Virtual Taliban state in Northern Pakistan.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Flubber, running? I'm not so sure running would be the right term. But clearly AQ will be part of the leadership in any new Iraq and will enjoy basing rights, etc. The Taliban's cozy relationship with Osama is the prototype.

That's completely nutty. The Shi'a make up around 60% of the population while the Kurds make up 20% of the population. The Kurds and the Shi'a Arabs hate the Sunni Arabs. Who the hell do you think will win the civil war? The side with 80% of the population and complete control of the armed forces and government or the marginalized 20% of the population?

The Shi'a Arabs wouldn't even consider helping a sunni terrorist group like Al Qaeda due to ideological differences as well as the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq (which isn't really Al Qaeda and instead just uses the name for recognition value) has been the main murderer of Shi'a. Mean while the Kurds are far more secular in their outlook then the Arabs and really don't want much to do with any Arab be they Shi'a or Sunni but the Kurds do have a historical bone to pick with the Sunni Arabs for three different ethnic cleansing events (in the 50's, the 70's and the early 90's). The Kurds would pick the Shi'a over the Sunni in part because they want to be on the winning side but also because they hate the Ba'athists and the Sunnis are the ones who always supported the Ba'athists.

[Ned]

Oerdin, I thing the Sunnis are going to win, not the Shi'ites.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
But you suggest that somehow things are not better (for the world at least) with AQ gone.

If you're speaking to me, you've misinterpreted.

Destroying al Qaeda is a really, really good thing.

This is one reason I went berserk when Bush attacked Iraq. Al Qaeda had virtually no presence there before the war. Now, it's well established although I believe that whichever Iraqi faction comes out in charge following their civil war will kick AQ out.

[Ned]

Z, Clearly the Shi'ites will. But what is your reasoning wrt the Sunnis?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Youre saying if there were MORE NATO troops in Afghanistan the Taliban would have left Pakistan and headed to Afghanistan to die? Why? You seem to think they have a bunch of fixed positions in Afghanistan that they defend - that this is like not enough western troops letting the Germans shift troops to the USSR. AFAICT its nothing like that at all - they are guerillas, they avoid strength and look for weakness.

And in turn, what is your point? that the Afghan war can't be won because either you send in sufficient force and the Taleban hide, or you don't and they take control of the country?
It goes beyond a simple analysis of combat encounters - more troops mean more pressure on the local warlords (on which the Taleban depend greatly), the possibility to oversee the training of an Afghan force, etc. Basically it means taking the lead and putting pressure on them - just because they use guerilla tactics doesn't mean you can't. And this shouldn't be an excuse for leaving the country to itself after the extravagance of the initial promises.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


And in turn, what is your point? that the Afghan war can't be won because either you send in sufficient force and the Taleban hide, or you don't and they take control of the country?
It goes beyond a simple analysis of combat encounters - more troops mean more pressure on the local warlords (on which the Taleban depend greatly), the possibility to oversee the training of an Afghan force, etc. Basically it means taking the lead and putting pressure on them - just because they use guerilla tactics doesn't mean you can't. And this shouldn't be an excuse for leaving the country to itself after the extravagance of the initial promises.

What Im saying is the war on the Taliban in the NWFP of Pakistan, specifically in North and South Waziristan, can not be won in AFGHANISTAN. Period. With any strategy. That doesnt mean more troops in Afghanistan would be a mistake since stabilizing Afghanistan is a worthy goal in itself. But it wont solve the NWFP problem. I dont know what will solve the NWFP problem, all the suggested approaches have their issues, whether its pressuring Perv, making alliances with Pervs domestic opponents, giving on Pakistan entirely, etc. But youre not going to solve Waziristan in Kandahar.

[Zkribbler]

The Baathists are a neo-facisitic group, essentially non-religious (except, on occasion and for political purposes, they do exault Islamic and condemn Israel). Their loyalty is to the exaulted leader--who used to be Saddam.

Al Qaeda is a group of religous fanatics whose alpha and omega is the Koran and Islam--as interpreted by their exaulted leader, Osams bin Ladin.

