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

[Art]

At this point I have absolutely no clue what the mission is in Afghanistan.

What are the US and other NATO forces trying to achieve?

If their role is to provide security and stability then they are failing miserably and indeed are the main causes of the lack of security and instability.

By supporting what were the murdering war lords of the former Northern Alliance they have helped drug dealing, corrupt criminals to take power and are expending huge resources in men and material to keep them there at a cost of alienating an entire generation of people.

Why?

 

[BobG]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
Official: Afghans probing 17 civilian deaths
Maybe some militants are angry with the US/EU (or some hate America and Europe) because invaders (US and EU/NATO military) kill their women and children, or parents, or siblings or other family members, or friends. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan have not invaded or threatened the US, although Saddam Hussein threated the US/Israel with retaliation if attacked.

The hijackers who attacked the WTC and Pentagon on Sept 11, were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (now headquarters for Halliburton), Egypt and Lebanon.

Osama bin Laden (al Qaida) is from Saudi Arabia and Ayman al-Zawahiri is Egyptian. One connection with Pakistan would be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was born in Kuwait to parents from Baluchistan (Pakistan).

So you're saying the Taliban government in Afghanistan was right to deny the US permission to attack al-Qaida in their country since all of the al-Qaida in their country were foreigners?!

That's going back to the old cop out where terrorists can attack as they please because as long as the government of whatever country they reside in didn't actually make the attack, therefore the US can't respond.

At this point I have absolutely no clue what the mission is in Afghanistan.

What are the US and other NATO forces trying to achieve?

If their role is to provide security and stability then they are failing miserably and indeed are the main causes of the lack of security and instability.

By supporting what were the murdering war lords of the former Northern Alliance they have helped drug dealing, corrupt criminals to take power and are expending huge resources in men and material to keep them there at a cost of alienating an entire generation of people.

Why?

Goes back to that politically correct idea that the US can't go into a country, accomplish what they needed to do, then leave the country in the same shambles it was in before they invaded. We need to somehow make the country a better place than it was before we attacked.

That's just not always realistic and Afghanistan is one of those instances.

I don't think that necessarily means we shoud leave. The US still hasn't accomplished what it set out to do. Doing that raises the possibility of an even bigger mess.

US and Pakistani forces have had minor skirmishes with each other over the last month. I think the skirmishes will continue for a while and could get worse.

That raises an interesting possibility. We could have combat, complete with casualties, with another nuclear armed country. That would be a new world first.

We could also have combat where both the US and the enemy forces were being funded by the US taxpayer. Then again, most of the US aid goes to beefing up Pakistan's forces along their border with India rather than to their forces along the Afghanistan border, so maybe we're not funding enemy forces so much.

I'm not sure how the US should have handled Pakistan immediately after the Afghanistan invasion, but the way we did handle them hasn't worked.

 

[Astronuc]

So you're saying the Taliban government in Afghanistan was right to deny the US permission to attack al-Qaida in their country since all of the al-Qaida in their country were foreigners?!

I didn't say that. It's quite complicated and there is not simple answer.

Al Qaida and their Taliban sympathizers who are planning attacks against US, Pakistan and Afghan governments and innocent people are legitimate targets (at least according to internationals standards).

If one reads the reports from Robert Fisk (The Independent, UK), he mentions the situation with the people in the border region whose villages were bombed or shelled by US forces. Most are not Taliban, but some members in the villages may be Taliban. Non-combatants, including women and children, are killed. I have a big problem with that!

The first interaction some of these people have with the outside world is American/NATO military attacking their villages.


Paraphrasing an old proverb - One evil deed (or misdeed) undermines 1000 good deeds.


I think there is a better way, and I'm working on it.

 

[Astronuc]

Pakistan and Afghanistan go hand in hand. Both countries share tribes and a common history.

Pakistan is in deep trouble economically.

Pakistan reported nearing default, to seek IMF help

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- After failing to get help from China, Pakistan may need to turn to the International Monetary Fund -- a politically unpopular move -- for cash to bolster its economy and avoid defaulting on its debt obligations, according to news reports Sunday.

