The Aghanistan War

[Greendruid]

I was surprised to see that we don't have a thread for this yet so I thought I'd start one up.

So, yeah, wow, what a fucking mess! That's my assessment of the situation and always has been.

What are your thoughts on the War in Afghanistan? Why are we there? What is it accomplishing? When will it end? What are we fighting?

If you're interesting in listening to possibly one of the most disturbing and equally inspiring radio-plays ever, I strongly recommend you visit one that the CBC produces called Afghanada. Because of the time that's its usually broadcast I usually catch it unawares at 11:30 p.m. while driving down the dimly lit country highway to my home. I recommend listening to this in low light or pure darkness - it enhances the effects!

http://www.cbc.ca/afghanada/

[Michael]

I was surprised to see that we don't have a thread for this yet so I thought I'd start one up.

So, yeah, wow, what a fucking mess! That's my assessment of the situation and always has been.

What are your thoughts on the War in Afghanistan? Why are we there? What is it accomplishing? When will it end? What are we fighting?

Your analysis is a good one (unfortunately).

And although I've been following the issue quite closely - I must admit that I am vexed. I honestly just don't have a clue about how to proceed here.

I certainly supported and continue to support Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what that mission is anymore and doubt if any of the grand poobahs in the Foreign Affairs office do either.

One key problem in Afghanistan has been the 'too many cooks' issue with NATO, UN, France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Canada and USA all calling the shots at different times and in different places. Big problem with 'left hands' and 'right hands' not co-ordinated with each other. And the US fetish for playing DEA games in the middle of a battlefield of course complicates things enormously. US passion for playing their own game and ignoring the allies also helps make the complicated mess even worse.

And the fact that Afghanistan is truly a 3rd world nation centuries away from modern society let alone democracy and the rule of law is doubly difficult. Likewise with the traditional system of rulership by tribal clans with no loyalty to any save their own. And of course the trans-border Pushkins are as fickle and as stubborn as the Kurds. And the Karzi government in Kabul is probably the most corrupt and incompetent government on the planet. And of course that means Karzi is VERY well connected in Washington and much favored there (US installed him in Kabul).

To describe it as a mess is an understatement. Clearly 'western liberal internationalism' has bit off more than they can chew here.

If you're interesting in listening to possibly one of the most disturbing and equally inspiring radio-plays ever, I strongly recommend you visit one that the CBC produces called Afghanada. Because of the time that's its usually broadcast I usually catch it unawares at 11:30 p.m. while driving down the dimly lit country highway to my home. I recommend listening to this in low light or pure darkness - it enhances the effects!

http://www.cbc.ca/afghanada/
I'll check it out.

[Americano]

Another Afghanistan civilian wedding party bombed:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-05-voa34.cfm

It is one incredible clusterfuck. Why we're still using indiscriminate air strikes to further antagonize the indigenous population in what's a guerrilla war is beyond comprehension. It's a proved fact those actions accomplish nothing but an increase in support for resistance.

Is the US out to break the USSR's engagement record for a failed colonization?

[partofme]

I was discussing this with a Bush supporter (there still are some believe it or not) and he said we should leave Afghanistan and then The Taliban wouldn't have a target and would likely negotiate with the Afghan government but ultimately things would be stable. What kind of bullshit is that?

[Michael]

I was discussing this with a Bush supporter (there still are some believe it or not) and he said we should leave Afghanistan and then The Taliban wouldn't have a target and would likely negotiate with the Afghan government but ultimately things would be stable. What kind of bullshit is that?
The Taliban would take over Afghanistan entirely (again) and run it like a medieval Islamic dictatorship - aiding and abetting OBL and Al-Queda just like before.

[partofme]

The Taliban would take over Afghanistan entirely (again) and run it like a medieval Islamic dictatorship - aiding and abetting OBL and Al-Queda just like before.

That's the point I've been trying to make. He seems to think that there is no way the Afghan people would let that happen and they would stop fighting since their primary target is us. What's even odder is he is staunchly against a time line in Iraq yet he thinks we should leave Afghanistan because it would motivated the Afghan government and army to pick up the slack. Apparently this only works as a motivator in countries he doesn't want us in.

[Americano]

The Taliban would take over Afghanistan entirely (again) and run it like a medieval Islamic dictatorship - aiding and abetting OBL and Al-Queda just like before.

That's fine by me. But I don't think we should be nation building in any country for any reason. I'd like to see the majority of foreign bases closed unless the residents of those countries want to foot the bill, aid for Israel dropped to a humanitarian status with no military assistance and the US military budget cut in half.

[The Sister]

Ok to provide you with a giggle - here's my solution to Afghanistan.

Given more than 60% of the GNP of the country is opium and that money is all blackmarket - providing tons of money for corruption....

I say nationalize the opium farms, pay the farmers really well to grow the stuff, the former drug thugs are hired to protect the fields and personal consumption is made illegal. Then the gov't runs a clearing house market where they sell the crop by auction to the highest bidder, be that Chinese Triads (buying to resell) or the US DEA (buying to destroy). That brings all the moola into the legal government (probably eliminating the need for foreign aid) and gives the international market exactly what they want!

