Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we propping up such garbage?

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
George Will has had enough of the charade

When conservative columnists decide that we have lost our way, it is time to look at our options.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Will is extremely late in his conversion of convictions. He should have been writing this in 2003 when it might of mattered. But even Will has to factor in the 11'th commandment and not bite the hand that feeds him.

And now that Obama, only a few months into a new strategy of putting combat boots on the ground for the first time, its now premature to evaluate the new Obama strategy especially when the overall strategy is evolving. If nothing else, Obama has done more to change the strategy in four months than GWB did in seven years of benign neglect do nothing in Afghanistan. And when Pakistan is now much more militarily active in its tribal regions, its prevented the traditional Taliban summer offensive. But don't get me wrong here, until Nato takes on the corruption in the Afghan Government, I still can't be optimistic about any military strategy.

In an earlier time, LBJ was to have said, when I lost Walter Cronkite, I have lost the nation, but I hardly think anyone thinks George Will is anything remotely resembling a Walter Cronkite. If anything, the George Will genius is in managing to get everything wrong without getting called on it. Must be the fact that is a baseball fan or something I cannot understand. But now that Will started it, can Limbaugh be far behind?

 

[ChunkiMunki]

If this is such an important country to save and prevent attacks to Western countries and allies, where is the rest of the world? Is it just the US that can recognize the gravity of this situation? It seems there is little concern about Afghanistan from the rest of the potentially threatened nations. Or have we lied to ourselves so much we now believe our own B.S.? Time to call it a day and get out. Jessus

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
If this is such an important country to save and prevent attacks to Western countries and allies, where is the rest of the world? Is it just the US that can recognize the gravity of this situation? It seems there is little concern about Afghanistan from the rest of the potentially threatened nations. Or have we lied to ourselves so much we now believe our own B.S.? Time to call it a day and get out. Jessus

Well in all fairness, the International Security Assistance Force is there. Per wiki, By July 23, 2009, ISAF had around 64,500 troops from 42 countries, with NATO members providing the core of the force. The United States has approximately 29,950 troops in ISAF Of course the US is the bulk of boots there, but thats how it usually is. But youre right. The new reports coming out from the generals dont show much promise, and General McKiernan has stated we need 30,000 troops there to be effective.

 

[Lemon law]

We have to understand we are in Afghanistan because we got our panties in a bunch when 911 scared the bejesus out of us. We were going to get Ossama Bin Laden for sure as priority #1 and build a shining Afghan democracy in the process. And for a nation with a population the size of Afghanistan, the formula is that same at war colleges across the world, 1 troop per 50 in population, or 620,000 troops to conduct a competent military occupations. Any less, and its almost sure to flop. But as we should all know, Rumsfeld and the neocons knew how to do more with less.

As for the rest of Nato, why should it be their fight? For most of them, terrorists strikes are old hat, and nothing to go bonkers irrational about.

 

[ranmaniac]

The reality is that unless you're wanting to kill every Afghan adult male in the country, you're not going to change the mentality where they value goats more than women. The irony is that Afghanistan could almost use a tyrant like Saddam Hussein to bring any sense of order to an otherwise orderless tribal society like Afghanistan. He was an awful human being, but at least he was relatively secular, compared to the the wahabist Taliban and Al Qaeda.

 

[Zedtom]

The area of focus right now is the Hilmand province which contains the highest amount of opium poppy cultivation. Depriving the Taliban of the their highest profit cash crop is key to defeating them.

*Wait-a-minute! Is this a drug war or a war against terrorism?*

 

[Lemon law]

Before 911, one of the platforms of the Taliban was eliminating opium cultivation, and the very next year after Nato invaded opium cultivation soared 258%.
And the people encouraging opium cultivation were the very people that the Taliban had driven out of power and new US allies to boot.

And now the Taliban is seemingly willing to bow to practical expediency and use a cut of the drug money to help finance themselves.

And in my readings of the recent US offensive into areas never before visited, we find a curious alliance of local Taliban, corrupt government officials, local
Afghan army and police officials, all joining together to protect their opium cultivation money, and willing to shoot at Nato troops to protect their sources of wealth. And in terms of drug money, make no mistake, its the Afghan government officials and war lords who get the lions share of the take.

As for 99.9 % of the Afghan people who get little or nothing, they are the victims here. All they know is that they live in the middle of a shooting gallery and
caught between a corrupt local officials, corrupt Taliban fanatics, and a too weak Nato who does nothing to help them and will kill them if they think they think can get someone from the Taliban. And if one group does not kill them, another one will. They are sort of in the position of ants on a sidewalk, they just accidentally get stepped on no matter what they do.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
The area of focus right now is the Hilmand province which contains the highest amount of opium poppy cultivation. Depriving the Taliban of the their highest profit cash crop is key to defeating them.

*Wait-a-minute! Is this a drug war or a war against terrorism?*

Well, either one is a big money maker either way. From big defense contractors to Habib's arms bazaar.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: preCRT
The US 'attacked' the USSR when the Soviets fought against the Taliban in 1980. Now we are propping up a regime that is spewing the same hateful anti-human rights shit.

Almost 30 years later and nothing has changed, except for now its Americans losing their lives over there instead of Soviets/Russians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...tan-womens-rights-rape


Afghanistan passes 'barbaric' law diminishing women's rights

Rehashed legislation allows husbands to deny wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands


Jon Boone in Kandahar
guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 August 2009 14.17 BST


Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.

"It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying 'blood money' to a girl who was injured when he raped her," the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN.

Although Karzai appeared to back down, activists say the revised version of the law still contains repressive measures and contradicts the Afghan constitution and international treaties signed by the country.

Islamic law experts and human rights activists say that although the language of the original law has been changed, many of the provisions that alarmed women's rights groups remain, including this one: "Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband's reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband's permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient."

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country's Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday's election, which is likely to be a close run thing, according to a poll released yesterday.

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan's own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had "made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election".

Brad Adams, the organisation's Asia director, said: "The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in manoeuvres to gain power.

"These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval."

And before any of ATOT's neanderthals reply, remember those women could be your sisters or daughters.

Definitely a P&N topic. -Anandtech Moderator DrPizza

The taliban did not exist when the USSR was in Afghanistan. the Russians fought the mujaheddin.

you dont even know who the Russians were fighting. way to argue :roll: :roll:

 

[CaptnKirk]

I have heard Afgahnistan described 'as if walking through the old testament'

they will/can never change.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I have heard Afgahnistan described 'as if walking through the old testament'

they will/can never change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may be all well and fine for CaptKirk to make that allegation, but I maintain people are people the world around. And if Nato is failing in its mission, its time to take a realistic view of why we fail rather than embrace every cop explanation of why its mission impossible.

On a related note, I see the allegation that our own private contractors are intimidating our own Nato troops in Afghanistan made the national news today.

Well within the bounds of my correspondence with a grunt on the Afghan ground I cannot violate my confidentiality by naming, but this particular person, described blackwater as drunls with guns and with no rules of engagement."

With organizations like that helping Nato, Nato is doomed from the get go in terms of winning hearts and minds as we slit our own throats. I still maintain, if we quit slitting our own throats, its very easy to evolve a new strategy that can win in Afghanistan. The problem is that we look at the problem in exactly the wrong way and failure thus follows.

Until we look at it through the eyes of the 99.9% of the Afghan people who only want peace and stability, there will not be a dimes worth of difference between the various out of control groups with guns, be they the Taliban, Nato, or corrupt Afghan government officials.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Then blaming obama for the escalation is more repug subterfuge.

Are you serious? Are you really that dense? So this "surge" is all Bush, with no Obama authorization?

http://www.inteldaily.com/news...E/9554/2009-02-05.html

Obama campaigned on increased activity in afghanistan. You're now whining that he kept his campaign promise.

Obama is just continuing strategies set forth during bush's time in office.

You repuggies need to get your story straight so you can mount the usual united, lockstep attack.

My guess is that there are no mirrors in your house.

Are there republicans whining about Afghanistan? I think in general they are FOR it.

I suppose another way of putting it is there are some who will whine about anything and many just happen to be republicans. This is not to say that all republicans (or close to all) whine.

Weird. I havent seen it. *shrug*

That's because the logical dictionary definition differs from a dummycrap's definition. When dummycraps moan incessantly about others "whining", they are usually referring to any dissent opposite their own, especially against Obama.

Or, to put it another way:

You and your righty ilk had your chance the last 8 years, now get the f out of the way or we'll steamroll you and the teabagging Joe the Plumber mob crowd you rode in with, Palin lover.