The country, perceived as one of the world's riskiest borrowers, may need as much as $6 billion to boost its foreign-currency reserves, which fell more than 74% in the past year to about $4.3 billion, according to a Bloomberg News report.

The next interest payment for Pakistan on its dollar-denominated bonds is due in December, and the government is scheduled to repay $500 million in February on a 6.75% note, the report said.

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari returned from China late Friday failing to secure a cash commitment from its neighbor, the New York Times reported.

China had been seen as a last resort before Pakistan turns to the IMF, the Times report said. Saudi Arabia, another of the country's traditional ally, refused earlier to offer concessions on oil, it said.

Pakistan and IMF must step carefully.

 

[Astronuc]

Afghan journalism student sentenced to 20 years
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_journalist_trial

KABUL, Afghanistan – An Afghan appeals court overturned a death sentence Tuesday for a journalism student accused of blasphemy for asking questions in class about women's rights under Islam. But the judges still sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

The case against 24-year-old Parwez Kambakhsh, whose brother has angered Afghan warlords with his own writings, has come to symbolize Afghanistan's slide toward an ultraconservative view on religious and individual freedoms.

"I don't accept the court's decision," Kambakhsh told The Associated Press as he was leaving the courtroom. "It is an unfair decision."

The case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in Afghanistan.

John Dempsey, a U.S. lawyer working for six years to reform the Afghan justice system, said Kambakhsh has yet to get a fair trial.
. . . .

Besides the accusation that Kambakhsh disrupted class with his questions, prosecutors also said he illegally distributed an article he printed off the Internet that asks why Islam does not modernize to give women equal rights. He also allegedly wrote his own comments on the paper.

In January, a lower court sentenced him to death in a trial critics have called flawed in part because Kambakhsh had no lawyer representing him. Muslim clerics welcomed that court's decision and public demonstrations were held against the journalism student because of perceptions he had violated the tenets of Islam.
. . . .

Disrupting class should not result in the death penalty. Distributing literature that asks "why Islam does not modernize to give women equal rights" should not result in a death penalty. This is not a democratic system, but rather it is an oligarchy.

The apparent goal in Afghanistan is to preclude a haven for al Qaida. Aside from that, the Bush administration seems less concerned about democracy.

 

[Art]

Yet more civilians killed by 'accident'

Air raid 'kills Afghan civilians'

At least five Afghan civilians have been killed in an air strike by international forces in the north-west, local officials say.

They say at least 13 insurgents also died in the raid, after they attacked Afghan and international troops in Ghormach district in Badghis province.

United States-led forces have said they are checking the reports.

On Wednesday President Hamid Karzai condemned a US air strike which killed 40 people at a wedding in the south.

The raid was aimed at the Taleban in the province of Kandahar.

Mr Karzai called on Barack Obama to prevent civilian casualties when he take over as US president.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7713065.stm

Given the lack of impact of numerous previous condemnations of attacks leading to civilian deaths it seems until a military commander is actually held responsible for one of these atrocities it is likely they will continue unabated.

Even if the military top brass care nothing for civilian casualties they must realize these reckless attacks are the perfect recruiting sergeant for anti-western forces.

 

[OAQfirst]

Attackers in Afghanistan have sprayed acid in the faces of at least 15 girls near a school in Kandahar, police say.

...

Correspondents say the attack is likely to have been carried out by those opposed to the education of women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7724505.stm

These attacks on women/girls, which happen in similar fashion elsewhere as well, I never understand. It only proves how weak those guys are where they become concerned about females actually accomplishing something with their lives. Geez, talk about insecurities!

 

[Art]

A good article from the Independent drawing parallels between the situation in Afghanistan today and the past.

snip

Kabul 30 years ago, and Kabul today. Have we learned nothing?

At night, the thump of American Sikorsky helicopters and the whisper of high-altitude F-18s invade my room. The United States of America is settling George Bush's scores with the "terrorists" trying to overthrow Hamid Karzai's corrupt government.

