Iraq- winning or losing

[Ratty Sr.]

Funny you should mention that. And that is not counting the "secure site" orders as well as the little fiasco with villages, and a wedding.

I'm fully aware of those war crimes, but I don't think they warrant drawing a parallel to a totalitarian, chauvinist regime responsible for one of the worst genocides in the history. I'm not a supporter of the US and their current role in the world - far from it - but k-7 was just spouting nonsense.

 

[Roshambo]

I'm fully aware of those war crimes, but I don't think they warrant drawing a parallel to a totalitarian, chauvinist regime responsible for one of the worst genocides in the history.

Really? Not even when it is a damn coincidence that the entire war is drawing parallel to the Vietnam war? Do you remember many things about that? I guess you're right. Hitler never did order his military to carpet bomb thousands of defenseless Cambodians in their villages without any warning or provocation. Nor were the troops given sole blame for being given securing orders.

The lacking honesty is what makes the US even more evil in that regard. At least the Nazis weren't denying what they were doing, and admittedly, blaming the Jews for the world's suffering is about a thin as you can stretch a lie of, say, WMDs being the reason to completely invade another country at the whim of a country with a dishonest and lying ruling party. The true defining point to see if members of the Bush administration are going to face hearings on war crimes is indeed if the whole war was a lie to vandalize oil from the Iraqi people.

At least Vietnam had a concrete and noble, if poorly executed, goa in comparison.

I'm not a supporter of the US and their current role in the world - far from it - but k-7 was just spouting nonsense.

Really? Then what would you call war crimes that the US constantly tries to hide? Nothing good, I'd say. Downright dishonest and deliberately trying to save face at the cost of innocents. Sorry, but that is EVIL. Oh, yeah...that's the difference. You can't publicly massacre people as the "good guys" and get away with it.

Add in some greed, as the motivation for the war, and then you have an unpredictable country that will invade other countries for the same reason, and perhaps under the same weak pretenses. I think it might have been the whole flakey "if you're not with us, you're against us" bullshit Daddy's Little War Criminal issued publicly when the whole "War on Terror" began, that has other countries a bit nervous. Those are the words of a conquer-happy and lying despot.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

At least Vietnam had a concrete and noble, if poorly executed, goa in comparison.

Wait a second, you're saying that supporting a ruthless dictator with no public support whatsoever against a overwhelming popular uprising is more "noble" than removing Saddam from power? And are you saying that the goal of "stopping vietnam from creating a communist domino effect in south-eastern asia is more "concrete" than bringing freedom and demo... well, you know where I'm going with this.

Don't get me wrong, I don't in any way agree with the war in Iraq, but as for overall vagueness, Vietnam kicks the living shit out of Iraq.

 

[Roshambo]

Wait a second, you're saying that supporting a ruthless dictator with no public support whatsoever against a overwhelming popular uprising is more "noble" than removing Saddam from power?

I thought it was because he had WMDs and was looking to nuke the US with them, not removing a despot from power. There's plenty of despots in the world, including one the US isn't really doing anything about, that could be removed from power. This one was just special as it was an excuse to take the oil fields.

Besides, remember that Communism = TEH EVIL!

And are you saying that the goal of "stopping vietnam from creating a communist domino effect in south-eastern asia is more "concrete" than bringing freedom and demo... well, you know where I'm going with this.

At least there were commies to be found in Vietnam.

Besides, I thought the US WAS trying to establish a foothold of "freedom and democracy" in Vietnam. I think we all know how well that turned out.

Don't get me wrong, I don't in any way agree with the war in Iraq, but as for overall vagueness, Vietnam kicks the living shit out of Iraq.

I think the Iraq Invasion has the same lies, slaughters (sanctioned and otherwise), and the same general distreatment of the populace. It has the same stalling out, the same declining support, and the same questionable ethics. Oh, yeah, and about the same number of war crimes. The Vietnam war had a purpose (arguable about the effectiveness of said purpose, ethics, etc) other than making the White House and Defense Policy Board rich(er) at the cost of troops and foreign civilians.

