babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Report: Cdn Soldier Killed in Afghanistan II

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Report: Cdn Soldier Killed in Afghanistan II
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 31 March 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
I would like to address the whole military issue from another point of view.

As I have previously stated, I have no problem with having defensive capability and using the military exclusively for the defense of the nation and helping with the relief during and after natural disasters. In fact, I could be proud of such men and women who dedicate their life to such service of the nation and our safety, as I am proud of Firefighters. But that is not the nature of our current Armed Forces.

My problem with military starts when the line is crossed and our soldiers become aggressors and murderers of people who have never done any harm to Canada. I don't care and am not concerned about what perfume the government and media will dump on it to hide the stench of corruption, or what noble goal they want to attach to the 'mission'. The point is that in my mind there is never justification for a first strike and there is never justification to go to war with a nation that has done nothing against Canada.

Many people who support the military do so regardless of the deeds perpetrated, and yet, many of those same people think that a common murderer should receive the death penalty.

Many here - but not all - are offended at the expression of my views, because I see little difference between the soldiers of our current military, and any murderer convicted in Canadian courts. It is an absolute abuse of the purpose of national defense forces, and is an utterly offensive and disgusting act against human rights.

So then there is a naturally following question from all this which needs to be answered: What is the difference between a 'common' murderer who kills an innocent person on the streets of Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal or any other place, and a Canadian soldier who kills an innocent civilian while being part of an act of aggression in Afghanistan?

Is it the uniform? Is it the chain of command? Does Chretien, Martin and Harper somehow have a divine right to give orders to kill without provocation, while 'commoners' do not?

What about a Hitman? If the Hitman has no personal grudge against the victim, and just does 'the job' because it has been ordered by someone else, should he be excused from fault, and declared innocent, and does the fault for the killing at best lie with the person who ordered it, if with anyone at all?

Some here pretty much argue that if the murder is done in the name of the State and by Military personnel, it is not wrong, and yet, if the very same person would do the killing without orders and in civilian clothes, many would not argue that that person just committed murder, and some would even ask for the death penalty.

It is a culture of war and death which glorifies well-dressed killers. Even The Nuernberg Trials did not excuse those who just followed orders, and many trials have been held over the decades of people who have been wrong in following orders, despite them not having been the ultimate decision makers, like Mengele and Barbi.

What gives a few men the right to order the death of children, and calling it 'collateral damage', just because that doesn't sound as gruesome as what it actually is?

An interesting article I saw mentioned on babble is that Blackwater Security now offers a private army for any conflict. How about the killing by those people? Is it murder or is it justified? If these Blackwater people do not have to stand trial for (mass)murder in the US, does that mean that any billionaire is now permitted to start their own military and get away with it?

I cannot come to any other conclusion, given the circumstances,

- Canada was not attacked by Afghanistan
- Canada's military is all-volunteer
- Canadian soldiers are fighting side-by-side with the US
- Canadian soldiers are defending a regime forced upon the Afghan people by outside forces, which consists of a CIA Asset/Unocal President, Drug Dealers, War Criminals and Warlords
- Canadian soldiers aid in the distribution of land mines by being allied with the US forces
- Canadian soldiers kill not only Afghan Resistance fighters, but also civilians, indiscriminate of age or gender.
- Canadian soldiers are aiding in the perpetration of war crimes and are participating in the breach of international law and order

Our soldiers are currently engaged in acts of mass-murder, and war crimes. A military like that, and a soldier dying under those circumstances, deserves nothing from me and anyone who values human life indiscriminate of race, religion, age, gender and sexuality.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 31 March 2006 08:14 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Yossarian:
Now, I tend to agree that pablum is trolling in this thread, but to see this as a disagreement simply between him and Red Albertan is to miss an important point. This thread isn't quite the same as the seal-hunt threads, as there seems to be a consensus that Canada's Afghanistan mission is at best a continuing mistake and at worst a great moral wrong.

How can you call the forced subjugation and killing of innocent people "at best a continuing mistake and at worst a great moral wrong"? If your family were murdered by a soldier from another country which decided to invade us, would your verdict be the same? It isn't a mistake, and it isn't a moral wrong. It's a crime.

I cannot help but notice that many seem to have a disconnect from the actual events, and treat this whole war rather like a video game or a movie that doesn't portray real suffering, is all fake acting and contains a lot of fake blood and limbs. If you have children, put yourself into the position of an Afghan mother or father, with imagining your children dead or dismembered by shrapnel. What pain would you feel? Are you capable of putting your mind into such state of feeling someone else's pain? Maybe that will help you come to terms with what is really going on there. That is what Canadian soldiers are participating in on the ground in Afghanistan.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 31 March 2006 08:23 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A potential problem for the CF (and the UK) fighting alongside the Amerikans is that the Amerikans have refused to sign on to the international war crimes tribunal of the International Criminal Court. CF could be complicit in Amerikan war crimes, but with no legal consequences for the Amerikans. Probably there are other complications.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 31 March 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(For reference purposes: this thread is continued from here.)
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 01 April 2006 05:34 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's the problem, we're only 'peacekeeping' in Afghanistan. That's right, after having been bombarded by the media telling us that the old 'peacekeeper' identity is gone, and we're really fighting bad guys now, an American general goes and gives the show away.

NATO could handle all Afghan peacekeeping by August: General

quote:
NATO's top operational commander said Friday that the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force should be ready to take over peacekeeping duties throughout Afghanistan by the end of August, provided alliance members agree.

...U.S. Gen. James Jones, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said the planned expansion into the more dangerous southern sector is planned for July and the move eastward could be completed by August because it mainly involves bringing U.S. troops already there under NATO command.

...The Canadians are currently part of the U.S.-led coalition, but will come under the command of the NATO force when it expands into the southern sector this summer.


Gee, here we been told that Canada was leading the mission...I guess it depends on who you talk to, and what you mean by 'leadership'.

It is interesting however, that US forces will be brought into NATO, 'cause despite the fact that the US leads NATO (witness Jones as NATO's 'top operational commmander'), the US has never allowed their forces to be commanded by anyone excpept themselves.

Now it's true that given the command structure of NATO, it will still be a US general in command, but it will be outside of US forces command.

This could very well be a way of ducking out from under war crimes charges. After all, if the US troops aren't under direct control of US command, then US command can't be held responsible for what they do.

In any case, I found it interesting that after all the media telling us we weren't 'peacekeeping', you have a US general using the term. Yes, I know he's using it only as a sop, but you'd figure someone would have told him the term was no longer considered politically correct.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 April 2006 10:57 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think having three rockets land in the Canadian compound (as they did two nights ago), not to add daily attacks and suicide bombs, gives a pretty clear signal that this ain't peacekeeping - there's no peace to keep.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Islander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3450

posted 01 April 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for Islander     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A potential problem for the CF (and the UK) fighting alongside the Amerikans is that the Amerikans have refused to sign on to the international war crimes tribunal of the International Criminal Court. CF could be complicit in Amerikan war crimes, but with no legal consequences for the Amerikans. Probably there are other complications.

And with no legal consequences for Canada. Anyone who thinks that the international criminal court is about going after first world nations has another thing coming. Which political party would run on a platform of turning over Canadian soldiers to a foreign court?

