Thread: Afghanistan 2009 & 2010

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Your humanity is misguided and without any kind of light in the near future for the people you pretend to champion, all you really want is what you in your minds would perceive as a US loss, which is your only true agenda, and then you really don't give a rat's arse for the Afghan's or the fight against world radicalism

Lost it badly with that parting paragraph there Larv.

The whole world knows this Afghan war is not about humanitarian ideals.
Wars of this magnitude dont just happen because some good people on the other side of the planet decide people in a far off place need a better quality of life that freedom and democracy can bring.

Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq and emergence of a radical Islamic threat to the west has been fermenting for decades out of the wests desire to militarily and politically control oil resources in the Middle East. If it wasn't for the oil there no western government would really give a dam how they lived their lives. Our western interests in the Middle East are purely economic rather than humanitarian.

Unfortunately, this oppression by the west has led to a resurgence of radical Islamism as a means of galvanizing the people there against western imperialism.

We have created our own nemesis out of our own greed and desire to dominate other cultures and economies.

Our own western culture of conquering distant lands to plunder their wealth does not sit well in the modern world of the 21st century. The increasing radicalization of the Muslim world and the increasing technical capacity for them to strike back against us is at odds with out military strength. This militarily backed economic colonialism just ain't working too well anymore. We have succeeded in creating a hard core of Islamic Jihadists intent on opposing our economic ambitions and destroying us. How does one put such a belligerent genie back into the bottle now? Yes, we have created our own nemesis and thats something we and our children are going to be forced to live with now for a very long time to come. And kicking sand in the face of that genie while we seemingly have the upper hand is not going to make future reconciliation any easier.

Here is an article by Ron Paul. Kind of general. But an msnbc article came out today.

Perhaps the tide is changing on Afgghanistan, more now.

Saving Face in Afghanistan
By Ron Paul
10/14/09


This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.

The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000? Why not 500,000 -- just to be "safe"? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58% are now against it?

I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives -- for what?

The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.

Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.

The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.

Campaign For Liberty — Saving Face in Afghanistan | by Ron Paul

Clear left and right here! OK, do it the leftie way, pull out all the troops and then what? Send aid and let them help themselves? That won't stop the terrorists -- they'll grow more opium, buy bigger weapons and continue to get funding from like-minded govts. Besides terrorizing the people again.
Yes, the Kharzai govt is corrupt, but the election rigging was immediately pointed out by the AMERICAN UN envoy Galbraith who was sacked by his Euro UN boss.
So, the US pulls out and then what? Should it close its borders? Refuse re-entry to anyone who travels to A-stan, Iran, Pakistan, N Korea...
POYUS is trying to please the ROW and has forgotten his key job: keeping America safe.

Rahm Emmanuel told CNN last night that no additional troops would be forthcoming until the US has an effective working Afgan partner. There seem to be two options; 1) a new election or 2) some kind of power sharing arrangement between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. This is very interesting because Hillary Clinton said that if a new election was held, Karzai would undoubtedly win. It is evident that little love is lost between the Obama administration and Karzai. This is leading to a big showdown.

I think this sentiment - coming from people there, on the ground - say something.

I think this may be a trend.

| Comments
U.S. official resigns over Afghan war

Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting

Cpl. Jeremy Foley of Bloomington, Ill., left, and Spec. William Makenzie of Pendleton, Ore., soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, fire mortars in the Pech Valley of Afghanistan's Kunar province. (AP)

Matthew Hoh was asked to stay in the job. (Gerald Martineau - The Washington Post)
Buy Photo

TOOLBOX


A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
The reaction to Hoh's letter was immediate. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay.

U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff. decliHohned

LInk & Entire: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think this may be a trend.

a trend based on one incident?

anyway, i hope it becomes a trend.

if there was ever a chance for victory in afghanistan, it was in 2003-2004. now all the US military is doing is simply postponing it's retreat.

"Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people,"

"I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love,"

"I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end,"

Al Jazeera English - Americas - US official resigns over Afghan war


Ouch. Double Ouch.


President Obama, please answer the question- Why are 'We' in Afghanistan, and to what end??

two points:

Originally Posted by sabang

Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state

i could be wrong, but i think the US has been in afghanistan longer than the soviets were...before they retreated.

Originally Posted by sabang

Why are 'We' in Afghanistan, and to what end??

that's the question, isn't it?

karzai says it's to protect the afghan people.
really?
i'm not so sure the american public would agree.

and btw, did anyone see that NYT story about karzai's brother being on the CIA payroll for the last 7 years....and that he's reputed to be one of the key drug king pins in the country.

obama's got three choices...and two of them are good ones...but difficult.

the good:
he can follow mccrystal (sp) and put in 40K troops and try to defeat the taliban
he can pull out

the bad:
he can chart some sort of middle path which includes fewer troops....this may be politically expedient, but likely doomed to failure.


get out now.

ABC iView | Internet TV Service Click on 4, then select Monday October 19th to veiw the programe.