Now doesn't the thought of the suits negotiating that deal make you smile:D

[Michael]

Ok to provide you with a giggle - here's my solution to Afghanistan.

Given more than 60% of the GNP of the country is opium and that money is all blackmarket - providing tons of money for corruption....

I say nationalize the opium farms, pay the farmers really well to grow the stuff, the former drug thugs are hired to protect the fields and personal consumption is made illegal. Then the gov't runs a clearing house market where they sell the crop by auction to the highest bidder, be that Chinese Triads (buying to resell) or the US DEA (buying to destroy). That brings all the moola into the legal government (probably eliminating the need for foreign aid) and gives the international market exactly what they want!

Now doesn't the thought of the suits negotiating that deal make you smile:D
The thought of it makes me laugh!

In other news in Afghanistan...

German general criticizes nation's efforts in Afghanistan

Source (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/12/01/german_general_criticizes_nations_efforts_in_afgha nistan/?page=full)

As one commentator put it, "the one time we've got the Germans fighting on our side they have to start acting like they are Italians?"

That made me laugh. So true. Must be weird describing/witnessing a half-assed German military operation.

[Michael]

Well, things in Afghanistan are not looking up at all. Here are some of my thoughts on the situation...

1. The campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan has been going very badly over the last 12 months. The Taliban have been gaining ground and steadily increasing their influence throughout the country.

2. The 'war' in Afghanistan is generally seen by Afghanis as essentially one between 'the west' and 'the Taliban'. This war does not belong to the Afghani people - they are merely pawns in the war.

3. The number one reason Afghanis oppose western military assistance is due to the high number of Afghani civilians killed by US airstrikes (which accounts for approximately half of all killed in Afghanistan).

4. Most serious observers of the situation in Afghanistan keep saying (over and over) that the situation in Afghanistan does NOT call for additional military power. Most importantly, analysts consistently call for a massive reduction in US airstrikes as totally counter-productive

5. The Obama Administration has just approved the sending of 17,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan. Source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0Z2Awbv2fnM&refer=us)

6. The US military has a well-documented history of defending their troops in the field with airstrikes. Airstrikes in Iraq more than doubled during the US 'surge'. More US troops in Afghanistan is thus, pretty much a guarentee that there will be MORE US airstrikes (in order to defend 'more' US troops).

As it stands, the US 'troop surge' in Iraq essentially was a feint to cover the fact that the US had re-defined their mission there. This has worked out reasonably well because it coincided with Iraqis taking control of Iraq. The 'surge' really was only a US domestic political policy - it was targeted to the US domestic market and that's where it had its greatest effect. It had very little to do with the situation on the ground in Iraq.

Sure looks like the same game is being played now in Afghanistan. A 'surge' policy directed at the US domestic market and cross one's fingers for Afghanistan. This doesn't look good at all.

Bottom line is that throwing an additional 17,000 US troops into Afghanistan addresses not one identified need in Afghanistan and flies in the face of what experts (and the Afghanis) are suggesting.

Question is, can anyone explain what the US strategy here is? They need a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and they need an exit strategy. As it stands, they have neither. And that's the main problem here. No one really knows what the plan in Afghanistan is - or rather, there are a half-dozen different plans out there and no one knows which one is actually being followed (if any of them). The US and the west need a realistic plan for Afghanistan that defines just what it is the US/west is hoping to achieve there. As it stands, most of the NATO countries are in full 'withdrawl' mode given the lack of progress and the lack of a strategy/plan. NATO members are increasingly viewing the Afghan operation as a political deadend that isn't worth fighting for - especially since they have no real control over the situation in Afghanistan (which has always been, and continues to be, dominated by US military and political interests).

[serena sattar]

I was surprised to see that we don't have a thread for this yet so I thought I'd start one up.

So, yeah, wow, what a fucking mess! That's my assessment of the situation and always has been.

What are your thoughts on the War in Afghanistan? Why are we there? What is it accomplishing? When will it end? What are we fighting?

If you're interesting in listening to possibly one of the most disturbing and equally inspiring radio-plays ever, I strongly recommend you visit one that the CBC produces called Afghanada. Because of the time that's its usually broadcast I usually catch it unawares at 11:30 p.m. while driving down the dimly lit country highway to my home. I recommend listening to this in low light or pure darkness - it enhances the effects!

http://www.cbc.ca/afghanada/

Alot of people i have asked have said that they make a ton of money off each one of these wars they make. I am against war.

[Michael]

Alot of people i have asked have said that they make a ton of money off each one of these wars they make. I am against war.

First of all, welcome to the forum! :)

As for the war in Afghanistan, I agree that war is nasty business and it is easy to say that one is "against war".

But I see you are Canadian. Canada is 'at war' in Afghanistan ostensibly fighting so that women may have legal rights in Afghanistan and so that girls may go to school there. These are the goals that Canada is fighting for in Afghanistan. Do you support these goals? Do you think that these goals could be achieved without the use of guns?