By the way, calling them "Amerikans" is just so clever.....


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 01 April 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I think having three rockets land in the Canadian compound (as they did two nights ago), not to add daily attacks and suicide bombs, gives a pretty clear signal that this ain't peacekeeping - there's no peace to keep.

You can't keep peace if you're an invader, instead of an invited 'buffer' between two feuding groups.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 April 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by Islander:
By the way, calling them "Amerikans" is just so clever.....

You're too kind.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 01 April 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Islander:
And with no legal consequences for Canada. Anyone who thinks that the international criminal court is about going after first world nations has another thing coming. Which political party would run on a platform of turning over Canadian soldiers to a foreign court?

I agree with you on this view. The ICC is a 'victor's court'. Yet another tool of the G8 against the rest of the world.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 01 April 2006 12:18 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
I find it interesting that none of the people who so vehemently fight for 'respect for our troops' have bothered to answer any of the questions I have asked in the first posts of this current thread. There doesn't appear to be any ethical logic backing it up, but merely a strong sense of patriotism for the Vaterland and perhaps the racial superiority of the Anglo-Saxon culture.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 01 April 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will simply state what I have said each time thus far.

We are here to assist the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan with security, reconstruction and the establishment of governance throughout the country.

Afghanistan is trying to pull itself up by its bootstraps after some twenty five years of war. The Coalition is here to provide some breathing room and prevent a return to outright civil war. We are here as guests, and work side by side with our counterparts in the Afghan National Army. The ANA is growing and is a source of hope for the country. I really do admire my ANA allies for their toughness, cheerfullness in the face of advserity and courage. They understand the stakes.

We came here in the first place because Al Queda was intertwined with the Taliban leadership. The Sep 11 attacks brought the Coalition here. Now, we are helping to ensure that Afghanistan has a chance for some stability and that it cannot again become a haven for terrorists.

Yes, I am a volunteer. Yes, I work with US counterparts (and a host of others). I have yet to see what that has to do with anything.

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 April 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
TK, perhaps I should know from earlier threads, but where are you, exactly?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 April 2006 03:16 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tk is good at repeating the official line on the war in Afghanistan. However, many of his concepts have the most tenuous connection with reality, such as the idea that there is a "democratic government of Afghanistan".

Tk also thinks that he is there to prevent civil war. Well, that may be his intention, but the reality is otherwise. I am willing to bet that Tk does not understand the emotional force of the idea that infidel armies cannot occupy Afghanistan.

But in Afghanistan, that idea has led to more than one hundred years of rejection by force of all the well-intentioned occupiers. His presence in Afghanistan today is incubating insurgents, and strengthening the hold of Islamic fundamentalism on the population.

I'd like the supporters of the occupation to give us some figures, though. How many lives lost will be too many? How many billion dollars should be spent in Kandahar rather than in Nova Scotia or Manitoba?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 01 April 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:

I agree with you on this view. The ICC is a 'victor's court'. Yet another tool of the G8 against the rest of the world.


Speaking of the G8,Canada is punching above its weight by being included in the G8 when other economies outrank it. Brazil and India are bigger economies than Canada.

Canada was included in the G7 because of its former accomplishments and has under Liberal stewardship become irrelevant upon the international stage.As has been noted,internationally Canada runs to the can and hides when the bill is due.

How much of this new military posturing and agressiveness can be attributed to trying to maintain the present level of involvement in international affairs rather than a committment to instilling democracy in a country that does not understand the meaning of the term?

Canadians shedding blood uselessly so that the Canadian government can hang on to its seat at the IMF or the G8.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This assumes that we all approve of the G8 agenda, and that we want Canada to "punch over its weight," which seems to mean, according to your logic doing what is wanted of us. Kinda like Goering being first, foremost and loudest among Hitlers sychophants.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 01 April 2006 06:26 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

We are here to assist the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan with security, reconstruction and the establishment of governance throughout the country.

Whether that government qualifies as "democratically elected" or not seems to be an item of considerable debate.

quote:

The Coalition is here to provide some breathing room and prevent a return to outright civil war. We are here as guests, and work side by side with our counterparts in the Afghan National Army.

That sounds more like taking sides in a civil war, the same thing that the Soviets did.

quote:

We came here in the first place because Al Queda was intertwined with the Taliban leadership. The Sep 11 attacks brought the Coalition here.

Given that the Taliban were willing to give up OBL this view becomes a fairytale. Sep 11 was a cause celebre for a US administration set on going to war even before it formally took office. If there would have been no 911 there would have been something else from all indications.

quote:

Now, we are helping to ensure that Afghanistan has a chance for some stability and that it cannot again become a haven for terrorists.

What would you call a narco state? You are surely helping it to be the world's major supplier of opiates.

Do our troops tear out every opium poppy that they see? If not, why not?

Are Canadians asking questions about the massacre of prisoners at Mazar? If not, why not?

Are Canadians guaranteeing that all prisoners taken will not be turned over to any power that might torture or abuse them, or do they just hand them to the Afghans or the Americans?

How does one feel about supporting a government that has laws against free speech (apostasy comes to mind) or where execising religious freedom can be punished by death?


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 01 April 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TK 421:
We are here to assist the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan with security, reconstruction and the establishment of governance throughout the country.

Afghanistan doesn't have a democratically elected government. What Afghanistan DID have was a fixed ballot where only approved candidates were allowed to be listed, just like happened later in Iraq. If you don't dare list the Taliban (or Baath in Iraq) on the ballot, then how will you know for sure that they have not majority support? This was to ensure that no matter what, a US/Corporation-friendly "elected" dictator would rise to power.

quote:
Afghanistan is trying to pull itself up by its bootstraps after some twenty five years of war.

Last time I checked, Afghanistan - not counting the puppet government which cannot leave Kabul - is still at war, this time with its "Liberators".

quote:
The Coalition is here to provide some breathing room and prevent a return to outright civil war.

Well, that is simply not true, and I am sure that most readers who are not connected to the military know that.

quote:
We are here as guests,

Uninvited 'guests'. The kind of guests who start their decade-long 'visit' with a bombing campaign.

quote:
We came here in the first place because Al Queda was intertwined with the Taliban leadership.

Actually, the US government has more connection to al Qaida than the Taliban, since they're the ones who helped the create it.

quote:
The Sep 11 attacks brought the Coalition here.

Not really. All Bush needed to do was provide proof of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, and they would have handed him over. Bush refused because he wanted war, not peace.

quote:
Now, we are helping to ensure that Afghanistan has a chance for some stability and that it cannot again become a haven for terrorists.

Now you are helping that Afghanistan is supplying more drugs to the world than it ever did in its previous history. Job well done!

quote:
Yes, I am a volunteer. Yes, I work with US counterparts (and a host of others). I have yet to see what that has to do with anything.

Well, for one, you are a collaborator with a state-sponsored terrorist organization which supports narcotics trafficing, commits war crimes, uses banned weapons, operates Concentration Camps, and kills civilians.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 01 April 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl,

I guess "here" can be rather vague when I don't establish my location in first place. Sorry about that. I am currently based in Kandahar. Two years ago I served in Kabul.

