Why Are We In Afghanistan?

[hist2004]

Why Are We In Afghanistan?

By Richard Reeves

February 07, 2009

NEW YORK -- Twenty-five years ago, when more than 100,000 soldiers of the Red Army were trying to gain control of Afghanistan, I spent most of a day at the Afghan Surgical Hospital on the Pakistan side of the Khyber Pass, listening to stories about Soviet atrocities.

The place was run, probably with American money, by the most fundamentalist of Pakistan's many religious parties, Jamaat-i-Islami, the spiritual (and often literal) fathers of the Taliban. I wrote this at the time:

"I was not allowed to leave without going from bed to bed. Forty beds. At each one, stumps of arms or legs would be thrust at me, or dressings would be lifted away to show a red hole that had been a face. A young man, what was left of him, held my eyes with his until I cried as the blankets were pulled from his wasting body, most of it scar tissue from burns. ... An older man named Abdul Kareem, who said he was a farmer at a place called Baghlan, north of Kabul, proudly showed me the foot-long stumps of his legs."

"Abdul Kareem said, through a translator, that a Russian had thrown a grenade into his house and killed three of his children. "'How do you know it was a Russian?'" I asked.

"'I know Russians,' he said. 'They have red faces. They look like monkeys.'

"The maimed men around me burst into laughter. They were broken only in body -- and many of their bodies were being patched up so they could fight another day."

Someone else said something and they laughed again. I didn't need a translator to know what he had said. "They look like you!"

Most of the fighters I talked with there and in travels through the tribal lands on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border saw little difference between Russians and Americans, except at that time we were paying them to kill Russians. Communists, democrats, we all represented modernity to them. We wanted to give them -- or force on them -- new laws, new freedoms, a new culture. Most of all, both communists and democrats wanted to educate women.

We want them to be like us. That is not going to happen.

They beat the Soviets, as they beat the British of Kipling's time, the time he wrote "A Soldier of the Queen," ending:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

"And the women come out to cut up what remains,

"Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

"An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

And they will defeat us. They have been there for centuries, and they will be there for centuries more. They have no place else to go. We do and we will. As early as 2006, Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, the former head of Great Britain's armed forces, warned his country and countrymen that they were risking another defeat in Afghanistan, which is more a name than a nation.

Which brings me to President Obama's warnings and pledges about winning in Afghanistan. He had to sound tough about something after he courageously and correctly opposed our invasion of Iraq. That's how American politics works. And American presidents, the good ones, change their focus and strategies as times and events redirect them. Now he is running the government, and he should break those promises, the sooner the better, before more of our men -- and the men of our NATO allies -- are left on Afghanistan's plains.

"We did not finish the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support," Obama said during the campaign. We tried but failed. That's too bad, but the growth of terrorism and a multiplication of terrorist havens have made the job more complex and Afghanistan irrelevant.

We have been on the plains and in the mountains for seven years now, almost as long as the Soviets were there. We went to punish Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida for the bombing of the World Trade Center -- and we have certainly had some success diminishing that organization, even as others are arising, some because we are engaged in that part of the world. It is worth remembering that bin Laden and his people are not Afghans; they are Saudi Arabians and Egyptians.

So the relevant questions now are: Who are we fighting? Why?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20090206/cm_ucrr/whyareweinafghanistan)

[Adux]

Extremely stupid article, clearly aimed to propagate cut and dry! not to mention tidbits of history used without perfect context to create fear!

[hist2004]

Extremely stupid article, clearly aimed to propagate cut and dry! not to mention tidbits of history used without perfect context to create fear!

Richard Reeves is an unabashed liberal and certainly doesn’t hide the fact, both in his articles and when asked. As to his point about Afghan
history; without an escalation into the tribal area (which we haven’t done and won’t) strikes will be limited to Predator drones and an occasional
Pakistani “seize” of an al Qaeda operative when the threat of aid withdrawal rises. Going forward, what’s the plan? The economy is concern
number one in the US (and around the world). Allied countries are not falling over themselves to add troops; so do we stay or do we go?

Reeves hardly referenced “tidbits of history”. Venture outside of Kabul and you have Indian country. The opium trade has been flourishing
not diminishing and supply for our troops runs from Karachi and Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to Kabul. That’s not exactly a summer
outing. Hostility towards the West is at an all time high in the NWFP. This is an issue worthy of discussion.

Hist2004

[Pappy]

Who are we fighting? Why are we fighting? I would suggest to Mr. Reeves that he is not fighting so should therefore not include himself in this we that he speaks of. He should instead shut up, sit down, and let us fight this war on a group that has continued to harbor Al Qaida.


And they will defeat us.

Yeah, that pretty much makes it official. He's a pompous, elitest coward.

[Adux]

We want them to be like us. That is not going to happen.

They beat the Soviets, as they beat the British of Kipling's time, the time he wrote "A Soldier of the Queen," ending:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

"And the women come out to cut up what remains,

"Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

"An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

And he forgets, that these were the frontier territories of the Buddhist and Hindu cultures, and they were easily maimed, raped and looted by very foreign force imaginable before they would be stopped, Pakistan and Afghanistan has been looted, murdered, maimed by almost all the forces imaginable. They arent any uber-soldiers as he is trying to imply! And he clear forgets the Sikh Empire!



It is worth remembering that bin Laden and his people are not Afghans; they are Saudi Arabians and Egyptians.

