Mission accomplished: "Death to America" and "Death to Karzai".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
I think the government does exert some control outside Kabul - control enforced at the end of western rifle barrels.

I don't think the average Afghani (whatever that might be) wants us there and that the mission is ultimately doomed to failure. We are an occupyng force that eventually will decide we have paid too high a price and we will leave. It seems to be the history of Afghanistan and I fail to see why our mission there will end any differently.

1. at some level all govts control is based on force. When someone says govt X exerts no control otuside of Y, it usually means they exert no control even with rifle barrels

2. Yes, the desired endstate is that the govt of Afghanistan relies on its own forces. The Afghan National Army is far ahead of where it was in 2002, and far ahead of where many folks expected it to be. But it still relies on Western support against significant enemies.

3. Im sure the average Afghani wants Afghanistan to be able to rely on its own forces, and not on foreign forces. We want that too. I do not see evidence that the average Afghan wants us to leave now, or opposes the Kharzai govt. Your argument that they do seems to be based on a prior reasoning, and not on any data from Afghanistan (apart from yesterdays riot)

4. The price we are paying is not that high. Here in the US the price from Afghanistan is normally drowned out by news from Iraq. Now THERE you may be right, but I think as far as Afghanistan is concerned, there isnt a hint of a groundswell for withdrawl. Maybe the Canadians will withdraw. I dont know.

5. Whats different, of course, is that we are not there to colonize, as the British were, nor are we running the kind of occupation the USSR did. And this IS a democratic govt, and it DID succeed a Taliban govt that was almost universally hated in the northern, non-Pashtun half of the country, and was disliked by many Pashtun.


6. Eventually we WILL withdraw. And eventually Afghanistan will have a president who isnt named Kharzai. It might even by one of Kharzais political opponents, like Abu Sayaf, or Mohammed Khan. And said govt will likely balance among the US and other powers, including China and Russia. But it will NOT be a Taliban govt, and it will not provide a haven to Al Qaeeda. Thus we will not have failed.

[Wezil]

I sincerely hope you are right and that the price we are paying will be worth it.

"significant enemies" - I think this is where our viewpoint differs. I suspect you see these enemies as being outsiders - I see them as being the locals. This insurgency I suspect consists mainly of Afghanis, just as the Iraqi insurgency is predominantly Iraqis.

Rather than supporting the government they want I think the Afghani people will increasingly see western forces as supporting (imposing) the government WE want. The end of your post supports this position. A Taliban government that supports Al Qaeeda in NOT acceptable - What if this is the 'democratic' choice of the Afghanis?

[Wezil]

From Esprit de Corps (definitely NOT anti-military...)

Debate Afghan mission

On Target/April 3, 2006
By SCOTT TAYLOR

Last week was yet another test of mettle for the Canadian battle group in Kandahar. In addition to the heightened incident rate of explosive devices, suicide bombings and sporadic shelling, our soldiers also experienced a full-scale guerrilla attack at a remote outpost. The death of 22-year-old Pte. Rob Costall in that firefight brought the Canadian death toll in Afghanistan to 12, and the number of wounded has climbed to 48.

The sudden increase in casualties last month caused Canadians finally to sit up and take note of the fact that our role in Afghanistan has changed dramatically. With that awareness came the first serious questions being asked of the government, such as "When the hell did we agree to go to war?" and "What exactly do we hope to achieve in the end?" Rather than airing these issues in a full-fledged parliamentary debate or simply providing direct answers, Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to fly into the forward operating base in Kandahar to hold a pep rally for the troops.

That was a rather gutsy move on Harper’s part, but the singular message emitted by Harper was that "Canada doesn’t cut and run." The public responded well, and within days the 70 per cent opposed to the mission had been flipped to 70 per cent in favour.

However, when the casualty lists continued to lengthen and as the Taliban attacks become more brazen, the new soft support quickly dissipated. The Defence Department has mounted a major public relations campaign to "sell" Canadians on the war.

There exists a short list of talking points that are repeated ad nauseam to confuse the public. For those of you following this debate closely, the following statement will be familiar: "We have been invited into Afghanistan by a democratically elected government." The reality is that after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, which collapsed the Taliban regime, Hamid Karzai was appointed to the presidency by the U.S. State Department.