Now rewind almost 29 years, and I am on the balcony of the Intercontinental Hotel on the other side of this great, cold, fuggy city. Impeccable staff, frozen Polish beer in the bar, secret policemen in the front lobby, Russian troops parked in the forecourt. The Bala Hissar fort glimmers through the smoke. The kites – green seems a favourite colour – move beyond the trees. At night, the thump of Hind choppers and the whisper of high-altitude MiGs invade my room. The Soviet Union is settling Leonid Brezhnev's scores with the "terrorists" trying to overthrow Barbrak Karmal's corrupt government.

Thirty miles north, all those years ago, a Soviet general told us of the imminent victory over the "terrorists" in the mountains, imperialist "remnants" – the phrase Kabul communist radio always used – who were being supported by America and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Fast forward to 2001 – just seven years ago – and an American general told us of the imminent victory over the "terrorists" in the mountains, the all but conquered Taliban who were being supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Russian was pontificating at the big Soviet airbase at Bagram. The American general was pontificating at the big US airbase at Bagram.

This is not déjà-vu. This is déjà double-vu. And it gets worse.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/kabul-30-years-ago-and-kabul-today-have-we-learned-nothing-1029920.html

 

[Astronuc]

Ideally, Afghanistan would become calmer, democratic and more favorably disposed to the US and other countries, however -

Inexplicable Wealth of Afghan Elite Sows Bitterness
In One of the World's Poorest Nations, Myriad Tales of Official Corruption
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102038.html

KABUL, Jan. 11 -- Across the street from the Evening in Paris wedding hall, a monument to opulence surrounded by neon-lighted fountains and a five-story replica of the Eiffel Tower, is a little colony of tents where 65 families, mostly returnees from Pakistan, huddle against the winter cold and wish they had never come home.

Similar startling contrasts abound across the Afghan capital. Children with pinched faces beg near the mansions of a tiny elite enriched by foreign aid and official corruption. Hundreds of tattered men gather at dawn outside a glittering new office building to compete for 50-cent jobs hauling construction debris.

"I am a farmer with 11 children. Our crops dried up, so I came to the city to find work, but all day I stand here in the cold and no one hires me," said Abdul Ghani, 47. "All the jobs and money go to those who have relatives in power, and corruption is everywhere. How else could they build these big houses? Nobody cares about the poor," he added bitterly. "They just make fun of us."

Seven years after the fall of the Taliban and the establishment of a civilian-led, internationally backed government, Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world, with rates of unemployment, illiteracy, infant mortality and malnutrition on a par with the most impoverished nations in sub-Saharan Africa. Most homes lack light, heat and running water; most babies are born at home and without medical help.

. . . .

Something's got to change - and ASAP.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is why I was concerned about Obama's declaration that he wanted to focus on Afghanistan and "kill Osama bin Laden."
The place is a wreck and more military action to try ferreting out a man who may already be dead is not going to fix anything.
I hope he has some good ideas and doesn't really intend to continue America's 9/11 vendetta.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting perspective on Afghanistan.

What Are We Doing in Afghanistan?
http://www.slate.com/id/2210624
We're still figuring that out.
By Fred Kaplan

Not long ago, Afghanistan was known as "the good war." Now some are calling it "Obama's Vietnam." Both tags exaggerate. . . .

Unlike those who got us into Vietnam, today's top officials—including President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates—at least see the specter. Both have emphasized that their goals in Afghanistan are limited; daydreams of turning the place into a democratic republic—"some central Asian Valhalla," as Gates snorted in recent hearings—are over. Gates further stated at those hearings, before the Senate armed services committee, that he would endorse his commanders' request for three additional brigades—but that he'd be "deeply skeptical" of subsequent requests for more. The fighting needs to be done mainly by Afghan troops, he said, adding that if the Afghan people begin to see it as an American war, "we will go the way of other imperial occupiers."

. . . . .

