Afghanistan - What is the objective?

This is for the people who were making noise about the Taliban:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf

Just 4 percent of Afghans would like to see them in charge, and 58 percent of them think that the Taliban pose the greatest threat to their country.

Oh, and more than 60 percent say it is mostly good or very good that that U.S. military forces came into our country to bring down the Taliban government in 2001. A similar number support the presence of US troops there today.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you request required MULTIPLE army groups. Like you know WWII numbers - I think it was something like 50+ divisions to put the boot stops on Germany after WWII and a somewhat less number to put Down the pretty docile Japanese (after surrender they were more docile).

Again Afghanistan is at least as hard to put down as Germany(and I'm talking post surrender -squashing nazi civilians), plus there's them mountains. You know the Germans held the Abbey at Monte Cassino with a tiny fraction of the forces assailed against them. Mountain fighting is a fucking nightmare.

It would require a Total War effort from all NATO Nations. Not even the average American(still fairly militaristic) nowadays will put his ass on the on the line until a chinese tank is rolling down wall street.

You don't have a Gen. George Marshall with a plan either. They were still paying the billions of Debt of WWII when Bush and Obama started spending Trillions.

In short, you are fucked. So am I.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are no details about where this poll was taken, how many people it included, or by whom it was done.

It could very well be attached to people from the occupying armies of the US and UK. Mere propaganda.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Taliban was never much of a supporter of Islamic terrorism, aside from its own fundie impositions on the locals.

It did not have to take the French side, and adopt the entire colonial war after the French were driven out.

And it illustrates the situation facing Ho Chi Minh. Money and weapons from Russia, or colonial rule by France. No help from the bastions of freedom and democracy.

Considering what a horrorshow the US left behind, after what has been plausibly described as the deliberate destruction of a country - and no Marshall Plan, but rather sanctions and powerful hostility undermining the new regime - Vietnam seems to have done rather well for itself.

Countable innocents are being slaughtered, in a war that if not viewed as farcical takes on the appearance of viciousness in the furtherance of venality. And Afghanistan has never been the base of operations for any attack on the US.

Per your posts, we see how little impression the coming to light makes, either before or after people are bid to look in the direction of events.

And once again we find ourselves being widely supported by a grateful populace of people who are somehow nevertheless supplying an unending stream of young men willing to endure great privations and face terrible odds with inadequate weapons to fight us to the death, while being apparently incapable of accepting superior numbers and weaponry and support and the help of the entire populace to fight with us with anything like the same fervor.

 

Yeah. That BBC. They've no professionalism and are constantly producing propaganda for the West. That must be the answer. It can't be that you're wrong as wrong can be. That's just not possible, right?

 

If you don't have a response to my questions, don't respond. I want to know the details, it is the duty of the one who posted this poll to provide these details.

 

Not directly no.

But then there is the whole arm-and-arm relationship it had with al Qaeda. Remember Ahmed Shah Masood was probably killed by al Qaeda either on behalf of the Taliban or to curry favor them. Whichever is the case doesn't really matter. The Taliban allowed the territory they occupied to host training camps from the global jihad. Under US law, that's called material support for terrorism.

The US did not "adopt" a colonial war. The US wrongly got itself involved in Vietnam when it became obvious that the Soviets were active there and arming and funding the Vietnamese. The rational for American entry is well-known and well documented. You trying to recast it in ideological terms that aren't relevant is pure revisionism and bias.

Nope. We weren't ever going to support an armed insurrection against an ally. But I bet we would have been a lot more sympathetic if Ho Chin Minh had embraced post-colonialism freedom in a manner closer to India's.

Where do you come up with this stuff? We should have had a Marshall plan for a country we were run out of? I agree at this point, it makes little sense to have sanctions and whatnot against them, but during the Cold War, I couldn't see us acting any other way.

Innocents always die in war, but "slaughter" is the sort of bullshit use of hyperbole that I've come to expect from you. Nobody is getting slaughtered. The rest of what you say is pure opinion. You're welcome to it -- but the UN, the 41 countries operating in Afghanistan and the Afghans don't agree with you.

Here we go with the cockeyed lunacy again. Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan on Sept. 11 and the days thereafter. This is fact. Not opinion.