[The Sister]

Canada is 'at war' in Afghanistan ostensibly fighting so that women may have legal rights in Afghanistan and so that girls may go to school there. These are the goals that Canada is fighting for in Afghanistan. Do you support these goals? Do you think that these goals could be achieved without the use of guns?

This is absolutely the reason I support the war in Afghanistan, being primarily against war as a solution for anything.

A group of women I am part of, plays rummoli (cards) once a month and we each pay a twoonie ($2) to play and have collected $326 dollars to date. We are saving up for $750 which will pay for a teacher for girls for a year in Afghanistan.
Check out the website of Canadian women for women in Afghanistan.
www.w4wafghan.ca (http://www.w4wafghan.ca)

Afghanistan was an amazing place in the 70s and I have many friends who travelled there, women were doctors and lawyers and there was music everywhere. It was a colourful vibrant society.

We need to support whatever forces will bring that society back to Afghanistan. And perhaps guns/military/police are necessary in this place at this time.

[Michael]

Something tells me that this is not going to work out well...

'Witness for Jesus' in Afghanistan



US soldiers have been encouraged to spread the message of their Christian faith among Afghanistan's predominantly Muslim population, video footage obtained by Al Jazeera appears to show.

Military chaplains stationed in the US air base at Bagram were also filmed with bibles printed in the country's main Pashto and Dari languages.

In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, is seen telling soldiers that as followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him".

"The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down," he says.

"Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business."

Source (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/200953201315854832.html)

As if the US military didn't have enough troubles in Afghanistan without adding more of their own making...

[andrewl]

Something tells me that this is not going to work out well...



Source (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/200953201315854832.html)

As if the US military didn't have enough troubles in Afghanistan without adding more of their own making...


Its amazing how some things never change after hundreds of years.

Andrew

[Americano]

Something tells me that this is not going to work out well...



Source (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/200953201315854832.html)

As if the US military didn't have enough troubles in Afghanistan without adding more of their own making...

How stupid does it get?

[partofme]

The sad thing is that if anybody with any brains in the military points out that preaching to these people will lead to more Islamic resistance then they will say it's typical war on Christianity political correctness and not allowing them their religious freedom. Christians who are by far in the majority always act like some oppressed minority to get their way.

[Greendruid]

[sigh]

I was ... reluctant to call the invasion of Iraq the next Crusade. I give people the benefit of the doubt a lot.

I was ... forgiving not to call the Afghanistan invasion the next Crusade. As GWB put it - "Fool me once, shame on ... you? Fool me ... you can't fool me again!"

This is amazing to me. As I read this I could hear what sounded like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin rolling two or three times each in their respective graves. How is it that this is happening in the US? Where are the descendants of the revolution that separated church and state? Where is the American Civil Liberties Union on this issue? These soldiers and these chaplains indeed should be discharged immediately! I never thought that we'd see Protestant versions of a Crusade but it appears that this may be the case. The death of an empire is an ugly thing to witness indeed!

[SMadsen]

Something tells me that this is not going to work out well...



Source (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/200953201315854832.html)

As if the US military didn't have enough troubles in Afghanistan without adding more of their own making...
LMAO

No surprise there.

[Michael]

If Obama thinks the Cambridge police 'acted stupidly' by arresting Skip Gates, I wonder what adverb he'd use to describe his own latest police strategy in the War on Drugs in Afghanistan. 'Gee, let’s kill the top drug dealers.' Sounds smart at first glance, but given how lucrative the drug trade is, what do you think will happen after few of the top leaders are bumped off? Answer: others will compete to take their places. Police in the United States are just beginning to admit that their own efforts to remove drug dealers from the street drug markets of the late 1980s may have been the cause of the spike in violence in America's cities in this same period. Why? Because the police operations threw drug markets into chaos, leading to a ruthless competition among those who would take the place of the dealers whom the police were eliminating. In short, this is a formula to escalate the cycle of violence in Afghanistan, not to end it. For anyone who's been awake and watching the many failed strategies in the US war on drugs at home, it just looks stupid.

Source (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/)

News from Afghanistan is not good and the future looks bleak. Obama's new general there seems to want an additional 45,000 troops, and the US forces are undertaking two big local problems that have been massive failures in the USA.

That is to say, the US military in Afghanistan is now trying to 'reform' the prison system in Afghanistan (that seems like a joke given that the US has one of the worst prison problems on the planet) and is going to bring the War on Drugs to Afghanistan (probably because it was so successful at home).

I didn't think it would be possible, but Obama has managed to make Afghanistan look much worse than Bush made it.

I'm not fucking impressed with Obama on foreign policy at all. He seems to be in way over his head and making stupid decisions that have already been proven failures. He should stick to Town Halls on healthcare issues. He ain't do anyone any favors in Afghanistan.

[Americano]

Source (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/)

News from Afghanistan is not good and the future looks bleak. Obama's new general there seems to want an additional 45,000 troops, and the US forces are undertaking two big local problems that have been massive failures in the USA.

That is to say, the US military in Afghanistan is now trying to 'reform' the prison system in Afghanistan (that seems like a joke given that the US has one of the worst prison problems on the planet) and is going to bring the War on Drugs to Afghanistan (probably because it was so successful at home).