All,

I am well aware of the history of Afghanistan. I was a casual student before 9/11, and since getting notified of my first deployment I have tried to read as widely as I can.

Civil war was what existed between the departure of the Soviets and the end of the Taliban rule. I've seen the massive destruction wrought by that war. I also saw the incredible outburst of growth and energy in Kabul that was occuring when I got there. There is, of course, still war in Afghanistan, but it is of a different nature. We (the Coalition and the Government and people of Afghanistan) can win this war. Regarding the Taliban, amnesty has continued to have been offered.

The press is doing a good job, however, of reporting our actions.

If anyone sends questions or comments my way please do not take my silence as rudeness. My access to internet is spotty at times.

Cheers,

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 02 April 2006 03:48 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TK 421:
...I am well aware of the history of Afghanistan. I was a casual student before 9/11, and since getting notified of my first deployment I have tried to read as widely as I can.

Civil war was what existed between the departure of the Soviets and the end of the Taliban rule...

K


Actually it wasn't civil war. It was a war in which the current bad guys (Taliban) were supported by the US, and their client states Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Those states continue to provide support for the Taliban, apparently without any repercussions from the US.

Zalmay Kahlilzad, first US ambassador to Afghanistan after 9/11, was always a big supporter of the Taliban in the 'civil war', and was also one of the architects of the US policy of creating and funding networks of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in Afghanistan, a policy which was carried on from the days of the Carter presidency to the present.

The US position in Afghanistan is very peculiar in terms of their rhetoric. The rant on about terrorism, drugs, etc, yet they continue to do almost nothing about those problems. Since the US occupation of Afghanistan the drug trade has blossomed, and is larger now than it ever was.

According to many observers, the 'governement' we're there to uphold is up to their eyeballs in the drug trade. At the same time, the US has made it clear that they will not be using their troops to interdict that trade.

In that Canada is taking it's marching orders from Washington, we are as deep as they are in the war crimes, torture, extra-judicial killings, and facilitating the opium/heroin trade.

The leaders of Canada, including the military leaders, are leaving themselves open to charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity by their association with the US military in Afghanistan.

If we must stay to help 'protect' Aghanis, the best way would be to help rid the country of US troops. As a bare minimum we should make it clear that we are not acting in concert with the US, we refuse to engage in cooperative military missions with them, and we'll fight them if necessary to prevent them from torturing and killing Afghanis.

Otherwise we should remove our troops from the country, and pursue charges against the US in the appropriate forum.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 02 April 2006 04:15 AM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was gone for a bit and the other thread's locked, so I'll reply to Jingles here.

quote:
Every fucking time. Could you please try a new fallacy, for a change of pace?

Which fallacy would that be? You made a non-demonstrable assertion, the substantiation of which (to any degree) could only come from experience since the entire issue is subjective.

quote:
Of course you don't, because you can't be bothered to look or think it through. The evidence is there, you choose to ignore it.

What evidence would that be?

quote:
Hu-ah. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Just curious, but by what racial epiphet do you and your fellow soldiers refer to Afghaniis?

Firstly, it's "HUA" - Heard, Understood, Acknowledged. I'm not sure how any of this follows from what I said. I simply suggested that, given the kill ratio, the insurgency is probably, if not now, going to be hurting for bodies. How that suggests racism, I don't know.

quote:
Originally posted by TK 421

TK-421, why aren't you at your post?

http://tinyurl.co.uk/sdc2


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 02 April 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Grape:

quote:
Firstly, it's "HUA" - Heard, Understood, Acknowledged. I'm not sure how any of this follows from what I said. I simply suggested that, given the kill ratio, the insurgency is probably, if not now, going to be hurting for bodies. How that suggests racism, I don't know.

I'm not sure what the 'kill ratio' was during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but I'm sure it wasn't fundamentally different than it is today.

115,000 Soviet troops, 10 years, result - loss of war, loss of country. Not for the Afghanis. I guess they were ignoring the 'kill ratio'.

In fact, a Canadian officer, in commenting on the 'enemy' during the recent battle where the Canadian soldier was killed was quite clear is stating the 'enemy' seemed to be very brave, and not at all worried about the losses they were taking.

It is the hubris of the naive to think they can 'pacify' a country wherein the population has lived for thousands of years, and defeated countless invasions over those years.

In fact one of the reasons the US is removing troops is the 'kill ratio'. They're being ground up like hamburger, slowly, but surely.

More Canadian casualties today in another traffic accident. Two soldiers were injured, one apparently fairly seriously, when their vehicle was clipped by another as they were driving through downtown Kandahar.

Given the Canadian forces convoys move quickly to avoid the threat of suicide bombers, there are likely to be as many casualties from traffic accidents as there are from battles.

Oh yeah, then there's always the threat of 'friendly' fire from the US, but of course there we can't fire back, 'cause we're on their side.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 02 April 2006 06:30 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
From Grape:

I'm not sure what the 'kill ratio' was during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but I'm sure it wasn't fundamentally different than it is today.

115,000 Soviet troops, 10 years, result - loss of war, loss of country. Not for the Afghanis. I guess they were ignoring the 'kill ratio'.


True enough, though

quote:
In fact, a Canadian officer, in commenting on the 'enemy' during the recent battle where the Canadian soldier was killed was quite clear is stating the 'enemy' seemed to be very brave, and not at all worried about the losses they were taking.

I believe it was a British officer. I have no doubt of their bravery, but direct attacks such as that which occured recently are definitely not in the insurgency's best interests. Guerilla tactics dictate the avoidance of pitched battles due to the asymmetrical forces - one has only to look at Khe Sanh to see why.

quote:
It is the hubris of the naive to think they can 'pacify' a country wherein the population has lived for thousands of years, and defeated countless invasions over those years.

Perhaps - I guess we'll see.

quote:
In fact one of the reasons the US is removing troops is the 'kill ratio'. They're being ground up like hamburger, slowly, but surely.

I'd have to disagree here - I'd wager the US' motivation in removing troops from Afghanistan is to use them in Iraq. The US has lost (IIRC) about 200 troops in Afghanistan, compared to 10x that number in Iraq.

quote:
More Canadian casualties today in another traffic accident. Two soldiers were injured, one apparently fairly seriously, when their vehicle was clipped by another as they were driving through downtown Kandahar.

Well, accidents will happen. I doubt that we're going to go pulling our troops out because driving conditions are dangerous.

quote:
Given the Canadian forces convoys move quickly to avoid the threat of suicide bombers, there are likely to be as many casualties from traffic accidents as there are from battles.

I'd say that's a function of the frequency of convoys vs. firefights rather than of convoy speeds.

quote:
Oh yeah, then there's always the threat of 'friendly' fire from the US, but of course there we can't fire back, 'cause we're on their side.

True enough, though I would hope they've cut down on the drugged-up yahoo National Guard pilots flying around since that incident.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 02 April 2006 09:27 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
No factual information presented on any of the many threads about Afghanistan on Babble has yet led me to seriously question my own basic assumptions about this war, which are these:

- The NATO stabilization force's presence is strongly supported by the majority of Afghanis.

- the elected government, tainted as it may be, is the closest thing Afghanistan is likely to see to a fair and free and democratic government, and the only realistic basis on which to build a freer and more democratic one.

