News Progress in Afghanistan: What's Next After 6 Years of War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan, emphasizing the need for a coherent strategic plan to secure democracy and stability. Significant progress is noted, including economic growth, improved healthcare access, and increased educational enrollment. However, challenges persist, particularly regarding the Taliban's influence and the geopolitical dynamics involving NATO and neighboring countries. The historical context of U.S. involvement, including past support for the mujahedin, is examined, raising questions about the long-term consequences of such actions. Overall, while there are signs of progress, the path to lasting success in Afghanistan remains uncertain.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,138
This situation in Afghanistan deserves it's own thread, since although it is one of two states in which which the US military is involved in direct conflict with entities designated as terrorists in the 'War on Terror', it is quite different from Iraq.

In an article, Joel Fitzgibbon, Australia's new Minister for Defense, outlines the challenge and the need for a strategic plan to secure democracy and stability in Afghanistan.

http://www.the-diplomat.com/article.aspx?aeid=5804

Are we winning the war in Afghanistan? It’s a hard question to answer. The better question may be: which war? The military mission? The war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people? Or the struggle to secure agreement among the International Security Afghanistan Force (ISAF) partners, on a coherent strategic plan which could deliver secure democracy and stability in the war-weary South Asian country?

Before attempting to answer these questions, it’s important to first acknowledge that significant progress has been made in Afghanistan. Economic growth is currently running at an impressive 8 per cent. Healthcare in Afghanistan also continues to improve and spread: more than 80 per cent of the population now has access to basic healthcare services, and infant mortality rates continue to steadily decline. The number of Afghan children receiving an education now exceeds six million, the highest number of enrolled school children in Afghan history.

For Australia’s part, our Defence Force engineers, tradespeople and project managers are rebuilding local infrastructure. They have helped construct roads and bridges, redeveloped the Tarin Kowt Provincial Hospital and the local Boys’ High School, and assisted in the construction of a causeway across the Garmab Mandah River. The causeway has both facilitated commercial trade and improved access to health services. Our Reconstruction Task Force also built and continues to run a Trade Training School which provides the local population with the essential trade and construction skills they need to rebuild their own province.

All these facts suggest real, if only steady, progress. Importantly, they also provide ISAF partners with evidence to reassure their own citizens that the international effort to secure and rebuild Afghanistan is a worthy cause and that success is much more than a pipe-dream.

But while progress has been made, we cannot ignore the reality that more than six years after the Taliban was ousted from power, success in Afghanistan is not a given.

I recently traveled to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, for a number of bilateral meetings and two important larger gatherings. The first was a meeting of Defence Ministers from Afghanistan’s Regional Command South (RC(S)): defence ministers from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, The Netherlands, Estonia, Romania and Denmark. That discussion followed a meeting of the same group in Edinburgh last December at which RC(S) members agreed to work on new strategies for the south and for Afghanistan more broadly. The intention is for the RC(S) plans to become our contribution to the development of NATO’s own strategic document for the future of Afghanistan.

. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The US and Europeans are 'outsiders' in Afghanistan and the region, and they've had a rather poor history of meddling there. The US and NATO are caught between a rock and a hard place.

One of the biggest challenges in Afghanistan is the border regions with Iran and particularly the 'tribal areas' of Pakistan. The US and NATO cannot effectively cross the border, whereas the Taliban have no contraint.

The external challenges to the situation in Afghanistan include the US/NATO relationship and the conflicting interests of other parties in the region.
 
Article 6 of the Nato treaty limits the operations of Nato to the Atlantic North of the tropic of Cancer.
Ironically this was introduced to stop Nato being used by the British and French to pursue colonial wars in Asia for their own political purposes.
 
Here is some background on Afghanistan. The situation is complicated because there are competing interests within Afghanistan as well as the surrounding region.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

The main issue for the US was the connection between Taliban and Al Qaida and bin Laden, who had sanctuary in Afghanistan, and now apparently in Pakistan.

Here is another resource on Afghanistan.
http://afghanistan-analyst.org/bibliography.aspx

Non-Governmental and international humanitarian organizations operating in Afghanistan
http://afghanistan-analyst.org/ngo.aspx


The government and people of Afghanistan are caught between the warlords and Taliban.
 
The US originally funded and trained Bin Laden and his men to overthrow the Russian occupation, and it backfired on us. So this is another sticky issue with the Russians.

I remember a documentary years ago, where a famous US news reporter filmed Bin Laden's training camp. This was LONG before 9/11. At the time it was about the noble cause of freeing Afghanistan from the Soviets.

This link seems fairly accurate in the history, skip over the anti-US sentiments in the first 2 paragraphs. http://www.isreview.org/issues/20/CIA_binladen_afghan.shtml
 
Last edited:
Evo said:
The US originally funded and trained Bin Laden and his men to overthrow the Russian occupation, and it backfired on us. So this is another sticky issue with the Russians.
When I was at school we had a sports day to raise money for athletes at the 1980 moscow olympics. Since we were boycotting it because of Afghanistan they didn't get any official funding.

Now I'm confused - was I pawn of international communism or was I fighting terrorism?
 
mgb_phys said:
When I was at school we had a sports day to raise money for athletes at the 1980 moscow olympics. Since we were boycotting it because of Afghanistan they didn't get any official funding.

Now I'm confused - was I pawn of international communism or was I fighting terrorism?
Yes. :rolleyes:
 
There are allegations of CIA contact with bin Laden, but it is by no means a fact.

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

The wiki article has much better citations against the connection than for it, in my opinion.

Both the US and Zawahiri deny working with each other, but it would be embarrassing for both parties to admit doing so - if the US would be a hypocrite for supporting future anti-US terrorists, then would not bin Laden also be a hypocrite for fighting alongside his future enemy?

In the end, I thought the Peter Bergen piece the wiki article cites was pretty good.
 