That is all it looks like the Iraq war is, as preferred contracting has made "conflict of interest" the biggest goddamn understatement in the world in regards to the current incarnation of the White House.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

I thought it was because he had WMDs and was looking to nuke the US with them, not removing a despot from power

Hmm... Well, from as far as I remember the most significant finds on the issue of WMD's was "this guy in Nigeria had a great sale on uranium" and "we found these lead pipes, which, like, totally could be used for blowing shit up". I fail to see how Nigerians and pipes could shift public support behind invading. But then again, we don't have FOX.

Besides, I thought the US WAS trying to establish a foothold of "freedom and democracy" in Vietnam. I think we all know how well that turned out.

I don't think anyone was saying that. Remember, those days the US didn't blink twice before aiding Pinochet against the democratically elected Allende. Democracy was quite irrelevant in the fight against communism.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Really? Not even when it is a damn coincidence that the entire war is drawing parallel to the Vietnam war? Do you remember many things about that? I guess you're right. Hitler never did order his military to carpet bomb thousands of defenseless Cambodians in their villages without any warning or provocation. Nor were the troops given sole blame for being given securing orders.

No, but Nazi Germany acted on systematic extermination of entire nations and racial groups, as outlined in your alter ego's Mein Kampf (which explicitely and in no uncertain terms condemns all Jews and Slavs to death). Frankly, I don't see how even the worst of US's war crimes - many of which are truly massive and monstrous - can compare to that in scale and sheer absoluteness. In relation to modern era and invasion of Iraq specifically - some could argue that PNAC has some vague similarities with Mein Kampf, but my view is nothing in America's modus operandi can be qualified as genocidal. Seeing as one of the defining traits of the Nazi regime was its genocidal intent, the whole USA = Nazi Germany thesis is sunk.

The lacking honesty is what makes the US even more evil in that regard. At least the Nazis weren't denying what they were doing, and admittedly, blaming the Jews for the world's suffering is about a thin as you can stretch a lie of, say, WMDs being the reason to completely invade another country at the whim of a country with a dishonest and lying ruling party. The true defining point to see if members of the Bush administration are going to face hearings on war crimes is indeed if the whole war was a lie to vandalize oil from the Iraqi people.

Yes, total lack of integrity and avoiding responsibility for its own failures and misdeeds are greatest sins of the Republican administration. I have actually been wondering for a while now what it would take to get Bush impeached and why the hell those Americans who still have a shred of civil awareness left in them don't get off their asses and take the matter out on the streets, since obviously the system and especially the executive branch have failed on many levels, including the mechanisms that are supposed to enforce accountability of the administration for its actions.

But, blind conformism notwithstanding, American society is (still) a pluralist society. Americans have the option to call down power structures for their failures and vote a bad administration out of the office. If that doesn't work, they have the option to voice their discontent and bitch about Bush being a lying twit. None of this could be said for Nazi Germany, where political system permitted only one party and all forms of dissenting thought were ruthlessly oppressed. The increasingly present "If you're not with us, you're against us"-attitude of Republicans is somewhat disconcerting, but it is still a long way from torching books and liquidating political dissidents. The fact that even a manipulative ass like Moore or that dumbshit from forsakeourtroops.org get to express their views freely says a lot and is another fundamental difference between USA and Nazi Germany.

In fact - and this is not really pertinent to the topic, but more of a random observation - I would go so far as to say that solely blaming the administration for everything that happened and is happening in Iraq is not quite right and is, to an extent, hypocritical. In a liberal democracy people have precisely the kind of government they deserve. If a government can invade a sovereign country based on fabricated proof, commit atrocities there and get away with it completely unabated, then that says more about the people than the government.

Really? Then what would you call war crimes that the US constantly tries to hide? Nothing good, I'd say. Downright dishonest and deliberately trying to save face at the cost of innocents. Sorry, but that is EVIL. Oh, yeah...that's the difference. You can't publicly massacre people as the "good guys" and get away with it.

Add in some greed, as the motivation for the war, and then you have an unpredictable country that will invade other countries for the same reason, and perhaps under the same weak pretenses. I think it might have been the whole flakey "if you're not with us, you're against us" bullshit Daddy's Little War Criminal issued publicly when the whole "War on Terror" began, that has other countries a bit nervous. Those are the words of a conquer-happy and lying despot.