- since Afghanistan was the site of international terrorist training camps, handing over Bin Laden would not have been sufficient - an invasion was called for.

- although every accusation of malfeasance and evil made against the US in Afghanistan is true, Canada's involvement is a whole different ball of wax. In the words of an Afghani-Canadian shop keeper "America bad. Canada good."

- oh yeah, I almost forgot. The loss of international security forces in Afghanistan right now would lead to an unconscionable bloodbath in that country which would represent the greatest act of cowardice, betrayal and evil in Canadian history.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 03 April 2006 04:29 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Brett Mann:
- The NATO stabilization force's presence is strongly supported by the majority of Afghanis.

Based on what solid facts?

quote:

- since Afghanistan was the site of international terrorist training camps, handing over Bin Laden would not have been sufficient - an invasion was called for.

Not the only site, however, and probably not as important to terrorism as Saudi Arabia which was not invaded. It is questionable whether the invasion did more for spreading terrorism than abating it.

quote:

- although every accusation of malfeasance and evil made against the US in Afghanistan is true, Canada's involvement is a whole different ball of wax.

Actually, unless we are taking action against the US also it is called being an accessory.

Also, unless we condemn the application of Islamic law and guarantee the rights of all Afghanis who wish to exercise their freedom in defiance of such law, and unless we actively destroy opium plants whenever we find them, we are aiding and abetting violations of human rights and the international illicit drug trade.


quote:

The loss of international security forces in Afghanistan right now would lead to an unconscionable bloodbath in that country which would represent the greatest act of cowardice, betrayal and evil in Canadian history.

Really? Can you prove this?


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 03 April 2006 06:17 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To Grape re: 'kill ratio'.

In fact a Canadian officer had this to say about the 'kill ratio'. For every Afghani killed there are ten new recruits. So at least according to that person, killing Afghanis didn't result in fewer 'enemy', it resulted in more.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 04 April 2006 01:01 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Eric Margolis says the media is perpetrating three falsehoods about Afghanistan:
quote:
...1. “Taliban are terrorists.” In 1989, at the end of Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy, civil war, and crime. Rape was endemic. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, armed a group of religious students (talibs). He set about fighting banditry, rape and drug dealing, imposing order based on traditional tribal and religious law.

Taliban were not 9/11-style terrorists, but a religious, anti-Communist movement drawn from the Pushtun tribe.

Most of the Taliban’s energies went to fighting Afghan Communists. Iran, India and Russia openly backed the Communists — rechristened, Northern Alliance...


[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 04 April 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canadian and American military investigators are checking out the possibility two soldiers killed in an intense night-time gun battle in Afghanistan last week may have died as a result of friendly fire.

Pte. Robert Costall, 22, a machine gunner born in Thunder Bay, Ont., and John Stone, 52, an American medic with the National Guard, died last Wednesday in a battle in the Sangin district of Helmand province.


CBC

According to the reports, three other Canadians were wounded and eight Afghani soldiers died. There were no reports of Taliban casualties. Why not? How is it there are no reported Taliban casualties from an assualt against a superior, better armed force?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 04 April 2006 12:50 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
This information is dated from 2004, but provides as good a glimpse as I've seen yet on Afghani public opinion. The survey by the Asia Foundationdoesn't seem to directly address the question of foreign military presence, but it does appear that the majority of Aghanis were pleased with the direction their country was going two years ago hold favourable opinions about the UN and even about America. I'll try to find more recent data.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 04 April 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Asia Foundation is an American entity, just so's you know. Their president (Doug Bereuter) does seem to have a brain, though, as he broke ranks with his Republican collegues in the past to vote for implementation of Kyoto. He's also (after the fact) denounced the invasion of Iraq because of the shoddy prewar intelligence. Aside for those two plusses, his voting record in the House is less than stellar, especially on civil rights issues.

I'm not discounting the results of the poll, just be aware of the source.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 04 April 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

...Oh yeah, then there's always the threat of 'friendly' fire from the US, but of course there we can't fire back, 'cause we're on their side.

Military probes whether friendly fire killed soldiers in Taliban battle

quote:
"I'm not going to speculate on the friendly fire aspects," Brig.-Gen. David Fraser said Tuesday. "We have a series of collaborative investigations going on between our three nations. Let's let the investigators of the three nations determine what the facts are surrounding the possibility of friendly fire."

Fair enough. But the incident was last week, and they must have known pretty much from the beginning of the 'friendly fire' possibility.

There are reporters 'embedded' with the Canadian military (Christie Blatchford with the Globe & Mail, for instance) who missed this story entirely.

I guess I'd ask them what they thought they were doing there? Apparently acting as civillian mouthpieces for the military propaganda department.

In today's Globe & Mail, Margaret Wente went hunting for the CBC, and found their coverage to be un-neutral, although it's hard to imagine she has the right to throw stones. Her own coverage in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq was stunningly naive (professionally naive, actually).

Yet here is the same Globe & Mail with a reporter on the ground in Afghanistan, with the troops, and not a word of any possible 'friendly fire'.

I wonder what Ms. Wente will have to say to that?

I think we also have to come up some some other term than 'friendly fire'.

Perhaps 'careless fire' would be more approriate.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 April 2006 12:20 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The National covered the press conference where some military guy spoke about the investigation of possible friendly fire killing Costall. He then went on to describe that battle as "marvellous, over 30 Taliban were killed". I shit you not, those were his exact words. Jesus Christ.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 05 April 2006 05:41 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, we've had posters on this thread refer to the 'kill ratio'. I'm not sure whether I've commented on the use of that phrase, but if I haven't, here goes.

People who use the phrase 'kill ratio' are at the very least sociopathic, if not psychotic.

This phrase is utterly dehumanizing, and could only be used by someone who has lost touch with the fact they are human.
,


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 05 April 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the background on the Asia foundation, Briguy. Maestro, I love your phrase "professionally naive." And yes, "kill ratio" is a fully de-humanizing term. But are you saying killing the enemy is wrong under any circumstances? How about Chinese resisting the Japanese rape of Nanking in WWll? Are you maintaining that killing others in military combat is always sociopathic or psychotic?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 April 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This assumes that we all approve of the G8 agenda, and that we want Canada to "punch over its weight," which seems to mean, according to your logic doing what is wanted of us. Kinda like Goering being first, foremost and loudest among Hitlers sychophants.

No it does not. It assumes that Canada's government is willing to engage in a warlike mission in Afghanistan in order to toady up to the other members of the G8.An attempt by Canada to justify its presence at the G8.

Harper mentioned the requirement for Canada to show 'leadership' on the world stage.I interpret this to mean a 'me too' obseqience to the status quo in order to furthur the interests of the business community rather than showing leadership by creating an independent foreign policy reflecting Canadian values.

In a nutshell,Harper is willing to risk Canadian lives in a futile mission if it results in better economic leverage or international political capital


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 07 April 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Well, we've had posters on this thread refer to the 'kill ratio'. I'm not sure whether I've commented on the use of that phrase, but if I haven't, here goes.

People who use the phrase 'kill ratio' are at the very least sociopathic, if not psychotic.