I didn't think it would be possible, but Obama has managed to make Afghanistan look much worse than Bush made it.

I'm not fucking impressed with Obama on foreign policy at all. He seems to be in way over his head and making stupid decisions that have already been proven failures. He should stick to Town Halls on healthcare issues. He ain't do anyone any favors in Afghanistan.

US presence in Afghanistan is beginning to resemble Vietnam, Chapter 2.

[Michael]

US presence in Afghanistan is beginning to resemble Vietnam, Chapter 2.

Yes, its only a matter of time before the body-count metrics start getting reported.

[Lily]

I'm not all that clear on the strategic military importance of Afghanistan. I know it's the geocentric point in the region of Asia and the Middle East and I understand we'd probably like to have Iran surrounded by friendly faces. I also know about the poppy industry. I'm guessing there is a whole lot of natrual resources in the immediate surrounding area. Of course, the face we put on occupying Afghanistan is to rout out the bad Taliban guys and of course find the bad al-Qaeda guys, but I'm pretty sure all of that is for public consumption more than anything else.

Would anyone care to enlighten me?

[Michael]

I'm not all that clear on the strategic military importance of Afghanistan. I know it's the geocentric point in the region of Asia and the Middle East and I understand we'd probably like to have Iran surrounded by friendly faces. I also know about the poppy industry. I'm guessing there is a whole lot of natrual resources in the immediate surrounding area. Of course, the face we put on occupying Afghanistan is to rout out the bad Taliban guys and of course find the bad al-Qaeda guys, but I'm pretty sure all of that is for public consumption more than anything else.

Would anyone care to enlighten me?
I love questions like this! :)

Dateline: September 2001 - just a week before 9/11 - guess who G.W.Bush was hosting for a visit at the White House? Taliban officials!

The Central Asia region (Kazakistan and Ubekistan) has LOTS of natural gas resources and the ONLY way this product can be exported out of these regions is via Russian controled pipelines.

It has been an obsession of the US Government for a long time to build a natural gas pipeline across Afganistan and then underneath the Caspian Sea and then through Georgia to the Black Sea in order to bring this natural gas to western consumers (mostly Europe).

Thus, the US government has been intimately involved in all kinds of 'arrangements' in this region trying to secure the route and begin construction.

This also partially explains how the US has gotten so tight with Georgia as well as they are just as much a key portion of the route as Afghanistan is.

It is also to be noted that the Central Asian region is a geographic place that the US has never had much power and influence, but with the collapse of the USSR in 1989, the US military moved very quick to get its tentacles into the region - seeking to establish regional hegemony power there. The US is still playing Cold War power games. The end of the Cold War changes NOTHING.

The second reason that Afghanistan is of critical strategic importance is due to the weakness of Pakistan. The Taliban are originally a Pakistani group. They are seeking to take over Afghanistan - if they succeed, they will immediately use that as a powerbase to try to take over Pakistan next. Pakistan has nukes and this makes the issue of critical importance. Pakistan has pently enough problems without the Taliban controlling Afghanistan and seeking to takeover Pakistan.

So that's why Afghanistan is important and that's why US forces are in Afghanistan to stay - I'll say permanently.

[Lily]

I love questions like this! :)

Dateline: September 2001 - just a week before 9/11 - guess who G.W.Bush was hosting for a visit at the White House? Taliban officials!

The Central Asia region (Kazakistan and Ubekistan) has LOTS of natural gas resources and the ONLY way this product can be exported out of these regions is via Russian controled pipelines.

It has been an obsession of the US Government for a long time to build a natural gas pipeline across Afganistan and then underneath the Caspian Sea and then through Georgia to the Black Sea in order to bring this natural gas to western consumers (mostly Europe).

Thus, the US government has been intimately involved in all kinds of 'arrangements' in this region trying to secure the route and begin construction.

This also partially explains how the US has gotten so tight with Georgia as well as they are just as much a key portion of the route as Afghanistan is.

It is also to be noted that the Central Asian region is a geographic place that the US has never had much power and influence, but with the collapse of the USSR in 1989, the US military moved very quick to get its tentacles into the region - seeking to establish regional hegemony power there. The US is still playing Cold War power games. The end of the Cold War changes NOTHING.

The second reason that Afghanistan is of critical strategic importance is due to the weakness of Pakistan. The Taliban are originally a Pakistani group. They are seeking to take over Afghanistan - if they succeed, they will immediately use that as a powerbase to try to take over Pakistan next. Pakistan has nukes and this makes the issue of critical importance. Pakistan has pently enough problems without the Taliban controlling Afghanistan and seeking to takeover Pakistan.

So that's why Afghanistan is important and that's why US forces are in Afghanistan to stay - I'll say permanently.


Thanks, Michael. All of it makes perfect sense in an American mindset kind of way. Of course natural resources had to play a big role.

But, what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban? I thought at one point we had driven the Taliban out of power there. Wasn't that the reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place? Well, other than trying to find bin Laden?

[Michael]

Thanks, Michael. All of it makes perfect sense in an American mindset kind of way. Of course natural resources had to play a big role.