I think the Iraq Invasion has the same lies, slaughters (sanctioned and otherwise), and the same general distreatment of the populace. It has the same stalling out, the same declining support, and the same questionable ethics. Oh, yeah, and about the same number of war crimes. The Vietnam war had a purpose (arguable about the effectiveness of said purpose, ethics, etc) other than making the White House and Defense Policy Board rich(er) at the cost of troops and foreign civilians.

See above. Unlike Nazi Germany, USA has laws and conventions that make such acts illegal and mechanisms that ensure these laws and conventions are followed and obeyed at all times. The fact that these mechanisms repeatedly failed is as much failure of the entire American people as it is of the Bush administration. It shows what is likely a trend of dissipation of average American's compassion and awareness of their own civil liberties and in my view result of complacence that stems from being part of an excessively wealthy and consumerist society. This greatly differs from the collective insanity that drove the German people in the 1930s-1940s period, because the latter was much more extreme in intensity, much more severe in consequences and completely different in causality.

Finally, the image of Bush as conquer-happy despot may seem appealing, but it is quite detached from reality. Bush is without doubt a liar surrounded with war-profiteers. But he is a democratically elected president of a country that is still - despite allegations of election fraud in one or two states - democratic. In three and half years his second and final mandate will expire and another president will replace him. Business as usual. Did he fuck up? Oh, yes. Is he a criminal? Quite possible. If there are indications he committed something illegal during his mandate, relevant organs will handle it. If not - tough shit, your judicial branch isn't doing its job properly. Other democratic countries have faced similar crises in the past - it's nothing a bit of pressure from public, media and civil organizations can't fix. I still don't see grounds for a parallel to a ruthless dictator who instated his moderately firm ass in power for lifetime and ensured that any criticism of his rule earned you a one-way ticket to gas chambers.

 

[4too]

Domino Dilemma

Domino Dilemma



In all the patter about bringing (American approved, mesquite flavored) democracy to Iraq, the Republican Information Machine, or their third party mercenaries have been spinning moonshine about birthing democracy to the whole Middle East. By yesterday's moon ....

Sounds like a Domino Theory to me.

............

Wait!

No, it's not.

Until proven, and tested, It's a 'phenomena' under study, so let's call it a "Domino Hypothesis".

Unless, we are in Kansas, where they are proposing to change the meaning of science, so a creationist does not have to 'prove' Intelligent design. to teach (preach) it as ""SCIENCE"". To change the meaning to match the ideology. If one does not see this as disturbing, legislatures and judges creating FACTS out of whole, or rather 'holy' opinions, then it would be just - fine - for gay unions to be called "marriage" if it was done in the same venue of manipulated public beliefs.

It's this ""New Age"", ""Ne-O"", wishful thinking, and addiction to 'hard sell' propagandizing that
are setting the Bush Administration up for this decline in the dubious democracy of "the polls"'.

Given: Sadamm and El Qaeda were going to be enemies of the U.S. regardless of 9-11, or any fantasy (ready to be launched) WMD's. How these challenges were, and are, going to be handled may only be a question of 'style', unless the 'style' has the tendency to snatch 'defeat' from the - jaws of victory -, by continually 'declaring victory' for some immediate political expedient and so obscuring the 'progress' made by ""the boots on the ground"'.

WMD - WAS - the foot in the door, so to speak, the legal leverage to push Sadamm to the wall. For political expedience, potential WMD was not enough, fantasy WMD's had to be spun out of Sadamm's demonstrated bad intentions.

Why the WMD fantasy to sell regime change, when regime change NOW is reason alone? Why the fiction when the truth is so much more compelling?

Why weren't the WMD sites seized, along with the records of Sadamm's secret police? Not important since "Victory" was SO near, or poor planning? Not enough boots ... too many boots?

Why the hard sell for 'Invasion Now' with cherry picked, 'fact shaped' , intelligence?

Why the reoccurring Declarations of Victory by Bush and Cheney?

Is this victory by oral fiat, , to placate the pure. the 'holy' in Kansas, or is it
meant for the whole nation?

But. Why the snow job?

Why this cynical talking down?

Why when it's obvious that the country did not 'buy' Cheney's declaration of victory last week is Bush 'compromising' this week and talking about ""Progress""?