I can assure you I'm neither.

quote:
This phrase is utterly dehumanizing, and could only be used by someone who has lost touch with the fact they are human.
,

Armed conflict is dehumanizing, that's the nature of war. Whether you like it or not, what's happening in Afghanistan is a war. People kill people in war - the idea is to kill as many of the enemy as you can while losing as few of your own. It's unpleasant and regrettable, but that's the nature of the beast. Realizing this doesn't make one less human.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 07 April 2006 02:54 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Grape:

People kill people in war - the idea is to kill as many of the enemy as you can while losing as few of your own.


No, the idea is to force the enemy to capitulate. Killing is only one way to do that, and those that actually prefer the killing are sociopaths, and there are some of them around.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 07 April 2006 04:07 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:

No, the idea is to force the enemy to capitulate. Killing is only one way to do that, and those that actually prefer the killing are sociopaths, and there are some of them around.


You're absolutely right on capitulation being the end goal and killing is just a means of achieving it. That being said, killing is a necessary condition for there to be a war (or at least the attempt at killing). While other means can be (and usually are) employed, killing seems to me the universally employed tactic (though not to the exclusion of others).

I wouldn't toss around the sociopath diagnosis too lightly, though. Those that prefer killing as a means to brining about capitulation may do so because they believe it to be the most effective way, not because they enjoy it.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 08 April 2006 09:13 AM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In my studies some years back I came across the notions of "Just War" and "Fighting Justly." The first refers to the reasons for going to war, the second to how it is fought. One could certainly be in a just war yet fight it unjustly, while one could also be on the "unjust" side yet still fight justly. The problem with "Just War" is that it is often a matter of perpective.

For the record, I believe that I am fighting justly in a just war.

Nevertheless, from my point of view as a professional soldier, I am accountable for how I fight the wars I am committed in, not for my being there.

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 April 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

You're absolutely right on capitulation being the end goal and killing is just a means of achieving it.

I fervently hope Canada capitulates without losing more of its sons and daughters. But that is unlikely, given that all parties in Parliament support this war. If more Canadian body bags is the only way to bring home to our leaders the need to leave the Afghani people in peace - then so be it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 08 April 2006 03:35 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
If more Canadian body bags is the only way to bring home to our leaders the need to leave the Afghani people in peace - then so be it.
It is to perpetuate a foolish myth, arising out of a simplistic and uninformed view of the world, to claim that Afghanistan will be peaceful (or the people better off) if Canadian and other forces left tomorrow.

I thought people we're keen on parotting the idea that there's no peace to keep there, because it's partly right. It has to be made first.

[ 08 April 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 08 April 2006 03:38 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
It is to perpetuate a foolish myth, arising out of a simplistic and uninformed view of the world, to claim that Afghanistan will be peaceful (or the people better off) if Canadian and other forces left tomorrow.

I thought people we're keen on parotting the idea that there's no peace to keep there, because it's partly right. It has to be made first.


But it cannot be made to last by an outside actor coming in and imposing it.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 08 April 2006 05:11 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

TK 421

Nevertheless, from my point of view as a professional soldier, I am accountable for how I fight the wars I am committed in, not for my being there.


Yes, and purely from the standpoint of a professional soldier where, who or why you fight makes no difference, you could serve one side or the other equally or do whatever you were ordered to do. In a sense one who is strictly a professional soldier is no different from a howitzer or a land mine, they are just a tool to be used and the employers of the tools, not the tools themselves, bear all of the responsibility.

quote:

For the record, I believe that I am fighting justly in a just war.

The real litmus test comes if you should decide the war is not just or is contrary to the best interests of the country that you have sworn allegiance to. Then one has to choose between their obligation to the mission and their government, or to their greater obligation to their country and/or humanity.

The saddest thing here is that soldiers should be placed in these situations to begin with.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 08 April 2006 09:42 PM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jerry,

You make some interesting points which speak to some of the underlying issues (I feel like I'm back in school!). I would say, however, that a soldier is still responsible for his actions in the theatre of operations. This makes him different from the physical tools of war themselves. If I or my subordinates violate the laws of armed conflict then I can certainly be brought before justice.

It is the ability to separate the soldier from the background for the conflict itself that permits us to maintain some humanity, particularly with regards to our enemies. While we may well be called upon to kill our enemies, this is done within a legal context and our conduct is bound by such laws as are possible and practical. The "ethics" of combat are a fascinating topic for discussion (we engage in hypothetical disussions regarding this as part of professional development).

Turning to the conscience of the soldier himself regarding the conflict, I suppose that this is indeed the litmus test for a professional soldier. As a Canadian soldier, I have yet to feel tension between my conscience and my mission.

Cheers,

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 08 April 2006 10:55 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

TK 421
I would say, however, that a soldier is still responsible for his actions in the theatre of operations.... If I or my subordinates violate the laws of armed conflict then I can certainly be brought before justice.

That is the theory of course. Most of us are aware, however, that it is conditional and not uniformly applied. For those like you and I who believe this the kicker comes when the orders either violate the laws of armed conflict, or some justification is given for either ignoring the laws or re-interpreting them to not apply.

quote:

It is the ability to separate the soldier from the background for the conflict itself that permits us to maintain some humanity, particularly with regards to our enemies. While we may well be called upon to kill our enemies, this is done within a legal context and our conduct is bound by such laws as are possible and practical.

Again, that is the theory. Reality, however, can leave theory in the dust. Not every soldier will conform to this code of conduct. Some don't believe it to start with and others lose it under pressure, and possible and practical become issues of debate.

Aside from the laws of armed conflict of course remains the greater question: Is the conflict itself moral or in the best interests of the country, even if it is fought meticulously by the strictest and most humane laws of warfare (if any warfare can ever be considered humane). That indeed may lead to some of the toughest and most complicated decisions a professional soldier will have to make.

Speaking of professional soldiers, check this out:

quote:

COMPANY OFFERS PRIVATE MILITARY OUTSOURCING

Saturday, April 08, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

The U.S. military has already been outsourcing security contracts to private companies, but now it may outsource its entire operation. Blackwater USA is offering the government the ability to contract an army fighting force that could be deployed in Iraq or other war-torn regions of the world, according to the Virginia Pilot....

http://tinyurl.com/lyozc



From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 09 April 2006 03:46 AM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maestro,

Sorry, I was out for a week or so and I just read your reply to my post regarding the "civil war" phase of the Afhan conflict. I don't want to get into a pedantic argument here, but I do feel that the period between the departure of the Soviets and the post 9/11 events can be described as a Civil War.

Initially, the Najibullah government held on for several years against the fractured Mujahadeen groups despite the withdrawl of the Soviets. They eventually fell, however, and a shaky "coalition" government was formed from the mujahadeen factions. Hekamatar was not too happy with his role in power, however, and things soon deteriorated. The massive devastation in Kabul was primarily a result of these mid-90s battles (Massoud/Rabbini vs Hekmatar). Since these were more or less "conventional" forces fighting for control of their country I figure it fits the definition of a civil war.