Propped up by American and international security forces, Karzai’s interim government was elected by fewer than one million voters in a country of 23 million citizens. Karzai’s first act as a democratically elected official was to invite the foreign forces that installed him to remain to prop up his administration.

Another little nose-stretcher is the old line about Canada’s obligations to fight the war on terror because "24 Canadians died in the 9-11 attacks." Despite the insinuation of Afghanistan’s involvement in the attacks, not oneAfghan was listed among the hijackers, and Osama bin Laden’s operatives included sleeper cells in the U.S. — not Central Asia.The standard prediction is that the rebuilding of Afghanistan will take "at least a decade" and can only be accomplished through a long-term commitment of foreign troops. The hope is that by demonstrating to the various factions the benefits of a democratic federal state, we will have effectively recreated their social fabric into our own likeness.

When the Soviet Union was "invited" into Afghanistan by the hard-pressed Afghan Communist Party in 1980, the Russians also felt that their socialist ideology could take root if they propped it up for a decade. We all know how well that turned out.

Our troops are committed to this current mission. No one is suggesting we "cut and run" from our present obligation. However, before we contemplate an extension of this deployment we must have a serious debate, with facts — not rhetoric and disinformation.

Some Canadians would say Mr. Taylor has 'no balls'. His credentials would say otherwise.

[CrONoS]

Propped up by American and international security forces, Karzai’s interim government was elected by fewer than one million voters in a country of 23 million citizens. Karzai’s first act as a democratically elected official was to invite the foreign forces that installed him to remain to prop up his administration.

Age structure (%) of Afghanistan -| CIA Factbook

0-14 years: 44.6% (male 7,095,117/female 6,763,759)
15-64 years: 53% (male 8,436,716/female 8,008,463)
65 years and over: 2.4% (male 366,642/female 386,300) (2006 est.)

Anyway one million or less voters is not that much. Maybe around 5-10% of people have voted.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil
"I sincerely hope you are right and that the price we are paying will be worth it.

"significant enemies" - I think this is where our viewpoint differs. I suspect you see these enemies as being outsiders - I see them as being the locals. This insurgency I suspect consists mainly of Afghanis, just as the Iraqi insurgency is predominantly Iraqis."

I think there are elements of both. I read cites that follow events in Pakistan closely, and I beleive very strongly that the Taliban move back and forth freely to Pakistan, and thats important to their ability to strike.


"Rather than supporting the government they want I think the Afghani people will increasingly see western forces as supporting (imposing) the government WE want. The end of your post supports this position. A Taliban government that supports Al Qaeeda in NOT acceptable - What if this is the 'democratic' choice of the Afghanis?"



i wont debate the theoretical question of what i they vote for terrrorism - I think that outcome is most unlikely. The Taliban are a purely Pashtun movement, and the Pashtun, IIRC, are slightly less than half the country. and many Pashtun oppose the Taliban.

[lord of the mark]

"There exists a short list of talking points that are repeated ad nauseam to confuse the public. For those of you following this debate closely, the following statement will be familiar: "We have been invited into Afghanistan by a democratically elected government." The reality is that after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, which collapsed the Taliban regime, Hamid Karzai was appointed to the presidency by the U.S. State Department."


that is incorrect. There was a conference in Bonn, organized under UN auspices, with the active involvement of many countries other than the US (esp the host country, Germany)

We couldnt hold an election in December 2002. The conditions didnt allow for that. And Afghanistan needed a govt.


"Propped up by American and international security forces, Karzai’s interim government was elected by fewer than one million voters in a country of 23 million citizens."

The coalition encouraged as many people as possible to vote. This was the first election of its kind in Afghanistan. We discussed that election at great length here when it happened. It was fair, and their was no evidence that those who didnt vote were prevented from doing so.

" Karzai’s first act as a democratically elected official was to invite the foreign forces that installed him to remain to prop up his administration."

No, to remain to continue rebuilding Afghanistan, and to prevent a terrorist organization that had oppressed afghans from returning to power. At a time when Afghanistan had NO army. What choice would ANY elected leader of Afghanistan have had?

Your Mr Taylor is distorting things, and in some cases lying. I suggest you find a new source.

apparently hes a slobo apologist as well.

[GePap]

The only reason the Taliban has not come on stronger is that it no longer has foreign powers backing it. The Soviets faces an ememy backed by deep pockets. Without billions from the US, an open and friendly base in pakistan, and billions more from KSA the Soviets would have probably been able to keep the mujahadden quite. Heck, they did have a much bigger afghan army fighting with them anyways.

The situation in Afghanistan after 4 years is sad.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap
The only reason the Taliban has not come on stronger is that it no longer has foreign powers backing it. The Soviets faces an ememy backed by deep pockets. Without billions from the US, an open and friendly base in pakistan, and billions more from KSA the Soviets would have probably been able to keep the mujahadden quite. Heck, they did have a much bigger afghan army fighting with them anyways.

The situation in Afghanistan after 4 years is sad.

I think that has more to do with how it was abandoned like a broken toy when Bush ran across the room to "play" with Iraq instead

[Serb]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Serb
The opium situation is more complex than simply being a measure of the influence of warlords.

Sure. And I even know why exactly (see below and feel free to mark it as another conspire theory).

Except they control most of the country.

You know why I find it hard to believe? Because Afghanistan and Iraq are apporiximately of the same size both in terms of population 20mln+something, and territory. Iraq, in general is a desert - the worst terrain for guerilla warfare ever, while Afghanistan has a mountainous terrain , wich is just perfect for guerilla warfare. In Iraq you have 200K troops and not doing very well. You claim that in Afghanistan you have only 10K soldiers, which is less than a division. So, why should I believe that in Afghanistan, which has much more favorable terrain for you enemy, and where you have a 20 times less troops, you are doing better than in Iraq?

10 000 troops, perhaps is enough to impose some kind of control over Kabul. I harldy can see how it's enough to control the country of aprx. the same size as Iraq, where, let's face it, you efforts are failing, while there are 200 000 of your troops.
So, I believe those 10 000 troops are doing they job to protect the "elected government" of Afghanistan from its citizens. 10K troops simple is not enough to do anything else. That "elected government" may issue whatever orders for all they care - they even may think everyone will follow those orders, they may think their orders have a full strength upon the territory of the entire country, they may think whatever they wish, but the warlords, who actually controll the country can always use those orders as a good piece of toilet paper for their precious slave-holding, drug-dealing butts and nothing else.

But since absolute majority of Afghani drugs goes to Russia and further to Europe, and the occupying force - USA, don't give a **** about that (if more of those ****ty frenchy euros and redass russians would die next year due to Afghani heroin, who cares? And why the hell we should care? It's actually good: EU and Russia would have a serious headache.) And as we all know, thanks to CIV series - anything which brings a headache to your rivals is good for you.

In 2004, every third Afghani worked at opium fields. 90% of world's heroin came from Afghanistan.The opium growing equals to 1/2 of Afghani GDP.
So, how could it be that you democraticly elected government, which controls "most of the country" allow that? When your appointed, excuse me, elected president Karzai came to power the output of opium increased in 2001 17 times comparing to 2000. Is it a clear indication that the covernment controls the entire country? I don't think so. Today Afghanistan is the world's leading heroin manufacturer.
So, I dare to claim that the guys who have real power in Afghanistan are warlords and they don't give a **** about Karzai's government orders.
Any government which have a situation when half of its GDP equals to opium manufacture in their country, doesn't control a thing by definition.

Simple as that.

As for riots, I believe riots in Kabul caused by behavior of your troops and since it's not possible to cover an entire country with 10 000 troops only, there are no factors which encourage riots outside of Kabul. In fact, I think most of your 10 000 force in Afghanistan is located in Kabul. So, people outside the capital have little reason to be pissed off by presence of your troops, and therefore have little need to follow the oreders of your puppet Karzai's government those troops are protecting.

A few thousand more. Cause its an international commitment.

Good. It's simply not enough comparing to Iraq. See above.

The support we gave the mujahadeen was small, compared to say the money we funneled into central america in the same period. It was a sideshow, it wasnt the principle focus of US foreign policy. If you think THAT was taking on a superpower, its a good thing you didnt have to take on a real superpower effort.
No, theyre not our lackey. You were misinformed.

These statements deserve its own reply. See my next post.

I dont know who they are. But there is a series of high casualty battles going on in the countryside. If you really followed the situation in Afghanistan, youd know that.