  • #10
Supercritical said:
There are allegations of CIA contact with bin Laden, but it is by no means a fact.

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

The wiki article has much better citations against the connection than for it, in my opinion.

Both the US and Zawahiri deny working with each other, but it would be embarrassing for both parties to admit doing so - if the US would be a hypocrite for supporting future anti-US terrorists, then would not bin Laden also be a hypocrite for fighting alongside his future enemy?

In the end, I thought the Peter Bergen piece the wiki article cites was pretty good.
The key fact here is that al Qaida was founded in 1988, after the US support for the mujahedin. The concern in the mid-1980's was 'blowback', which was realized in the 90's.

Frontline has another piece on the search for bin Laden.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/
 
  • #11
Here is a good article in two parts from the BBC showing the history leading up to the present brand of Islamic extremism


Jihad and the Saudi petrodollar
BBC Middle East analyst Roger Hardy has spent the last two months investigating Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's austere brand of Islam.

In the first of a two-part series, to be broadcast on the BBC World Service, he looks at the fierce debate over whether Wahhabism and Saudi petrodollars have fomented extremism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7093423.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7106382.stm
 
  • #12
National Security Decision Directive 166 from 1987, which is probably what actually authorized the CIA to train the Mujahideen to build car bombs and give them various other forms of aid, is of course still fully classified unfortunately.

But at least it's one of the Presidential Directives we actually know the name of... Here's the http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/index.html". NSDD 250 is another classified one from later in '87 that also has something to do with Afghanistan.

Something of interest in the same vein I came across recently is the specifics of how the U.S. http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm" to Iraq (along with the various other kinds of support we gave Saddam Hussein during the 80's.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
It certainly appears that some who subscribe to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam have facilitated extremism, and Saudi petrodollars have enabled that. However, one can look earlier to the writings of Sayyid Qutb.

The current problems with Islamic militancy may be correlated with the European colonialism of the past 2-3 centuries, which could be seen as a continuation of the past millenium beginning with the First Crusade in 1095. Of course, this was not unique in history, which has involved a plethora of migrations and wars over wealth and territory.
 
  • #14
Astronuc said:
The key fact here is that al Qaida was founded in 1988, after the US support for the mujahedin.
Mujahideen ≠ bin Laden

Apparently, "Estimates are that there were about a 250,000 Afghans fighting 125,000 Soviet troops, while only 2000 Arab Afghans fought 'at anyone time'"

It is not correct to imply that US support for the Mujahideen meant support for bin Laden's groups. They were described as a "side show" to the Afghan resistance, which I tend to believe if the numbers quoted above are accurate (they are cited). In fact, many sources say Pakistan was the party who distributed the funds and weapons provided by the US, and that Pakistan did not want the US to have a say in the distribution.

Now, there is no way for one to outright deny that the CIA supported (or even trained) bin Laden and his brethren. There could be any number of secret CIA projects that have yet to see the light of day.

I can say that the information that is available does not tend to support the connection.

The best I have found is that the US's support for the local Afghanistan resistance helped to create an environment in which groups like al-Qaeda could thrive, and that the international networks bin Laden helped to establish led to the emergence of al-Qaeda years, or even decades, earlier than would have otherwise been the case. This may be the "blowback" you were referring to, but it doesn't prove the CIA funded and armed bin Laden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Supercritical said:
Mujahideen ≠ bin Laden
True. bin Laden's group was a side show, but he was affiliated with Taliban groups.

It is not correct to imply that US support for the Mujahideen meant support for bin Laden's groups.
and that was not implied, at least not in my posts.

The best I have found is that the US's support for the local Afghanistan resistance helped to create an environment in which groups like al-Qaeda could thrive, and that the international networks bin Laden helped to establish led to the emergence of al-Qaeda years, or even decades, earlier than would have otherwise been the case. This may be the "blowback" you were referring to, but it doesn't prove the CIA funded and armed bin Laden.
Again, there was no such claim that the CIA funded bin Laden, at least not directly.

Throughout the years of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, relations between the United States and Pakistan were best characterized by close cooperation. Still, United States policy makers became increasingly concerned that Zia and his associates- -most notably, General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, then head of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence --appeared to give preferential treatment to the Islamic fundamentalists, especially mujahidin leader Gulbaddin Hikmatyar.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/background.htm **

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made Pakistan a country of paramount geostrategic importance. In a matter of days, the United States declared Pakistan a "frontline state" against Soviet aggression and offered to reopen aid and military assistance deliveries. Pakistan's top national security agency, the Army's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, monitored the activities of and provided advice and support to the mujahidin, and commandos from the Army's Special Services Group helped guide the operations inside Afghanistan. The ISI trained about 83,000 Afghan Mujahideen between 1983 to 1997 and dispatched them to Afghanistan. Pakistan paid a price for its activities, as Afghan and Soviet forces conducted raids against mujahidin bases inside Pakistan.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/

Then there is

(12) In 1980, Representative Charlie Wilson began urging
the Central Intelligence Agency to arm Afghani mujahideen
fighters. The decision to double funding to Afghanistan was
unsolicited and was made without the knowledge of the
President. The book ``Charlie Wilson's War'', written by
George Crile, asserts that Representative Wilson thus
violated the Logan Act.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/s372-amend.html

Now going back to Gulbaddin Hikmatyar (Hekmatyar), one finds a relationship with bin Laden. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/blowback.htm

So US/CIA -> Pakistan ISI -> Hikmatyar <-> bin Laden
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Talk of a troop surge in Afghanistan

Where are we supposed to get the troops:confused:

As the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq fades from the front pages, analysts are turning their attention to what is often called the forgotten war. Many fear that progress in Afghanistan is stalled and that the country is in need of major new measures to reinvigorate the war effort against the Taliban and other extremist factions.

To that end, talk is increasingly turning to a troop surge for Afghanistan. The conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank, which was instrumental in designing the current surge strategy in Iraq, in January convened an "Afghanistan Planning Group" that will shortly announce recommendations for an influx of troops into Afghanistan as well. "It's clear to everyone who looks at it that more troops are necessary in Afghanistan," says Frederick Kagan, an AEI fellow and an architect of the surge strategy in Iraq.

It is clear to U.S. military officials that efforts in Afghanistan are faltering and that more troops could help turn the tide. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and now the deputy chairman of NATO's military committee, says that there is currently a shortage of maneuver and infantry forces in the country.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/03/21/talk-of-a-troop-surge-for-afghanistan.html

http://www.aei.org/about/contentID.20038142214500082/default.asp

I can see where this is going just by looking at who does the planning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Evo said:
The US originally funded and trained Bin Laden and his men to overthrow the Russian occupation, and it backfired on us. So this is another sticky issue with the Russians.

I remember a documentary years ago, where a famous US news reporter filmed Bin Laden's training camp. This was LONG before 9/11. At the time it was about the noble cause of freeing Afghanistan from the Soviets.

This link seems fairly accurate in the history, skip over the anti-US sentiments in the first 2 paragraphs. http://www.isreview.org/issues/20/CIA_binladen_afghan.shtml

We keep creating monsters that we have to go back and kill. In the late 70's the CIA helped establish the Baath party in Iraq.
 
  • #18
edward said:
We keep creating monsters that we have to go back and kill. In the late 70's the CIA helped establish the Baath party in Iraq.

Good job we never medled in Iran then !
 
  • #19
mgb_phys said:
Good job we never medled in Iran then !

Are you serious. :confused: Actually we did a lot of meddling in Iran.
 
  • #20
Irony - it's like 'goldy' or 'brassy' but made of iron
 
  • #21
Amid War, Afghanistan Builds Its First National Park
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90171390
by Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson

Morning Edition, May 7, 2008 · In Afghanistan, Americans are working with the government in Kabul to create something that has never existed before in this war-ravaged country: a national park.

It takes several hours by four-wheel-drive vehicle, riding on rocky roads that wind through mountains and across streams, to get to the 220-square-mile site.

But the drive is easy compared to the obstacles planners face to make this park in central Bamiyan province a reality.
Yet another step in the right direction.
 
  • #22
There has been no progress in Afghanistan. We have done more nation building over there than hunting down those responsible for September 11th. In six years, we have not captured Osama Bin Laden, we have not made Americans safer because of our lax border policy, and we have violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation without just cause and without the reason of self defense.

The pro-war advocates may argue until they are blue in the face that we have toppled a dictator, built their infrastructure back up after we destroyed it (though even that is not neccesarrily the case), and have "brought them democracy" whether they desired it or not. Even if we have made Iraq a little better under the guise of fighting the war on terror, what has this brought Americans other than higher taxes and grieving mothers who lost their sons to an unjust cause? The best way to keep Americans safe and fight terror is to secure our borders and fire everybody at the CIA to find more capable intelligence. If we're not at least going to catch Osama Bin Laden, we can at least prevent another September 11th or worse by voting for Ron Paul, closing foreign military bases, and establishing a non-intervention policy - not an isolationist policy, because we are a nation built on trade. Let the free market handle the rest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Come away from the computer Ron - you know it's time for your medicine.
 
  • #24
U.S. loses ground as Afghanistan erodes, By James Rupert, September 20, 2007
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003893062_afghanistan20.html
The U.S.'s declared ally, Pakistan, is playing a double role that has made it a sanctuary where jihadist guerrillas can recruit and train fighters, raise money and infiltrate Afghanistan. Since 2001, Pakistan has arrested many al-Qaida leaders and has fitfully confronted home-grown jihadists. Still, it tolerates a broad support network for Taliban and other guerrillas that includes active-duty members of Pakistan's security forces.

So far, Karzai's government and the United States have been fortunate in northeastern Afghanistan. Local tribes, notably in Nuristan province, are historic rivals of the ethnic Pashtuns who dominate the Taliban movement, and they tend to resist the Taliban's calls for jihad.

But, said the Afghan government engineer Wahdat and others, that natural advantage is being squandered because the government and its foreign backers have failed to establish schools, clinics, police forces and other services to meet even basic needs of people scattered in Nuristan's roughly 300 mountain villages. The resulting vacuum, and the depth of people's need, let's Islamic extremists keep deepening their roots here.

Breeding insurgency
While the government operates almost no schools in Nuristan, the Saudi-based World Muslim League and other Arab religious foundations pay salaries for hundreds of mullahs, missionaries and madrassa teachers, said Abdulhai Warshan, a Nuristani journalist for the Afghan service of Voice of America radio. This Islamist network has been rooting itself in every district of Nuristan since the 1980s, when Arabs (and the U.S. government) helped fund the Afghan guerrilla war against the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

With Nuristanis increasingly eager to educate their children, and no government schools in sight, "the Arab madrassas [religious schools] have offered free religious teaching" according to the Saudis' fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine, Warshan said. For a quarter-century, "it has been the only way ordinary people could educate their sons, and now Wahhabism and extremism have penetrated our area."
The Taliban is still active in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan (Chitral and Bajaur).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Local tribes, notably in Nuristan province, are historic rivals of the ethnic Pashtuns who dominate the Taliban movement, and they tend to resist the Taliban's calls for jihad.
You mean it's more complicated than "this time you guys are the goodies and you are the baddies - now change ends"?
Who would have thought it !
 
  • #26
It's certainly complicated because of the heterogenity in Afghanistan with rival factions/tribes and the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pashtun people move back and forth across the border. The Taliban grew in the Afghan refugee communities in Pakistan, so they move back and forth across the border.

