[Stoottnoiciek]

Who in fuck would he be declaring victory over? We're fighting FOR the legitimate government. We put them in power, remember.

Or are you like McCain, who apparently wanted to go to war against the government WE installed in Iraq, because they dared to want us to leave when we'd said we'd go, instead of in 2013, like he wanted?

We already achieved victory in Afghanistan, to all SANE intents and purposes, in 2002.

Now we're just fixing the Rebooblicans fuck ups, and will be for the next century probably.

You see, once you tell people not to worry, we'll protect you from the bad guys and then, after everyone has declared themselves your friend, go gallivanting off to ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL DISPUTE WHATSOEVER, and leave your 'buddies' facing some very mad fanatics with their dicks against AK47s, well, it can be hard to restore trust somehow.

I swear to god, I don't see why we haven't yet outlawed the bastards, like the Germans did to the Nazis. Not even considering this kind of absolutely lunatic bullshit, just cash wise alone, they've done more harm to us than the Ratzis did to Germany, and in less time.

[gghrdfffhfyj]

Another discussion about winning the war in Afghanistan with still no definition on what “winning” means.

If winning means an Afghanistan that no longer can mount large terrorist attacks against the west then we won in the first couple of weeks.
If winning means a stable and prosperous Afghan nation with a large middle class and a functioning democracy then it will take trillions of dollars and three or four generations to build the infrastructure and educate the people out of the middle ages.

Before talking about willing, lets define it first, otherwise we will never win.

I’ve spent the last few years working in Afghanistan, we are losing by any definition, security is less everywhere and the Taliban operate their own government in many places, especially the south.

No nation has ever won an indigenous insurgency with massive military force. The last large scale attempt was here in Afghanistan when the Soviets, despite a willingness to employ draconian tactics, lost. A coordinated plan with civilian, military and diplomatic means is necessary, unfortunately the doves only can say spend more on aid and the harks say bomb them back to the stone age.


The US lost Viet Nam, The Brits lost twice before in Afghanistan in the 1800’s and they lost the 13 colonies which was the first war of insurgency. You simply cannot win against an insurgency by military force alone. You need to change the social and cultural conditions that gave rise to the insurgency in the first place and that will take time.

No wonder we are losing with no coherent plan or even an idea of where we are going.

1) Afghanistan never mounted an attack against the West, AQ did with help of the Talibs.

2) having been to Afghanistan numerous times since 66 ( and having attended the Bonn Afghan talks as well as having been to the country in 2002 ) and still having good connections there I fail to see any expertise about the country on your side.
Even if you having been there being true, you surely have next to no cue about afghan life.
You underestimate Afghans using a stereotype view of western middle class standards.
Afghan middle class exists without pin-striped suit, without parties and without nonsensicle parlor.

3) Middle ages ?
that´s where the Britain of today and quite a few Americans are still hooked.

Afghanis, in their vast majority are intelligent, and able to produce wares just by studying pictures of the wares requested.
I´ve experienced that myself quite often and since 66, not just of late.
Where westerners require detailed plans and to the greater part people to explain the plans to them, the Afghanis just seem to visualise them and what they produce in the end ALWAYS works perfectly.
And no, I wouldn´t like to see them standing around at parties, sipping cocktails or watch polo games with silly hats on their womens heads.
Nor would I like to see afghan women with silicon distorted breasts and in ridiculous miniskirts.

4) Insurgency was due to foreigners tryeing to dictate their own perverted kind of civilisation combined with unbridled exploitation on the afghan people.
The conflicts there were definitely NOT incited by the social and cultural conditions prevailing at the time.
Quite the contrary, the Afghans tried to save them from being bastardised by Idiot Europeans.

5) The south is controlled and easily controllable.
Danger looms from the east, the mountains and valleys which are hard to survey and control and where quakes change the landscape practically by the week.

All these late problems though would never have occured if Pakistan had not
tried anything to make Afghanistan a Paki province.
Talibs are an ISI invention and ISI subsidised.
AQ was a US invention, taken over and kept alive by ISI.

Thus follows:
The only way to end the problems down there is to absolutely and definitely destroy ISI and all of her subsidiaries.
This will end the afghan struggles, will pacify and end the Pakistan-Indian conflict, it will eliminate the aggressive madrassas and will bring more freedom and enlightenment to an already anti-wahabist part of Islam.

So, should you get to Afghanistan (again, that is if you really were there before), keep you eyes and ears open, learn the language to be able to understand the people and try to evaluate from there instead of from inside your hotel room.

Regards to Ahmad Shah Massoud from Wolf the German should you ever have the chance to meet him.

[dhrishiasv]

Who in fuck would he be declaring victory over? We're fighting FOR the legitimate government. We put them in power, remember.

Or are you like McCain, who apparently wanted to go to war against the government WE installed in Iraq, because they dared to want us to leave when we'd said we'd go, instead of in 2013, like he wanted?