You mean because the world doesn't instantly covert to your socialist drum it's wrongheaded right? What you still fail to appreciate is the difference of legitimate opinion and goals. I'm not going to revisit that here, as experience shows you will never learn this.

This is more hyperbole. There is no "unending stream of young men" supporting the Taliban, at least not in Afghanistan where the group has little or no support, as I have shown quantitatively. The Taliban are recruiting from Pakistan and its uncontrolled tribal, but the number are no where near what they were, hence the reason the Talibs can't field an army the way they could a decade ago.

 

The poll, which has plenty of negative things to say, is a joint ABC/BBC venture. This from ABC:

"This survey is ABC’s fourth in Afghanistan since 2005, part of its ongoing “Where Things Stand” series there and in Iraq. It was conducted in late December and early January via face-to-face interviews with a random national sample of 1,534 Afghan adults in all 34 of the country’s provinces, with field work by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul."

 

In Afghanistan, I'm sure you can gather some a thousand or so individuals who feel pro-American, especially among the Tajik Northern Alliance thugs. This is simply war propaganda from a war zone. As I actually have family in this place, I can tell you that you are completely wrong in using this poll to judge Afghani sentiment on the ground. If you don't believe it, watch soem of the videos SAM and I have posted here from Al Jazeera, and even BBC.

 

Whatever the "Al Qaeda" involved may be, that does not mean the events of 9/11 were launched from there, or based there, or even invented and planned by individuals there.

Much less imply that the Afghanis themselves, or the Taliban in particular or in general, had anything to do with the crime.

From your disparagement of the blighted nature of the country under postwar rule. You appeared to be implying that this was to be blamed on the postwar rulers.

And yet superior arms, training, numbers, allies, territorial and strategical position, satellite and air support, foreign backing, and every other sort of military advantage, are insufficient to enable the Afghanis to successfully resist them.

The perennial colonial mystery.

 

Yes, speak about Al Qaeda as if it's some imaginary thing. That makes you look like a fool, though I doubt you care. I can remember well when you spoke of the reasonableness of WTC buildings being wired for explosion. Kudos.

As a matter of fact, the events of 9/11 were conceived, planned and approved of in Afghanistan. That makes it safe to call it the launching point, though we know the plot evolved and was executed, in various stages, elsewhere. The 9/11 report and statements from KSM and others all prove this. All of the hijackers went there, too, I believe.

Still, the key is Afghanistan. If bin Laden and his leadership did not have the safety and the infrastructure there, it is difficult to imagine how they would have been able to foster such a bold plan. To make this even more clear, look at Al Qaeda now. It's been unable to put together anything big precisely because it does not have a safe haven to hatch schemes and collect materials inside.

I never implied the Afghans had a thing to do with the plot. They didn't, which is precisely why we aren't making war against them. We are making war against the Taliban -- and so are the Afghans, just as they have done since the Taliban first arrived.

The Taliban, while not directly involved with the attacks, are partially responsible and can be held to account under US laws that apparently you are ignorant of or have chosen to ignore.

The anti-terror statutes (most of which were signed into law by Clinton) provide jurisdiction for “extraterritorial” events that impact the US (see US v. Yousef). The Taliban is clearly guilty of material support under 18 USC 2339 (a), as al Qaeda was a terrorist organization at the time they allowed it to come to Afghanistan, train there and plan attacks.

Yes, Vietnam was blighted because it was destroyed by War, but it was also blighted because of the stupid things its leaders did post-1975. By that, I mean rounding up and executing many of the South's social leaders, nationalizing industries and pursuing communism didn't help them along the road to recovery. It would be interesting here to posit where your Soviet friends were. By feeding Vietnam arms, they perpetuated a conflict that would have otherwise quickly ended, and thus share some of the blame for the disaster Vietnam became. Funny how they didn't do that much to clean up the mess they helped make, though.

Wrong.

They have resisted them.

The fact the Taliban still exist and still hamper the country's reconstruction is a combination of unfortunate factors, but it's not terribly surprising. Afghanistan has been broken a long time, and the US turned its back on it (again, one might add) when it went into Iraq. Thus, we are years behind where we should be there. Couple this with the fact the Talibs are hiding in another country (Pakistan), receiving help from that country's intelligence service and are fighting an asymmetrical war that isn't interested in gaining or holding territory and you get the mess we have on our hands now.