Pakistan's Chitral District: A Refuge for al-Qaeda's Top Leadership?
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370220
By Hassan Abbas
In the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda leaders, security services continue to focus on Pakistan's Chitral district in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). Chitral became a concern after the release of a bin Laden videotape from September 2003 in which trees native to the Chitrali mountain range were evident. Extensive search operations for the al-Qaeda leader and fellow operatives by Pakistani and U.S. forces were conducted in the area in February-March 2003 (Dawn, March 7, 2003). More recently, in May there were claims that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had established an office in Chitral to monitor militant activities in the district (The Nation, May 1). Other links to the district include Abu Khabaib, an Arab explosives expert who has been spotted several times in the hills of Chitral. He is known to have helped Sheikh Ahmed Saleem, an Arab member of al-Qaeda. Saleem has been giving money to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi for recruiting militants for al-Qaeda in Pakistan (Daily Times, October 2). Finally, because Chitral is adjacent to Afghanistan's Nuristan province, there is concern that Taliban and al-Qaeda militants are crossing the border between the two countries.
With respect to the last point, it is still an issue.

The US and some European Allies have Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincial_Reconstruction_Team
Led by the US, Kamdesh Civil Military Operations Center (CMOC), is an extension of the Kamdesh PRT and provides reconstruction and development assistance to the people of Nuristan. The PRT is also working with DynCorp International to train the Afghan National Police (ANP) through the US funded Afghanistan Police Program
I don't know how effective DynCorp is there, but I have my doubts.

Digressing a little further -

Four Years Later, Much Of U.S. Aid In Afghanistan Has Little Impact
http://www.coxwashington.com/reporters/content/reporters/stories/2005/10/10/BC_AFGHAN_4YEARSON09_1STLD_COX.html
By MARGARET COKER, ANNE USHER
Cox News Service
Monday, October 10, 2005
SHOWKHEI, Afghanistan — Most mornings, boys from this village walk to a mud-brick school constructed two years ago, compliments of U.S. taxpayers. But the building is already in disrepair, its walls crumbling and its roof pitted by termites chewing into untreated wooden beams.

Village elders in Showkhei, some 20 miles from the main U.S. military base at Bagram, were unanimous in the summer of 2003 when soldiers arrived and asked what they needed: a bigger school for their children. The soldiers sent a construction firm called Ahmad Jamil Construction to Showkhei to double the size of the existing school from five rooms to 10.

But no one from the military came back to inspect the quality of materials or the company's work, villagers said. The next time they saw the soldiers was weeks later at a ribbon-cutting ceremony. U.S. officials took pictures of the new building and then left, said school principal Said Rakhman.

Two years and $20,000 later, the locally made mud bricks crumble to the touch, and termites have infested the roof beams, leaving villagers with the morbid pastime of guessing when the ceiling will fall.

"Do they just care about photographs?" asked Rakhman. "My children have to stay in this building, their children don't."

Use of inferior construction materials is just one of myriad complaints lodged by auditors and aid workers who are critical of U.S. efforts to rebuild Afghanistan.

Four years after American forces invaded Afghanistan to purge the Taliban, the United States has spent more than $1.62 billion to reconstruct this war-ravaged Central Asian country.

Some vital and visible results of the U.S. intervention are evident. After 25 years of open warfare, millions of Afghans have returned home, voters have elected a government and many women are back at work.

But a report published in July by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited bureaucratic squabbles, poor planning and a lack of coordination and oversight in the spending of U.S. reconstruction money in Afghanistan. The effect is that building and public works projects by the State Department and the Pentagon have had little impact on improving the country's long-term reconstruction, the GAO said.

For Afghans this is cause for despair. In a country ranked among the world's worst in terms of poverty, literacy and infant mortality, the slow reconstruction endangers short- and long-term stability.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05742.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Action in Afghanistan is finding it's way into Pakistan.

Pakistan officials: Suspected US strikes kill 12
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - Two suspected U.S. missile strikes Friday on villages close to the border with Afghanistan killed at least 12 people, most of them militants, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

American forces recently ramped up cross-border operations against Taliban and al-Qaida militants in Pakistan's border zone with Afghanistan — a region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden.

Two missiles believed to have been fired from U.S. unmanned drones launched from neighboring Afghanistan hit the villages in North Waziristan just before dusk, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

A missile strike in one village killed at least 12 people, while there were no reported casualties in the other, they said. The officials did not identify the victims.

. . . .
The problem I have with this approach is the 'collateral damage' - killing of innocent non-combatants, who are often women and children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
I know it is fashionable to declare the war in Afghanistan to be a war for the survival of western civilisation but I wonder what would actually happen if the US and the rest of NATO pulled out?

It would probably simply revert to the tribal system and associated customs and rivalries it has practised for the past 1000 years and 5 years from now most people would be hard pushed to find it on a map.

If by some chance some group there decided to use parts of it as a training ground for attacks on the west then a few surgical strikes would quickly solve that problem. Realistically given the entrenched views of the populace there the only other alternative is a genocide followed by the introduction of a more westernised race which in case anyone thinks I am advocating that approach I would like to say that would be an obvious non-starter.
 
  • #29
1, Take a bunch of tribes that have been knocking 7bells out of each other since Adam was a lad.
2, Draw a few lines on map and declqre that two halves of one family are now enemies and that another 2 tribes are now friends.
3, Change your mind regulalrly about which side are your friends and allies as convenience suits.

The ironic thing is that the USA is only the 3rd biggest empire to make this mistake in Afghanistan!
 
  • #30
Art said:
I know it is fashionable to declare the war in Afghanistan to be a war for the survival of western civilisation but I wonder what would actually happen if the US and the rest of NATO pulled out?

It would probably simply revert to the tribal system and associated customs and rivalries it has practised for the past 1000 years and 5 years from now most people would be hard pushed to find it on a map.

