hey, it's a start.
But I want to get back to the Taliban. Anyone who thinks that the Taliban isn't making money to fund their jihad or whatever they want to call from opium is being naive.
It's their source of income. It also allows them to help Al Queda. I believe the two are linked.
So what do we do?
I don't like this anymore than you do Walrus.
It is my belief that, if we leave without making a serious dent in these criminals. They will reconstitute and come back even stronger than before. Then what do we do?
In closing, I have read some articles about the rural people siding with the western forces in both Afghanistan and the Pakistani forces in Pakistan. More and more people want to get rid of the Taliban. You know what will happen to them if we leave.
There is also the issue in South Western Pakistan.
I'm sorry I can't find the link to it. I was reading it this morning and now it's gone. I'm posting this link just for the map. In this SW region of Pakistan, there is a region called Baluchistan or something similar. Don't hold me to the name, I probably screwed that up. This region wants to break away from Pakistan.
They want their own autonomy. So, Pakistan is set to boil over. And the Taliban will take advantage of this. They did when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan.
So, I can see what gump is saying. And I have to agree with him. I certainly don't like it. And I'm sure neither does gump. It's the way things are right now.
It's a shitty situation. That Herr Dumbassya left us.
And the world will have to deal with the ramifications. Are we willing to accept what happens if we just get up and leave?
One more thing, As you probably know. My nephew was in Iraq for 2 tours. Got a PH. Ended up on a mountain top in Afghanistan drawing fire from the Taliban so snipers could pick them off.
I really want this thing over. I want it ended. I want them all to come home.
But with a 4 billion dollar budget. They can rise up and cause damage. I know the Taliban forbid growing poppies back in the 90's.
That was then. And this is now. They found out how valuable that shit is. They will take full advantage of that. And with the trouble in Pakistan, it paints a very ugly picture.
We have no one to blame for this except Bush.
And Pakistan- or at least the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service- was using their Taliban allies to invade the Indian border provinces up until very recently. It's only now that the right wing (read: military) of Pakistan is no longer in full control of the government, now that there's a government in Pakistan willing to admit that last November's attacks in Mumbai were planned in Pakistan and that Pakistanis were amongst the terrorists involved, that we're seeing Pakistan dealing with the Taliban.
I found that story I read this morning.
I really have no solution to offer for this.
But one thing I do know, is that the Afghanis can't do it alone right now. In time, Yes, I certainly hope so.
But the risks are so massive right now.
I don't want to sound like I'm fear mongering.
But 4 billion can buy them whatever they want.
Even 1/4 of that could buy something that would rock the world. That kind of money can reach out and touch anyone.
thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree with many of your points and understand what you are saying.
But....like I said earlier, rather than spend trillions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq killing people, that money would have been better spent on: superior intelligence gathering systems, enhanced military systems, equipment and training (bring it into the 22nd century), intense global diplomacy, global partnerships with other "troublespot" countries in the form of economic aid, education and outreach programs.
The Taliban did not attack us. They harboured, for a short time, those that did. Are they cruel, barbaric, religious fanatics who wish to live in the 10th century? Yes. Are you suggesting we eliminate them completely - men, women and children? How about al-Quaeda? They are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. Kill all of them, too? Is that the answer? That will solve all the problems?
Will the world then be a peaceful place?
We'll never be able to eliminate them. But we can help Afghans get on their feet. We can help them be able to take control of their own country.
All of those countries you mentioned above are in the process of either driving the Taliban out or in Somalia's case taking back their country.
No, I'm not suggesting killing women and children.
This rock we live on has never been at peace. Never.
There's always some asshole who want's to stir shit up.
Like I said, Bush screwed this up. Do you think leaving will bring about peace?
Thanks for the chat Walrus. cya later.
Your second paragraph that mentions intelligences and the like. I agree with you 100%
just so you know.
But unfortunately , the money doesn't always end up doing the right thing it was intended for.
But we can hope. i suppose.
Cause everybody knows that the "wholesale slaughter of innocent people" causes "blowback".
Kinda like a karma thing. What goes around comes around.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146466.stm
this is directly related the Afghan conflict and the toothless US Congress will do ...... nothing.
the longer Obama stays in Iraq and Afghanistan the more he inherits the Bush failures (and the rightwingers will make damn sure of THAT).
One of the bigger blunders made by Obama is supporting those two wars. The Bushies failed in Afghanistan (bin Laden escaped) and then began an illegal aggression against Iraq.
Obama would have been much better off washing his hands of the whole mess, brought the troops home immediately and have Holder appoint Special Prosecutors to investigate the whole sorry tragedy.
...he adopted it when he became a senator from Illonois and commenced to vote yes everytime Chimpster an co. needed war money.
(dont kid yourself) Obama has always "been generous" to the pentagon.
Then again, if Obama pulled out and the Taliban takes over and commits a genocide out of retribution for people they believed supported US invasion, the conservatives will be saying "I told you so" and that Obama doesn't care about the plight of the Afghans. There is no win here. The only decision is do we stop protecting the Afghan people from a murder, torture and possibly a genocide or lose more American soldiers?
and watch ww3 start
that would be cool
Their government is afraid of their own people. If anything, if we leave, the Taliban will grow more powerful in Pakistan. Then the Taliban will have a bomb. Then fighting will break out between Afghanistan and Iran. India will get involved bringing in other Muslim states scaring the shit out of Israel forcing them to use a bomb. Then with Israel facing attacks on all fronts the US will feel the need to defend a nation that has caused nothing but trouble for us and enter the war. Which in turn would create a riff between us and Russia and China.
I'm sorry, I got off course, what was that your were saying about WW3?
Right?
Paki's? Sorry, I didn't know. I'll do a David Letterman apology tour.
to bother replying to you, gump. Not much point in banging my head against a wall. However - while your overly simplistic portrayal of everyone in that region of the world as well as a fairly visible streak of bigotry can be mildly amusing, I would suggest that the best way to win friends and influence neighbours isn't by bashing them over the head or blowing up their houses.
Don't know how long you've been a regular here, did you see the post I did back in November? "Want to Win the War in Afghanistan? Forget Guns - Think Pomegranates." You might want to give it a look-see, just for the hell of it...
if I can give you the link:
http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mouse/want-wi...
or at least the name of your crystal ball manufacturer.
can we please arrest this man and try him for treason?
Afghanistan is all about the drugs the CIA needs in order to further influence impoverished nations. Iraq? O.I.L. Matters not who is bullshitting about it, whether it's Dem or Repub, it's all nothing more than waste byproducts coming out of their mouths. Victory shall be the same as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and of course the much less heard of War on Abortions.
seriously?
What was necessary was for us to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia. It is postulated by many people more informed than I that it would have prevented 9/11, and the subsequent "retaliation". Isn't it just a bit coincidental that since pulling our troops from SA there have been no more attacks on US soil? This is what Bin Laden said in his writings and rantings prior to 9/11.
Invasions and occupations have no victory other than a display of the latest razzel dazzle of the most advanced and inhuman murder machines. The Magnificent 'merican Murder Machine rolls on with no end in sight. Profits over human beings.
!!!!
That is a very good question. Exactly what would warrant victory? But I don't think President Obama has even talked about victory. He is addressing a problem that his worthless predecessors turned their backs on so they could turn Iraq into the blood carnival it is today. Unlike Dick Cheney who said our forces would be in Iraq six months tops, all the while moving the goal posts around, President Obama to my knowledge has made no promises concerning Afghanistan. The Taliban had been successfully beaten into remission and won the hearts and minds of the Afghan People until Cheney and Bush decided to open a new front in Iraq, thereby trapping the U.S. on two fronts. By moving the goal posts around in Iraq and making matters worse by staying longer than needed, had successfully tied the hands of any President who would succeed them. As Joe @ Sun, 07/12/2009 - 14:40 asked, why isn't the self-confessed criminal Dick Cheney in jail already? And why isn't George Bush occupying the cell next to him?
My dad always told me not to lolly-gag around.
The effort in Afghanistan looks like lolly-gagging around. It's an endless "war" and they always say they're on the run. It seems everyone is running in circles. It looks like an open-ended contract for the MIC and lawlessness stateside (by your governement).
We won't end it, not as long as the dollars are green and the dead are brown.
Year US Other Total
2009 106 89 195
2008 155 139 294
2007 117 115 232
2006 98 93 191
2005 99 32 131
2004 52 7 59
2003 48 9 57
2002 49 20 69
2001 12 0 12
Total 736 504 1240
IRAQ
Military Deaths By Time Period
Period US UK Other* Total Days Avg
Total 4322 179 139 4640 2303 2.01
8 1 0 0 1 11 0.09
7 195 3 0 198 345 0.57
6 1040 46 14 1100 534 2.06
5 933 32 21 986 412 2.39
4 715 13 18 746 318 2.35
3 580 25 27 632 216 2.93
2 718 27 59 804 424 1.9
1 140 33 0 173 43 4.02
Why can't we just cut our "losses" in Afghanistan? What is there to "win"? Obama just approved of nearly 20,000 new troops to go to afghanistan and this new general wants even more. How many flag drapped coffins will it take before the american public says enough. If they start the draft and their kids start coming home in bodybags maybe they will think twice about starting these dumb wars to begin with.
I lived in the UK for several years and still keep abreast of British politics - and I can tell you that anything coming out of the Sunday Express or its Daily equivalent is nothing short of trash. The Telegraph is a much less sensationalist Conservative paper, but the "Sexpress", as it is known, has about as much journalistic integrity as my left nut.
I submit that winning and losing really have nothing to do with the situation in Afgan/Pak.
Like in Iraq, the sitch is one of us invading, occupying, and maintaining a presence where ever there are large natural resources (oil and gas) and the development, distribution and routes of distribution.
The whole war being won or lost is merely a bright shiny distraction from the purpose at hand, being waged by the 1% in pursuit of wealth and control.
Don't buy into it, be it Brit or US media.
We had to destroy Iraq to get our bases built, that we've now pulled back to.
We'll destroy both Afghanistan and Pakistan if the American People allow it, in order to build massive bases and keep a permanent presence. And that's being done instead of competing on a free market table for development of them resources and their distribution routes. Competing with Russia, China, Germany, France, et.
So we invade, destroy, and move in permanently.
Will the American People continue to be deceived? How many casualties will it take to inspire antiwar sentiment such as the 60's and 70's?
Because the TRUTH of our endeavors has surely not been any kind of motivator to protest our invasions.
Sad.
What a fucked up mess.
Build cell phone towers and give out free laptops. In a few years there'd be a moderately educated, progressively Muslim regime, a representative democracy, who'd be welcoming commerce and travel from the outside.
Maybe we can get the Russians to help?
In the event any of you have spaced out on recent history, bush was all but blowing the commanders of our military. When war is not happening, then budget cuts wipe out base after base and the power of these military leaders dwindles (ala Clinton years). That "twang" sound that happened on the morning of 9-11 was not the plane going into the side of the tower, it was the stiffy's that sprung to life in the military. Finally they had a moron in office who would no doubt react with military posturing to this horrible event. They proceeded to justify every reason they could brainstorm WHY a military strike was necessary. It was the beginning to a long love\blood fest with the GOP run nation. When there is war justification, then the military gets BIG FAT BLANK CHECKS... any commanders wet dream.
Login or Register to post comments.