Is this Administration REALLY in tune with the nation, why the constant 'rewrites', and the DENIAL of rewrites?

This cynical bargain selling of ideal of the day. This administration AND the politicians ready to DECLARE DEFEAT and slink home, have a low opinion of the intelligence and stamina of the American people,

and,

and the ruling 'corporate' personality of these cliques of politicians would rather ""climb a tree and tell a lie, then stand on the ground and tell the truth.""


I don't think they are "the best'" we could hope for, to lead us in this conflict.

Why?

All this Mid East Domino Hypothesis and , all this non-state terrorist rationalization aside, .... forget the WMD's.

This Administration would rather change the meaning of 'victory' , the other politicians would rather dwell on defeat, on any given day, to score points in the transient polls, TODAY, then shut up and let the military, or even the 'security guard' mercenaries do what needs to be done.

This marketing of the War In Iraq, this lust for immediate gratification (be it VICTORY OR DEFEAT) is not the fountain of stamina, the political GUTS, America needs to fight successfully this hardest part of the struggle, to win the peace.




When one changes the facts to fit the reality, it does not change the reality.
It makes it difficult to see 'a tree' in the forest 'tree like entities'.
With enough denial the 'shaped' facts increase in number forming tight ranks of
mutually obscuring reality entities.

If one false construct fails, many may fall, just like a row of Domino's.







4too

 

[John Uskglass]

Wow, good job Ratty.

 

[k-7]

Ratty,
i dont said that the USA are Nazis, i said they are the new generation Nazis! The new generation thing is important because its normal that the US cannot act the same way like Hitler did, this is political impossible. Hitler told the people that they are better beeings than all the others, like bush tells everyone that the US way of life is better than every other. (btw its the worst on the the world.) And this is bushs reason, he send soldiers in a foreign country, tells them that theyre doing it for the freedom of everyone and in the same breath they KILL people, they ARREST people, they TORTURE people and yeah, they stick this people in KZs (Konzentrationslager -> concenctraition camps) [guantanamo] and you want to tell me you don´t see a commonality?
What do you think is this in Iraq? The USA attacked without a reason, this was nothing more than a raid. I cannot tell whats the real reason for this war, because ive no clue about the US economy but i know that this whole shit was a failure like every war.

Ratty, i know that you don´t like me, and i know that you think im stupid but i can assure you that im not. Its just not that easy to argue in english and when u would see this USA thing from an other location like europe you would know what i mean. I don´t believe that i´ll see a war the next time, but when on the first position i see the USA and on second i see China. I never was scared of the iraq even when saddam was an asshole, now the people in the iraq have to suffer more than ever.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Ratty,
i dont said that the USA are Nazis, i said they are the new generation Nazis! The new generation thing is important because its normal that the US cannot act the same way like Hitler did, this is political impossible. Hitler told the people that they are better beeings than all the others, like bush tells everyone that the US way of life is better than every other. (btw its the worst on the the world.)

Oh, poor Americans with their horrible way of life! Poor things, forced to live in wealth and luxury! I guess I must have been on LSD or something when the middle-class kids I hanged out with during the weeks I spent in Florida told me that "America is heaven! I don't want to live anywhere else in the world!" I guess it's also my imagination that my best friend just returned from USA, where he made more money as a lowly waiter than my Mum does here as owner of a successful accounting firm, and repeatedly stated he has every intention of going back as soon as he graduates from college. I'm not saying everything about living in America is rosy, I'm in fact pretty sure that living on the bottom is as bad there as in any place, but seeing as every Croat I know who lived there realized their American dream in every sense of the phrase, you will have to forgive my scepticism when someone blatantly states that American way of life "is the worst in the world".

And this is bushs reason, he send soldiers in a foreign country, tells them that theyre doing it for the freedom of everyone and in the same breath they KILL people, they ARREST people, they TORTURE people and yeah, they stick this people in KZs (Konzentrationslager -> concenctraition camps) [guantanamo] and you want to tell me you don´t see a commonality?

I don't dispute those crimes. But fact is, unlike in Nazi Germany, in USA they are punishable and relevant institutions exist whose job is to ensure such acts are sanctioned. Additionally, I don't see how they are comparable in scale to Nazi crimes. No disrespect meant to Guantanamo Bay victims, but come on - Guantanamo is a fucking kindergarten when compared to factories of death like Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau or Jasenovac. The latter was located about 50 km from where I'm sitting and at least 100,000 people were savagely murdered there in span of three years. Hell, I have family members who met their tragic end there long before I was born, simply because they disagreed with a certain ideology. I would say that by comparing USA with Nazis and their collaborators, you trivialize monstrous crimes of the latter and disrespect their victims. That's not very considerate of you.

What do you think is this in Iraq? The USA attacked without a reason, this was nothing more than a raid. I cannot tell whats the real reason for this war, because ive no clue about the US economy but i know that this whole shit was a failure like every war.

The war in Iraq was nothing but the largest business enterprise ever concieved. It was a joint venture of the US civil and military sector, sponsored by powerful corporations such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Halliburton and Honeywell, which all have rich contracts with DoD and other government institutions, and spearheaded and executed by the US government and armed forces. All of these constitute what is commonly referred to as "military-industrial complex". The invasion of Iraq was their work, as they are the ones who profit from it the most and have capacity to carry it out. From that perspective, the invasion was a huge crime. However, the fact that ideologists and executors of the invasion are answerable for it is what sets it apart from anything Nazi Germany ever committed to.

Ratty, i know that you don´t like me, and i know that you think im stupid but i can assure you that im not.

Not true, I don't really care about you one way or the other.

Its just not that easy to argue in english and when u would see this USA thing from an other location like europe you would know what i mean.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Where do you think Croatia is located? In Africa? USA isn't exactly very popular in my country, especially not the Republican administration. In fact, if I had to point out a single non-Croat and non-Serb whose (in)actions caused Croatia most harm, it would be George Bush Sr., the man who green-lighted the Serbian invasion of Croatia in 1991. But when I bash USA, I try to offer rational arguments, and your remark about Americans being new Nazis simply isn't rational.

I don´t believe that i´ll see a war the next time, but when on the first position i see the USA and on second i see China. I never was scared of the iraq even when saddam was an asshole, now the people in the iraq have to suffer more than ever.

I'm not sure if they have to suffer more than ever. A bullet in the head is a bullet in the head, and it's pretty damn irrelevant if it was fired by American soldiers, Al Zarkawi's terrorists or Saddam's secret police. It just sucks to live in Iraq.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Despite what you believe, I have first hand experiance and a pretty damn good idea of what "I" have actually seen..

It's amazing the depth of ignorance in this thread. Contrary to popular belief, those of us who actually deploy over there are not spoonfed propaganda. In fact, if anything we get more of the bad news than the media gives everyone else because that is what we are preparing to deal with. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

 

[welsh]

Actually I think this goes back to the problem.

On one side we hear that we are on the verge of winning (or so Cheney tells us) yet the war continues. Americans are not given the view on the ground, but they are sold a good story at home. Which is it?

NPR did a piece this morning-

Morning Edition, June 24, 2005 · Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Congress Thursday that setting a deadline for a withdrawal from Iraq would be a poor idea. Lawmakers vigorously questioned Rumsfeld and other military leaders about the insurgency in Iraq. Army Lt. Gen. John Vines and Jeffrey White, former chief of Middle East intelligence for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, discuss the state of the war

It's short and worth a listen-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4716822

 

[Brother None]

And equally on topic, the New York Times...

President Bush promised the Iraqi prime minister on Friday that he was "not giving up on the mission" in Iraq despite rising pressure from Congress and the public to describe a strategy for gradual American withdrawal. And he shrugged off suggestions that the military and members of his administration fundamentally disagree on the strength of the insurgency.

Wooohooo

At least us Dutchies got out already. I think.

 

[John Uskglass]

So, when it's occupying Indonesia for 300 years, you guys can put down hundreds of thousands of troops over centuries and build some of the largest cities on earth, but we ask you Dutchies for a commitment that might not even be generational and you find a way out.

 

[Brother None]

So, when it's occupying Indonesia for 300 years, you guys can put down hundreds of thousands of troops over centuries and build some of the largest cities on earth, but we ask you Dutchies for a commitment that might not even be generational and you find a way out.

First off, comparing occupying a country by force with colonialism is re-Frith-damn-diculous.