But, what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban? I thought at one point we had driven the Taliban out of power there. Wasn't that the reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place? Well, other than trying to find bin Laden?
Yes, US and NATO forces drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan back in 2002.

Unfortunately, the US pulled out their forces too quickly in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The US also made a point of installing their own man in Kabul (Karzai) who of course has been brutally corrupt and totally incapable of ruling - but he does have lots of connections with the US oil/gas industry and was also known as a 'longtime friend of the Bush family'.

The upside of that is that Taliban returned to Afghanistan just as quickly as they were booted out. Apparently the Karzai government was so corrupt and its government style bordering on anarchism, the Afghan people prefered to deal with the Taliban as they do offer security. Of course the American-puppet Karzai is still ruling in Kabul (even it is deteriorating), protected by NATO troops.

One big fucking mess is what it is.

[Americano]

Yes, US and NATO forces drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan back in 2002.

Unfortunately, the US pulled out their forces too quickly in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The US also made a point of installing their own man in Kabul (Karzai) who of course has been brutally corrupt and totally incapable of ruling - but he does have lots of connections with the US oil/gas industry and was also known as a 'longtime friend of the Bush family'.

The upside of that is that Taliban returned to Afghanistan just as quickly as they were booted out. Apparently the Karzai government was so corrupt and its government style bordering on anarchism, the Afghan people prefered to deal with the Taliban as they do offer security. Of course the American-puppet Karzai is still ruling in Kabul (even it is deteriorating), protected by NATO troops.

One big fucking mess is what it is.

With US federal tax revenues down 18%, a very unaffordable big fucking mess. As long as the MIC continues keeping politically sensitive US casualties low the dumb as a rock general public will continue feeding on the 'keeping America safe' rationalization.

[Lily]

A big fucking mess indeed. I'm reading there will be a presidential election on August 20th. Any chance that a) Karzai will be replaced? or b) it will make one bit of difference if he is or not?

[The Drunk Guy]

A big fucking mess indeed. I'm reading there will be a presidential election on August 20th. Any chance that a) Karzai will be replaced? or b) it will make one bit of difference if he is or not?
Karzai has been catering to the conservative extremists here lately, so I'm guessing he's viewed as progressive there. How's that for fucked up?

[Michael]

Karzai has been catering to the conservative extremists here lately, so I'm guessing he's viewed as progressive there. How's that for fucked up?
Obviously, Karzai is campaigning amongst his key constituents...

As I noted above, Karzai's political power base is the US Republican party.

He doesn't appear to have his own power base in Afghanistan. Classic American parachute dude - totally dependent upon the US for his political position.

[Lily]

Obviously, Karzai is campaigning amongst his key constituents...

As I noted above, Karzai's political power base is the US Republican party.

He doesn't appear to have his own power base in Afghanistan. Classic American parachute dude - totally dependent upon the US for his political position.


Okay. We'll handicap him for now then take him out when his policies become inconvenient. Par for the course.

And what's up with me and the sports metaphors today? Football season drawing near?

[Americano]

Okay. We'll handicap him for now then take him out when his policies become inconvenient. Par for the course.

And what's up with me and the sports metaphors today? Football season drawing near?

I still haven't completely whipped the habit of glancing at team spectator sports headlines to match the intellectual level of safe casual conversation in the corporate world. There was always someone who knew and quoted statistics to the point where one's brain would go numb. Afghanistan will continue to be a political irritation, but on the sidelines as important matters, like football, occupy the general public.

[Michael]

I'm guessing Karzai will be returned, for lack of any substantive alternative. Some bigshot tribal-warlord-general just 'endorsed' Karzai so he's got the 'momentum'.

I believe the key threshold is a 50% requirement to avoid a 'run-off'. If Karzai gets 50.01% he wins. If he gets only 49.9%, he has to face a runoff election and that might be a whole different ballgame. I'll expect him to pass the 50% mark due to the expected 'irregularities' since his only strength happens to be the place that is the most insulated from Taliban power (Kabul) and thus perhaps the only place that might have a decent turnout.

I hope I'm wrong though. It would be a source of inspiration to see the Afghanis have a high turnout (whatever the result).

[Americano]

I'm guessing Karzai will be returned, for lack of any substantive alternative. Some bigshot tribal-warlord-general just 'endorsed' Karzai so he's got the 'momentum'.

I believe the key threshold is a 50% requirement to avoid a 'run-off'. If Karzai gets 50.01% he wins. If he gets only 49.9%, he has to face a runoff election and that might be a whole different ballgame. I'll expect him to pass the 50% mark due to the expected 'irregularities' since his only strength happens to be the place that is the most insulated from Taliban power (Kabul) and thus perhaps the only place that might have a decent turnout.

I hope I'm wrong though. It would be a source of inspiration to see the Afghanis have a high turnout (whatever the result).

If one major warlord publicly supports him deals have been cut with other warlords, who also sit in government and most likely the Taliban. Karzai has US support which means more untold billions in graft (aid) for a thoroughly corrupt sitting government. Villagers will listen to the only form of government they respect, the warlord system.