If by some chance some group there decided to use parts of it as a training ground for attacks on the west then a few surgical strikes would quickly solve that problem. Realistically given the entrenched views of the populace there the only other alternative is a genocide followed by the introduction of a more westernised race which in case anyone thinks I am advocating that approach I would like to say that would be an obvious non-starter.
The US went in precisely because the Taliban were sheltering bin Laden and al Qaida, who were using Afghanistan as a base and safe haven. That could have led to more serious problems for Pakistan, as well as allowed bin Laden to set up strike groups against US and allies.

The tribes and warlords could have reached an accomodation, and much of Aghanistan would have been hell for any woman.

Unfortunately, under the US control, opium production has recovered, and the warlords use the cash to buy weapons. On the other hand, those drug warlords don't like the Taliban and will fight them.

The main security issue now is the resurgence of al Qaida and Taliban on the Afghan/Pakistan border in Waziristan, Kurram (Karam), Khyber, Mohmand, Bajaur, Dir, Chitral and further east Charsadda, Malakand and Swat.

The new head of ISI may be taking stronger measures against al Qaida and Taliban, and their Pakistani supporters. The US is firing missiles from Predator drones into Waziristan against Taliban targets.
 
  • #31
I am not questioning the justification for the original attack on Afghanistan I am questioning the need to stay there and try to change an unwilling populace to adopt Western values.

We may think life for women was hell in Afghanistan from our western viewpoint but it is not for us to impose our value system and morals on other people by force.

Britain, when at the height of it's international power, tried 3 times to subjugate Afghanistan and each time, after initial military victories, were comprehensively beaten and left with their tails between their legs.

This despite the lack of press coverage and rules of war at that time which allowed Britain to prosecute the war anyway it liked including using tactics that would nowadays be termed as terrorism.

Whether we like it or not there is absolutely nothing western gov'ts can do win over the Afghan people and persuade them to change their laws and customs other than, as I said before, wiping them all out and starting again.

Far better imo to stand back, observe, and use tactical strikes when and where deemed necessary to neuter international threats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Astronuc said:
The US went in precisely because the Taliban were sheltering bin Laden and al Qaida, who were using Afghanistan as a base and safe haven.
There are a lot of countries we could invade if they are harbouring terrorists. This one just happened to have an oil pipeline route.

The tribes and warlords could have reached an accomodation, and much of Aghanistan would have been hell for any woman.
Yep, think we used the same reason for ruling India for 300years.

Unfortunately, under the US control, opium production has recovered, and the warlords use the cash to buy weapons. On the other hand, those drug warlords don't like the Taliban and will fight them.
Which is why we allow them to grow heroin and sell them the weapons - it worked in Laos, Panama and even in Afghanistan/Pakistan last time.

The new head of ISI may be taking stronger measures against al Qaida and Taliban, and their Pakistani supporters.
Tricky since many of the Pakistani supporters are in government and we support the goverment.

The US is firing missiles from Predator drones into Waziristan against Taliban targets.
If past experience is anything to go by they are firing at something - might be people, might even be fighters and with a bit of luck they are enemy fighters.
 
  • #33
Well, the crux of the matter at hand is that the US and other nations (NATO) have committed armed forces to Afghanistan now - rightly or wrongly - and they're going to stay - probably until it gets too expensive to do so. The US and NATO are there at the behest of the Afghani government.

At the moment the Bush administration is trying to get bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
In early September of 2008, Pakistan military claimed that they "almost" captured al-Zawahiri after getting information that he and his wife were in the Mohmand Agency, in northwest Pakistan. After raiding the area, officials didn't find him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

At the moment, the US is trying to locate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders/groups close to the border with Afghanistan, and attack them. The US is trying to encourage Paksitan's ISI to do the same. There are some conflicts therein.
 
  • #34
Astronuc said:
Well, the crux of the matter at hand is that the US and other nations (NATO) have committed armed forces to Afghanistan now - rightly or wrongly - and they're going to stay - probably until it gets too expensive to do so. The US and NATO are there at the behest of the Afghani government.

At the moment the Bush administration is trying to get bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

At the moment, the US is trying to locate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders/groups close to the border with Afghanistan, and attack them. The US is trying to encourage Paksitan's ISI to do the same. There are some conflicts therein.


Most people there (Northwest Frontier Province) are pretty decent. The problem is al-Qaida and some of the Taliban. For example, al-Qaida and Taliban are making life difficult for the Kalash people in the Kunar Valley (just south of Chitral). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash

Next door to Chitral is Nuristan and Kunar (with Nangarhar just south of Kunar), which are problematic places in Afghanistan. Taliban and al-Qaida have been floating back and forth across the border, although that is becoming increasingly difficult with intervention of the US in Afghanistan and ISI in Paksitan. On the other hand, US incursions into Pakistan will increase tensions with the ISI.

The tribal areas, particularly Waziristan (Pakistan) in conjunction with Paktika and Khost provinces in Afghanistan are problematic given the smuggling and weapons trafficking going on.


A good perspective on the problem is given in -
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000H2NAW6/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Astronuc said:
Well, the crux of the matter at hand is that the US and other nations (NATO) have committed armed forces to Afghanistan now - rightly or wrongly - and they're going to stay - probably until it gets too expensive to do so. The US and NATO are there at the behest of the Afghani government.
The Russians were there also at the behest of the then Afghan gov't so I'm not sure how much genuine legitimacy this bestows.

Astronuc said:
At the moment the Bush administration is trying to get bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
I'd like to think the Bush administration has been trying to capture Bin Laden since Sept 12th 2001.
Astronuc said:
At the moment, the US is trying to locate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders/groups close to the border with Afghanistan, and attack them. The US is trying to encourage Paksitan's ISI to do the same. There are some conflicts therein.
During the first world war snipers always aimed at officers first, to the extent both Britain and Germany complained at a very high level about each other's practices.