Hope that helps to clear it up a bit. now go chew on some jerky and read a bible, you rightwing nutjob.

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I have heard Afgahnistan described 'as if walking through the old testament'

they will/can never change.


It may be all well and fine for CaptKirk to make that allegation, but I maintain people are people the world around. And if Nato is failing in its mission, its time to take a realistic view of why we fail rather than embrace every cop explanation of why its mission impossible.

On a related note, I see the allegation that our own private contractors are intimidating our own Nato troops in Afghanistan made the national news today.

Well within the bounds of my correspondence with a grunt on the Afghan ground I cannot violate my confidentiality by naming, but this particular person, described blackwater as drunls with guns and with no rules of engagement."

With organizations like that helping Nato, Nato is doomed from the get go in terms of winning hearts and minds as we slit our own throats. I still maintain, if we quit slitting our own throats, its very easy to evolve a new strategy that can win in Afghanistan. The problem is that we look at the problem in exactly the wrong way and failure thus follows.

Until we look at it through the eyes of the 99.9% of the Afghan people who only want peace and stability, there will not be a dimes worth of difference between the various out of control groups with guns, be they the Taliban, Nato, or corrupt Afghan government officials.

Yes, some if not most people in Afghanistan want peace. But how do you hand out power to those people and how do you change those that don't want peace? How do you know the person that finally gets power is going to do the right things with it? The Taliban were those people a while ago, and they corrupted far worse then we thought possible. Castro was a step up from the last ruler. Who do we give the power of government to?

 

[Lemon law]

Zensal puts it well by asking, "Yes, some if not most people in Afghanistan want peace. But how do you hand out power to those people and how do you change those that don't want peace? How do you know the person that finally gets power is going to do the right things with it? The Taliban were those people a while ago, and they corrupted far worse then we thought possible. Castro was a step up from the last ruler. Who do we give the power of government to?"

That was one of the initial mistakes GWB made in Afghanistan, in first militarily allying the corrupt Northern Alliance and then making the mistake of assuming that the sooner the Afghan government went democratic the better.

As a result the corrupt thugs with decades of experience ended up with de facto control of the Afghan government.
The very corrupt thugs that caused the rise of the Taliban in the first place.

In terms of what Nato should have done is not only a common mistake, its rather simple to understand. Nato assumed they could impose democracy from the top down, but that process stops at the corrupt public official,
and that is usually at the providential governor level in Afghanistan. And never reaches the man in the street level. When it should be started also at the local village level as a bottom up strategy, with Nato making sure the laws were enforced. In Iraq, where such ideas were tried, it was very successful.

But of course that would take more troops and more brainpower than neocons could muster. But it was just assumed as an unquestionable postulate that democracy was the universal panacea. And so it ended up being for the corrupt crooks and thugs.

 

[Ackmed]

Im going over March/April time frame. Thanks to this war, Ill make lots of money, and hopefully have the opportunity to kill some bad guys. Should be fun!

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
If this is such an important country to save and prevent attacks to Western countries and allies, where is the rest of the world? Is it just the US that can recognize the gravity of this situation? It seems there is little concern about Afghanistan from the rest of the potentially threatened nations. Or have we lied to ourselves so much we now believe our own B.S.? Time to call it a day and get out. Jessus

Canada is in there too.

 

[KMFJD]

Has the little puppet(Karzia) maintained control of teh cities after the election?

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
If this is such an important country to save and prevent attacks to Western countries and allies, where is the rest of the world? Is it just the US that can recognize the gravity of this situation? It seems there is little concern about Afghanistan from the rest of the potentially threatened nations. Or have we lied to ourselves so much we now believe our own B.S.? Time to call it a day and get out. Jessus

The Taliban attacked the United States, and the Taliban essentially controlled the Afgan govt. Say what you want about Iraq, but for all intents and purposes, Afghanistan committed an act of war against the United States.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
If this is such an important country to save and prevent attacks to Western countries and allies, where is the rest of the world? Is it just the US that can recognize the gravity of this situation? It seems there is little concern about Afghanistan from the rest of the potentially threatened nations. Or have we lied to ourselves so much we now believe our own B.S.? Time to call it a day and get out. Jessus

The Taliban attacked the United States, and the Taliban essentially controlled the Afgan govt. Say what you want about Iraq, but for all intents and purposes, Afghanistan committed an act of war against the United States.