Why not leave him in place? The mess is so enormous any lack of support by the US just means breaking in new people. Much of the warlord income from opium and government graft supports resistance to US occupation. Everyone involved at policy levels will, imo, block change with every possible effort.

[Greendruid]

The vote footage I've seen so far showed donkeys carrying the election results. Now, I'm the last person to knock the capability of a donkey. However, perhaps a more secure method of transportation for vote-counting should be employed? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the donkey blends in well with everyday traffic in Afghanistan. The mentality might go something like this: See an armoured vehicle, blow it up. See a donkey, let it pass. :shrug:

[Michael]

The vote footage I've seen so far showed donkeys carrying the election results. Now, I'm the last person to knock the capability of a donkey. However, perhaps a more secure method of transportation for vote-counting should be employed? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the donkey blends in well with everyday traffic in Afghanistan. The mentality might go something like this: See an armoured vehicle, blow it up. See a donkey, let it pass. :shrug:
I think an image showing a donkey carrying ballot boxes is a perfectly poignant symbol of the reality of Afghanistan.

Fact is, outside of Kabul and the Ring Road, there really aren't many actual roads in Afghanistan - it is one of the worlds most rugged terrains. There is good reasons that this place is called the 'graveyard of empires'. ;)

As such, donkeys are highly practical methods of transporting of goods from one village to the next over terrain that might be impervious to wheeled vehicles. And that situation does offer a good picture of the great challenge that 'we' are facing in Afghanistan. Ninty percent of the country appears to be still running on 14th century technology (except for cell phones, AK-47's and IEDs). Once you leave Kabul, you leave the modern world behind.

I don't have much faith in Afghani democracy at all - it can only be a sham since there are no democratic type institutions there at all outside of Kabul. Democracy needs more than just ballot boxes to function. I'm not a fan of 'pushing' democracy upon 3rd world countries since the results could be dangerously unpredictable - although corrupt military dictatorships ultimately appear to be the most common result. :shrug:

One hopes one can find a decent civilian politican to 'step up' and play the 'father of the country' role that seems almost necessary for success.

[Michael]

Early indications from Afghanistan election suggest that there was in fact a close race between Karzai and Abdullah.

I hope it wasn't too close of a race or it will be very messy with one side accusing the other of election-rigging. :shrug:

[Americano]

Early indications from Afghanistan election suggest that there was in fact a close race between Karzai and Abdullah.

I hope it wasn't too close of a race or it will be very messy with one side accusing the other of election-rigging. :shrug:

Results in September is what I'm reading. Fraud, killings, US dissatisfaction, etc., etc. seem to be the issues in any US military occupied country. Including NATO the US is getting close to the number of combat troops the USSR employed in that failure.

Current administration can't cut DoD expenditures or the GDP takes a big hit. I don't envy what they're faced with.

[Americano]

Has anyone else been following the election fiasco events in Afghanistan? Stuffing ballot boxes at gunpoint?

[Michael]

Has anyone else been following the election fiasco events in Afghanistan? Stuffing ballot boxes at gunpoint?

Nothing unusual or unexpected here.

What is unusual and/or unexpected is our moronic and ill-educated media acting all surprised about it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Afghanistan is at least a generation or two away from any kind of democracy. Until that time, all democratic forms will be just for appearances. Much like Russia I might add.

[Americano]

Nothing unusual or unexpected here.

What is unusual and/or unexpected is our moronic and ill-educated media acting all surprised about it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Afghanistan is at least a generation or two away from any kind of democracy. Until that time, all democratic forms will be just for appearances. Much like Russia I might add.

When the US is involved in creating democracy in another country it becomes appearances (a facade) and an easy way to openly consolidate power.

[Zarquon]

Firstly, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops there was a civil war going on, and the West ought to have intervened on the behalf of the Northern Alliance and righted the country well before 9/11.
Secondly, why did 'we' bother establishing democracy, when a vast majority of the country is impoverished, illiterate, and unemployed.
Surely a provisional govt with a written constitution that gets to work fixing these issues, with a deadline of 5-10 years set for elections to take place, would have been better? I do see how that might have just created another American-backed dictatorship in a basket case. The democracy business I suppose is a charade to give legitimacy to the current govt and get Afghans to accept its authority.

Perhaps it would have been better to let it become a loose federation of states like the 18th century US, with all the various tribals looking after their own provinces and thereby having a legitimate interest in preserving the state.

But, those are all what-ifs, and given the current situation; I don't think there can be any sort of victory; all we should do is establish a fit and sufficiently honest Army and police force, make the existing govt less corrupt and get around to solving problems, and just get out of there, after reducing the Taliban's influence by working with the people.
Controlling and reducing the poppy trade, building roads, and giving the Afghans jobs is the key in reducing Taliban's appeal to the youth.

[Lily]

Nothing unusual or unexpected here.

What is unusual and/or unexpected is our moronic and ill-educated media acting all surprised about it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Afghanistan is at least a generation or two away from any kind of democracy. Until that time, all democratic forms will be just for appearances. Much like Russia I might add.

As is Iraq. Of course, we'll camp out there until and after that happens.

[Michael]

As is Iraq. Of course, we'll camp out there until and after that happens.