Despite tremendous success in wiping out each other's officer corp on a near daily basis it made not an iota of difference to the war itself. New officers were appointed and the war went on.

The same is now true today. The only good thing that comes out of killing Taliban leaders is the bragging rights in the paper the next day. In terms of defeating the enemy it is meaningless.
 
  • #36
Art said:
Despite tremendous success in wiping out each other's officer corp on a near daily basis it made not an iota of difference to the war itself. New officers were appointed and the war went on.
In the British army WWI officer were so worthless that they actually received less training than the privates. Anyone from a public (ie private) school was made an officer and issued with only a side arm.
 
  • #37
Art said:
The Russians were there also at the behest of the then Afghan gov't so I'm not sure how much genuine legitimacy this bestows.

I'd like to think the Bush administration has been trying to capture Bin Laden since Sept 12th 2001.
They have, but they are trying a lot harder at the moment.

During the first world war snipers always aimed at officers first, to the extent both Britain and Germany complained at a very high level about each other's practices.

Despite tremendous success in wiping out each other's officer corp on a near daily basis it made not an iota of difference to the war itself. New officers were appointed and the war went on.

The same is now true today. The only good thing that comes out of killing Taliban leaders is the bragging rights in the paper the next day. In terms of defeating the enemy it is meaningless.
I don't agree with the US approach, especially because it produces results like - the Shinwar Massacre. That's one reason I could never wear a uniform, i.e. be part of a military.
 
  • #38
Astronuc said:
They have, but they are trying a lot harder at the moment.

I don't agree with the US approach, especially because it produces results like - the Shinwar Massacre. That's one reason I could never wear a uniform, i.e. be part of a military.
That massacre was vastly surpassed by the Nawabad massacre in August this year with the UN saying at least 90 civilians including 60 children were killed in a US airstrike

U.S. Killed 90, Including 60 Children, in Afghan Village, U.N. Finds

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27herat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
 
  • #39
I think the fundamental problem is that US is trying to make Afghanistan better from its own perspective and some people there don't like that. Like giving equal rights to women- and now woman are getting targets of the terrorists. Recently, a female police officer was killed in an attack.
I think US has to respect their society and try to follow the Islamic laws, provide assurance that US don't have any personal interests and it would leave soon. It should avoid military actions - it can never kill terrorism.

Killing Osama/taking revenge shouldn't be the prime target (Killing Osama or eliminating terrorism just sounds stupid to me).
 
  • #40
Approximately 395 civilians have been killed by US and allied forces in 2008.

Art said:
That massacre was vastly surpassed by the Nawabad massacre in August this year with the UN saying at least 90 civilians including 60 children were killed in a US airstrike

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27herat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Killing civilians outrages Afghans, damages international troops popularity
http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/august/aug252008.html#4

--------------------------------------------------
Shinwar Massacre
The Shinwar Massacre refers to the killing of at least nineteen civilians, including an infant and three elderly men, by US Marines in the Shinwar district of the Nangrahar province of Afghanistan on March 4, 2007. At least thirty-three civilians were injured in the shootings.[1] The casualty figures continue to be disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_4,_2007_Shooting_in_Afghanistan

Marines killed civilians in Afghanistan: report
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/16/top12.htm
---------------------------------------------------

Both DOD Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. McKiernan have acknowledge the need to avoid civilian deaths in combat areas.

U.S. commander calls for troops [McKiernan]
http://www.dailymail.com/News/NationandWorld/200809170283
A United Nations report issued Tuesday said that U.S. and NATO airstrikes have killed 395 Afghanistan civilians this year.

The issue of civilian deaths has been thrown into sharp relief by a U.S.-led raid in western Afghanistan last month in which the United Nations estimates 92 civilians were killed. The U.S. military has said only about seven civilians died, but it has begun a new high-level review.The incident has deeply angered the Afghan government. President Hamid Karzai, who is scheduled to meet with Gates on Wednesday, is expected to again press the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/17/afghan-civilians.html
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_w38/idw2008.09.17.16.18.57.html


OHCHR in Afghanistan (2008-2009)
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/AFSummary0809.aspx
Afghanistan continues to suffer from a pervasive culture of impunity and a weak rule of law.Worsening security conditions have substantially diminished the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life and safety, freedom of movement, access to education and health, and access to livelihoods by communities in insurgencyaffected areas.

Illegal and arbitrary detention continues, and in a significant proportion of cases, pre-trial detention deadlines are breached, suspects are not given defence counsel, and ill-treatment and torture are used to force confessions. Very few people have access to redress mechanisms, especially women. There are frequent reports of arbitrary denial of justice in disputes over housing, land and property rights.

There are clear signs that freedom of expression is threatened, with continuing reports of arbitrary arrests, detention and intimidation of journalists. There has been limited progress towards the implementation of the transitional justice action plan (Action Plan on Peace, Reconciliation and Justice in Afghanistan) adopted by the Government in December 2005 and due for completion by end 2008.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
rootX said:
I think the fundamental problem is that US is trying to make Afghanistan better from its own perspective and some people there don't like that. Like giving equal rights to women- and now woman are getting targets of the terrorists. Recently, a female police officer was killed in an attack.

I think US has to respect their society and try to follow the Islamic laws, provide assurance that US don't have any personal interests and it would leave soon. It should avoid military actions - it can never kill terrorism.

The US is trying to do exactly what everybody else did.
You want a cooperative government in charge to keep neighbouring countries in line.
So you pick a group that seems amenable and declare the other side to be either;
barbarians (if you Alexander->British ), anti-revolutionary elements (if USSR) or terrorists (if USA) and spear/musket/shell/bomb the **** out of them.
 
  • #43
Carleton-Smith's comment is troubling. It would certainly undermine efforts to establish a democracy in Afghanistan. I do think aggressive military action, with collateral damage, is harmful.