But more importantly, you do realise colonialism is a bad thing, right? You do realise we Dutchies should be a lot more ashamed of it than we are, right? Comparisons don't make Iraq shine.

But that wasn't your point. It's interesting when you consider the British had to send half a million folk to South Africa before they finally beat the Boers (which is us, really), but there's no troop commitment like that in Iraq. All the "clean war" propaganda has made us lazy. If American propaganda is supposed to be believed, you could invade and destroy Iran with 100 soldiers.

PS: also, we didn't "find a way out", when the war started we commited ourselves for a certain time-period. That time-period has ended. So we're done. Duh.

Given: Sadamm and El Qaeda were going to be enemies of the U.S. regardless of 9-11, or any fantasy (ready to be launched) WMD's. How these challenges were, and are, going to be handled may only be a question of 'style', unless the 'style' has the tendency to snatch 'defeat' from the - jaws of victory -, by continually 'declaring victory' for some immediate political expedient and so obscuring the 'progress' made by ""the boots on the ground"'.

Are you saying the Iraqi and Afghani wars were somehow historically inevitable? I highly doubt that. There're other ways to solve the issues at hand than war. In the case of Aghanistan, they struck the first blow and the consequent war was not a shocker, though the chaos the country is in now and the fact that nobody cares does shock.

The Iraq war is just an odd mingle of insanity and greed and in no way *had* to happen. The big difference between it and any of the other wars we've seen lately is that it's a rediculously labeled "pre-emptive war", the whole concept of which is ass-retarded and in no way necessary.

This Administration would rather change the meaning of 'victory' , the other politicians would rather dwell on defeat, on any given day, to score points in the transient polls, TODAY, then shut up and let the military, or even the 'security guard' mercenaries do what needs to be done.

This marketing of the War In Iraq, this lust for immediate gratification (be it VICTORY OR DEFEAT) is not the fountain of stamina, the political GUTS, America needs to fight successfully this hardest part of the struggle, to win the peace.

Very true. And that's all a consequence of the clean war spin-doctering. If you tell the American people enough times that it's going to be a clean, easy war, they'll believe it, even though they're not stupid. Hell, propaganda can get the smartest man down. With the possible exception of Philip Philippovich Preobrazhensky.

As a result, nobody on the political front has any guts left, at all. There's no Winston Churchill who will never surrender, or FD Roosevelt who will bring the war to the aid of his European friends no matter what anyone else says about it. There's just snivelling Bush, who twists around and changes what he's said more times than Machiavelli would deem necessary, and his little lap-dog Cheney, who could be interpreted to have guts if he wasn't such an idiot. It makes sense that no political figure can really defend the war, since there's not much to defend.

At the same time there's the whole malaise of disinterest in America. With their limited attention spans, they don't want to hear "15 Iraqis died" every day, they just want a clear start and end. So people have already pronounced the war over. Many times. Fat chances, dumb-asses. No loss either, though.

You know what Kissinger said, though. "It is axiomatic that guerrillas win if they do not lose." And equally, soldiers lose if they don't win. So it's looking bad for the USA, sorry about that.

 

[welsh]

Speaking of Afghanistan-

The unending war against the Taliban

Afghan troops have launched a big assault on Taliban insurgents, who they fear are regrouping to attack September’s parliamentary elections. Almost four years after the American-led invasion, Afghanistan still looks far from pacified. European countries are sending more troops, while Afghanistan’s government accuses Pakistan of harbouring the rebels

THE Taliban failed to deliver on their threat to disrupt last October’s presidential election in Afghanistan, in which voters defied the rebels and turned out in force. The success of the American-backed Hamid Karzai in becoming the country’s first democratically elected president is bound to have been a blow to the Taliban’s morale. However, the rebels are far from beaten, and Mr Karzai’s government is worried that they are regrouping to launch attacks on the forthcoming parliamentary elections—originally due in April but now scheduled to take place in September. So far, two candidates have been killed in attacks blamed on the Taliban, the latest this week in Uruzgan province.

Thus, elections will not end the war. But still, how bad can the Taliban be that the NATO countries can't defeat them.

Might have been easier if efforts had been concentrated in Afghanistan than off in some other middle east country.

But that would mean less oil.