Actually, Iraq is not quite as bad as Afghanistan. Iraq was (until the US invaded) one of the most economically and technologically advanced societies in the Middle East (right up there with the Palestinians).

I'd say it is only the Palestinians, Iraqis and Iranians that have any hope of making democracy work within the next generation. Every other country in the Middle East is like Afghanistan, at least two generations away (or more).

[Greendruid]

In a significant policy shift, the Canadian government now believes that telling the country's taxpayers the future cost of the war in Afghanistan would be a threat to national security, Canwest News Service has learned.

The Defence Department cited a national security exemption when it censored a request under the Access to Information Act by the federal NDP for the military costs of Canada's military participation in the NATO-led, United Nations-sanctioned military mission to Afghanistan.

When the NDP asked for the identical figures last year, the military made them public. was able to disclose in April 2008 that the yearly incremental cost of the Afghan war would top $1-billion for the first time since Canada's military became involved in Afghanistan in 2002.

But this year, military censors cited Section 15 of the act in blocking out the figure.Source (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cost+Afghan+state+secret+Tories/1719726/story.html)

If this doesn't frame the Tories as a Republican-style party, I don't know what else would do it. What a bunch of idiots. Yay! Our very own Vietnam! I feel like one of the big kids now! Next stop, the Arctic.

[Michael]

Source (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cost+Afghan+state+secret+Tories/1719726/story.html)

If this doesn't frame the Tories as a Republican-style party, I don't know what else would do it. What a bunch of idiots. Yay! Our very own Vietnam! I feel like one of the big kids now! Next stop, the Arctic.

When it comes to mimicking the Bush-Republican party, the Harper-Tories jumped that shark quite a while ago. The hand-picked, vetted crowds for all Harper appearances was the first clue. The appeal of the Canadian Supreme Court decision on Khadr, the big tax cuts and the massive deficit in just two years after inheriting a fiscal surplus of 1.5% of GDP, anti-abortion white papers, the attempt to deregulate Canadian banking laws to allow American style 'sub-prime' mortage games to be played in Canada in 2006, and of course, who hasn't noticed the 7/24 non-stop partisan-attack mode of government coming from the PMO? All of this is trademark G.W. Bush style government.

Here's hoping for a fall election. I think Harper is an idiot, but Ignatieff is only slightly less of one. Neither one of these foreign-minded fellows should even be allowed in Parliament, let alone the PMO.

[Americano]

Source (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cost+Afghan+state+secret+Tories/1719726/story.html)

If this doesn't frame the Tories as a Republican-style party, I don't know what else would do it. What a bunch of idiots. Yay! Our very own Vietnam! I feel like one of the big kids now! Next stop, the Arctic.

Withholding public spending amounts - welcome to our (US) world.

[Greendruid]

Based on the information given in today's post by Michael, something that has been brewing in the pot for several months if not years now, I vehemently re-state my opinion in the OP. This war must end, now:

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/...read.php?t=928 (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=928)

There are millions of veterans rolling in their graves to see the result of their sacrifice used in this manner. For what? Disgusting. Harper should be sent to the Hague and let the world decide what is appropriate as punishment. This is the only remedy to ensure re-gaining our role as a diplomatic, peaceful nation.

[Michael]

Based on the information given in today's post by Michael, something that has been brewing in the pot for several months if not years now, I vehemently re-state my opinion in the OP. This war must end, now:

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/...read.php?t=928 (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=928)

There are millions of veterans rolling in their graves to see the result of their sacrifice used in this manner. For what? Disgusting. Harper should be sent to the Hague and let the world decide what is appropriate as punishment. This is the only remedy to ensure re-gaining our role as a diplomatic, peaceful nation.
Indeed. :thumbsup:

Canada didn't send over several thousand soldiers (and sacrifice over 100 dead ones) to enable torture of Afghani people.

[Americano]

Indeed. :thumbsup:

Canada didn't send over several thousand soldiers (and sacrifice over 100 dead ones) to enable torture of Afghani people.

Be proud of your citizenship. We Americans have no moral or legal control of our leadership. They make the determinations and all we can do is keep track of them for purposes of self-preservation.

[Michael]

Be proud of your citizenship. We Americans have no moral or legal control of our leadership. They make the determinations and all we can do is keep track of them for purposes of self-preservation.

Canadian public opinion was about 85% against the US invasion of Iraq. It was about 50/50 amongst our members of Parliament. I was quite surprised to see Chretien have the balls to represent actual Canadian opinion on the issue. We are quite used to our government going against the majority of the citizenry to support US foreign policy (as is the present case with the Harper Government). When conservatives are in office in Canada, US foreign policy gets 100% rubberstamp support from Ottawa without even asking.

As in the USA, our Parliament is far more rightwing than the Canadian electorate. Quite a bit of this has to do with our multiparty system that tends to split the vote on the left giving the Conservatives lots of seats with just 36% vote support. Split the rightwing vote and that means we end up with unassailable Liberal majorities (as during the 1990s). :shrug:

[andrewl]

What's up with Karzai? Is he legitimately pushing back against western pressure? Is he just a corrupt and crazy president losing his grip and lashing out with strange rhetoric?