The two can form a temporary alliance of convenience, but in the long one, they will turn on each other and, at most, only one will survive.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Baathists are a neo-facisitic group, essentially non-religious (except, on occasion and for political purposes, they do exault Islamic and condemn Israel). Their loyalty is to the exaulted leader--who used to be Saddam.

Al Qaeda is a group of religous fanatics whose alpha and omega is the Koran and Islam--as interpreted by their exaulted leader, Osams bin Ladin.

The two can form a temporary alliance of convenience, but in the long one, they will turn on each other and, at most, only one will survive.

The Iraqi Baathists had been shifting to Islamist (though not Wahabist) legitimizations of power through the 1990s (See for ex "the mother of all battles Mosque") though they continued to include non-muslims like Tariq Aziz in the leadership. In the wake of the invasion Baathists like al-Douri seem to have moved much closer to AQ and other Wahabist groups - IIUC al-Douri actually became a Wahabist. The situation on the ground in Anbar is acting as chamber for the exchange and recombination of memes, as it were.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Baathists are a neo-facisitic group, essentially non-religious (except, on occasion and for political purposes, they do exault Islamic and condemn Israel). Their loyalty is to the exaulted leader--who used to be Saddam.

Al Qaeda is a group of religous fanatics whose alpha and omega is the Koran and Islam--as interpreted by their exaulted leader, Osams bin Ladin.

The two can form a temporary alliance of convenience, but in the long one, they will turn on each other and, at most, only one will survive.

The Ba'athist is an extreme Arab National Socialist (NAZI) party.

"The motto of the Party is "Unity, Freedom, Socialism" (in Arabic wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya). "Unity" refers to Arab unity, "freedom" emphasizes freedom from foreign control and interference in particular, and "socialism" refers to what has been termed Arab Socialism rather than to Marxism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

They have a lot in common with bin Laden because what bin Laden wants more than anything else is to expel the infidel from the land of Islam, which includes Andalusia.

Arab Socialism is not inconsistent with Islamic Fundamentalism. In fact, they seem to be mutually reinforcing.

[Zkribbler]

They can be but...

Baathist are a-religious secularists
Al Qaeda are religious fanatics who hate secular governments.

But they both hate us more than they hate each other
(gee, i feel so special)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
They can be but...

Baathist are a-religious secularists
Al Qaeda are religious fanatics who hate secular governments.

But they both hate us more than they hate each other
(gee, i feel so special)

"The general account of the meeting appears to have been confirmed following month, when senior officials told Fox News that al-Douri was "an avowed and 'fanatic' Islamist whose two sons have sworn 'fealty' to Usama bin Laden." According to these senior officials, al-Douri "is in league with Zarqawi and Al Qaeda elements." Whatever the nature of his past Sufism, al-Douri had pledged himself and his followers to the most extreme Salafist elements of the Iraqi insurgency."

Dan Darling, Weekly Standard.

There is strong evidence that SINCE the envasion, at least this one major Baathist leader, Mohammed al Douri, has established a link with the Salafists that appears, at least, to go beyond pure tactics.

[DRoseDARs]

I hate you, you hate me. Let's all become jihadi...
[/Terrorist Barney]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
I hate you, you hate me. Let's all become jihadi...
[/Terrorist Barney]

Barney is a dinosaur of our imagination, he's moving to a small kibbutz to build the Jewish Nation! {Labour Zionist Barney}

[Arrian]

[Dinner]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Not really.

In the way that it was the only part of the Mogul Empire, in its final days, which didn't get obsorbed into a foreign empire (Russia or British). The old capital and what is now Afghanistan were allowed to reorganize into an independent country. Sure, the British half heartedly tried to take it over but that was mostly British forces in India going against the wishes of London who wanted to keep Afghanistan independent so it could act as a buffer state between Russia and the UK. Siam (Thailand) also retained its independence for the same reason namely keeping a buffer state between two empires to prevent conflict between those empires.