"Member nations must accept difficult assignments"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


Well, surprise suprise, it was our government who said it was all peachy down there, not the opposisition that had a few conceirns about the whole deal

so the opposition said, war is always unpredictable, its dangerous, but its something we have to do, because the loss of Afghanistan to the Taliban would endanger us all?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


One could say that for 40 years the US and Canada were part of Europes military reserve. There were some here who said that.

The more far seeing realized that an attack on our Western European allies would endanger us as well. It seems that some in Europe also realize that AQ attacks on the US endanger them as well.

Hah hah! You cant seriously compare some couple of hundred strong AQ with Soviet Union and China. I guess some of us are a bit too far seeing.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Getting rid of the UN would be liberating, by the same logic.

Well, thats much more tricky question. Maybe that logic could be applied in getting rid of the security council. The UN as a whole however is a wonderful idea and I dont see how it has to do with any of this. There was the League of Nations before UN so it was only natural way forward.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Wezil


*sigh*

Unable to read articles or posts and a seeming one trick pony.

Does my Ignore list need a second member?

Maybe it would be better for both of us to spend some time apart.

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


so the opposition said, war is always unpredictable, its dangerous, but its something we have to do, because the loss of Afghanistan to the Taliban would endanger us all?

It'll be a bit hard to recreate the months long debates, who said what and why, but yes: parliament did send a stronger force to Afghanistan then the Government envisaged. Still not strong enough apparently, and so the government keeps sending more without consulting parliament (it's now 'operational issues' or some double talk, and it doesn't matter anymore they lied/ had inadequate intell)

Nice try spinning it though.

[Wezil]

LOtM - How do you explain the deteriorating situation some five years into the mission. Shouldn't nation building be in full swing by now?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
LOtM - How do you explain the deteriorating situation some five years into the mission. Shouldn't nation building be in full swing by now?

not enough troops, not enough resources (and thats due to neglect BOTH by the US and its allies) Kharzai, who, while doing exceptionally well given the situation, ultimately is human and fallible and may have grown stale in power, the continued dilemma of an only barely cooperative Pakistan (which is not unrelated to the issue of large numbers of Pakistani Sunnis NOT being "moderate muslims"), and intrinsic difficulties of a country that was always so backward, and was set further back by the period 1979 to 2001. Also by mistakes like not aiming for a large enough Afghan National Army.

Im not sure the situation is further deteriorating from spring-summer, though. It deteriorated, and now its contained, sort of. But containment isnt enough.

[Wezil]

All possible reasons but it still begs the question - Why now and not five years ago? It seems your list of items should have improved over time.

There is a train of thought that says we have missed our best chance at remaking Afghanistan into something we could live with. That chance was years ago.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Wezil
All possible reasons but it still begs the question - Why now and not five years ago? It seems your list of items should have improved over time.

There is a train of thought that says we have missed our best chance at remaking Afghanistan into something we could live with. That chance was years ago.

Sounds exactly like Iraq

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
All possible reasons but it still begs the question - Why now and not five years ago? It seems your list of items should have improved over time.

There is a train of thought that says we have missed our best chance at remaking Afghanistan into something we could live with. That chance was years ago.

Is the state of the economy in Mazar e sharif worse now than in Dec 2001? IIUC in Mazar and Herat that time warlords had virtually complete control, and now the govt has SOME control, though theyre not super comepetent.

The real problem is in the Pashtun south and east, which sometimes spills into Kabul. Why would it get worse? Well first, AQ had just lost oodles of men, leaders, money and materiel in the coalition-northern alliance offensive. Since that time theyve rebuilt, recruiting among Pashtuns on both sides of the border, etc. Armies left alone in sanctuaries have a tendency to recover. Second, the Afghan pop, in particular the Pashtuns are losing patience with Kharzai. In 2001 they recalled with vividness suffereing under the Taliban, and looked forward (many of them) to change. Now the awfulness of the taliban is a fading memory, and every bad thing done by Kharzai or the coalition is fresh. In democracies we vote the rascals out. There they start supporting terrorists (BTW I think that Kharzai wont be reelected, but can someone be found whos acceptable both to the northerners and the Pashtun)

[Wezil]

According to news reports over the last few months the 'Taliban' have taken an absolute ****kicking lately.

Despite this I suspect we will be having the same conversation a year from now. We are trying to impose a government (we disagree on Karzai's legitimacy) on a people that don't want it. The locals will continue to fight us so long as we occupy their country.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by germanos


http://www2.hq.nato.int/ISAF/media/p...cemat_isaf.pdf

thanks!



I wonder how switzerland ended up with 5 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil
According to news reports over the last few months the 'Taliban' have taken an absolute ****kicking lately.

Despite this I suspect we will be having the same conversation a year from now. We are trying to impose a government (we disagree on Karzai's legitimacy) on a people that don't want it. The locals will continue to fight us so long as we occupy their country.

You think most Afghanis are bitter that the Taliban was deposed and replaced with an elected government?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
According to news reports over the last few months the 'Taliban' have taken an absolute ****kicking lately.

Despite this I suspect we will be having the same conversation a year from now. We are trying to impose a government (we disagree on Karzai's legitimacy) on a people that don't want it. The locals will continue to fight us so long as we occupy their country.

But most of the locals ARENT fighting us, or the Germans and French wouldnt be so eager to stay in the North and leave Kandahar province to the Brits and Canadians, the eastern Pashtun belt to us Yanks. Do you really think the Taliban has support in Mazar, or in the Hazara areas, or even much support in Herat?


Look at the map. You Canadians are justified in complaining. Youve got the worst friggin province in the whole country.

[Dinner]

Afghanistan is officially a NATO mission but a nonNATO country, Australia, has sent more troops to Afghanistan and has been willing to use those troops on combat missions. It seems like the US, UK, Canada, Netherlands, and Australia are doing most of the heavy lifting. It's great that Germany and Italy have contributed some forces but it hasn't been much and they come with to many restrictions attached. France, Germany, Spain, and Italy need to get into the fight and the US should take forces leaving Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan to help boost the over all NATO effort.