Looks to me like Afghanistan might be unraveling a little bit quicker these days.

Andrew

[Michael]

What's up with Karzai? Is he legitimately pushing back against western pressure? Is he just a corrupt and crazy president losing his grip and lashing out with strange rhetoric?

Looks to me like Afghanistan might be unraveling a little bit quicker these days.

Andrew

I don't see anything unusual or unexpected here. Karzai is corrupt as all hell - we've known that all along. He was installed into office by the US because he was thought to be entirely corrupted by the Americans whom he has extensive contacts with (he's an old friend of GW Bush through oil contacts and the infamous pipeline deal). So having a corrupt Karzai as President of Afghanistan isn't a problem - that was US policy in the first place. The problem is that Karzai's corruption is conflicting with official US corruption and that's causing big problems in Afghanistan.

In other words, Karzai is lashing out against the US for the 'pot calling the kettle black'.

Fact is, US 'COIN' policy in Afghanistan involves massive amounts of official bribery (just like in Iraq). The result is that the Afghan economy is flush with LOTS of US money sloshing around and this has driven up the cost of corruption as a political policy. Karzai has had to increase his corruption just to keep up with the US military caused 'corruption inflation' there, just so Karzai can function.

So the US is acting all sanctimonious and bitching about Karzai's corruption when the problem is US military corruption.

One doesn't win wars by corrupting the opposition. Unfortunately, that's the only viable policy available to the US military in Afghanistan.

And this just underscores a point I've made earlier about how the US military and political establishment makes huge errors based on believing their own propaganda. I'm referring here to the Iraqi policy that involved bribing large numbers of Sunni insurgents to switch sides (Sons of Iraq, or Sunni Awakening). The US military-political establishment believe that their policy was 100% successful there and thus the same policy is being applied in Afghanistan.

However, my analysis suggests that it was Sadr's unilateral command of a ceasefire that was the primary factor that ended the insurgency in Iraq, not anything to do with US policy. Poor insurgents will take money from anyone willing to give it to them. It doesn't 'buy' their loyalty (though sometimes it can be rented for a short period of time).

[Americano]

I don't see anything unusual or unexpected here. Karzai is corrupt as all hell - we've known that all along. He was installed into office by the US because he was thought to be entirely corrupted by the Americans whom he has extensive contacts with (he's an old friend of GW Bush through oil contacts and the infamous pipeline deal). So having a corrupt Karzai as President of Afghanistan isn't a problem - that was US policy in the first place. The problem is that Karzai's corruption is conflicting with official US corruption and that's causing big problems in Afghanistan.

In other words, Karzai is lashing out against the US for the 'pot calling the kettle black'.

Fact is, US 'COIN' policy in Afghanistan involves massive amounts of official bribery (just like in Iraq). The result is that the Afghan economy is flush with LOTS of US money sloshing around and this has driven up the cost of corruption as a political policy. Karzai has had to increase his corruption just to keep up with the US military caused 'corruption inflation' there, just so Karzai can function.

So the US is acting all sanctimonious and bitching about Karzai's corruption when the problem is US military corruption.

One doesn't win wars by corrupting the opposition. Unfortunately, that's the only viable policy available to the US military in Afghanistan.

And this just underscores a point I've made earlier about how the US military and political establishment makes huge errors based on believing their own propaganda. I'm referring here to the Iraqi policy that involved bribing large numbers of Sunni insurgents to switch sides (Sons of Iraq, or Sunni Awakening). The US military-political establishment believe that their policy was 100% successful there and thus the same policy is being applied in Afghanistan.

However, my analysis suggests that it was Sadr's unilateral command of a ceasefire that was the primary factor that ended the insurgency in Iraq, not anything to do with US policy. Poor insurgents will take money from anyone willing to give it to them. It doesn't 'buy' their loyalty (though sometimes it can be rented for a short period of time).

The US certainly rented Sunni loyalty in Iraq through cash payments. Without that factor and Sadr's ceasefire the infamous surge would have fallen flat on its face.

I must add that I feel a majority of Americans and others who haven't traveled outside the US in countries where bribes are as common as taking a breath of air have little to no comprehension of the extreme affect that tidal wave of USD has had on Afghanistan politics and day-to-day life.

How would an American react to securing a $25 driver license while slipping $200 or so extra in cash to the agent, who has to slip X amount to cover every step of the process including the bureaucrats who manage the agency to ensure the paperwork was accomplished before they actually received the license itself?

[Americano]

I was just reading where private contractors in Afghanistan (more USD inflating Afghanistan's corrupt economy) now exceed military occupation forces. As the licensed to kill armed contractors, PSCs (private security contractors in DOD speak) leave Iraq they go directly to Afghanistan. Many analysts justifiably believe DOD would be unable to fulfill its mission without PSCs. It's almost funny how the word mercenary has been studiously avoided by the media since the US and UK began widespread use of PSCs to remain within legislated military personnel numbers.

[Michael]

Gosh, large-scale hiring of mercenaries armies has never been a problem for any other imperialist nation in the past...

:facepalm: