US air strikes kill 140 civilians in Afghanistan, including 93 children

Agreed, DiamondHearts thinks that Americans sit around hating Muslims all day long. The fact is most Americans could care less about Muslims. And DiamondHearts and others of his ilk don't seem to want to recognize that there are more than a million Muslims in The United States who go about their business every day unmolested. And no one forces them to stay or to leave. They are here because they want to be here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your own link talks about a review done in 2007 that led to the changes, so until you show me something that talks about Obama coming up with all this (on his own) in 2007, I am forced to conclude that Bush implemented the decisions that came from the review.

Prove this please.

Yes, and in 2007, they changed their mind when the above didn't work. Do try to follow along, Okay?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obama has been quite consistent in his policy on Afganistan. Below is his policy which george II subsequently adopted. I suppose you think george II's civilian projects were sucessful that is why Afganistan has been an absolute failure and why are troops are still tied up in the country. :shrug:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

http://www.afghanistan-un.org/2009/06/us-toughens-airstrike-policy-in-afghanistan/

Instead of telling others that they do not know what they are speaking about I suggest you do some more research and stay in tune with what is happening in the world - especially on areas in which you post.

Below is an article in 2007 documenting george II's failed policies in Afganistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html

Now I know it is popular amoung the rightist/conservatives or whatever it is they are calling themselves now to represent Obama's successes as a continuation of george II policy, but nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I too consider Obama's interventionist world-police policies as wrong-headed as the Neoconservatives and their unsalvagable notion of stealthy empire. Corporatism with a Human Face is no more a remedy for the rejection of our empire than was the Soviet version.

To expect successful U.S. nation-building in Afghanistan is entirely unrealistic- it's completely ignorant of both history and human nature. Our firepower, our authority, our generosity, and all institutions we sponsor there can never overcome the stigma of being part of yet another unwelcome empire. Because of the essence of their long history, the only way that Afghanis can reaffirm their collective identity (a prerequisite to rebuilding their nation) is by first exhausting the US expedition, just as they have consistently defeated every foreign power that intruded before.

 

What is needed in Afganistan is a stable responsible government...a government that serves its people and does not allow terrorists to use it lands and resources to launch attacks on others nations.

Afganistan has a long history of stable rule..sometimes by invaders and sometimes by native rulers. The Afgan people are really no different than any other. For sure they have their own unique culture. But their needs, wants and fears are pretty much the same as they are for all humans.

The US does not need nor should it export US culture and values. But it should ensure that Obama and his minions are no longer a threat to anyone. And second, it should give/show the Afgans that peace is more profitable and benificial than war and violence and leave them with the ability to govern themselves...similar to what we did with our enemies in WWII. We do not want to spawn the seeds of furher violence when we leave as we did in WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

 

? Now what?

No, they aren't. There is considerable overlap, and has been since the founding of the Taliban.

And the many thousands of recruits, fighting a technologically superior force with little training and poor equipment - where are they from?

And how is it that they fight harder than the much better equipped and trained local forces allied with the US? They even seem to have superior knowledge of the local terrain, people, etc.

 

Yes, they are: Overlap is not the same thing as being the same thing.

Some of the more extreme Muj did end up in the Taliban, but many, in fact, most, did not. The Taliban came from camps and Madrassas in Pakistan. They were outsiders. This is why the muj militias resisted them and fought against them when they arrived on the scene.

What you are trying to argue here is the standard Leftist tripe that the US helped create the Taliban because it backed the muj. That's simplistic and simply not the case. The ISI and Zia al Haq probably bear the most responsibility for the creation of the Taliban, though it's safe to say the Taliban never would have come to power without the US-inspired power vacuum in the country.

You keep droning on about this.

What's your point?

They're from Afghanistan and Pakistan. So what? The fact thousands -- a number tough to quantify -- do something does not denote popular support. If the Taliban was truly popular and the people truly supported them, you would see numbers approaching the scale of people that resisted the Russian invasion. We don't see that, nor does the poll, which you continue to ignore, show much support.

I don't know that they fight "harder." That's your claim. I know they're religious fanatics, punching above their weight, thanks to drug money, with nothing to lose. Maybe that's why they fight hard? And then there's also the small fact that many of these guys trained in camps and have been fighting all their lives. They are kind of good at it.

Duh. They are from there, speak the language, know the culture, etc.

 

At that point george II was getting a lot of political heat. Do I think george II listened to Obama? No, but his political advisors were listening to Obama and the Democrats. And they are the ones george II relied on for his decisions.

Who ever said Karzai is Taliban? Certianly I never made such a claim.

Yes it does bother me when Republicans/conservatives or whatever they are calling themselves these days claim that Obama's policies in Afganistan or Iraq are merely extensions of george II policy. When such is clearly not the case. It was not until the presidential election period began that george II and his merry band of Republicans suddenly realized they needed to change policy in Iraq and Afganistan....status quo was no longer good enough as it had been for the previous seven years. So they adopted the Democratic strategy. If you look at the Democrats they pretty much had the same agenda. So instead of calling it the Obama solution you could call it the Democratic solution that the Republicans reverted to in Iraq and Afganistan.

 

Overlap contradicts your assertion that they are completely different people. Your assertion was false.

It indicates a great deal of support among whoever is supplying all those recruits, havens, and so forth.

And those are, as you note, the local people in large areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "population". Hence: "popular".

If the US pulls out, they would win. So says historical record and current general estimation.

They would win despite facing better equipped, better funded, better trained, home based, according to you fully as experienced (from the mujihadeen etc), and according to you much more numerous as well as popular, enemies they would face. How does that happen?

 

You know all about false assertions, Mr. the CIA budget is never reviewed by anyone. But yeah, sure. I will be more clear. The Taliban and the Muj are different. The fact some of the Muj later joined the Taliban does not make the two the same thing. My point stands.

So what, Ice? The poll I posted is bullshit? Your claims stand as more reliable. I'm sorry, but that's crap. I've got data, I've got anecdotal evidence, I've got reports that show the Taliban operate like a mafia and force people to cooperate or buy them off. Nothing I see shows popular support, but you know everything, right?

Read the history of Afghanistan, then maybe you will understand. The Taliban had the backing of a state (Pakistan) and money from Saudi Arabia and drug sales. Lacking those now, I doubt they could take the country and hold it. But part of the reason they were able to before is the above, along with the fact they were fighting militias fighting each other. In other words, the Muj were divided, and at that time, had no public support. Initially, as I said, the Taliban had public support. They quickly lost it -- and NEVER got it back.

 

Sam said it.

They are. They are actually Bush policies that have been EXPANDED. See the missile attacks.

Bullshit. Read State of Denial. Change in Iraq came from within the Bush White House. That's what the book is about.

 

It wasn't "some of the Muj joined the Taliban" - it was some of the major leaders and factions of the Muj founded the Taliban. Your assertion that the Taliban and the Muj are "completely different people" is flatly contradicted by factual reality.

The mafia cannot function without substantial popular support either.

Regardless of your polls and anecdotes, the Taliban cannot beat up on all the other Afghanis and Pakistanis, cannot survive even (let alone be the odds on favorite to take over Afghanistan if the US withdraws its combat forces), without significant popular support from somebody and superior fighting capability in the militia it fields.

The Taliban is fighting against superior technology, higher levels of funding, better training, greater international cooperation and support, and (if your assertions of unpopularity have any basis in reality at all) greater numbers. And everyone agrees they are favored to win, unless the US maintains a large and vigorous foreign combat force on the ground. Not even a large advantage in air and satellite support is enough to give the local enemies of the Taliban an advantage.

 

Is that the best you can do Count?

 

"The Taliban movement was created in 1994 by a senior mullah (Islamic priest), Mohammed Omar, in the southern Afghanistan city of Kandahār."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/Taliban.html

Omar was not a major Muj leader. That's what gave him credibility.

Bullshit.

And I'm not playing rhetorical games with you, Ice.

