Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Afghanistan The Second (or Third) "Forgotten War"?
declaredemer
Member Posts: 2,698
Brief aside: I had an opportunity to meet Gen. Tommy Franks, whom I liked very much. Perhaps what I am revealing is too personal, but I have heard he and Bush did not get along well at all.
Bush Admin
We have 8 years of conflict behind us. A strategy during the Bush Admin, led by General Tommy Franks and Sec. of Def. Donald Rumsfeld, called for a minimum amount of involvement of U.S. forces. The mission was limited. Consequently, corruption in Afghanistan rose, poppy trade expanded, a legitimate government did not spread its influence outside of Kabul, and the newly created Afghan police seized their own people's property in door-to-door searches. Nation-building already seemed impossible because the elites abandoned Afghanistan during the Soviet oppression. The middle-class left during the reign of the Tabilan medieval rule. The medieval rule, however, was more fear than effective; so many Warlords emerged to fill the vacuum left by disparate and weak rulers.
Donald Rumsfeld has referred to Gen. Tommy Franks as "wise and inspiring"
Iraq Distraction
Then the invasion of Iraq. Some argue that America became distracted, then "forgot about Afghanistan." As a result of this lack of attention and aid to Afghanistan, some believe it allowed insurgents to reconstitute and, as mentioned, corruption to flourish and the drug trade to prosper. Some could argue of course that Iraq did not distract us.
Reality: The Taliban Still Exists . . . in Pakistan
The Taliban was never really "defeated" in Afghanistan. The enemy merely fled to a haven, the country of Pakistan. The Taliban was able to recruit even more poor members to its side.
NATO Take-Over
Now NATO takes-over sometime in 2005. The mission of peacekeeping was expanded to the south, where finally forces would confront the Taliban. Whether or not this is successful is, and ought to be, debated. The resources of NATO, and the U.S., to secure territory are inadequate.
Obamanization: Afghanistan
Obama has now doubled the efforts of this 8-year conflict (war? forgotten war?). The number of U.S. troops have been doubled, commanders replaced, and no one knows whether this will be successful. Is this where we should be doubling our resources and refocusing our attention, assuming it was distracted by Iraq to begin with? Will the surge "work" and what is the measure of success?
Talibanization: Pakistan
What about Pakistan? Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which are secure. But let's face it . . . as we try to "build" Afghanistan, what do we do about a Pakistan? Are those, our enemy, who are planning the next attack against us in Afghanistan, where we have DOUBLED our resources, or are they in Pakistan, where we have ZERO resources?
Conclusion
This is probably a war we ought not forget.
(Pssstt... we only have a "peace treaty" with North Korea)
(I, too, am mourning the loss of Sarah Palin or Michael Jackson or both. Indeed, we will not forget. But we ought not to forget about Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the Taliban; the outcome is extremely uncertain, and the strategy is questionable)
Comments
Cheer up, Michael Jackson has risen from the grave. He is now one of the walking dead, coming soon to a theatre near you.
Sarah Palin has promised to rise from the dead too......
Let the hype begin anew.
People's draw to Sarah Palin is similar to their draw to Michael Jackson; it is a fantasy world. We are honestly, and gravely, witnessing the effects of a dumbed-down democracy.
Our societal refusal to somewhat face reality, and real challenges, might be because we somewhat know that we might not be capable of dealing with them after we face them.
Well, GM emerges from bankruptcy in a record 36 days --predicted to be 36 months-- thanks to the generosity of Palin and Jackson fans' generoous fusion of $50 Billion taxpayer dollars. I have reached the point I do not think they, the taxpayer, really knows what is going on.
I was watching CNN today about how the U.S. might make a truce with the Taliban, the former host of Osama bin Laden. Pakistan has already made a truce with the Taliban, which helped to create a Taliban safe haven there; that is why I have talked about the Talibanization of Pakistan contrasted with the Obamanization of Afghanistan.
This war was forgotten before it even started. This is getting utterly ridiculous. The wise course of action, I regret, is to make a truce with the Taliban.
EDIT: and I am not even sure how long it would last. Last until they can fully reconstitute to not only hit us in Afghanistan but again in the U.S.?
This is something that I disagree with. America wasn't distracted here. America was misled to Iraq. The Bush Administration employees had long had a plan in the works for invading Iraq before 9/11 ever occured and its pretty much common knowledge now.
The neocons had coveted this country for its strategic location.
Their oil friends wanted this country for it's oil reserves ( I think Iraq has the second or third most oil reserves in the world).
Bush wanted this country because Saddam claimed he wanted to kill Bush Sr. It was the perfect storm and 9/11 was just the catalyst, which makes people wonder how this could have just been a "surprise" attack.
Bush had plans to go to Iraq all along and pointed the fake evidence of Bin Laden and Saddam into everyone's minds. Afghanistan was just the warmup for our troops to get them battle ready. Hell, the Taliban had no "army" to speak of.. it was light duty. We already knew the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11; they were just an excuse to warm up the war machine.
It wasn't a distraction. It was coldly calculated beginning with the cherrypicked intel from the CIA and the false "yellowcake" scenario from Africa.
"TO MICHAEL!"
My god, I don't believe they got to you too, declared. You are usually a pretty rational guy. Let me repeat it again though.
The Taliban had NOTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11. They didn't "hit" us ever. They never attacked any of our embassies, they never killed Americans until we brought troops to Afghanistan. This Taliban terrorism thing has been a political red herring to get us into the region as a springboard.
The neocons knew that most Americans cannot distinguish between a jihadist (for lack of a better term) and a fundamentalist. To most Americans, they are all guys wearing sheets and want to destroy America.
It's the equivalent of if someone blamed the Christian Coalition and all those right wing evangelists for what Christian Neonazi and separatists hate groups do by bombing federal courts and murdering judges and police officers.
The Taliban are just a religious right wing group, they do not engage in worldwide terrorism. That is Al Qaeda.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I think I have been fairly consistent in making clear that the Taliban was the host of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban now, however, are our enemy, by virtue of their hosting (giving aid, comfort, and abetting) terrorist organizations and our invasion of their country, not to mention the going conflict. The Taliban has reconstitute, resides in a safe haven, and has acquired a considerable number of fresh recruits.
It is well within, I think, the realm of reality to say that a truce between them and us would be tenuous at best and temporary at worst (until they hit us in Afghanistan or the U.S.).
You are correct, however, that it is not proper to say that the Taliban hit us in the U.S. or that they will hit us again; they only were the hosts of Osama bin Laden, whom remains at large.
I agree with you in that the United States should make a treaty with the Taliban. We allow the AFGHANISTAN government to deal with its OWN citizens. That is no concern of ours. We can fully pursue Bin Laden as he isn't actually IN Afghanistan (meaning the urban areas) but he's more than likely in Pakistan in the mountainous regions.
We simply tell the Taliban that we no longer have a desire to impose our "democracy and Christian values" onto their country; we just want Bin Laden. We make it clear that if they aid us or simply get out of the way, we have no problem with them. We don't need that rathole Afghanistan and they aren't anywhere near getting nukes. They are a stoneaged country, so let them sort their own problems out.
Bush was able to distract us away from this vital area and even got us all thinking the Taliban are the same as Al Qaeda. That was pretty easy, as most Americans are very ignorant about things international.
The typical American will walk into a 7-11 or gas station and say the guy is from Saudi Arabia because he has a dot on his forehead, when the guy is from Pakistan or India. Or they will see a turban and think "terrorist" when most "terrorists" don't wear turbans at all.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The war, as it is already forgotten, should be ended. Afghanistan in my analysis, unfortunately, is neither winnable or losable; it is only continuable. It does not have an end in sight. It can only be monitored and infiltrated, and extending a legitimate (pro-USA) government into the hinterlands risks civil war with warlords. This country is basically uncontrollable, in our interests or anyone's interests. It is why, I think, the Taliban ruled by medieval fear. It was effective. Saddam had to do the same in order to prevent the Sunnis and Shittes from fighting each other.
We need to think about how we can get out of this unwinnable and unlosable situation while ensuring our interests are met (preventing another 9/11).
If this war were winnable, it would have been won; if it were losable, it would have been lost. No one gains, and everyone loses, from the ongoing fighting.
Strategically, and looking for our best interests, a truce is appropriate
That whole region (the Middle East) simply could not exist under a democracy of any type. The population wouldn't expect or want it and for the most part, that is how the majority of people around the world feel about their governments.