Commander expects no clear Afghan victory: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081004/wl_uk_afp/britainafghanistanunrestmilitary
LONDON (AFP) - The top military commander in Afghanistan said in an interview Sunday the public should not expect "decisive military victory" there, only the reduction of the insurgency to manageable levels.

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour in Afghanistan, told the Sunday Times that people should "lower their expectations" about how the conflict will end.

He also said Britons should prepare for a possible deal with the Taliban.

"We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army," he told the newspaper.

Carleton-Smith said his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008" but said it would be "unrealistic and probably incredible" to think that the multinational forces in Afghanistan could rid the country of armed bands.



Leaked diplomatic cable promotes 'acceptable dictator' in Afghanistan
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/05/europe/diplo.php
PARIS: A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. That was not all. The best solution for the country, the ambassador said, would be installing an "acceptable dictator," according to the newspaper.

"The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," the British envoy, Sherard Cowper-Coles, was quoted as saying by the author of the cable, François Fitou, the French deputy ambassador to Kabul.

The two-page cable - which was sent to the Élysée Palace and the French Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday issue - said the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to stabilize the country.

"The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution," Cowper-Coles was quoted as saying. "Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis."

Within five to 10 years, the only "realistic" way to unite Afghanistan would be for it to be "governed by an acceptable dictator," the cable said, adding, "We should think of preparing our public opinion" for such an outcome.
. . . .


Afghanistan mission not doomed: Britain
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/world/25747/afghanistan-mission-not-doomed-britain
The British government has denied a claim that the UK believes the military campaign in Afghanistan is doomed to failure, after a French newspaper quoted a report that London's ambassador to Kabul said foreign troops added to the country's woes.

France's weekly Le Canard Enchaine published what it said was a leaked French diplomatic cable recounting talks between Britain's Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Coles and a French official.

The newspaper said the French cable reported that Cowper-Coles had said Afghanistan might best be "governed by an acceptable dictator" and that the cable quoted him as saying foreign troops were adding to the country's problems by helping shore up a failing government in Kabul.

Cowper-Coles was quoted as saying that "the American strategy is destined to fail" and that the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan was "part of the problem, not the solution."

The prospect of a dictatorship was "the only realistic one and we must get public opinion ready to accept it," the report quotes the alleged cable as saying.

The newspaper, a weekly publication known for its investigative stories, published excerpts of the cable, including a passage that quoted the British ambassador as criticizing both US presidential candidates over pledges to send more US troops to Afghanistan.

"It is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan," an extract of the cable published by the newspaper quoted Cowper-Coles as saying.
. . . .

War in Afghanistan cannot be won, British commander Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith warns
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...nder-Brigadier-Mark-Carleton-Smith-warns.html
The war in Afghanistan cannot be won, Britain's most senior military commander in the country has warned.
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect "a decisive military victory" and that he believed groups of insurgents would still be at large after troops pulled out.

In June, he claimed that British forces had reached a "tipping point" against a weakened Taliban after their leadership was "decapitated".

But on Sunday the army officer said it was time to lower expectations and focus on reducing the conflict to a level which could be managed by the Afghan army.

Brig Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade - which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan - said talking to the Taliban could be an important part of that process.

He insisted his forces had "taken the sting out" of the Taliban for 2008 as winter and the colder weather approaches, but warned that many of the fighters would return in May or June.

Meanwhile - Taliban said to be furious over US missile strike
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - The Taliban are furious about the latest apparent U.S. missile strike in Pakistan, indicating a senior militant may be among two dozen people killed, officials and residents said Sunday.

. . .

The U.S. rarely acknowledges cross-border attacks inside Pakistani territory by forces from Afghanistan. A U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, 1st Lt. Nathan Perry, did not deny U.S. involvement but said he had "no information to give."

Extremists based in Pakistan's border regions have been blamed for attacks on American and NATO forces in Afghanistan and for violence inside Pakistan. Al-Qaida leaders including Osama bin Laden are believed to be hiding somewhere in the lawless tribal regions along the border.
. . . .

Pakistan's fledgling civilian government has tried to convince the population it cannot duck the fight against militancy. But leaders also warn that American attacks in Pakistan inflame public opinion against the West and undermine the fight against terrorism.

On Wednesday, intelligence agencies are to privately brief lawmakers about the militant threat facing Pakistan during a special joint session of parliament.

. . . .

Security forces on Sunday killed two alleged Taliban commanders in Swat, one of whom was believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida, said Maj. Nasir Ali, an army spokesman.

In the Bajur tribal region, overnight clashes with security forces killed five suspected militants, police official Fazl Rabi said. A Sunday bomb blast wounded five people in a compound where tribal elders were meeting to discuss ways to rid the area of militants, Rabi said.

The military offensive in Bajur has earned praise from the U.S., but it has also prompted a mass exodus of civilians fleeing the fighting.

Many are in relief camps in Pakistan, but some 20,000 Pakistanis have crossed the border into eastern Afghanistan, according to the United Nations.

Meanwhile, a three-day ultimatum from the government for Afghans living illegally in Bajur to leave was due to expire later Sunday. Of an estimated 80,000 Afghans, only about 15,000 had left, said Abdul Haseeb, a local government official.

. . . .
The civilian population on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan are could among US/Nato forces, Afghan military, Pakistani ISI and Taliban/al-Qaida.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Interesting interview with the new president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122307507392703831.html

When he discusses Pakistan's economic crisis -- the central bank has about two months' worth of foreign currency reserves left to pay for the country's imports of oil and food -- he says he looks to the world to "give me $100 billion."
So much for stability.
 
  • #46
Afghan war cannot be won militarily: U.N.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081006/ts_nm/us_afghan_taliban

KABUL (Reuters) - The war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily and success is only possible through political means including dialogue between all relevant parties, the United Nations' top official in the country said Monday.
. . . .
I've always said to those that talk about the military surge ... what we need most of all is a political surge, more political energy," Kai Eide, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, told a news conference in Kabul.