This week, Afghan troops, reportedly backed by American helicopters and British fighter jets, launched a big assault on Taliban insurgents near the borders between Uruzgan and two other south-western provinces, Kandahar and Zabul, to take back a district captured by the Taliban last week.

"Take back" a district? Are the Taliban so strong they can actually seize territory?

On Thursday June 23rd, government officials said more than 100 insurgents had been killed so far in the operation, making it the heaviest defeat inflicted on the Taliban in the past two years. According to Reuters news agency, Afghan officials said troops were closing in on another group of rebels in the area—possibly including two of the most senior Taliban leaders, Mullah Dadullah and Mullah Brother.

100 dead! Hey remember in Vietnam when the goal became increasing the body count of enemy dead.... (Vietnam sounds vagually familiar).

Oh, another analogy- no exit strategy.

Part of the Taliban rebel force is thought to have escaped across the border into Pakistan, stoking the Afghan government’s anger at its neighbour for allegedly harbouring the insurgents. President George Bush, concerned at deteriorating relations between two important allies in his “war on terror”, spoke to the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, this week, after which General Musharraf rang Mr Karzai to reassure him that Pakistan was not trying to meddle in Afghan affairs.

Bullshit.

Pakistan’s government insists it is not helping the rebels but argues that it is impossible to seal its long border with Afghanistan. However, there seems little doubt that pockets of support for the Taliban exist in Pakistan, especially in the border province of Baluchistan (see map). They may still have backing in parts of the Pakistani security establishment, such as its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), which is known to have helped the Taliban in the past.

And if Pakistan comes down harder on the Taliban operating within its borders, then what?

Indeed, Pakistan helped the Taliban to form in the first place. The Islamist group’s founders were militant clerics belonging to the Pushtun, a devoutly Muslim ethnic group that straddles the border between the two countries. In the mid-1990s, the ISI and other parts of Pakistan’s armed forces took the clerics under their wing, helping them recruit fighters and providing the guns, transport, training and battle plans they then used to conquer most of Afghanistan in the civil war that followed the collapse of the former, Soviet-backed regime.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, America and its allies invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime, because of its refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders sheltering in the country. Pakistan, despite having backed the Taliban, swapped sides and became an American ally—or at least, General Musharraf and Pakistan’s leadership did. Some analysts believe that the Taliban is now busy recruiting fresh members in Pakistan and sending them to fight over the border. On Tuesday, Mr Karzai’s spokesman criticised the Pakistani authorities for failing to arrest Taliban leaders on their territory, one of whom, he said, had been interviewed on Pakistani television last week.

Seems to be the problem of a weak state trying to make bargains as the center starts to fall.

More troops needed
President Vladimir Putin of Russia complained this week that the American-led force in Afghanistan was proving ineffective at battling the Taliban and that terrorist training camps continued to operate there. Mr Putin fears that Islamist rebels in the breakaway Russian republic of Chechnya are still being sent for training in the Afghan camps. Indeed, an Afghan official said on Thursday that at least two of the insurgents killed in the battle in south-western Afghanistan may have been Chechens.

There is certainly an argument for reinforcing the 20,000 mainly American troops who are helping Afghan forces hunt the insurgents. But given the even deadlier insurgency in Iraq, there is at least as strong an argument for boosting troop levels there—and America’s military is already over-stretched.

And if the Republicans take on a draft they will lose the next election?

A separate, NATO-led force of around 8,000, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), has the job of improving security for the Afghan people, though until recently its peacekeeping was largely confined to the capital, Kabul. Last week, plans were announced to boost ISAF’s numbers by 2,000 during the parliamentary election campaign. Spain—whose new, Socialist government pulled its troops out of Iraq in 2004 but kept them in Afghanistan—said on Thursday it would provide 500 of the extra soldiers. Britain, the Netherlands and Romania are also contributing to the boost in ISAF’s strength.

Note to John- Netherlands in Afghanistan.

One area in which Mr Karzai’s government and its foreign protectors have had success is in repressing the growing of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Besides flooding the world with heroin, the opium-poppy trade provides the rebels, and Afghanistan’s troublesome warlords, with money to buy weapons and further destabilise the country. After an upsurge in poppy cultivation last year, surveys by Britain and the United Nations in March this year found that renewed efforts to eradicate it seemed to be working. However, as with the rebels themselves, there is a danger that the poppies will quickly spring back up if the efforts to repress them are not maintained. Despite routine assurances from the Afghan government that it is getting a grip on the situation, all that has been seen so far are some successful battles in a war that shows no sign of ending.