And he forgot very very conveniently they gave all those saudi arabians, and egyptians refuge!!!

[commanding]

The stench of the coward who wrote that made me puke.
Asking why we are in Afghanistan...what a stupid thing to ask.
Typically when you have a group of outlaws, they go to "hole up" and hide in a place that they believe is the safest for them, and impossible for their enemy to find them and kill them.

The Al Quaeda knew that Afghanistan was an almost perfect place to base their operations in training terrorists, and from which to base their operations. No part of the rough country touches the oceans, and is "protected" on all sides by countries that the UK, USA, France, Australia, Germany and other allied powers would have difficulty getting to them due to it's isolation, rough terrain, and similarly fanatical Taliban religious zealots. The Taliban are so backward that they bulldoze schools, behead enemies & journalists, shoot women in the head in the middle of soccer stadiums with the plenty of witnesses, and have their own "schools" that teach their perverted brand of religion. They fight like cowards.

What Al Quaeda and the Taliban has not taken into account, is the determination of civilized people, to exterminate their ideas and lives, rather than submit to terror and fear.
Osama bin Laden and the rest of his ilk, we are coming to kill you!! The spirits of those killed in your terror attacks, and the lives already laid down on the altar of freedom demand it.

[hist2004]

Deja vu in Kabul

Naysayers call Afghanistan a hopeless quagmire. Isn't that what they said about Iraq?

By Max Boot

February 7, 2009

For years, opponents of the Iraq war claimed it was an unwinnable waste of resources that wasn't worth fighting anyway. The real war against terrorists, they argued, should be waged in Afghanistan. But now that Iraq has made heartening progress and we are finally sending more troops to Afghanistan, the critics are applying to Afghanistan the same arguments they once used in favor of partial or total withdrawal from Iraq.

Afghanistan, we are told, is a hopeless quagmire. A Newsweek cover story screams "Obama's Vietnam." Andrew J. Bacevich of Boston University writes, "Afghanistan will be a sinkhole, consuming resources neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government can afford to waste."

Skeptics, including many in uniform, contend that we need to downsize our goals in Afghanistan. Establishing a functioning democracy, they say, is too ambitious in an underdeveloped Muslim country with little sense of nationhood. According to the Associated Press, a Joint Chiefs of Staff report advises "squeezing Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuaries inside neighboring Pakistan while deemphasizing longer-term goals for bolstering democracy."

But don't worry, the naysayers assert, we can still achieve our core objectives in Afghanistan. George Friedman, of the private intelligence firm Stratfor, opines in the New York Times that Afghanistan requires "intelligence, and special operations forces and air power that can take advantage of that intelligence. Fighting terrorists requires identifying and destroying small, dispersed targets. We would need far fewer forces for such a mission than the number that are now deployed."

It is striking the extent to which the arguments now being made about Afghanistan were previously made -- and discredited -- in the case of Iraq. The only thing we haven't heard yet is a proposal to dismember Afghanistan into mini-states. But with Joe Biden in the White House, we can expect that brainstorm to pop up soon.

Is it quixotic to try to build democracy in Afghanistan? The same thing was said of Iraq. It is true that holding elections wasn't a magic elixir there. But once the security situation started to improve, Iraq's political process began to function and competing factions started to solve problems with handshakes rather than bombs.

The latest provincial elections delivered a strong showing for centrist, secular candidates -- a far cry from the sort of extremists (Hamas, for example) that are thought to be favored in Middle Eastern voting. In the long run, democracy in Iraq is likely to strengthen stability. That's just as well, because installing a "Saddam Lite" strongman was never a serious option. Most Iraqis would not have put up with it.

Nor would Afghans stand for a strongman "solution." In a 2007 poll conducted by the Asia Foundation, 85% agreed that "democracy may have its problems, but it is better than any other form of government." In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, there is no practical alternative to supporting the democratic process if we want to create a government with legitimacy, the sine qua non for defeating any insurgency.

What about the argument that we don't need more troops in Afghanistan? Can't a handful of special operations forces prevent a takeover by extremists? We tried that in Iraq. From 2003 to 2006, U.S. troops withdrew to large bases while the Joint Special Operations Command carried out strikes on targets such as Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Zarqawi. That turned into a game of whack-a-mole. As top-level terrorists were going down, new ones were popping up and the war was being lost.

The war effort was turned around by an increase in U.S. and Iraqi troop numbers and by the decision to push U.S. troops into outposts in population centers. Ordinary Iraqis could rat out terrorists, secure in the knowledge that they would be protected from retaliation. Whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else, only counterinsurgents who live among the people can acquire the knowledge to identify insurgents.

The Bush administration lost sight of that basic truth because leaders from Donald Rumsfeld on down feared that increasing troop numbers would stoke resentment of foreign occupation. Similar concerns are expressed today about Afghanistan by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. He recently told Congress: "My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of the problem, rather than ... the solution. And then we are lost."

But in Iraq, the "surge" was welcomed by a populace concerned above all by pervasive insecurity. The same thing is likely to happen in Afghanistan as U.S. troop numbers rise. In both nations, nothing feeds anti-Americanism more than concerns that U.S. troops aren't doing enough to impose law and order.