If you were to tell most people from Britain that the monarchy is silly, archaic, middle agey and they serve no REAL value other than sentimental history, they'd disagree. They like the idea of the royals and would continue supporting them and their extravagant lifestyles with free tax dollars. It's simply unheard of to do away with them.
If you asked Saudi Arabians about their king they'd say the same thing. They don't want to vote; they are happy with the idea of a firm hand telling them what to and making laws that say hands must get chopped off of theives and beheadings for adultery.
The Iraqis thought they didn't like Saddam until they started getting blown up everyday by bombs. Now they can't stand their prime minister who they just voted in. A lot of them are wishing they had Saddam and his antics back and they say this a lot.
And if you told Americans they now have to provide FREE healthcare, free college, free housing and free income to every American like in Russia, how long do you think that form of government would last here?
Americans are simply too high on the smell of our own underarms raised in victory and we think because WE like democracy and voting, everyone else in the world does or will too. They just don't know it yet because they haven't tasted it.
The U.S. does well when it goes to countries' and does business the way THEY say: ala Japan or China. When we go to places and try to impose our Westernized ways and morals, Africa, Middle East... it ALWAYS ends up badly.
"TO MICHAEL!"
My god, I don't believe they got to you too, declared. You are usually a pretty rational guy. Let me repeat it again though.
The Taliban had NOTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11. They didn't "hit" us ever. They never attacked any of our embassies, they never killed Americans until we brought troops to Afghanistan. This Taliban terrorism thing has been a political red herring to get us into the region as a springboard.
The neocons knew that most Americans cannot distinguish between a jihadist (for lack of a better term) and a fundamentalist. To most Americans, they are all guys wearing sheets and want to destroy America.
It's the equivalent of if someone blamed the Christian Coalition and all those right wing evangelists for what Christian Neonazi and separatists hate groups do by bombing federal courts and murdering judges and police officers.
The Taliban are just a religious right wing group, they do not engage in worldwide terrorism. That is Al Qaeda.
Pre 911 where was Al Qaeda primarily based? And who controlled most of that country? And you are saying the Taliban had nothing to do with 911?
Read some history! Wherever muslim fundamentalists come in contact with any other religions they either try to destroy or subjugate them. All muslim fundamentalists are a threat and need to be neutralized.
Did you even think before made this statement. You telling me the Kurds wished Saddam was back in power? The Shi'a who made up 60% of Iraq want him back?
His antics included nerve gassing an entire Kurdish town. He also massacred 1000's of Shi'a. Yeah they probably him back so they can kill him again.
The U.S. imposed western 'ways' on Japan after we defeated them. Their constitution was drawn up under U.S. auspices.
That was a terrible example.
BRIEF UPDATE: Pakistan has agreed to help arrange a truce between the U.S. and Taliban . . . if the U.S. will grant concessions to Pakistan regarding the Pakistan-India relationship.
What happened to our . . . empire?
EDIT: And, by the way, sections of the Taliban have violated its truce with Pakistan multiple times already.
The Taliban had nothing to do with the idea, funding, implementation or follow-up to anything related to the attacks on America. At all. There has been no government suggesting such. The link was put there by the Bush neocons to have simple minded Americans follow the false trail of bread crumbs.
Bin Laden wasn't in Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan, but we couldn't invade Pakistan for several reasons. One, we made Mushariff. We gave him millions and millions of American taxpayer money. Two, Pakistan has nukes; Afghanistan doesn't. That was a no brainer. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to invade a country with nuclear weapons. Three, Afghanistan has .. Kabul. Is that even a city? It's mostly mud bricks and dusty, dirt roads looks like a lot of Texas towns. That was supposed to be a quick operation.
We painted Bin Laden in Afghanistan because it was agreeable. But make no mistake, if you believe the Taliban had something to do with 9/11, then I guess Bush and Cheney were sucessful in their intended audience.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Did you even think before made this statement. You telling me the Kurds wished Saddam was back in power? The Shi'a who made up 60% of Iraq want him back?
His antics included nerve gassing an entire Kurdish town. He also massacred 1000's of Shi'a. Yeah they probably him back so they can kill him again.
Let me make it easier for you to understand, since you didn't get it.