The Taliban basically came out of nowhere to overrun most of the country in a short period of time. It is believed that they were supported by Pakistan, although the extent of that aid is not necessarily clear. Based around a core of religious students that got their start providing security for convoys, some early victories gave them credibility and resources. Many warlords sensed the shift in the prevailing winds and joined forces with the Taliban. Kabul fell to them after some see-saw fighting, and two major opposing factions withdrew to the north (mostly Tajiks and Uzbeks). These factions later coalesced into the Northern Alliance. Again, I would see this as civil war. Fighting carried on until 9/11, although with varying intensity.

The world appeared unsure of what to make of the Taliban. There was, perhaps, a sense that some "stability" would be a good thing. The bizare behaviour of the regime (everything from banning kite flying to running women over with trucks to blowing up statues), however, was soon combined with their welcoming of Al_Queda after that terrorist group's explusion from Sudan. Al-Queda and the Taliban became intertwined, which ultimately led to their downfall. They'd probably still rule today with an iron fist had Al-Queda not been based there.

I'll say it again, the coalition is here because of 9/11.

Cheers,

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 09 April 2006 04:07 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Seeing TK's post, I was wondering what he was responding to;
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Actually it wasn't civil war. It was a war in which the current bad guys (Taliban) were supported by the US, and their client states Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Those states continue to provide support for the Taliban, apparently without any repercussions from the US.
While there's no doubt that the Taliban was receiving aid from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. - and the west in general - was actively working against the Taliban following the 1998 East Africa bombings. This included sanctions against the country for not giving bin Laden up, the occasional cruise missle and, even back then, making contact with the regimes opponents; the Northern Alliance, etc.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 09 April 2006 04:39 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, it wasn't nearly that cut-and-dried. The US had an on-again-off-again dalliance with the Taliban, not quite sure whether to woo them for pipeline contracts and such, or curse them for harbouring bin Laden. As with Saddam, there was a period of uncertainty before the US finalized the Patriotically Correct attitude towards the Taliban: whether they were the Very Embodiment of Evil, or People We Could Do Business With.

Heck, only 5 years ago, it was still possible to see things like this:

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban (May 22, 2001)

quote:
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.


It was only after 9/11 that the Taliban were firmly deposited on the Villain side of the fence. It could easily have gone the other way, had strategic conditions turned out different.

Let's not whitewash the more sordid aspects of recent history.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 April 2006 04:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah well the US was hardly overly zealous about bin Laden before 9/11. The US Atorney General Office turned down an FBI brokered deal to have bin Laden extradited from the Sudan in 1996. Didn't he also show up in a Dubai hostpital in 2001, just prior to 9/11, where it is reported he met with US consular officials? I think I could find that report for you. Do I need too?

What of it? Not much, but it doesn't seem to me that US was overly concerned about bin Laden, and more interested in getting Afghanistan to fold to US oil interests.

Were one to think about it one might think that given that there were bin Laden people in Chechnya and Kosovo that the US was still trying to bring this once valuable asset back to water.

Of course does it matter that Janes was reporting in June 2001, that a joint veture invasion of Afghanistan was being planned for the fall. Nothing really. No. Would you like me to find that story. 'Spose I could. Do I need too?

Does it bother you that on both occasions that the US attacked Iraq it took them 6 months to gear up the US military for the opeations but it took the US less than a month to get themselves into Afghanistan, almost as if all the preliminaries were in place before 9/11?

Probably not, I guess.

[ 09 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 09 April 2006 05:42 AM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TK 421:
In my studies some years back I came across the notions of "Just War" and "Fighting Justly." The first refers to the reasons for going to war, the second to how it is fought. One could certainly be in a just war yet fight it unjustly, while one could also be on the "unjust" side yet still fight justly. The problem with "Just War" is that it is often a matter of perpective.

For the record, I believe that I am fighting justly in a just war.

Nevertheless, from my point of view as a professional soldier, I am accountable for how I fight the wars I am committed in, not for my being there.

TK


Well said. Soldiers do the job they are sent to do and the ultimate measure of performance is derived not from the political validity of the mission but by the way in which the soldier conducts himself in the execution of his duties.

quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I fervently hope Canada capitulates without losing more of its sons and daughters. But that is unlikely, given that all parties in Parliament support this war. If more Canadian body bags is the only way to bring home to our leaders the need to leave the Afghani people in peace - then so be it.


How about we just dispose of your false lip service to how regretful Canadian losses are. You've said time and again how this effort is in aid of "imperialism" and how the insurgents are the righteous party. As such, you can hardly claim to mourn those Canadian Forces personnel lost since, judging by your statements, they're little more than imperial pawns engaged willingly in an imperialistic act of aggression. Don't be afraid to put it out there - Red Albertan already has.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Radical Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12367

posted 09 April 2006 06:01 AM      Profile for Radical Progressive        Edit/Delete Post
"My problem with military starts when the line is crossed and our soldiers become aggressors and murderers of people who have never done any harm to Canada."

You mean like in WW1 and WW2?


From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 09 April 2006 09:07 AM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball,

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was not about gas pipelines. There are other routes for Central Asian gas. It is true that Pakistan would like a direct route, and of course a pipeline would mean some kind of economic development, but that was not the reason for the US and the Coalition to come here. As I stated, the world at large was unsure of how to take the Taliban. Many states provided aid, but that does not mean that they conspired with the Taliban or Al-Queda. The country would have starved without that aid. If 9/11 had not happened I am 100% certain that I would not be in Kandahar right now. As I watched 9/11 unfold on TV I knew that I would be eventually be going somewhere because of it.

One could certaily argue that the US underestimated Al-Queda and Bin Laden prior to 9/11. That does not mean that they were in bed with him. Indeed, they'd tried to get his network through cruise missiles and other "surgical" low-risk methods. The FBI was apparently focused on prosecution as opposed to preemption, and comms with the CIA was reportedly poor.

Nevertheless, when the US took stock of the situation post-9/11 Afghanistan suddenly loomed large. An imposing proposition, being land-locked and seemingly remote from US power with a fiece history of resistance. With regard to your Iraq analogy, a long struggle was indeed anticipated, and the early part of the campaign reflected this (bombing etc).

An operator on the ground, however, realized the potential of employing the Northern Alliance. US Special Forces teams deployed with elements of the Northern Alliance and with them brought the means to employ precision weapons from US airpower. Statesmanship secured basing and overflight rights in surrounding countries. Its amazing what can be done when the efforts of a state are bent towards a single purpose. 9/11 was the galvanizing force that brought about that clarity, not conspiracy theory pipelines. The prevention of further terrorits attacks by the Al-Queda network intertwined with the Taliban was the aim.

In the end, the Taliban were fighting WWI against a similar army that also had access to 21st century techniques, tactics and technology. Fixed Taliban positions were designated by US SF for destruction by precision munitions. Northern Alliance ground forces could then complement those fires with maneouvre. The rout that followed suprised most.

An easy and accesible read on the period between 9/11 and the end of 2001 is "Bush's War." This book gives an inside look into Bush's cabinet and how the war was planned and directed at that level, with some glimpses into the tactical. "Task Force Dagger" is a more grunt-eye view and might not be palatable for many readers here.

The post Feb-02 situation was, of course, muddy. That is why Coalition forces are still here, to give the Government of Afghanistan time to build its institutions and be able to resist any residual warlords.