This is not meant to minimize the difficulties in Afghanistan or exaggerate the similarities with Iraq. Afghanistan is a larger and poorer country with more difficult terrain and fewer resources of its own. It also has more porous borders with a much larger problem of terrorist infiltration. And it is a much more difficult place to keep a large military force supplied. But we should not exaggerate the difficulties either. According to the Brookings Institution, civilian casualties in Afghanistan last year (1,445) were a fraction of the casualties in Iraq at the height of the fighting. Fom July 2006 to September 2007, at least 2,000 Iraqis were dying each month.

Keep in mind that until fairly recently, the conventional wisdom was that we had already won in Afghanistan and could never win in Iraq. Now we hear the reverse, but the new zeitgeist is no sounder than the old. We can win in Afghanistan, as we are now winning in Iraq.

The key is for policymakers to ignore the naysayers. They will get louder over time, because, just as in Iraq, a surge in the number of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan will inevitably bring about a short-term spike in casualties. But if President Obama doesn't lose his nerve, the odds are that a classic counterinsurgency strategy, supported by adequate troop levels, can turn around another failing war effort.

Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributing editor to Opinion. He is the author, most recently, of "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today."

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot7-2009feb07,0,4669288.story)

[Pappy]

The stench of the coward who wrote that made me puke. ...



Yeah, me too. Do you happen to have any listerine that I can use to wash out my mouth?

[Bia]

We keep the Taliban down... so the heroin can flow.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

:P

[LongShot]

Given how Americas memory can be short, an article like this, no matter how inaccurate or defeatist it is, can have a strong effect on less involved readers. I, personally, think its garbage, with much taken out of context, or the important facts were conveniently ignored. However, I can see someone reading this article, and articles like it, before heading off to the office and all the time thinking "Yeah, why the hell are we in Afghanistan anyway?"

People are already forgetting.

Writing like this just makes it worse.

[Adux]

This is true blue propaganda

[Red_Rage]

But deep down, does anyone really believe Afghanistan can be "won" without exterminating 70% of its population?

No they are not uber-soldiers, but they smile to your face during the day, invite you to their house, and then have their 9 year old child shoot you in the back at night. How do you "win" against an enemy like that?

No significant economic infrastructure had been erected in Afghanistan in the last 8 years, and even if it was most of it would be stolen and never put to work (Soviets tried it, most factories could no work b/c of theft of parts from machinery and Afghan workers aptness to learn that rivaled that of trained baboons). Afghans still grow dope in copious amounts. They have nothing to lose. They "cost" less - in ecomonic terms it costs around $0.5 million dollars just to raise a kid to 18 years old in most NATO countries....Afghani kids probably cost nothing, as they start making profits around 5 years old (education? wut education?).

Our militaries are fighting enitre population (supported by good "friends" of ours - Pakistan) with their hands tied behind their backs - how do you win war like that?

[Hollis]

Who are we fighting? Why are we fighting? I would suggest to Mr. Reeves that he is not fighting so should therefore not include himself in this we that he speaks of. He should instead shut up, sit down, and let us fight this war on a group that has continued to harbor Al Qaida.



Yeah, that pretty much makes it official. He's a pompous, elitest coward.



Well said!! I guess he forgot the Cold War was also in full swing at the time among many other facts. This is not a opinion, it is out right pandering to the terrorists.

[Hollis]

But deep down, does anyone really believe Afghanistan can be "won" without exterminating 70% of its population?

No they are not uber-soldiers, but they smile to your face during the day, invite you to their house, and then have their 9 year old child shoot you in the back at night. How do you "win" against an enemy like that?

No significant economic infrastructure had been erected in Afghanistan in the last 8 years, and even if it was most of it would be stolen and never put to work (Soviets tried it, most factories could no work b/c of theft of parts from machinery and Afghan workers aptness to learn that rivaled that of trained baboons). Afghans still grow dope in copious amounts. They have nothing to lose. They "cost" less - in ecomonic terms it costs around $0.5 million dollars just to raise a kid to 18 years old in most NATO countries....Afghani kids probably cost nothing, as they start making profits around 5 years old (education? wut education?).

Our militaries are fighting enitre population (supported by good "friends" of ours - Pakistan) with their hands tied behind their backs - how do you win war like that?


And you got this "information" from where? Itla ibn khmar.

[Red_Rage]

And you got this "information" from where? Itla ibn khmar.


What information exactly do you have a problem with?

Are you refuting that Afghanistan is an economic ****hole, where most of population cannot count to 10? Or are you refuting that they grow 90% of world's hardest drug to "sustain" themselves? Are you refuting that number of attacks on Coalition troops hasn't really changed since invasion (it simply flactuates between months - less in winter, more in summer)?

[Adux]

And you got this "information" from where? Itla ibn khmar.


Hollis,

He does have some valid points, though I for one would have liked it to be articulated better? He questions our resolve and our ability to sacrifice, Afghans plans to wait it out(so does the pakistani's), question is, can we? Who will blink first? We are fighting a people who I believe lives in a completely different era? Can we fight a enemy from yesteryears, with the laws of wars of today?

[Hollis]

What information exactly do you have a problem with?

Are you refuting that Afghanistan is an economic ****hole, where most of population cannot count to 10? Or are you refuting that they grow 90% of world's hardest drug to "sustain" themselves? Are you refuting that number of attacks on Coalition troops hasn't really changed since invasion (it simply flactuates between months - less in winter, more in summer)?