We already achieved victory in Afghanistan, to all SANE intents and purposes, in 2002.

Now we're just fixing the Rebooblicans fuck ups, and will be for the next century probably.

You see, once you tell people not to worry, we'll protect you from the bad guys and then, after everyone has declared themselves your friend, go gallivanting off to ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL DISPUTE WHATSOEVER, and leave your 'buddies' facing some very mad fanatics with their dicks against AK47s, well, it can be hard to restore trust somehow.

I swear to god, I don't see why we haven't yet outlawed the bastards, like the Germans did to the Nazis. Not even considering this kind of absolutely lunatic bullshit, just cash wise alone, they've done more harm to us than the Ratzis did to Germany, and in less time.

As long as the ultra-national ultra-stone-age-islamic ISI exists, there will be war in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Nothing was ever won there by any western country.
Hang all the ISI bastards and peace will be in the region the day after the hanging.
No need to blame it all on the Reps, there are dumbfuck assholes in every party.

Bush only went out because his pals realised, there was no way to win the war with their favorite methods.
So they gave it up to avoid another Vietnam.

It was stuoidity from the beginning to ridicule the Soviets for losing, then marching in to receive the exact same treatment. And that from former allies like the Talibs and AQ.

Now Obamas fingers are burning.
I´m waiting for his ass to be aflame.
It´s only a matter of time if tactics are not changed.

[Stengapsept]

Here is a comment from Hugo Chavez from Copenhagen and I think it applies to our current war debate ...


"Jean Jacques Rousseau, we must always remember, said that between the strong and the weak, freedom is oppressed. That’s why the Empire speaks of freedom; it’s the freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate, and to exploit. That is their freedom, and Rousseau adds this saving phrase: “Only the law liberates.”

[Nothatspecial]

I agree, even a caveman would wave around his big stick just to be sure everyone knows who the bad ass is. Oh.... I guess that's why.

You've seen a lot of cave men? eh?

As long as he says Mission Accomplished when we leave, we're good.

You mean like Bush did? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFijzDyJnVE

Here is a comment from Hugo Chavez from Copenhagen and I think it applies to our current war debate ...


"Jean Jacques Rousseau, we must always remember, said that between the strong and the weak, freedom is oppressed. That’s why the Empire speaks of freedom; it’s the freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate, and to exploit. That is their freedom, and Rousseau adds this saving phrase: “Only the law liberates.”

Yeah, Rousseau. He's the dude whose theories underpin our public education system. Had 10 or 12 kids, and put them all in orphanages. Smart guy, that Rousseau!


This thread is a trip.

[offemyJuccete]

1) Afghanistan never mounted an attack against the West, AQ did with help of the Talibs.

.... much drivel deleted ....

Regards to Ahmad Shah Massoud from Wolf the German should you ever have the chance to meet him.

1) the attack was mounted from inside Afghanistan with the support and aid of the functioning Talban Government.

2) I will not call you a liar if you do not do the same to me. I was in Afghanistan a few days ago and am home on leave and will return there right after New Year’s Day. I do not stay in a hotel room but have traveled extensively around the country staying in several occasions with the local elders and other people of influence in local residences.

The place has changed since 2002.

A middle class is a grouping of people who have something to gain and something to lose. The vast majority of the Afghan population lives on a subsidence level with little or no hope of getting ahead in the long term. They typically take a very short sighted view of things. This is not a negative comment on their morals or intelligence but a rational outcome from their circumstances. They need to worry about tonight’s supper for their families not a long term look at what will be the best 5 or 10 years from now.

3)The middle ages comment is in regard to their oppressive religious society, lack of education subsidence agricultural system, poor infrastructure and extreme tribalism. Again it is an observation based on recent years on the ground and much interaction with ordinary Afghans.

I actually like the Afghan people. They have shown an exceptional ability to survive and in some cases thrive under terrible conditions. I don’t think that they are any smarter or less smarter than the vast majority of people worldwide who have not had the advantages (or disadvantages) of a formal education and good nutrition growing up.

Your references to western social customs is a straw man fallacy. A middle class is as I defined it above, not a set of western cultural practices that would never transfer to Afghan culture.

4) This is another straw man fallacy. I never sated the cause of the insurgency but stated that an indigenous insurgency has never been beaten by less than draconian force. What is needed is a planned and rational strategy that addresses all aspects of the problem. This means building schools, clinics, roads and other infrastructure, implementing micro finance programs to allow people to get started in self employment that is sustainable, load guarantees to allow big businesses to build factories in Afghanistan etc.

It will require the implementation of the rule of law where the courts cannot be bribed and bribes and corruption will not be a way of life. The incorruptibility of the true Taliban is one of their biggest appeals to the ordinary citizen.