Or at least that's the official story being passed around by corporate media. My question is, why are we still in Afghanistan, after the Taliban has essentially been dethroned and disbanded? The US has been involved in Afghanistan longer than our involvement in both World Wars put together. This "war on terror" is just a fancy name to a war with an invisible enemy, and without physical boundaries. In other words, a war that can be perpetuated indefinitely with no clear objective or goal. The possible real objective may be the continuous presence of US-friendly forces in the area to expand the American geo-economic-political empire and to project an area of influence over rival nations such as Russia or China.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
If this is such an important country to save and prevent attacks to Western countries and allies, where is the rest of the world? Is it just the US that can recognize the gravity of this situation? It seems there is little concern about Afghanistan from the rest of the potentially threatened nations. Or have we lied to ourselves so much we now believe our own B.S.? Time to call it a day and get out. Jessus

The Taliban attacked the United States, and the Taliban essentially controlled the Afgan govt. Say what you want about Iraq, but for all intents and purposes, Afghanistan committed an act of war against the United States.

Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. but was under the protection of the Taliban

Invasion was to dismantle the Taliban and get to Al Qaeda

"The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organisations and nations or governments that harbor them."

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The reality is that unless you're wanting to kill every Afghan adult male in the country, you're not going to change the mentality where they value goats more than women. The irony is that Afghanistan could almost use a tyrant like Saddam Hussein to bring any sense of order to an otherwise orderless tribal society like Afghanistan. He was an awful human being, but at least he was relatively secular, compared to the the wahabist Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Wait a minute, are you saying it was a mistake to remove Saddam from power in Iraq?
That the entire strategy was wrong?

I saw an interview once where the Afghan person was complaining that under the Soviet occupation, at least the girls were able to attend school. Ironic that under democracy, women have less rights?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If you're reading this thread, you might enjoy this animated political cartoon (posted today).

Cash for Karzai

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
If this is such an important country to save and prevent attacks to Western countries and allies, where is the rest of the world? Is it just the US that can recognize the gravity of this situation? It seems there is little concern about Afghanistan from the rest of the potentially threatened nations. Or have we lied to ourselves so much we now believe our own B.S.? Time to call it a day and get out. Jessus

The Taliban attacked the United States, and the Taliban essentially controlled the Afgan govt. Say what you want about Iraq, but for all intents and purposes, Afghanistan committed an act of war against the United States.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not be absurd Zensal, Al-Quida only used the the Taliban to attack the USA witthout the knowledge or consent of the then Taliban government. And while Ossama was in Afghanistan at the time, the actual plot mastermind and axillary support came from terrorists cells in other countries.

Its almost like saying Bernie Madoff''s ponzai scheme was a US sponsored attack on the world economic system.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The reality is that unless you're wanting to kill every Afghan adult male in the country, you're not going to change the mentality where they value goats more than women. The irony is that Afghanistan could almost use a tyrant like Saddam Hussein to bring any sense of order to an otherwise orderless tribal society like Afghanistan. He was an awful human being, but at least he was relatively secular, compared to the the wahabist Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Wait a minute, are you saying it was a mistake to remove Saddam from power in Iraq?
That the entire strategy was wrong?

I saw an interview once where the Afghan person was complaining that under the Soviet occupation, at least the girls were able to attend school. Ironic that under democracy, women have less rights?

We don't know the entire reasoning behind ridding Iraq of Saddam. We can go along with what we've been told or speculate. If I were to speculate, we rid Iraq for a few reasons.
Saddam was trying to denominate his oil sales in Euros and we didn't want that to occur or give others that idea. Iran was/is a much bigger problem from US strategic pov than Saddam's 'stabilizing' affect which I speculate he was becoming more into trying to assume leadership of the OPEC neighbors and that coupled with Iran was a major issue. We wanted Iran to see our commitment to our ideals and strategic objectives as being forced if needed. We wanted a significant democratic buffer right in the center of the mid east aligned with the US and what better place than Iraq - Saddam was getting too big for his britches.

 

[Modelworks]

Obama just told the 82nd out of Bragg that they are to stay another 2 months. They are not happy. They were told 12 months, and today he decides to extend it to 14 months. Imagine getting ready to come home then getting slapped with that.