WTF, are you on, read your original post. Adding more bloviation is not answering my question. I don't read the Gramma, Pravada or the people's daily world.

I asked you about the information in your first post, where did you get that information from. IF you want to play spin games, be fore warned. I am not going to get into pissing match with you.

[Red_Rage]

WTF, are you on, read your original post. Adding more bloviation is not answering my question. I don't read the Gramma, Pravada or the people's daily world.

I asked you about the information in your first post, where did you get that information from. IF you want to play spin games, be fore warned. I am not going to get into pissing match with you.


Primary sources then. Several of my family members were involved in Afghnistan during Soviet presence, both in the military and civlian projects. I have many friends from the regiment returning from their roto's in current Afghanistan. Comparing stories from the '80s and from now - not much has changed...actually nothing has changed with exception of pay rates for "successful" IED attacks and ambushes.

I am more interested to know how does a victory in Afghanistan look like?

[ZeroZen]

Primary sources then. Several of my family members were involved in Afghnistan during Soviet presence, both in the military and civlian projects. I have many friends from the regiment returning from their roto's in current Afghanistan. Comparing stories from the '80s and from now - not much has changed...actually nothing has changed with exception of pay rates for "successful" IED attacks and ambushes.

I am more interested to know how does a victory in Afghanistan look like?

Join the military, you will know what looks like

[firemedic]

Were gonna be in A-stan a long time. I see a type of on again off again thing that just drives everyone crazy and never seems to go away. Kinda like the Israel/Palestinian debacle. This is gonna be more difficult than Iraq cause of the terrain. I never doubted the outcome in Iraq, all we needed were more boots on the ground. But I dont know about Afghanistan. I seems that that their are too many factors to overcome. Maybe we should take India up on that offer for 120,000 troops!:roll:

[Red_Rage]

Join the military, you will know what looks like


I spent 6 years in Para tasked infantry regiment.

Why would i want to know what that good-for-nothing peice of rock looks like? Images of Soviet vets with their legs missing begging for change in Moscow subways are still too fresh in my mind - too high of a price for a sightseeing trip.

[chino65]

I never doubted the outcome in Iraq, all we needed were more boots on the ground. But I dont know about Afghanistan. I seems that that their are too many factors to overcome. Maybe we should take India up on that offer for 120,000 troops!:roll:

You mean Iraq is solved? I dunno man. But please stop selling them weapons.

[Pappy]

I spent 6 years in Para tasked infantry regiment.

Why would i want to know what that good-for-nothing peice of rock looks like? Images of Soviet vets with their legs missing begging for change in Moscow subways are still too fresh in my mind - too high of a price for a sightseeing trip.

You were in an Infantry Regiment, but you're too scared to go into a warzone because you might get hurt?

[Hollis]

I spent 6 years in Para tasked infantry regiment.

Why would i want to know what that good-for-nothing peice of rock looks like? Images of Soviet vets with their legs missing begging for change in Moscow subways are still too fresh in my mind - too high of a price for a sightseeing trip.


Go to my profile, look at the picture, that was in Бахчисарайский район, during the days of the Soviet Union. I too knew Soviets who served in A-Stan.

I too have friends who are in A-Stan some especially in the hearts and mind business, Today. Their opinion is not the same as your friends.

Major difference, NO cold war. The Soviets where also engaged in the cold war and fighting the west in A-Stan too. SO who are the major players backing the t-ban?

Also victory in A-Stan will be similar/same as Iraq, it will be won by the people there, not the MNF. Big difference too.

Yes war sucks, but not all wars are the same.

H.

[Red_Rage]

You were in an Infantry Regiment, but you're too scared to go into a warzone because you might get hurt?


It's not fear, I just don't see a point of participating in an extremely dangerous endevour that i don't believe in. I signed up for Bosnia as soon as my basic was done because it was something I believed in doing.

I am a Russian immigrant, I was born in early '80s and I remember the aftermath of our little adventure in Afghan all too well. It's an unwinnable war, unless we do away with ethics - what we are doing now can be compared to a jerk off with a peice of sandpaper.

[KB]

Gen. Petraeus has already acknowledged the West has neither the time or resources to alter such a tribally oriented region. At the same time, the AQ "safe havens" along the border and in the tribal areas can't be ignored. So, screw nation building, focus on AQ and try to peal off Taliban.

Much as Reeve's may not like it, ignoring AQ won't make it better.

[tercio67]

The real trick is to discredit and marginalise the Taleban/AQ so they become irrelevant.
Then we can build up the country.
The afgans need to trust both us and their government for this to happen.

[tecumseh11]

The US can "win" in Afghanistan if you call "winning" spending buttloads of money for not much in return. The US won't suffer a Soviet-style defeat (leading to collapse of the government at home) because the US Army is not conscripted. The US Army is a volunteer force so the mass of the US population is relatively indifferent to US casualties and cannot be motivated by Afghanistan to revolution. This is unlike the Soviet Union where every mother/father could face losing their son in Afghanistan, and so had a personal stake in what their government was doing fapping around in Afghanistan. The most likely outcome is a British-style defeat: i.e. "I can't be stuffed anymore".

[Pappy]

It's not fear, I just don't see a point of participating in an extremely dangerous endevour that i don't believe in. I signed up for Bosnia as soon as my basic was done because it was something I believed in doing.