"We all know that we cannot win it militarily. It has to be won through political means. That means political engagement."

Eide said success depended on speaking with all sides in the conflict. "If you want to have relevant results, you must speak to those who are relevant. If you want to have results that matter, you must speak to those who matter," he said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "We're not losing in Afghanistan, though there certainly is a recognition that there's more we could be doing there."

Asked about the possibility of negotiations with the Taliban, he replied: "This is not an element of our strategy. They have terrorized Afghan society for years."

The British ambassador to Kabul said a troop surge would only create more targets for the Taliban. The comments were made to a French colleague who sent a telegram to Paris which was leaked and published in Le Canard Enchaine newspaper last week.

But the U.S. general commanding NATO forces said last month he needed three more brigades -- possibly around 15,000 troops -- on top of an extra 4,000 soldiers due to arrive in January.

Faced with the persistent reluctance of some of its European allies to send more troops to Afghanistan or allow them to fight once there, the United States has asked Japan and NATO countries to help foot the $17-billion bill to build up the Afghan army.
. . . .

Meanwhile - Karzai's brother may be implicated in drug trafficking. :rolleyes:
Reports link Karzai's brother to Afghan heroin trade
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/05/asia/afghan.php
When Afghan security forces found an enormous cache of heroin hidden beneath concrete blocks in a tractor-trailer outside Kandahar in 2004, the local Afghan commander quickly impounded the truck and notified his boss. Before long, the commander, Habibullah Jan, received a telephone call from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, asking him to release the vehicle and the drugs, Jan later told American investigators, according to notes from the debriefing obtained by The New...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
U.S. dismisses Afghan war comments as "defeatist"
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49607N20081007
By Jonathon Burch and Kristin Roberts
KABUL (Reuters) - Britain's military commander and ambassador in Afghanistan are being "defeatist" by thinking the war cannot be won, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, as Washington seeks more troops for the conflict that started exactly seven years ago.

The comments by the officials from Britain, a key ally to the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, were echoed by the top United Nations official in Kabul, who said success was only possible through dialogue and other political efforts.

After the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 to oust the fundamentalist Taliban government in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States, security has deteriorated markedly over the past two years.

"While we face significant challenges in Afghanistan, there certainly is no reason to be defeatist or to underestimate the opportunities to be successful in the long run," Gates said on Monday on his way to Europe to meet defense ministers.

Washington is reviewing its Afghan strategy in a similar way to the 2006 reappraisal of its Iraq policy that led to a "surge" of 30,000 troops and helped pull the country back from the brink of civil war.

Gates said part of the solution in Afghanistan would be negotiating with members of the Taliban willing to work with the government in Kabul. He compared that to reconciliation efforts in Iraq, where tribal leaders have switched sides to fight the insurgency and al Qaeda.

"What we have seen in Iraq applies in Afghanistan," Gates said of the possibility of peace talks with the Taliban.
. . . .
Afghanistan is more fractured than Iraq. I agree with Gates that the solution will be to work with Taliban and any tribal group who support the government and democracy in Afghanistan (which includes participation of women somehow including education). The problem remains al Qaeda and Taliban who do not share those views.
 
  • #48
Petraeus sees increasingly durable gains in Iraq
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE496A1720081007
The longer the violence remains low the less likely (hopefully) it will pick up again. I think people are finally getting tired and want something better.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said on Tuesday that security gains in Iraq are increasingly durable but warned that that methods which helped reduce violence there may not work in Afghanistan.

Petraeus, the former commander in Iraq who is credited by U.S. officials with saving the country from sectarian war, emphasized that progress in Iraq remains fragile and reversible despite an 80 percent drop in violence.
. . . .
Petraeus was the main architect of a 2007 build-up in U.S. forces known as the surge, which has been given much credit for reducing violence levels.

Violence also fell after Sunni tribesmen joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda and after radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr declared a ceasefire for his militia.

"The people realize more and more that they do not want to return to the ethno-sectarian violence that had their country on the brink of civil war," Petraeus said.
. . . .
Afghanistan is different than Iraq. There is a different history and a different dynamic.
 
  • #49
U.S. inquiry shows Afghan raid killed 30 people: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081008/wl_nm/us_afgan_usa_civilians_report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An inquiry by the U.S. military has concluded that U.S. air strikes on an Afghan village in August killed more than 30 civilians, far more than U.S. commanders have acknowledged, The New York Times said on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08inquiry.html
The military investigator’s report found that more than 30 civilians — not 5 to 7 as the military has long insisted — died in the airstrikes against a suspected Taliban compound in Azizabad.
. . . .

The investigator, Brig. Gen. Michael W. Callan of the Air Force, concluded that many more civilians, including women and children, had been buried in the rubble than the military had asserted, one of the military officials said.

The airstrikes have been the focus of sharp tensions between the Afghan government, which has said that 90 civilians died in the raid, and the American military, under Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top American military commander in Afghanistan, which has repeatedly insisted that only a handful of civilians were killed.

The report was requested by General McKiernan on Sept. 7, more than two weeks after the airstrikes, in response to what he said at the time was “emerging evidence” about the raids. While American commanders in Afghanistan have contended that 30 to 35 militants were killed in the raid, the new report concludes that many among that group were in fact civilians, the military officials said.
. . . .
The US cannot win if the military continues to kill civilians like this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Astronuc said:
U.S. inquiry shows Afghan raid killed 30 people: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081008/wl_nm/us_afgan_usa_civilians_report



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08inquiry.html
The US cannot win if the military continues to kill civilians like this.
What compounds the problem is their instinct always seems to be to try and lie about it. Even this final report is off by a factor of 3 compared to the UN's findings. By not admitting the truth it makes the next tragedy all the more likely as no lessons are learned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
31
Views
6K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top