It will require the creation of an educated population, including women. It will require the creation of the business climate with lines of credits, insurance and bonding that we take for granted in our society to facilitate business.

It will have to be done in accordance with the cultural environment that exists in Afghanistan.

It is not something that can be achieved in 18 months with another 30,000 troops. (Who incidentally will have nowhere to go as the majority of all bases are currently housing the maximum numbers of troops and support staff.)

5) The south is controlled by Taliban and they appear to be having an easy time controlling that part of the country.

By definition an indigenous insurgency is difficult to defeat. They simply have to hide their weapons and they are imposable to tell from the friendly population.

I do agree that ISI (Pakistan security forces) are a major influence in keeping the insurgency supported. Afghanistan has a valid claim on the North West Frontier Areas of Pakistan south of the Durand line and an unstable Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s best interests. This is simply another example of old colonial powers drawing borders on the map without regard for the tribal and ethnic groupings affected. It happened with the Kurdish lands in Iraq and Turkey as well as all over Africa and is still causing trouble 100 years later.

A lot of what the west refers to as Taliban is simply warlords, drug traffickers, common criminals and others who are looking for their best interests with little or no regard for the country as a whole.

A major military operation to “crush” the Taliban will be counterproductive. This sort of draconian measures will simply drive more of the population to support the Taliban. It plays right into the indigenous insurgency handbook, get the opposition to commit “atrocities” (or at least what you can call atrocities) and use this as a recruitment tool. Why do you think that the Taliban gave away the fuel on those trucks in Kunduz that the Germans had bombed? They wanted a lot of civilians and better civilian children to be killed if there was an airstrike so that the population turned against the ISAF forces.

Your plan would create more Taliban than it would kill, unless you plan on killing a lot of people.

[margoaroyo]

1) the attack was mounted from inside Afghanistan with the support and aid of the functioning Talban Government.

2) I will not call you a liar if you do not do the same to me. I was in Afghanistan a few days ago and am home on leave and will return there right after New Year’s Day. I do not stay in a hotel room but have traveled extensively around the country staying in several occasions with the local elders and other people of influence in local residences.

The place has changed since 2002.

A middle class is a grouping of people who have something to gain and something to lose. The vast majority of the Afghan population lives on a subsidence level with little or no hope of getting ahead in the long term. They typically take a very short sighted view of things. This is not a negative comment on their morals or intelligence but a rational outcome from their circumstances. They need to worry about tonight’s supper for their families not a long term look at what will be the best 5 or 10 years from now.

3)The middle ages comment is in regard to their oppressive religious society, lack of education subsidence agricultural system, poor infrastructure and extreme tribalism. Again it is an observation based on recent years on the ground and much interaction with ordinary Afghans.

I actually like the Afghan people. They have shown an exceptional ability to survive and in some cases thrive under terrible conditions. I don’t think that they are any smarter or less smarter than the vast majority of people worldwide who have not had the advantages (or disadvantages) of a formal education and good nutrition growing up.

Your references to western social customs is a straw man fallacy. A middle class is as I defined it above, not a set of western cultural practices that would never transfer to Afghan culture.

4) This is another straw man fallacy. I never sated the cause of the insurgency but stated that an indigenous insurgency has never been beaten by less than draconian force. What is needed is a planned and rational strategy that addresses all aspects of the problem. This means building schools, clinics, roads and other infrastructure, implementing micro finance programs to allow people to get started in self employment that is sustainable, load guarantees to allow big businesses to build factories in Afghanistan etc.

It will require the implementation of the rule of law where the courts cannot be bribed and bribes and corruption will not be a way of life. The incorruptibility of the true Taliban is one of their biggest appeals to the ordinary citizen.

It will require the creation of an educated population, including women. It will require the creation of the business climate with lines of credits, insurance and bonding that we take for granted in our society to facilitate business.

It will have to be done in accordance with the cultural environment that exists in Afghanistan.

It is not something that can be achieved in 18 months with another 30,000 troops. (Who incidentally will have nowhere to go as the majority of all bases are currently housing the maximum numbers of troops and support staff.)

5) The south is controlled by Taliban and they appear to be having an easy time controlling that part of the country.

By definition an indigenous insurgency is difficult to defeat. They simply have to hide their weapons and they are imposable to tell from the friendly population.

I do agree that ISI (Pakistan security forces) are a major influence in keeping the insurgency supported. Afghanistan has a valid claim on the North West Frontier Areas of Pakistan south of the Durand line and an unstable Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s best interests. This is simply another example of old colonial powers drawing borders on the map without regard for the tribal and ethnic groupings affected. It happened with the Kurdish lands in Iraq and Turkey as well as all over Africa and is still causing trouble 100 years later.

A lot of what the west refers to as Taliban is simply warlords, drug traffickers, common criminals and others who are looking for their best interests with little or no regard for the country as a whole.