An ABC FourCorners doco showing the massive scale of entrenched corruption within the Afghan government and misuse of international aid funds.

Highly recommended viewing.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/11/01/gps.podcast.11.01.cnn

Fareed Zakaria interviews Matthew Hoh, the diplomat who resigned this week in protest over US Afganistan policy. This is a must see interview.

great stuff.

IMO another must see video is here:

Meet the Press- msnbc.com

and under 'recent videos'

scroll down to "take two" "krakauer recounts the odyssey of pat tilman'.


krakauer is the guy who wrote 'into thin air' and 'into the wild', and he just published a book about pat tillman--the former NFL player who turned down millions of dollars to join the military to fight in afghanistan. he was killed by friendly fire, but that fact was covered up.

someone who played a key role in the cover up was general stanley mcchrystal, head of us forces in afghanistan.

if this story has legs...and i'm not sure if it does.....mcchrystal will be lucky if he isn't court martialed.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by sabang

In the clearest sign that the Pentagon has become dependent on privatization, a new report reveals that today there are more defense contractors than U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Could be that the empire can't support itself without a draft, but since the populace won't support a draft, welcome Private Armed Forces USA.

Since when does the populice make the decision on the draft. Fact is there are plenty of people willing to serve, hence no need for a draft.

Originally Posted by dirtydog

^And why does Europe USA etc need to get involved in killing people in Afghanistan?
You found those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet?

Dah, maybe because people in Afganistan got involved in killing innocent people in the U.S.

Originally Posted by raycarey

he was killed by friendly fire

It is not provable, but he was quite likely murdered.

Originally Posted by Dan

Whatever it is, it's clearly got fuck all to do with the Afghan people, who'd be only too happy to see the back of the Americans and the British.

and go back to living in the dark ages, somehow I doubt that, I think they would rather be free of the curse of the Taliban

Originally Posted by Humbert

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/11/01/gps.podcast.11.01.cnn

Fareed Zakaria interviews Matthew Hoh, the diplomat who resigned this week in protest over US Afganistan policy. This is a must see interview.

The interview on the economy is great too. Green on ya.

How long does it take until we build a Mc Donalds there?

Originally Posted by D Mac

How long does it take until we build a Mc Donalds there?

Will a Whopper do?

Bagram air base "already boasts fast food favorites Burger King, a combination Pizza Hut/Bojangles, and Popeyes as well as a day spa and shops selling jewelry, cell phones and, of course, Afghan rugs."

Tomgram: Nick Turse, In Afghanistan, the Pentagon Digs in

Originally Posted by Milkman

We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.

Noam Chomsky has recently emerged from hibernation, he's on a speaking tour in Europe. And he agrees with Ron Paul on this-

"States are not moral agents," he says, and believes that now that Obama is escalating the war, it has become even clearer that the occupation is about the credibility of Nato and US global power.

Noam Chomsky: 'US foreign policy is straight out of the mafia' | World news | The Guardian

^ Brilliant quote selection, Sab.

And as you and we all know:

Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

CBS Exclusive: Sources Say Force Will Grow to 100,000 - Nearly Filling Gen. McChrystal's Request; Long-Term Stay Planned

• Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.
  
  The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.
  
  McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops. A senior officer says "that's close to what [McChrystal] asked for." All the president's military advisers have recommended sending more troops.
  
  But they also have warned that troops alone will not win the war unless Afghan President Hamid Karzai cleans up his government.
  
  "He's got to take concrete steps to eliminate corruption," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said last week. "That means you have to rid yourself of those who are corrupt. You have to actually arrest and prosecute them."
  
  The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.
  
  Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute says a slow motion surge will produce slow motion results.
  
  "If they're going to be sort of trickled in very slowly over the course of a year than it's unlikely to have a very decisive impact in the course of 2010," he said.

Link & Entire:

Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops - CBS News

^
Very disapointing--and discouraging--if the report turns out to be true.

Haven't heard much about killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden lately.
Or is this just another war to bring freedom and democracy to a far off land?
The hugely corrupt Afghan government is one of the legacies of the US led invasion and occupation that isn't winning them much support among the Afghan people.

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Very disapointing--and discouraging--if the report turns out to be true.

MrG,

It's official. More US troops to Afghanistan. I'll put more article related to this soon.

^
^^
If it comes to pass, I can't help but wonder what Obama thinks he's going to win.

More to the point, what do the people within the circle of power making this decision see as victory. Osama bin is gone. The Taliban are not a threat to us. Even traditional conservatives are saying Afghanistan is a bad bet. So has Obama bought into some long term Geo/Political positioning that is so much a part of American foreign policy that it has become "institutionalized" in the halls of power, but is excluded from the public discourse.

Cant see what the big fuss is, it was part of his election campaign to reduce US presence in Iraq and significantly strengthen the military effort in Afghanistan, this has been an ongoing thing since Obama took office, I'm however not sure if the new almost impossible demands to Afghanistans Government about less corruption is a way the Allies are trying to find a way out!!