Cheers,

TK 421


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 April 2006 09:26 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

How about we just dispose of your false lip service to how regretful Canadian losses are. You've said time and again how this effort is in aid of "imperialism" and how the insurgents are the righteous party. As such, you can hardly claim to mourn those Canadian Forces personnel lost since, judging by your statements, they're little more than imperial pawns engaged willingly in an imperialistic act of aggression. Don't be afraid to put it out there - Red Albertan already has.


You justify the invasion of a sovereign country and glorify the deaths of our fine youth sent over there in a false cause. You give them lies and military honours on their burial. I want them home, to build their country, their families, their lives, in peace. And you say I don't mourn them?! You hypocrite.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 09 April 2006 12:43 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You've said time and again how this effort is in aid of "imperialism" and how the insurgents are the righteous party. As such, you can hardly claim to mourn those Canadian Forces personnel lost since, judging by your statements, they're little more than imperial pawns engaged willingly in an imperialistic act of aggression.

There's no such contradiction. One can oppose imperial ventures without lusting for the death of the ground troops employed in such ventures. For myself, my sympathy for the poor slobs in the Red Army who had to fight in Afghanistan in the '80s in no way lessens my fundamental opposition to their presence in the country in the first place, or lessens my feeling that the Kremlin leaders who sent them there were bloodstained war criminals.

Good Lord. The use of the rhetorical baseball bat of "support our troops" to crush any dissent really is reaching Moscow-ca.-1985 levels, isn't it?


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 April 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Radical Progressive:
"My problem with military starts when the line is crossed and our soldiers become aggressors and murderers of people who have never done any harm to Canada."

You mean like in WW1 and WW2?


World War I, yes. World War II, no. Just speaking for my own opinion here of course.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 09 April 2006 04:46 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You justify the invasion of a sovereign country and glorify the deaths of our fine youth sent over there in a false cause. You give them lies and military honours on their burial. I want them home, to build their country, their families, their lives, in peace. And you say I don't mourn them?! You hypocrite.


Pot calling the kettle black? Nope, Grape has never backtracked on statements... You unionist however, did mention (paraphrasing) "... Better for a Canadian soldier to die then an insurgent...". Gimme an hr, I will have the exact quote up.

Feel free to look up hypocrite while I am searching.

EDIT TO ADD: Didin't take too long... Here we go, posted on 11 March 2006 at 10:14 AM on the thread titled Afghanistan: Rick "Scumbags" Hillier cuts and runs (II)

quote:

unionist wrote:

I agree that our attitude to the guy is irrelevant. As for the shooting, if you make me choose sides, I'm pulling for the ones shooting at our troops. Invaders richly deserve to be shot at if there's no other way to get their gallant butts home.


So, how is one supposed to interpret this? I am a soldier, and I, like my peers hope for a peaceful solution to conflict. I hope that some day all players will come to the table and talk (right now, they are coming in in dribs and drabs if you will). You appear to be advocating violence... Not only this, but violence towards myself and my friends and peers. Excuse me if this leads to conflict between you and I... As our relationship will remain in conflict so long as the perception of your wanting me hurt or killed remains.

This is my last post on this subject. As it appears that there is no equality in moderation on this subject. Another poster who wished for all of the CF to "...suck on an IED..." was never chastised, nor even in a minor way warned... Nor did he apologise or try to explain away such a vile comment. Yes, I have been very angry over these comments for the past couple of months, and the fact that the moderators have choosen that such comments are ok, were as profanity in response is not.

I will not be civil with those that want me dead.

Those that want my comments on this subject, I will be happy to exchange thoughts via PM. Otherwise, I am out of these types of threads.

[ 09 April 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 09 April 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the Congressional record, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) speaking (July 12 2000)

Hearing before the Committee On International Relations - House of Representatives

quote:
So there is no democracy or freedom in Afghanistan where people who are good and decent and courageous have a chance to cleanse their society of the drug dealers and the fanatics that
torture and repress especially the women of Afghanistan.

The men of Afghanistan are not fanatics like the Taliban either. They would like to have a different regime. Only the United States has given--and I again make this charge--the United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along and still is, let me add. You
do not have any type of democracy in Afghanistan. You have a military government in Pakistan now that is arming the Taliban to the teeth.

...Everyone in this Committee has heard me time and again over the years say unless we did something Afghanistan was going to become a base for terrorism and drug dealing. Mr. Chairman, how
many times did you hear me say that?

This Administration either ignored that or are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Again, I am sorry Mr. Inderfurth is not here to defend himself, but let me state for the record at a time when the Taliban were vulnerable, the top person in this Administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and Bill
Richardson personally went to Afghanistan and convinced the anti-Taliban forces not to go on the offensive.

Furthermore, they convinced all of the anti-Taliban forces and their supporters, to disarm and to cease their flow of support for the anti-Taliban forces.

At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually caused the defeat of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

Now, with a history like that, it is very hard, Mr. Ambassador, for me to sit here and listen to someone say our main goal is to drain the swamp--and the swamp is Afghanistan--because the United States created that swamp in Afghanistan, and the United States policies have undercut those efforts to create a freer and more open society in Afghanistan which was consistent with the beliefs of the Afghan people.



From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 April 2006 05:50 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

You unionist however, did mention (paraphrasing) "... Better for a Canadian soldier to die then an insurgent...". Gimme an hr, I will have the exact quote up.


Do something more useful for an hour. I admit it. I confess. If Canada will not bring its troops home - if our soldiers continue in their evil mission - and if a foreign invader faces an Afghani insurgent in the battlefield - and if one must fall - better the foreigner than the Afghani.

I am not a hypocrite. I don't send youth to their deaths in an evil cause, then pretend to weep while sending more to follow. Let's face it. We are just on opposite sides of this war. The difference is that I stand for immediate peace.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 April 2006 05:57 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wrote my last post before realizing that Reason had found his damning example of my violent tendencies.

I wish no harm to Reason or any other Canadian soldier. But to blame the anti-interventionists for wishing them harm -- and not the warmongers who send them there -- shows that human civilization still has a long way to go.

Anyway, I find it ridiculous to have to argue about Canada's foreign policy with those who are its direct victims (soldiers) and who have never, to my knowledge, even questioned the legality of their actions under international law.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 09 April 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As it appears that there is no equality in moderation on this subject. Another poster who wished for all of the CF to "...suck on an IED..." was never chastised, nor even in a minor way warned... Nor did he apologise or try to explain away such a vile comment.

My goodness gracious, sakes alive. I hurt your feelings. Big, tough, killing machines like yourself are such sensitive souls. I guess in an act of contrition I'll run outside and tie a big yellow ribbon 'round my old elm tree, run up the stars and stripes (or Maple Leaf, whatever), stick a whole pile of "support the troops" ribbons on my truck, and write a "dear peacekeeper" letter to you in crayon, just to assuage you bruised ego.

I know you dream of slow-motion victory parades, of Audy Murphy moments of sheer murderous glory, and of the public worshipping your heroic exploits, saving our freedom and preserving democracy. You think the country owes you a debt....but you should really wake the fuck up. You and your colleagues are doing nothing for your country. You don't deserve anything

Suck it up, soldier. If you think you can intimidate people (including your oh-so-subtle threats of physical violence) into supporting your lust for blood, think again.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 09 April 2006 11:06 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

TK 421

If 9/11 had not happened I am 100% certain that I would not be in Kandahar right now.