I made a statement. I stand by it. You challenged it, so I explained it further. The fact that group dynamics seems to escape you and you want to play lawyer and warp my statement into your own meaning is typical. I said some of the Taliban were, at some point, mujijadeen, but they left the muj (who resisted the Taliban from day one and continued to do so until the US invasion) and joined the Taliban. Thus, they were not "muj" and the two groups are entirely distinct. Lumping them together serves no useful purpose and is completely inaccurate.

This from the same source above:

"The Taliban emerged as a faction of mujahideen soldiers who identified themselves as religious students."

Notice the word FACTION?

"The Taliban consisted mostly of Pashtuns intent on once again dominating the central government in Kābul. They were trained and armed by the Frontier Constabulary, a quasi-military unit in Pakistan, which also has a significant Pashtun population. The Taliban actively recruited thousands of young men in the Afghan refugee camps and the madrasas in Pakistan. Many war orphans also joined the movement."

Notice how the recruits came from OUTSIDE Afghanistant.

Getting the picture yet?

No shit. Which is why I never said they had no support. They have some support, but the poll I posted and the articles I have linked to show they have very little support.

I deny your description for starters. The Taliban hold very little territory. Indeed, most of them spend most of the year hiding in another country. Secondly, you need to find something that shows me why your position is more probable, Ice. So far, I've seen nothing here to change my mind. Just more of your bullshit claims on the internet and you dismissing the ONLY data we have on the subject.

I'd say the US has the advantage. The problem is the Taliban is flush with money and has a hiding place (Pakistan). It's also fighting a non-conventional war against a static target. It's tough for the static target to wipe them out. Shit. Anybody can build a roadside bomb. I mean, does this really puzzle you? Why they are still capable of bloodying the nose? Do you understand this kind of warfare at all?

It's a 500-plus page book by one of the country's most esteemed reporters that details the minute steps that led the Bush administration's volte face on Iraq. I'd say that's pretty fucking solid. I would also say I am on firm ground with my expansion argument. Bush started the missile attacks. Obama, correctly, said we need more of them. So he EXPANDED the policy. He enlargened it. And I tip my hat to him for doing that.

 

I not only noticed it, I used it, in the very sentence of my post you quoted.

I notice how the recruits came from Afghani refugee camps and (Afghani) war orphans. The Taliban seems to enjoy significant popular support among those Afghanis - and there are a lot of them.

You said this:

I simply pointed out that that is not so, that there was and is considerable overlap - not only in tribal and ethnic identity, but in specific and significant individuals - between the Muj that fought the Soviets and the Taliban now fighting the US. For example: Omar's Wiki biography, including his gaining of reputation as a Muj guerrilla and subsequent role in the founding of the Taliban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar

Wiki bio of Omar's commander in the Muj, later a commander in the Taliban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nek_Mohammad_Wazir

And we can contrast their bios with, for example, Hekmatyar's - one of the Muj warlords Omar's Taliban fought against and deposed, and presumably one of those you would therefore accept as a true Muj: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar

 

They are completely different people. They are two groups violently opposed to each other. They fought each other. The fact some members cross from one to the other does not make them the same. Not at all. And I never claimed the Muj didn't have bastards like Hekmatyar among them. I know very well who he is. The simple fact is that nobody, beyond some radical Pashtuns, support the Taliban today, and I've shown as much with my sources. What have you shown?

 

Then the better armed, better trained, better funded and equipped, better supported by air and satellite, more numerous opposition - backed as it is by the entire citizenry, supported by everyone, outnumbering its enemy and fighting on its home ground - should have no problem dealing with them.

Time for the US to pull out.

 

Do you understand asymetric warfare at all?

 

Enough to know that it requires solid support among the residents of its home base.

Enough to know that the Muj who founded the Taliban, when they took Kabul from the Muj who first did then didn't join the Taliban, were engaged in symmetrical warfare.

The people who predict - and it's a common prediction, the standard view - that the Taliban would retake most of Afghanistan if the US pulled its ground troops out, are not basing their prediction on an imagined success of "asymmetrical warfare" against the various remaining Afghani militias.