I was asking about participants of riot in Kabul. You've answered my question - "I dont know who they are", the rest has no importance to me. Since you don't know who they are, I can share my view with you - imho, they are inhabitants of Kabul, who riot against foreign occupation. The Taliban do its sh!tty work in the countryside and doesn not seriously connected to the riot in the capital. I mean, in my opinion, the riot in Kabul is not a Talinban deed, but a people's outrage. The Taliban would simply blow-up a thing or two, but throwing stones to American jeeps? Oh, come on.


p.s. I would be glad if I'm wrong and you are doing just a fine job in Afghanistan, because Russia, as perhaps no one else, is interested in stable situation in Afghanistan, where the government really controll things. Hell, I personally don't mind if it would be your puppet government, if that government suppress the spread of religous fanatism and drug manufacturing. But so far, that's not what I can see there.

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The support we gave the mujahadeen was small, compared to say the money we funneled into central america in the same period. It was a sideshow, it wasnt the principle focus of US foreign policy. If you think THAT was taking on a superpower, its a good thing you didnt have to take on a real superpower effort.

Excuse me, but if you think that you supplied Central America with billions USD (in any case with more bucks, than Afghanistan), that Afghanistan was just a sideshow and wasn't the focus of US foreign policy, then me thinks you have a pretty corrupted vision of the cold war.
I strongly recommend you to read the article below, to begin your jorney into wonderous world of the cold war and US foreign policy:

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/brz.htm

"[/QUOTE] Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess

Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs "From the Shadows", that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter . You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We
now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?**

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism,
Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.


* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.** It should be noted that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

This interview was translated from the French by William Blum, Author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower". Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to Killing Hope)"

Damn, I had to post this entire article in bold.
The guy is a real motherf*cker, who occassionaly tell the truth.

No, theyre not our lackey. You were misinformed.

I wasn't. They ARE your lackeys, which is why you supported general Musharaf after the coup, and which is why Pakistani dictatorship is allowed to have a nuclear bomb, while the democratically elected presidcent of Iran doesn't.
I've already posted this before, but I think it's a good time to post it again (it's about your puppet governmet involment in Afghanistan):
"The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said"
Full text here: http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Serb

Not at all.
If you were kicked out of the country years ago, I would rank US military somewhere between the Ukranian Special Chemical platoon and the Mighty Army of Congo Firefarts.

Luckily for you, I rank your army much higher. But anyway, we controled the country for a decade and have not seen such riots in its capital. You've spent there five years, and it looks like now you can't even handle with Kabul alone, not to mention the rest of Afghanistan.
So, keep sh!tting yourself about your success where Soviets failed.

We haven't had to murder as many Afghanis as you did. Nobody rioted under the Taleban, either.

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We haven't had to murder as many Afghanis as you did.

Any statistic to back-up this claim?

Nobody rioted under the Taleban, either.

Except such little thing as the Northern Alliance, which controlled entire parts of the country where people didn't give a damn about the Taliban.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Estimates of numbers of Afghan civilians killed, maimed and displaced as a result of Soviet occupation are widely available. But of course, we all know that the real truth is that the Soviet army just strew daisies and rose petals about the countryside and never hurt a fly.

And the NA weren't individual citizens "under" Taleban rule - they are/were well organized and equipped ethnic militias loyal to their individual leaders.

[Geronimo]

Desert certainly is the worst terrain for guerrilla activities but I wouldn't necessarily say mountainous is the best. The best terrain is an urban environment anywhere.

In iraq a lot of the insurgencies activities have to be confined to built up densely populated areas but within those areas they are just as difficult to counter (without destroying those population centers) as if they were in densely populated areas in afghanistan.

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Estimates of numbers of Afghan civilians killed, maimed and displaced as a result of Soviet occupation are widely available. But of course, we all know that the real truth is that the Soviet army just strew daisies and rose petals about the countryside and never hurt a fly.

Sure the Soviets killed people there, it was war after all. Btw, where one can't find the estimates you've mentioned to compare them with your achievments in Afghanistan?

And the NA weren't individual citizens "under" Taleban rule - they are/were well organized and equipped ethnic militias loyal to their individual leaders.

True.
Perhaps it's my bad English, but doesn't a territory controlled by "well organized and equipped ethnic militias loyal to their individual leaders" and not loyal to central government (the Taliban), considered as rioting province?