U.S. W I D E N S role in Afghanistan

[syzygy]

hmmm . . . as a harbinger of our fate in iraq, the u.s. government has relented to afghan pleas and have agreed to
extend their peacekeeping mission to areas outside the limits of kabul.

but the kicker is . . .

The change in approach needs to be made expeditiously, while American officials work to persuade other countries
to join the effort.

we see the urgency and the need to work with our coalition partners to establish the peace. as the ground situation
changes, we lean on our allies for help. when these same contingencies arise in iraq, who will we turn to ?


ny times link 09-02-02

if you can't link, here's the full op-ed piece (short):

For months the government of Hamid Karzai has pleaded for peacekeeping forces from the United States and other
countries to help secure Afghanistan's unruly countryside. The Defense Department has argued, for just as long, that
the United States has more urgent tasks, such as chasing down the remnants of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. Now, in
a welcome reversal, the Bush administration appears ready to use some of its troops to stabilize areas of Afghanistan
outside the capital. The change in approach needs to be made expeditiously, while American officials work to persuade
other countries to join the effort.

With bombings and other attacks still being directed against Mr. Karzai's government, the security situation in Kabul
is far short of satisfactory. But conditions are worse in the rest of the country, where warlords, bandits and fugitive Taliban
forces run rampant. In some instances, the Pentagon has aggravated the situation by allying American forces with anti-Taliban
warlords, giving them license and resources to control their territory. Enhancing their power can only undermine the central
government in the capital.

President Bush has many times expressed an aversion to using American troops for peacekeeping or "nation building."
But Pentagon officials have lately begun to realize that the longer it takes to build a strong central Afghan government in
command of its own security forces, the longer it will be before American troops can leave Afghanistan. The United States
cannot ask other countries like Turkey, currently leading international security forces in Kabul, to perform peacekeeping duties
without making a contribution of its own.

The United States is right to set a long-term goal of establishing an effective Afghan Army. But this is as much a political
challenge as a military one. Mr. Karzai has some distance to go before learning how to stitch together the disparate factions
that have held sway in his country, in some cases for centuries. Expanded American support for an international peacekeeping
presence will go a long way toward helping him reach that goal.

 

[rbhawcroft]

ou have a forbidden word in your message post. Please click the back button in your browser and remove this word from your post.


The words that are forbidden are highlighted for you.
well afghanistan has been a catalogue of errors ffrom the start.

first special forces not northern aliance/ custom army from refugee camps

then not manageing the fall of the talebs well and letting them escape

then not crushing the warlods while the ppportunity remained

then letting the warlords create the government

then relying on your info from the warlords

then bombing civilians bec they basicaly dont give a sh1t in the military about foreigners military or civilian

then not underdstanding the local cultue and using it has let alqaida slip away and be forewarned like in vietnam then they go to broaden their troop spread, which may meanthey are easy to pick off

when you join an organisation lead by bureacratic asses like this, you have got to expect it to end badly
.

secondly in iraq there is no native population that is anti central governemt, second no boby likes hussein in the population at large, third it is an open coutry unlike afghanistan, and vietnam, fourth the replacement wikll be the INC which has worked for years at a inclusing alternative to Hussein.

so whichever morons say afghanistan is like iraq are truly stupid.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft
ou have a forbidden word in your message post. Please click the back button in your browser and remove this word from your post.


The words that are forbidden are highlighted for you.
well afghanistan has been a catalogue of errors ffrom the start.

first special forces not northern aliance/ custom army from refugee camps

then not manageing the fall of the talebs well and letting them escape

then not crushing the warlods while the ppportunity remained

then letting the warlords create the government

then relying on your info from the warlords

then bombing civilians bec they basicaly dont give a sh1t in the military about foreigners military or civilian

then not underdstanding the local cultue and using it has let alqaida slip away and be forewarned like in vietnam then they go to broaden their troop spread, which may meanthey are easy to pick off

when you join an organisation lead by bureacratic asses like this, you have got to expect it to end badly
.

secondly in iraq there is no native population that is anti central governemt, second no boby likes hussein in the population at large, third it is an open coutry unlike afghanistan, and vietnam, fourth the replacement wikll be the INC which has worked for years at a inclusing alternative to Hussein.

so whichever morons say afghanistan is like iraq are truly stupid.

Nice to know someone has all the answers even if they are unable to put them in to coherent sentences.