On a side note - Kyrgyzstan says U.S. air base decision is final
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090206/ts_nm/us_kyrgyzstan_usa_base_28

BISHKEK (Reuters) – Kyrgyzstan said on Friday its decision to shut a U.S. air base was final, dealing a blow to Washington's efforts to retain what has been an important staging post for U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan.

The United States said it was still "engaged" with Kyrgyzstan about keeping the Manas base in the poor, former Soviet republic and traditional Russian ally. But one senior Kyrgyz official said no talks were currently taking place.

Kyrgyzstan's stance has set a tough challenge for new U.S. President Barack Obama, who plans to send more troops to Afghanistan to try to boost NATO efforts to defeat Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents.

The standoff over the tiny but strategically placed nation marks a new twist in an escalating power struggle in Central Asia reminiscent of the 19th-century "Great Game" between tsarist Russia and the British Empire.

"The air base's fate has been decided," Adakhan Madumarov, Secretary of the Kyrgyz Security Council, told reporters.

"I see no reason why the air base should remain in place now that this decision has been taken ... We are not holding any talks on this," he added, hinting there will be no further discussions with Washington on the air base.

Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced the closure of the base this week after securing more than $2 billion in financial aid and credit from Russia at talks in Moscow.

The announcement left the United States scrambling to find alternative supply routes through other parts of Central Asia for shipments bound for landlocked Afghanistan.

Speaking in Tajikistan, another ex-Soviet republic in Central Asia, the U.S. envoy to Dushanbe said Tajikistan had agreed to offer its air space for transport of non-military NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

A Western diplomatic source told Reuters separately on Thursday the United States was close to a deal with Uzbekistan that would also allow Washington to open a new railway supply route for its troops in Afghanistan.
. . . .
RUSSIAN POSITION

Russia, irked by the U.S. military presence in Kyrgyzstan which it regards as part of its strategic sphere of interest, has long exerted pressure on the landlocked and mountainous Central Asian country to evict the U.S. forces.

. . . .

The Russians have offered to allow US transit of 'non-lethal' aid, e.g. food and supplies, and medical evacuations. I'm sure they are pleased to accept the money.

Uzbekistan has had a somewhat repressive government. All of the Central Asian countries are relatively poor, and their trade is hampered by powerful or unstable neighbors - not to mention corruption.

As someone correctly pointed out, both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (in fact all the stans) have had governments, which are problematic with respect to observing basic human and civil rights.

 

[mgb_phys]

Uzbekistan has had a somewhat repressive government.

No it isn't, it's a haven of peace and light in the region - a central asian Switzerland.
The British foreign office fired their ambassador for criticizing it.
Of course now we don't need t's airstrip, and we aren't torturing suspects there - opinions might be change.

 

[Astronuc]

Analysis: US base falls victim to Kyrgyz crisis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_re_as/as_kyrgyzstan_us_base_analysis

Kyrgyzstan may have felt it had no choice in expelling the U.S. from a base vital to the war in Afghanistan.

Months of crippling electricity shortages, soaring food prices and rampant unemployment have caused misery for much of the population. A reinvigorated opposition has threatened to stage nationwide protests against President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

Against that backdrop, Russia pledged to help raise $1.7 billion for a much-needed hydropower plant and issue a $300 million low-interest 40-year loan repayable over a 40-year period. Moscow also agreed to give $150 million in aid and cancel an outstanding $190 million debt.

But Russia has also made clear its objections to the Manas air base, saying it was only supposed to remain for two years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
. . . .
Kyrgyzstan, a largely Muslim, mountainous former Soviet nation on China's western frontier, has long been viewed as a relative oasis of democracy in a region that boasts some of the world's most repressive dictatorships. But observers believe Bakiyev, who himself came to power in 2005 as the result of a nominally pro-Western popular uprising, is on a drive to strengthen his grip on power.

New York-based democracy watchdog organization Freedom House noted in its latest country report on Kyrgyzstan that democratic rights and press freedoms have steadily worsened over the last year.
. . . .

Let's see what Bakiyev and his administration do in the near term.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama's biggest foreign policy challenge? It's Pakistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090207/wl_mcclatchy/3162640

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A nearly completed U.S. military study is expected to say that nuclear-armed Pakistan , not Iraq , Afghanistan or Iran , is the most urgent foreign policy challenge facing President Barack Obama .

Pakistan , convulsed by a growing al Qaida -backed insurgency, hamstrung by a ruinous economy and run by an unpopular government that's paralyzed by infighting and indecision, is critical to U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan , thwart the spread of nuclear weapons and prevent tensions with neighboring India from escalating into a nuclear showdown.

The U.S. Central Command review is assessing the situation in the Middle East and South Asia as the Obama administration plans to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq and double the 30,000-strong American military presence in Afghanistan , several people involved in the study told McClatchy . They spoke on condition of anonymity because the study is still underway and they weren't authorized to discuss it publicly.

The assessment, they said, is expected to recommend major changes in the U.S. approach to the volatile region, including major increases in U.S. aid to Pakistan in areas such as public education, health care and good governance, in a bid to stem the poverty and illiteracy that help fuel the country's Islamic insurgency.

Stepped up non-military aid also could ease popular anger at the government and its chief ally, the United States , which many Pakistanis accuse of stoking the insurgency by relying primarily on military offensives and missile strikes that have claimed numerous civilian lives, the officials said.
. . . .

The Pakistani Taliban control most of the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and have seized Swat, a valley 100 miles from Islamabad . Electricity and food shortages have sparked unrest and stalled industrial production, and the stock market has dropped more than 60 percent while the Pakistani rupee has fallen 30 percent against the dollar in the last year.

Meanwhile, the coalition government led by President Asif Ali Zardari, mired in infighting and incompetence, has failed to unite around a strategy to contain the crisis, and some U.S. and Pakistani experts warn that there's a growing danger that Pakistan could have its fifth military coup since it won its independence from Britain in 1947.
. . . .

Well it seems that Afghanistan and NW Pakistan are the immediate and long-term challenges, in addition to the ME, and parts of Africa, and perhaps parts of S. America.

 

[WhoWee]

This is the real problem in Pakistan...not just for the US...but the entire world.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html

To really understand the importance, I think everyone needs to look closely at a map of the area...India and China to the East, the Middle East to the West...Russia to the North...and a border with Iran.

Predator drones have long been the safest and least offensive (to the population) way to "work" in the area...however, a troop build-up in Afghanistan will undoubtedly create new challenges to diplomacy.

 

[Astronuc]

Afghan [Karzai] Leader Finds Himself Hero No More
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/world/asia/08karzai.html

KABUL, Afghanistan — A foretaste of what would be in store for President Hamid Karzai after the election of a new American administration came last February, when Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator, sat down to a formal dinner at the palace during a visit here.

Between platters of lamb and rice, Mr. Biden and two other American senators questioned Mr. Karzai about corruption in his government, which, by many estimates, is among the worst in the world. Mr. Karzai assured Mr. Biden and the other senators that there was no corruption at all and that, in any case, it was not his fault.

The senators gaped in astonishment. After 45 minutes, Mr. Biden threw down his napkin and stood up.

“This dinner is over,” Mr. Biden announced, according to one of the people in the room at the time. And the three senators walked out, long before the appointed time.

Today, of course, Mr. Biden is the vice president.

The world has changed for Mr. Karzai, and for Afghanistan, too. A White House favorite — a celebrity in flowing cape and dark gray fez — in each of the seven years that he has led this country since the fall of the Taliban, Mr. Karzai now finds himself not so favored at all. Not by Washington, and not by his own.

In the White House, President Obama said he regarded Mr. Karzai as unreliable and ineffective. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said he presided over a “narco-state.” The Americans making Afghan policy, worried that the war is being lost, are vowing to bypass Mr. Karzai and deal directly with the governors in the countryside.