I am a Russian immigrant, I was born in early '80s and I remember the aftermath of our little adventure in Afghan all too well. It's an unwinnable war, unless we do away with ethics - what we are doing now can be compared to a jerk off with a peice of sandpaper.

I apologize for that jab at you. I was out of line even if you didn't volunteer for Bosnia. I've been up for 32 hours and my mind is starting to get a little strange ;)

But Hollis is correct. This war will be won by the people of Afghanistan. We are taking a much different approach than that of the Russians previously. The trick is being able to establish security while we help the people with infrastructure and an ability to sustain themselves without resorting to drugs or the Taliban. It's entirely possible. Our problem previously was that we were focusing much of our efforts in Iraq. Now that things are on the upswing in Iraq, we can start to let Iraq do its own thing and focus on Afghanistan.

You don't see a point in going to Afghanistan because you don't believe in it. That's fine. But the United States and many of her citizens, including me, do believe in it.

[Hollis]

The real trick is to discredit and marginalise the Taleban/AQ so they become irrelevant.
Then we can build up the country.
The afgans need to trust both us and their government for this to happen.

Right, the People in A-Stan needs to find their solution that works for them. I think most people know outside powers can not install what they think will be a solution for the people of A-Stan.

[ZeroZen]

I spent 6 years in Para tasked infantry regiment.

Why would i want to know what that good-for-nothing peice of rock looks like? Images of Soviet vets with their legs missing begging for change in Moscow subways are still too fresh in my mind - too high of a price for a sightseeing trip.

A Soviet Afghanistan and United States Afghanistan is completely different flavor and agenda. The piece of rock nowadays are worth fighting for to crush Terrorist ideology and not to yield for what there trying to achieve. your feeling sorry for those missing legs or soviet casualties, I guess something wrong with Russia's vet affairs. why go knock at there door and demand gasprom money for the forgotten.

[Adux]

Couple of points I like to add

How are you going to achieve discrediting Taliban? These are not your run of the mill people who you can speak logic with, and I mean no disrespect, their understanding, value systems and even view is completely different to ours.

Even if we were able to somehow speak to them, how are we stopping the wahabbi mosques propping all over south asia, espeically in Pakistan and Afghanistan, whose ideology is somewhat similar to that off the Taliban. Gives them legitimacy,

Soviets used various Hearts and minds strategy, actually more than NATO.
In reality there are scary similarities between the last days of Soviets in Afghanistan and NATO

[firemedic]

You mean Iraq is solved? I dunno man. But please stop selling them weapons..........I dont know about "solved":roll: but I would say that U.S. goals and objectives have been met. Lets not get off topic. If you want to dispute this sent me a PM.

[tercio67]

The credebility of the Taleban is in the minds of the people.

Every time the Taleban spreads a message, by whatever means, counter that message with our own and clearly show them to be wrong/misleading.
Educate the people so they can actualy read the koran for themselves.

Support trough local imams with will make them more important than a foreigner, after all a foreigner will always be a foreigner in the afghan eye.

Every time the taleban threthens or destroys we protect and rebuild.
Provide farmers with an alternative for Poppy's and provide the security they need to grow and harvest that alternative.

Build roads and bridges so meaningful commerce can start.

Above all involve/consult the local population with everything we do, so they can get what they need instead what we think is 'prestigious' to do.

[Adux]

The credebility of the Taleban is in the minds of the people.


Strength of the gun determines that credibility along with the Quran, not the minds of the people.


Educate the people so they can actualy read the koran for themselves.
What is the timeframe, that you imagine will take, for the people to stand up, understand that it is the people of Afghanistan, not people in India, UK or US where they have been exposed to freedom of thought and democracy.


Support trough local imams with will make them more important than a foreigner, after all a foreigner will always be a foreigner in the afghan eye.

All the imams, read all the imams, who have deobandi or salafi/waahabi ideology recieves enormous funding from Saudi Arabia through Pakistan and Dubai. How will we change their perspective, when they see NATO as Christian crusaders and nothing else, these are people stuck in a different stuck!



Every time the taleban threthens or destroys we protect and rebuild.
Provide farmers with an alternative for Poppy's and provide the security they need to grow and harvest that alternative.
Without the adequate foot soldiers and 24/7 watch how is that possible?


Build roads and bridges so meaningful commerce can start.

Not when they blow up everyday, it took India 129 Afghans and 6 Indians 2 years to construct a 219 Kilometers Highway to Iran.


Above all involve/consult the local population with everything we do, so they can get what they need instead what we think is 'prestigious' to do.

There is a difference between the local population of Iraq and Afghanistan. You would be able to talk, bribe, debate and even apply logic of to Iraqi, but it is not that easy with Afghanistani!

[Red_Rage]

A Soviet Afghanistan and United States Afghanistan is completely different flavor and agenda. The piece of rock nowadays are worth fighting for to crush Terrorist ideology and not to yield for what there trying to achieve. your feeling sorry for those missing legs or soviet casualties, I guess something wrong with Russia's vet affairs. why go knock at there door and demand gasprom money for the forgotten.


Terrorist ideology is more tied to Saudi, Paki, UAE and Jordanean funding and wahhabi ideologies than Afghni front line thugs. Afghnis don't have the global reach and never had it, what they are good at is tying down large professional armies for extended periods of time because they have nothing of value to lose. Saudi Arabia alone is capable of funding AQ to no lesser degree than US funded Mujis in the '80s (2 billion/year during peak time). Majority of world's terrorism has Saudi money/ideology/human resources "trail" in it - Bosnia, Chechnya 1/2, Kosovo, 9/11, Iraq, Afghnistan to name a few. What exactly can AQ achieve inside Afghnistan? Training camps? Crapload of those all around the world, including the best ones of them all - the ones run by Saudi and Paki intel services.
Again, how does a victory in Afghanistan look like? (i'm curious becuase in several thousands years noone really won).

If you are disabled , you become a second class citizen everywhere. 90% of jobs become out of reach, simple things like driving a car become missions, constantly being on anti depressants, and most lose their hot wives/girlfriends within a year of changing adult diapers. Losing a leg at 20 for a vague ideal of "fighting terrorism and stemming out AQ", in a world where political agendas change daily, does not seem like a fair exchange. I wouldn't want to lose a fingernail over the vortex of suck known as Afghinstan.

I don't knock on Gazprom's doors, but trasnfer abit of my money to vet's affairs organizations whenever i can for prosthetics and such.

[tercio67]

It will not be easy, it will take time and manpower.
A consevative estimate imho would be at least 20 years.
First we need to start in the populated area's and than branch out to the less populated area's slowly but steadily.
All the time using the local circomstanses, taking into account culture and etnicity.
The startingpoint must be the generation that is born now, if they can grow up in stability we will create/facilitate our own exit strategy.

Just my thoughts,
Tercio67

[Adux]

It will not be easy, it will take time and manpower.
A consevative estimate imho would be at least 20 years.
First we need to start in the populated area's and than branch out to the less populated area's slowly but steadily.
All the time using the local circomstanses, taking into account culture and etnicity.
The startingpoint must be the generation that is born now, if they can grow up in stability we will create/facilitate our own exit strategy.

Just my thoughts,
Tercio67

No Government in current PC climate will be able to do a 20 year stint!

[Adux]

(i'm curious becuase in several thousands years noone really won).



I agree with most, except that above statement, it is not exactly true. It was myth that started from the Brits. That place did exist before that, and was raped, pillaged, converted and murdered by Arabs, Turks, Central Asians, Chinese, Hindus, Sikhs etc!

(Alexander came to near the borders of present day India)

[Hollis]

No Government in current PC climate will be able to do a 20 year stint!


What makes you think it will be a 20 years stint? Not long ago, people where saying that about Iraq.

There is no letting go of the terrorism issue. Having them win is something even the PC crowd is not interested in.

[tercio67]

No Government in current PC climate will be able to do a 20 year stint!

No single government, perhaps a few governments working together and relieving one another.
If there is an initial succes the military involvment can be gradualy reduced in favor of civilian organisations.
Afghan troops (the ANA is not stationed in the province they are recruted from in order to prevent a conflict of interest) are supporting/taking over ISAF duties and operations.

[Adux]

What makes you think it will be a 20 years stint? Not long ago, people where saying that about Iraq.

There is no letting go of the terrorism issue. Having them win is something even the PC crowd is not interested in.

I was replying to the above poster, the one above the post of mine you qouted! I am all for fighting this war, but i think our prespectives need to be broadened! We are completley ignoring the ideological issue, Saudi Arabia is propagating these hate while we try to win hearts and minds, it only makes our job harder!

[Adux]

The Threat is Common: Brahma Chellaney (http://www.cprindia.org/morecolumns.php?s=1446)

Herzliya (Israel): In the face of a spreading jihad culture, President Barack Obama has ended America's global "war" on terror as dramatically
and unaccountably as his predecessor had initiated it. With the stroke of his pen, Obama has effectively terminated the war on terror that George W Bush had launched to defeat terrorists who, he said, wanted to "establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia".

The asymmetric weapon of terrorism is a lethal one. Dealing with such unconventional warfare remains a central theme in international discourse, as at Israel's Herzliya Conference involving participants from the highest levels of government, business and academia. But the blunt truth is that the war on terror stood derailed long before Obama took office. The US occupation of Iraq proved so divisive in international relations that it fractured the post-9/11 global consensus to fight terror. Guantanamo, CIA's secret overseas prisons and the torture of detainees, including through water-boarding, came to symbolise the excesses of the war on terror.

The abrupt end of the war on terror thus means little. With Iraq and Afghanistan searing his presidency, Bush himself had given up the pretence of waging a global war on terror a war he had once equated with the Cold War struggle against communism. In fact, ever since Bush declared his war on terror, the scourge of transnational terrorism has spread deeper and wider in the world. The war's only outcome has been that it enabled the Bush administration to set up new US military arrangements extending from the Caspian Sea basin to South East Asia.

Not calling it a war any longer but labelling it a "struggle" or "strategic challenge" doesn't change the grim realities. Secular, pluralistic states have come under varying pressures, depending on their location, from the forces of terror. After all, vulnerability to terrorist attacks is critically linked to a state's external neighbourhood. A democracy geographically distant from the Muslim world tends to be less vulnerable to frequent terrorist strikes than a democracy proximate to Islamic states. The luxury of geography of Australia and the US contrasts starkly with the tyranny of geography of India and Israel. It is such realities that no change of lexicon can address.

Still, Obama is right in saying "the language we use matters". He has been wise to reach out to the Muslim world and to start undoing some of the excesses of the Bush years. The international fight against terrorism will be a long, hard slog. After all, the problem and solution are linked: Terrorism not only threatens the free, secular world, but also springs from the rejection of democratic and secular values. Worse, terrorism is pursued as a sanctified tool of religion and a path to redemption. Thus, the struggle against transnational terror can be won only by inculcating a liberal, secular ethos in societies steeped in religious and political bigotry.

In that light, the with-us-or-against-us terminology and use of offensive terms like "Islamofascism" were counterproductive. Counterterrorism is not a struggle against any religion but against those that misuse and misappropriate religion. The need is to reach out to Muslim moderates through correct idiom, not to unite the Muslim world through provocative language. Obama's gentler, subtler tone no doubt will help. But such a tone can be sustained only if the US continues to be free of any terrorist attack, as it has been for more than seven years. If a terrorist strike occurs in the US on Obama's watch, the president will come under intense attack for dismantling tools that had successfully shielded that country for long.

Having appointed a special envoy for each of the two regions central to the global fight against terrorism the Pakistan-Afghanistan belt and the Middle East Obama is likely to discover that ending the war on terror was the easy part. In fact, at a time when America's challenges have been underscored by a deep economic recession, increasing reliance on capital inflows from authoritarian China and jihad-bankrolling Saudi Arabia, two overseas wars and eroding global influence, Obama has already started redefining US anti-terror objectives more narrowly. His defence secretary has given the clearest indication yet that the new administration will seek to regionally contain terrorism rather than defeat it.

While outwardly the US looks set to pursue a military strategy in Afghanistan and a political approach towards Pakistan, in reality its troop surge in Afghanistan is intended to cut a political deal with the Taliban from a position of strength. According to Robert Gates, US objectives have been "too broad and too far into the future" and the new scaled-back goal is "to keep Afghanistan from becoming a base for al-Qaeda attacks on the US". There isn't enough "time, patience or money", in his words, to pursue ambitious goals there. Washington's proposal to triple non-military aid to Islamabad while keeping existing military aid flow intact, other than to tie it to concrete Pakistani cooperation on the Afghan front, will free Pakistan to continue its asymmetric war of terror against India.

The jarring US intent to focus on preventing attacks against America by regionally confining terrorism means that democracies with uncongenial neighbourhoods, like India and Israel, will bear the brunt of escalating terrorism.
The writer is professor, Centre for Policy Research.

[Hollis]

I was replying to the above poster, the one above the post of mine you qouted! I am all for fighting this war, but i think our prespectives need to be broadened! We are completley ignoring the ideological issue, Saudi Arabia is propagating these hate while we try to win hearts and minds, it only makes our job harder!


Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, Don't use the term "we".

[Adux]

Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, Don't use the term "we".

I used the term 'we' since I sincerely believe India is a part of the War on Terror. We may have differences in approaches, but in the end we all want to achieve the same objectives and ideals

[Hollis]

I used the term 'we' since I sincerely believe India is a part of the War on Terror. We may have differences in approaches, but in the end we all want to achieve the same objectives and ideals


IMHO, all countries should be involved to eradicate terrorism. Terrorist are like rabid dogs, you never really never know who they will go after, even their sponsors.


Our differences pale compared to the effects that terrorists can cause our mutual countries.

The Kingdom, does not have complete control over all it's people and in some way they are setting on a powder keg. Only takes a spark.

Problem with Western countries, is that the threat seems abstract and distance so partisan politics rule over real need.

[Adux]

IMHO, all countries should be involved to eradicate terrorism. Terrorist are like rabid dogs, you never really never know who they will go after, even their sponsors.


Our differences pale compared to the effects that terrorists can cause our mutual countries.

The Kingdom, does not have complete control over all it's people and in some way they are setting on a powder keg. Only takes a spark.

Problem with Western countries, is that the threat seems abstract and distance so partisan politics rule over real need.

That problem isnt confined to the West,
The question arises, like that for South Korea and Japan, What is the west.
If West is a belief system, I for one believe India is a western country along with South Korea and Japan.

[timetraveller]

I was replying to the above poster, the one above the post of mine you qouted! I am all for fighting this war, but i think our prespectives need to be broadened! We are completley ignoring the ideological issue, Saudi Arabia is propagating these hate while we try to win hearts and minds, it only makes our job harder!

The day a major Western Country openly accuses the Saudi's that will be the day

..Can you openly name one Member of the Ruling Saudi family that openly promotes Terrorism ..

And can you Openly prove with harden facts that any known member of the ruling family is a donator and has given money to Known Outfits ..

[Hollis]

That problem isnt confined to the West,
The question arises, like that for South Korea and Japan, What is the west.
If West is a belief system, I for one believe India is a western country along with South Korea and Japan.


Western to me is the Western Industrial Complex as defined by the anthropologist.

[Adux]

The day a major Western Country openly accuses the Saudi's that will be the day
Maybe when Brazil gets their Oil Wells up and running.;)


..Can you openly name one Member of the Ruling Saudi family that openly promotes Terrorism ..

And can you Openly prove with harden facts that any known member of the ruling family is a donator and has given money to Known Outfits ..

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/nation/na-terror2


http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2005/08/10/stories/2005081000931000.htm

[Adux]

Western to me is the Western Industrial Complex as defined by the anthropologist.

The Western Industrial Complex is based on an ideology, not that they formally developed one, but it mutated into one, Japan, South Korea and India, even China to some extent has accepted that ideology.

Anyways lets get back to Afghanistan.

[Hollis]

Maybe when Brazil gets their Oil Wells up and running.;)




That is kind of simple minded. "It's about the oil". There is a lot more going on. You talk about the big "WE" but think in the single "I". The US is not all powerful as people would like to think, it has power and influence. You need to understand how that power and influence works. US foreign policy is based on something between the carrot and the stick. Yes mistakes are made, one of the biggest reason is that no one owns a crystal ball to see into the future. The world is run by self interest and fear. With in each county the various political parties operate on the same, self interest and fear. People who seek power are fearful of those who want the same. Self interested people are fearful of other self interested people.

That is just the simple part.

[timetraveller]

The Western Industrial Complex is based on an ideology, not that they formally developed one, but it mutated into one, Japan, South Korea and India, even China to some extent has accepted that ideology.

Anyways lets get back to Afghanistan.

It not Ideaology the term is Lifestyle and influence ... which America and europe has given to Japan and South Korea because they have been Influenced ..

the difference is greater and more obvious ..


And in Astan some people may do not want Western Influence or lifestyle .. It's up to each individual to choose for themselves . In America there is Communities that live the Simple life whereby what they are all Surrounded by they aren't influenced .. IE Amish community

[Adux]

Hollis,

It is a tongue-in-cheek comment, do take it as such only. I am very aware that it is not just Oil, actually far more important geopolitical factors than just oil,

[Adux]

Timetraveller,

Even lifestyle is influenced by ideology, dig a bit more deeper and you will see it. If it is Democracy, Secularism and Human rights, US did promote it like no other country. She is not perfect, as the civil rights movement was in 1960's and not in 1800's, but there is a yearn towards perfection.
People of Afghanistan will not think for themselves, like the Iraqi's, there are quite a lot of reasons for that, to change that we might have cement there for a quite a bit. Read what Robert Gates has to say on that!

[AL-Khalid]

India is a wetern country ? since when.

[Holycrusader]

That problem isnt confined to the West,
The question arises, like that for South Korea and Japan, What is the west.
If West is a belief system, I for one believe India is a western country along with South Korea and Japan.


Do not make ma laugh... India, South Korea and Japan are not western countrys...

[Adux]

Do not make ma laugh... India, South Korea and Japan are not western countrys...

It was just a point of view relative to ideology and objectives as a nation, you dont have to go ballistic over it, If following Quranic laws, makes one Islamic, maybe following Western ideals and laws, makes them western. That is all. I am not trying to undermine any eastern culture not am I trying to over-estimate the principles of Voltaire.

[ggk]

It was just a point of view relative to ideology and objectives as a nation, you dont have to go ballistic over it, If following Quranic laws, makes one Islamic, maybe following Western ideals and laws, makes them western. That is all. I am not trying to undermine any eastern culture not am I trying to over-estimate the principles of Voltaire.


really...so india are more western than the rest of asia? i thought you say you live in india?

[ggk]

Soviets used various Hearts and minds strategy, actually more than NATO.
In reality there are scary similarities between the last days of Soviets in Afghanistan and NATO

and here you contradicting your own view..or in other words flip floping all over places...

just few weeks ago arent you the one that hell bent in your point regarding the deployment of 120000 troops to Afganistan...didnt you say the taliban are easy picking?

[Adux]

and here you contradicting your own view..or in other words flip floping all over places...

just few weeks ago arent you the one that hell bent in your point regarding the deployment of 120000 troops to Afganistan...didnt you say the taliban are easy picking?

What about in context dont you understand, I cannot teach you english nor can I give you a perspective. You are trolling, and I am telling you to desist. I know you are idea is to wind me up, I have already stated in this same thread or the other taliban are not uber soldiers, but they can bear the cost and wait it out! As also I have said, we dont have enough boots on the ground, and other points as well. Unless and Untill you start posting intelligently rather than the current trolling, I will not reply to you. And that is final.

[ggk]

What about in context dont you understand, I cannot teach you english nor can I give you a perspective. You are trolling, and I am telling you to desist.

hah...you are not angry do you?

for a start you did flip floping...oh no my english are perfect..i can understand you perfectly...and believe me i read all your post every single one of them and i do take notes...

[ggk]

I know you are idea is to wind me up, I have already stated in this same thread or the other taliban are not uber soldiers, but they can bear the cost and wait it out! .

really and how does Taliban 'wait it out' have got to do with the resemblance between Soviet invasion and the Allied action in Afganistan? see? now you contradicting your earlier point!


As also I have said, we dont have enough boots on the ground, and other points as well.

who are 'we'? The Nato or india? isnt it you that said India need nothing from nato?



Unless and Untill you start posting intelligently rather than the current trolling, I will not reply to you. And that is final

oh yes you will

[PipeHittingInfidel]

Who are we fighting? Why are we fighting? I would suggest to Mr. Reeves that he is not fighting so should therefore not include himself in this we that he speaks of. He should instead shut up, sit down, and let us fight this war on a group that has continued to harbor Al Qaida.



Yeah, that pretty much makes it official. He's a pompous, elitest coward.

i cannot out do this comment so i have to give u props!