There are an awful lot of people in Iraq today who would rather have him back. That is common knowledge. The Kurds are a minority, of course they don't want him back. Duh. But the majority of people don't like not having jobs, having their houses blown to bits along with their families, and little to no infrastructure. Most of those people liked it better when everything worked and they were working.
Say what you want about Saddam, but when he was in power the people there knew there was not going to be mass bombings in the urban centers and they'd get electricity, clean water and have a livelyhood. For you to deny this means its either black or white inside your head, and when dealing with the Middle East things aren't black and white.
Kurds. Kurds. Kurds. My heart bleeds for the Kurds. They are a minority who now have a superior amount of Iraq's oil. Duh. Of course they don't want Saddam back but they are the minority, lol.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The U.S. imposed western 'ways' on Japan after we defeated them. Their constitution was drawn up under U.S. auspices.
That was a terrible example.
No it wasn't.
And the U.S. does horribly in Africa and the Middle East. I noticed you didn't touch that.
Explain that.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The Taliban had nothing to do with the idea, funding, implementation or follow-up to anything related to the attacks on America. At all. There has been no government suggesting such. The link was put there by the Bush neocons to have simple minded Americans follow the false trail of bread crumbs.
Bin Laden wasn't in Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan, but we couldn't invade Pakistan for several reasons. One, we made Mushariff. We gave him millions and millions of American taxpayer money. Two, Pakistan has nukes; Afghanistan doesn't. That was a no brainer. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to invade a country with nuclear weapons. Three, Afghanistan has .. Kabul. Is that even a city? It's mostly mud bricks and dusty, dirt roads looks like a lot of Texas towns. That was supposed to be a quick operation.
We painted Bin Laden in Afghanistan because it was agreeable. But make no mistake, if you believe the Taliban had something to do with 9/11, then I guess Bush and Cheney were sucessful in their intended audience.
DId al Qaeda have training camps in Afghanistan? Yes. Taliban provided a safe haven for al Qaeda. I'm not sure of the whereabouts of Bin Laden or is anyone else in the west. But he had the backing of the Taliban and still does.
The Taliban did not cause 911 but to say they had nothing to do with 911 is laughable. Don't believe everything you read in Daily Kos.
Did you even think before made this statement. You telling me the Kurds wished Saddam was back in power? The Shi'a who made up 60% of Iraq want him back?
His antics included nerve gassing an entire Kurdish town. He also massacred 1000's of Shi'a. Yeah they probably him back so they can kill him again.
Let me make it easier for you to understand, since you didn't get it.
There are an awful lot of people in Iraq today who would rather have him back. That is common knowledge. The Kurds are a minority, of course they don't want him back. Duh. But the majority of people don't like not having jobs, having their houses blown to bits along with their families, and little to no infrastructure. Most of those people liked it better when everything worked and they were working.
Say what you want about Saddam, but when he was in power the people there knew there was not going to be mass bombings in the urban centers and they'd get electricity, clean water and have a livelyhood. For you to deny this means its either black or white inside your head, and when dealing with the Middle East things aren't black and white.
Kurds. Kurds. Kurds. My heart bleeds for the Kurds. They are a minority who now have a superior amount of Iraq's oil. Duh. Of course they don't want Saddam back but they are the minority, lol.
Go wear I love Saddam t-shirt in Basra (not many Kurds there) and see how long you last.
The only people that want Saddam back are the Ba'thists and some Sunni (a minority in Iraq).
Iraq under Saddam was a bunch of roses. snicker
Safe haven??? It's a dirt country. There's nothing to "provide" at all. They were training in Afghanistan but it's not like the Taliban or the Afghani government could have told Al Qaeda "We want you out of our deserted areas. Stop training up there."
You show you have no knowledge of what went on there.
Keep thinking that the U.S. did Iraq some "great favor" by ousting Saddam once the civil war starts and American troops have to go back into the cities again. That country is about to explode again because their master is gone. First we got rid of Saddam and destabilize everything, including their security.
Now the Iraqis want us out (thank God) and in a year or so that place will be Beirut or worse. You really have no idea what kind of destruction removing centuries of strongarm rule from power and then saying "Okay, everyone can just vote for freedom" does to a people like that, do you?
You really think its going to be a happy Hollywood ending where the hero rides off into the sunset after ridding the town of "bad guys", don't you?
"TO MICHAEL!"