Elsewhere, I object to your continual attempts to cast this conflict -- and nearly everything else -- in "colonial" terms. That's just your bullshit, Marxist appreciation. It's tired and typical and it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. But then nearly all of your posts can be described that way.

 

Your ability to remember your own inventions as if they were the words of others is unequaled on this forum.

Or wherever KSM and whoever else made the plans and decisions was at the time. The Czech Republic, Germany, and Malaysia played their roles.

Pakistan is not mentioned, or Saudi Arabia, in the official accounts - the money and the personnel being incidental, the source of reliable piloting skill and advice in particular shrouded in mystery.

But not very successfully, eh?

There are few examples in history of a people holding as much advantage over an invading force as the Afghanis hold over the Taliban, if as you say the Taliban are not themselves Afghanis (except for their leadership, of course) (and their "rank and file" according to Wiki) (and much of their tribal support).

It is somewhat puzzling that the Afghanis need, in addition to superior weaponry and supplies and training, in addition to air support and satellite intelligence, in addition to homeland defender's advantage and numerical superiority, also the assistance of tens of thousands of foreign soldiers in the actual combat.

But it's a pattern we've seen before, where the US was involved. Especially where large US corporate interests were involved.

 

Do you really want me to take the time and dig up the actual quote so I can embarrass the absolute shit out of you?

Or do you want to cut your losses and shut your mouth on that topic?

Fine. Not denying that. But without Afghanistan, without the country that sheltered the organization, allowed it the safety of central coordination, training camps, and the breathing room to survive and further its reputation, 9/11 probably would not have happened -- or at least, it would have been more difficult to pull off. This is why the Taliban can be considered enablers. And I gave you the law, which you ignored:

The anti-terror statutes (most of which were signed into law by Clinton) provide jurisdiction for “extraterritorial” events that impact the US (see US v. Yousef). The Taliban is clearly guilty of material support under 18 USC 2339 (a), as al Qaeda was a terrorist organization at the time they allowed it to come to Afghanistan, train there and plan attacks.

Case closed.

It's worth noting that the only people complaining about invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban are fringe Leftists like you: That is, people cracked out on conspiracy theories about pipelines and Big Oil.

Piloting skill is dealt with quite clearly in the 9/11 report. You should try reading it. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia aren't mentioned probably because there is no hard evidence they were involved in the plot -- or at least none the government is willing to openly acknowledge.

I admit it's possible some minor Saudi princes might have been funneling money to Al Qaeda, but I cannot subscribe to the notion that there was high-level and intentional involvement. The Saudis hated bin Laden. They disowned him and wanted his head on a stick. And they certainly don't want to piss the US off. So it makes no sense for them to get behind the 9/11 plot. None whatsoever.

Pakistan? I can see certain elements of the ISI who were friendly with the Taliban maybe lending some kind of hand, but I have two problems with that.

1. Al Qaeda didn't really need "help" from outside sources. It had the money and the acumen to pull the attack off on its own. Why compromise security by telling people about it.

2. Pakistan was desperate to get back on good terms with the US. The head of ISI was at Langley when the attacks occurred. Why get in bed with a plot like that when you know what the potential blowback is?

The Taliban never conquered all of Afghanistan. Now they hold little or no territory and have adopted guerrilla techniques. The violence is up and the security situation fragile, but I think it's impossible to imagine a scenario where they ever again hold some kind of power. My guess is the end up like the Tamil Tigers (extremely radical) or gradually moderate, like Hezbollah, when it becomes clear they can't really hold power.

I'm not saying that Afghans aren't in the Taliban. I'm saying that they have little or no support in Afghanistan and streams of Afghan people aren't lining up to join them because the Taliban was and is hated -- if for nothing else then for their Wahhabi doctrine, which is totally alien to Afghans. This is not an insurgency or resistance to American occupation is what I'm saying, regardless of what you would have us believe. The Taliban has much more pull and much more attraction in Pakistan's wild areas. If it didn't, it would have been rooted out long ago.

No, it's not. Read the history of asymmetrical warfare. Or of Afghanistan. This is a state that was a failed state. It still is, only now it's a narco-failed state. That breeds instability. And you're also overlooking the help the Talibs get from the ISI.