At home, Mr. Karzai faces a widening insurgency and a population that blames him for the manifest lack of economic progress and the corrupt officials that seem to stand at every doorway of his government. His face, which once adorned the walls of tea shops across the country, is today much less visible.

. . . .

Pity that this situation dragged on as long as it did. I'm pleased to see that the Obama administration is addressing the problem of the opium trade in Afghanistan.

 

[Art]

Afghan [Karzai] Leader Finds Himself Hero No More
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/world/asia/08karzai.html

Pity that this situation dragged on as long as it did. I'm pleased to see that the Obama administration is addressing the problem of the opium trade in Afghanistan.

The problem the West has in Afghanistan is there are no 'good' guys to support. Karzai is seen as the best of a bad bunch and so he currently is feted by the West.

Under the Taleban there was no opium trade so why not allow them back into power providing they break all links with international Islamic extremists with the threat of tactical bombing if they misbehave. They would probably be too busy fighting their old tribal wars to be too much of an international problem anyway.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years ordinary Afghanis will be ready to embrace Western ideology but for now it seems an utterly fruitless exercise to attempt to force it upon them, if they prefer to be locked in the past so be it, let them.

It is becoming more and more difficult to discern what exactly is the mission in Afghanistan??

 

[WhoWee]

The problem the West has in Afghanistan is there are no 'good' guys to support. Karzai is seen as the best of a bad bunch and so he currently is feted by the West.

Under the Taleban there was no opium trade so why not allow them back into power providing they break all links with international Islamic extremists with the threat of tactical bombing if they misbehave. They would probably be too busy fighting their old tribal wars to be too much of an international problem anyway.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years ordinary Afghanis will be ready to embrace Western ideology but for now it seems an utterly fruitless exercise to attempt to force it upon them, if they prefer to be locked in the past so be it, let them.

It is becoming more and more difficult to discern what exactly is the mission in Afghanistan??

Are you sure there was no opium trade...or was it less apparent?

 

[Proton Soup]

Afghan [Karzai] Leader Finds Himself Hero No More
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/world/asia/08karzai.html

Pity that this situation dragged on as long as it did. I'm pleased to see that the Obama administration is addressing the problem of the opium trade in Afghanistan.

getting rid of the poppies may be a strategic mistake. opium keeps the muslims in western china funded, and therefore makes it harder for the chinese government to establish a strong presence in the region.

although afghanistan is resource-poor, it's in a strategic position as far as caspian sea pipelines are concerned. i don't think Obama will find bin Laden, either. we can't afford to. if we did, people would expect us to leave.

 

[mheslep]

...Under the Taleban there was no opium trade so why not allow them back into power providing they break all links with international Islamic extremists with the threat of tactical bombing if they misbehave. They would probably be too busy fighting their old tribal wars to be too much of an international problem anyway.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years ordinary Afghanis will be ready to embrace Western ideology but for now it seems an utterly fruitless exercise to attempt to force it upon them, if they prefer to be locked in the past so be it, let them.

It is becoming more and more difficult to discern what exactly is the mission in Afghanistan??

If your position is that it's tolerable to have the Taliban return and behave as they did before, which clearly means treating all females as cattle, chopping off all the hands of the opium producers, and executing all dissenters; then why the concern about some tragic civilian deaths in a military operation here:

Yet more civilians killed by 'accident'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7713065.stm
Given the lack of impact of numerous previous condemnations of attacks leading to civilian deaths it seems until a military commander is actually held responsible for one of these atrocities it is likely they will continue unabated.

Even if the military top brass care nothing for civilian casualties they must realize these reckless attacks are the perfect recruiting sergeant for anti-western forces.

 

[Astronuc]

although afghanistan is resource-poor, it's in a strategic position as far as caspian sea pipelines are concerned. i don't think Obama will find bin Laden, either. we can't afford to. if we did, people would expect us to leave.

Afghanistan is poor in some resources, particularly energy, education and infrastructure, but the country sits astride huge deposits of metals, as does Baluchistan province in Pakistan, the nations of Iran and Turkey, and many parts of East Africa.