A major military operation to “crush” the Taliban will be counterproductive. This sort of draconian measures will simply drive more of the population to support the Taliban. It plays right into the indigenous insurgency handbook, get the opposition to commit “atrocities” (or at least what you can call atrocities) and use this as a recruitment tool. Why do you think that the Taliban gave away the fuel on those trucks in Kunduz that the Germans had bombed? They wanted a lot of civilians and better civilian children to be killed if there was an airstrike so that the population turned against the ISAF forces.

Your plan would create more Taliban than it would kill, unless you plan on killing a lot of people.

To 1) I´d like proof.
All the Talibs did was to refuse to hand over OBL and crew and that was for reason of faith (do not give a muslim in the hands of the Ghiaur).

2) Your image of a middle class is western oriented and has nothing whatever to do with any society in developing countries. There, your definition would encompass the UPPER class.

3)Again you thrive on your very own opinion, disregarding the circumstances under which the Afghans have lived for centuries and will live for some time to come.
To blame religion definitely IS a strawman. Afghans have always been open and non-restrictive towards other religions.
It was the Talibs who changed that.

And with the Talibs out, things will go back to the freedom of old.

4) You´re not in on the latest developements.
Afghans actually create militia forces to FIGHT the Talibs.
No one wants them. But no one wants foreign troops either.

Afghans consider themselves a free people, to turn them into factory slaves is absolutely against their understanding of freedom.
And what, prey, should factories in Afghanistan produce ?

Sure, schools, Hospitals are a necessity.
But they also nedd, at least at present, to be guarded.
Which would mean another vast influx of westerners into the country.

Guarding could be done by Afghans, but as the US does not trust them, they´d rather throw away millions instead of handing out coppers or take the easy way out and not built schools and hospitals in districts they deem dangerous.

And the US effort to built the great Afghan ring road consisted in shoving a bit of the dirt aside. Some help.

5) The south still has Talibs, but these are not the ones whoi were present in Afghanistan before, these are people, fleeing from government forces in Pakistan. Their objective is Pakistan, not, for at least the greatest part, Afghanistan.
And I do happen to have first hand info from there which you obviously lack.

And when I talk of Talibs I do Mean Talibs.
If you consider
Hekmatyar a warlord you´re wrong.
He gave himself into the hands of the Talibs and there´s no way out for him but the grave.
I hope to see him there very soon, I am absolutely convinced he ordered the assassination of a very good friend of mine, who COULD AND WOULD have helped to change Afghanistan into a modern society without hurting Afghan pride.

Talibs btw do never shear their beards, Afghans do. So there´s one way to tell friend from foe.
Afghans love their weapons. So if someone´s hiding his he´s easily detected.

And the reason the Talibs gave away the petrol was
a) to get the people not to report them and
b) to get the trucks empty and make them movable again.

Still, I am quite interested in what you do down there.
If you´re reporting, you seem to be stuck with second hand info.
If you´re there on developement issues you seem to go by orders and/or college knowledge.
Feel free to PM me.
I will delete the post when read or hide it from public view.

Last, I will be in the region again in early february to visit some friends on my way to India and pay respect to a dead friend.

There are btw next to no problems at present west of Karman, and if, it´s a Pashtun thing, not Talib.
So the Talib problems DO begin at the east, as from Karman (Pak) it only goes northward with the border.

[Blellurgews]

I am curious, why Obama during a nationally televised speech about Afghanistan never said we will be victorious..

He talked about handing over contriol, and karzi, and peace and blah blah blah, but never said vitory is the ultimate goal.

Anyone else notice this?

This is not a real war and there can be no real victory. It would be like talking about "victory" in the war on drugs. Not going to happen.

[CHEAPCIALISFORYOU]

I am curious, why Obama during a nationally televised speech about Afghanistan never said we will be victorious..

He talked about handing over contriol, and karzi, and peace and blah blah blah, but never said vitory is the ultimate goal.

Anyone else notice this?

Bush's stupidity and victory went together like oil and water. Afghanistan isn't a campaign that will lead to victory: it's simply about rooting out a criminal element with military tactics.

You anti-Obama people really need to find other ways that have some legs in them to be able to criticize him effectively.

[EtellaObtaite]

What is victory? As we're more referees and not players, especially in Iraq, what is the over concern with cheerleading words?

cheer leading words ? you're actually serious aren't you ?

[GogaMegaPiska]

Bush's stupidity and victory went together like oil and water. Afghanistan isn't a campaign that will lead to victory: it's simply about rooting out a criminal element with military tactics.

You anti-Obama people really need to find other ways that have some legs in them to be able to criticize him effectively.

no getting past the mindless devotion folks like you have for the golden child

[somamasoso]

no getting past the mindless devotion folks like you have for the golden child

Is it mindless devotion or common sense on an issue? I say the latter.