Blah, blah, blah.

Here we go again with US corporate interests.

The Tamil Tigers have been active for years in Sri Lanka. You have similar groups in Indonesia and Malaysia. Or the PKK in Turkey. So yes, there is a pattern. But it has nothing to do with big, bad corporations or the United States. Sorry.

 

You can't. No quote of mine matches that paraphrase.

You mean the only Americans. And the complaint is not about toppling the Taliban. Lots of people are complaining about not toppling the Taliban.

But not credibly. The pilot of the Pentagon plane, for example, probably did not learn to do that in a few hours from a puddle jumper civilian flight school instructor in Arizona.

Including the leadership, etc. Good. Then my point - that the Afghanis in the Taliban seem to fight more effectively with much less support than the Afghanis in the Afghan Army - remains.

And that ubiquity of that pattern is simply an observation.

The Taliban is presented as a foreign invader with no local support and diminishing numbers. Yet the Afghanis cannot be relied on to defeat them despite gross advantages in everything from weapons and local knowledge of the terrain to satellite intelligence and air support from the US.

 

the key thing to understand is that tradition and tribal loyalties are big things to Afghans I would not put too much weight on polls democracy is notoriously unsuited to tribal peoples who tend to prefer and historically have preferred warlords, blood is thicker than water to them

 

What do you think of the Loya Jirga?

 

don't know, really, tends to be just a pow wow of the tribal leaders, hardly democracy as we or the Greeks understand/ understood it

 

Is anything that comes out of that binding to all Afghanis? If not, who cares what or who it is?

Baron Max

 

I doubt if anything is binding on "all" Afghans, that's not how they see the world

 

Since you insist on playing the fool, I will embarrass you.

The thread is "WTC Conspiracy (merged)." In post number 245, you write:

"The way I run into it most often, the demolition setup dates from the installation of some sort of sensitive government stuff in the building, or maybe a preplanned insurance fraud, or the like, that either was planned as a response to any serious breach of security or took advantage of the opportunity or something.

So that it wasn't a controlled demo, but a criminal or emergency response, set up in advance to handle a variety of potential events.

It doesn't seem necessary to me, or even likely, but it is sort of possible - unlike the various screwball accounts of tower demolition."

Pressed, by me, about whether you believed it was possible, you write in post 254 that:

"It isn't ruled out immediately by the visible evidence. It doesn't require huge and ludicrously vulnerable conspiracies with no apparent motive and every chance of failure."

Punishment over.

Back to the topic.

No, I meant what I said.

The UN, NATO, the Afghans -- pretty much everybody is OK with the invasion. They only people crowing about it are fringe Leftists like you with your dreams of conspiracy theories and tired, anti-imperialist rhetoric.

They have been toppled.

They controlled a state and now they no longer do. I would say that's toppled. The fact they still exist and harass the US efforts there is only evidence of their toppling. That is, they cannot fight a traditional war and have been reduced to guerrilla tactics and hiding in another state.

You mean not credibly for you and other fringe Leftists. It's nice to seeing you towing the Hype line about pilot skill. The funny thing is that no one else is doing it, unless, of course, they are fringe Leftists or have been co-opted by fringe Leftists. See the pattern here?

The revealing poll I posted denies that claim.

The Army's problem, much as is the case in Iraq, is that it is corrupt and rife with ethnic, religious and tribal divisions. It's no surprise they cannot fight effectively. But even if they could, insurgencies are nasty things that last for years (see Algeria or Indonesia) regardless how in-shape the army is.

Like all of your "observations" it requires your audience to accept and endorse your vantage point and prism.

The Taliban is a foreign invader, to a large degree.

Read Rashid's book to see what I mean here. Most of them came from the camps in Pakistan, schooled by the Madrassas there. Heck, initially part of their legitimacy came from the fact that they weren't mixed up with the Afghan militias. Most of those original Taliban are probably gone now, but this does not mean they are now wholly an Afghan group.

They are a Pashtun entity, but even they cannot claim to dominate that tribe, on account of their Wahhabi roots (Karzai is Pashtun, too, for example). This is why Pakistan is so important. The radical Sufism and Wahhabism there, the high numbers of Pashtuns, especially in the Western portions of the country, are incubators for the Taliban that both shelter them and give them support.