To process the ores, one needs technology and energy, which is sorely lacking in most of those nations. Iran has energy supplies and Turkey has technology.


The Taliban were reactionary and taking Afghanistan backward. They were a problem for the west, particularly the US, since they harbored al Qaida.

 

[Art]

If your position is that it's tolerable to have the Taliban return and behave as they did before, which clearly means treating all females as cattle, chopping off all the hands of the opium producers, and executing all dissenters; then why the concern about some tragic civilian deaths in a military operation here:

Afghanis can ill-treat each other as much as they like. If the general populace don't approve they won't put up with it. The sad fact is they like their ancient customs and practices. It may seem barbaric to us in the West but you don't exactly see ordinary Afghanis rushing out to welcome the NATO liberators for saving them from barbarism. Apart from the opium growers and the corrupt officials of course.

Regarding your specific question I have two problems with NATO forces killing civilians. First we are supposed to be better than that, both morally and militarily and secondly it creates resentment and hatred for the West which translates into violence against Western countries. Seeing as how our excuse for being there is to curb terrorism these mistakes seem to be in direct conflict with the mission. Killing one terrorist whilst you create 10 more doesn't seem to me like a winning strategy. Nor does protecting opium growers from the Taleban so they will 'like' us.

 

[Astronuc]

Afghanis can ill-treat each other as much as they like. If the general populace don't approve they won't put up with it. The sad fact is they like their ancient customs and practices. It may seem barbaric to us in the West but you don't exactly see ordinary Afghanis rushing out to welcome the NATO liberators for saving them from barbarism.

Actually, one will see many ordinary Aghanis who are happy to have the presence of Americans and westerners, but they dare not show that appreciation publicly lest they be target for retaliation.

A big problem is that the US and Nato forces cannot be everywhere, all the time, and especially at night. When US and Nato forces return to their bases, and the Taliban and al-Qaida sympathizers show up and kill whomever showed support for the US, Nato or the Afghan government (similar problem in Iraq). The vast majority of Afghanis are caught between the warring factions.

In the 1970's Afghanistan had a economy bifurcated between a rural, largely subsistence economy and an urban economy largely dependent on a state that in turn drew most of its income from the international state system and market. Agriculture and pastoralism accounted for more than 60 percent of GDP, and about 85 percent of the population depended on the rural economy for its livelihood.

Ref: Afganistan by Angelo Rasanayagam

That's still much the case, except for the increased US aid, too much of which has gone to corrupt officials. And some Afghanis, like some in Pakistan, go to the Gulf States for work and send remittances home to support family.

Some Afghanis are certainly angry or weary of US and Nato, particularly after US and Nato forces have bombed villages and killed many civilians (women and children).

 

[mheslep]

Afghanis can ill-treat each other as much as they like. If the general populace don't approve they won't put up with it. The sad fact is they like their ancient customs and practices. It may seem barbaric to us in the West but you don't exactly see ordinary Afghanis rushing out to welcome the NATO liberators for saving them from barbarism. Apart from the opium growers and the corrupt officials of course.

Though certainly no people relish the presence of foreign troops on their soil, the recent information I have from friends stationed over there is the opposite: generally locals are eager to point out to NATO troops infiltrating international fighters from Pakistan or the Middle East so that NATO can dispatch them. Visibly the Northern Alliance people were more than happy to join with NATO in the initial over throw of the Taliban. In any case I generally reject the view that the current problems there are all rooted in intractable ancient customs, or that the Taliban represents the general populace. Much of Afghani society was destroyed by the Soviets in the 80's, then the remaining rubble of society was bounced and pulverized into a finer dust by ~seven years under the Taliban. (More on the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1573181.stm" later, time permitting.). And a better comparison for the Taliban than the populace at large would be a (Pakistani backed) Klu Klux Klan, which happily was opposed by force when necessary.

Regarding your specific question I have two problems with NATO forces killing civilians. First we are supposed to be better than that, both morally and militarily and secondly it creates resentment and hatred for the West which translates into violence against Western countries. Seeing as how our excuse for being there is to curb terrorism these mistakes seem to be in direct conflict with the mission. Killing one terrorist whilst you create 10 more doesn't seem to me like a winning strategy. Nor does protecting opium growers from the Taleban so they will 'like' us.

Fair enough, but I've not seen the evidence that the situation is quantitatively that bad, or if indeed it is that it is likely to stay that way or worsen, especially given the demonstrated know how of Gen. Petraeus on this 'hearts and minds' topic in Iraq, though if the irretrievably lost case is made I agree, withdraw. The evidence of this would have to be pretty good, since the alternative posited above: withdraw "providing they break all links with international Islamic extremists with the threat of tactical bombing if they misbehave" must be a much less secure policy; AQ already faced tactical bombing before 9/11 (Sudan '98, etc) to little effect; bombing in general without eyes&boots on the ground is less effective tactically and more tragic for innocents.

 

[Astronuc]

Whooops! - Thousands of US weapons astray in Afghanistan: auditors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090212/pl_afp/usafghanistanmilitarypoliticscongress

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Thousands of US weapons, including assault rifles and grenade launchers, may be in Taliban or Al-Qaeda hands in Afghanistan because of lax controls, congressional auditors warned on Thursday.

The Pentagon has failed to track an estimated 87,000 weapons given to Afghan security forces, one-third of the 242,000 shipped by the US government between December 2004 and June 2008, the Government Accountability Office said.

A 46-page report by the GAO, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, said there had been no monitoring of a further 135,000 weapons donated by NATO allies to the poorly paid and corruption-rife Afghan army and police.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Pentagon had already taken action on the report's recommendations for tracking of serial numbers and physical inventories of weapons given by both the United States and allies.
. . . .

Not exactly the progress we need.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe Senator Patrick Leahy should go over and investigate.

 

[drizzle]

Why don’t you look at this generally …… countries that US have claimed that they involve or associate with terrorism….Afghanistan … Iran… Iraq... Syria… Lebanon… Palestine ….doesn’t that form a belt what are they really looking for ? or are they waiting to do something and create causes to fill the gaps between those countries and form a perfect belt.. then reveal their real goals??

 

[WhoWee]

I think you forgot Saudi Arabia

 

[edward]

Most sources I have read indicated that Afghanistan has no or few natural resources. My assumption from that information now appears to be wrong.

JALREZ VALLEY, Afghanistan — In this Taliban stronghold in the mountains south of Kabul, the U.S. Army is providing the security that will enable China to exploit one of the world's largest unexploited deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its voracious appetite for raw materials.

U.S. troops set up bases last month along a dirt track that a Chinese firm is paving as part of a $3 billion project to gain access to the Aynak copper reserves. Some troops made camp outside a compound built for the Chinese road crews, who are about to return from winter break. American forces also have expanded their presence in neighboring Logar province, where the Aynak deposit is.

The U.S. deployment wasn't intended to protect the Chinese investment — the largest in Afghanistan's history — but to strangle Taliban infiltration into the capital of Kabul. But if the mission provides the security that a project to revive Afghanistan's economy needs, the synergy will be welcome.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11863389?source=rss

Edit: OK let's add some oil.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Afghanistan also has more than 1.5 billion barrels of oil — almost untapped since soldiers of Alexander the Great discovered pools of oil in the north more than 2,000 years ago — and 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/283335.php

 

[Astronuc]

There are developed gas fields in Baluchistan, which is the Pakistani province on the southern border of Afghanistan.

Eastern Afghanistan sits astride the Tethyan Metallogenic Belt, which travel across the middle of Turkey, Iran, Baluchistan, and turns up into Afghanistan from Kandahar through Kabul, then turns east through the Wakhan corridor and N. Pakistan and over to Tibet.

The area is relatively rich in copper, gold and other heavy metals.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/afghanminerals/docs/afghan_supp_final.pdf

BHP Billiton has a big copper development in Baluchistan.