Two wars without end, instead of one Vietnam we have two?

And a new drug war with the guys who we are supposed to be working with, and the other guys are working with our enemies. So Afghanistan is a mess.

 

[Brother None]

Thus, elections will not end the war. But still, how bad can the Taliban be that the NATO countries can't defeat them.

UN countries. It's a UN war. Everyone against the Taliban, basically. And we're still losing.

But that would mean less oil.

Yes, but more oil pipelines!

"Take back" a district? Are the Taliban so strong they can actually seize territory?

Actually, I'm more shocked our forces are now able to take back districts. Before I left for Russia, our forces were able to hold the capitol of the country, and that was about it

possibly including two of the most senior Taliban leaders, Mullah Dadullah and Mullah Brother.

... Is that guy really called Mullah Brother? Seems an odd name for a Talib.

And if Pakistan comes down harder on the Taliban operating within its borders, then what?

Pakistan is in a place where it could hit terrorism harder in a few days than the US could in a year. It won't, though.

Hell, though it's always nice to know the US will stand fast with whatever anti-democracy anti-terrorist allies they have, like the Uzbeks.

And if the Republicans take on a draft they will lose the next election?

That's crazy talk, man, the Republicans can't take on a draft unless the country is in immediate danger, all else is political suicide.

Note to John- Netherlands in Afghanistan.

Duh, we've been there and in Iraq since the start. Hell, the main UN peace-keeping force for half a year consisted of Dutch and German soldiers, before the Turks (I think) took over.

The Dutch are pretty good at peacekeeping, 'cept in Srebenica (not so good at waging war, though, just good at the peacekeeping, it's what our boys are trained for)

Two wars without end, instead of one Vietnam we have two?

And a new drug war with the guys who we are supposed to be working with, and the other guys are working with our enemies. So Afghanistan is a mess.

Not much news there. At least Afghanistan isn't too embarassing for your government

 

[Ratty Sr.]

The Dutch are pretty good at peacekeeping, 'cept in Srebenica (not so good at waging war, though, just good at the peacekeeping, it's what our boys are trained for)

*twitch*

 

[Brother None]

Hey, man, we're sorry, ok. Really, really sorry.

 

[4too]

Diplomacy By Another Means

Diplomacy By Another Means




Kharn:

... Are you saying the Iraqi and Afghani wars were somehow historically inevitable? I highly doubt that. There're other ways to solve the issues at hand than war. ...

Statecraft by another means.



Pre 9-11.

Iraq: the enforcement of the 'no fly zone'.

El Qaeda; the bombing of a U.S. African embassy.

Both entities, one a nation state, and one a non state, were on the U.S, dance card.

No maybes concerning the inevitably of conflict, just what elements of style, or Klauswitzian state-craft one chose to achieve the end.


El Qaeda being a non state entity would have been harder to smoke out until 9-11, Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attack opened the aggressive option and the spectacle of cross the planet military response. A, U.N. response.

The 'No Fly Zone' was a containment policy. The Cold War demonstrated the efficiency of containment.

Tossing out the U.N. inspectors was an open invitation for 'brinksmanship'.

Holding the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, holding the international contracts for rebuilding Iraq's oil industry, hostage would have been one more persuasive lever of statecraft.
The "Oil For Food Scandal" would have shamed Sadamm's apologists. The "Oil For Food Scandal" would have been one more - potential - , or the appearance of a 'smoking gun' of 'unreconstructed' non compliance. More 'real' perhaps then the hyped WMD's.


It is obvious that the Bush Administration was not capable of 'brinksmanship'. The Neocon 'good intentions' were exactly the quick win, at a low cost, that these politicians wanted to hear. Perhaps the 'faith based' rational made the rush to war possible, but a planned occupation improbable. And 'faith based' does not excuse the vicious dis'ing of experienced military professionals that warned of difficult consequences.

At times, it seems this Administration is as much at war with America as it is with Iraq.






4too