Maybe or maybe not. The Bush crowd was planning for a war long before Bush got appointed president. They needed an excuse like 911 to build support for their aggressive military plans. It is quite possible that 911 is little more than that, and had it not happened something else might have come along to start the ball rolling.

Curious that the Taliban offered up OBL to avoid war and were refused.

Curious that the Saudis are backers of Al Qaeda and have not been attacked also.

Curious that the Bush and Bin Laden families have ties.

And the curiousities go on.

quote:

One could certaily argue that the US underestimated Al-Queda and Bin Laden prior to 9/11.

Or possibly did not.

I can not believe that the 911 attack was a total surprise, at least in method. I thought about the same kind of attack years earlier so it is hard to believe that the combined resources of the government were all blind to such an event.

quote:

Nevertheless, when the US took stock of the situation post-9/11 Afghanistan suddenly loomed large.

Or, more likely, loomed convenient.

quote:

That is why Coalition forces are still here, to give the Government of Afghanistan time to build its institutions and be able to resist any residual warlords.

The question that I would be asking myself and my superiors if I were posted there is how can we prop up a government whose laws defy the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that oversees the largest production of opium on the planet, and is possibly only a puppet of a foreign power. I would also ask why would Canada ally its troops to powers that do not recognize the International Criminal Court and may well be guilty of war crimes.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 09 April 2006 11:09 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:

My goodness gracious, sakes alive. I hurt your feelings. Big, tough, killing machines like yourself are such sensitive souls. I guess in an act of contrition I'll run outside and tie a big yellow ribbon 'round my old elm tree, run up the stars and stripes (or Maple Leaf, whatever), stick a whole pile of "support the troops" ribbons on my truck, and write a "dear peacekeeper" letter to you in crayon, just to assuage you bruised ego.

I know you dream of slow-motion victory parades, of Audy Murphy moments of sheer murderous glory, and of the public worshipping your heroic exploits, saving our freedom and preserving democracy. You think the country owes you a debt....but you should really wake the fuck up. You and your colleagues are doing nothing for your country. You don't deserve anything

Suck it up, soldier. If you think you can intimidate people (including your oh-so-subtle threats of physical violence) into supporting your lust for blood, think again.


I got a huge problem with your scale of magnitude there Jingles. My suggesting that I would punch someone in the nose if they were in front of me for making what I considered a rather vile generalisation and your wishing all the CF (80,000 people, regular force and reserve) would suck on an IED (and hence die or be maimed)... Well, it's not even close to being the same now is it.

Further, your grotesque generalisations which go to show your incomprehensible, and reprehensible ingnorance as to memebers of the CF is insulting and childish.

Lastly, I do not want to intimidate anyone. That appears to be your job (though feel free to intimidate me any time... It is the mark of the kind of person you are). Your childish generalisations and absolute ignorance is what has driven me to the anger expressed here. That and the lack of anyone addressing the hypocrisy of allowing you to run around and spread death wishes on 80,000 human beings. Jingles, you are about the most vile human being I ever had the mis-fortune of meeting anywhere...

EDIT TO ADD: Reply away Jingles... I am just going to ignore you and these threads from here on in.

[ 09 April 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 10 April 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jerry,

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, especially about 9/11.

It is easy for me to judge, but I think that there was certainly an intelligence failure leading up to 9/11. If the right people from the FBI and CIA had been in a room together and compared notes in Aug 01 they might have put it together in time. Bureaucracies, however, inhibit such things. In addition, concerns over human rights and abuse of powers by security forces had limited the ability of those agencies (its always a risk/tradeoff). The FBI was focused on prosecution, not prevention.

Afghanistan was pretty much the last place that the US military wanted to operate in. Until 9/11, there were other fish to fry. Its a planning and operational miracle that OEF went off like it did.

Leading up to 9/11, Al-Queda drew its recruits from a variety of countries, although they were centred in "clusters." Funding and support came from many sources in many countries. Afghanistan, however, openly provided a haven and support. The sincerity of the offer by the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over to a "neutral" country must be treated with suspiscion. I think that the Taliban felt rather secure. In addition, OEF was not just about Bin Laden, it was about dismantling that terror network and destroying its base in Afghanistan.

"Understanding Terror Networks" by Carl Sageman is an illuminating read on this subject and I highly recommend it.

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 10 April 2006 03:47 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TK 421:
Jerry,

...Leading up to 9/11, Al-Queda drew its recruits from a variety of countries, although they were centred in "clusters." Funding and support came from many sources in many countries.

Afghanistan, however, openly provided a haven and support. The sincerity of the offer by the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over to a "neutral" country must be treated with suspiscion. I think that the Taliban felt rather secure. In addition, OEF was not just about Bin Laden, it was about dismantling that terror network and destroying its base in Afghanistan.

"Understanding Terror Networks" by Carl Sageman is an illuminating read on this subject and I highly recommend it.

TK


The bulk of the support for Islamic terrorism came from the US, including arms, drug money, training, indoctrination.

The US had no argument with al-Qaeda as long as they were pursuing the US agenda of creating havoc in the Balkans, Russia, and Central Asia.

Even after 9/11 the US was providing shelter for Islamic terrorists which was clearly shown when two Russian agents killed a former Chechen terrorist who was living in an upscale neighbourhood in Doha, Qatar, right under the noses of the US military. Apparently they couldn't see him when everyone else could.

That event was in 2002, long after 9/11. So the US position has always been they favour using terrorists as a proxy as long as the terrorists work more or less in parallel with US interests.

Without the US, al-Qaeda would never have existed. There's a Pakistani fellow in the local corner store who refers to them as 'Reagan's children'.

To this day the US is supporting terrorism around the world, using money from the heroin trade they themselves encouraged in the 80's, and which bloomed again after the US invasion of Afghanistan.

It is clear that the US has two different faces when it comes to terrorism. They oppose it vociferously, initiate a 'war on terror' and a 'war on drugs', and at the same time refuse to use their own troops to try and stifle the heroin trade in Afghanistan, which is now the world's largest supplier of heroin (by far).

At the same time, they constantly reiterate that the 'Taliban' and the 'terrorists are funded by drug money. Yet they do nothing to even slow the trade, much less stop it.

If you read the passage above from Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, you'd know that the US was supporting the Taliban and terrorism throughout the 90's.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 10 April 2006 07:19 AM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maestro,

I did read the passage. I have already stated that the world was unsure of how to handle the Taliban, and US involvement in the region between the departure of the Soviets and 9/11 demonstrate that uncertainty (noting that the Taliban did not really emerge until several years after the departure of the Soviets). That the US did not fully support the two main factions (that later became the Northern Alliance) against the Taliban in the nineties does not mean that the US supported the Taliban and terrorism. I have read that they did channel funds to the opposition forces to keep them sustained, but any major effort was not in the cards. This may have struck the congressman as a betrayal of former allies. He has a point, but until the 9/11 attacks it would have been very hard to mobilize national resouces (especially will) to become decisively engaged. Afghanistan was pretty low on the priority list at the time (Iraq, the Balkans etc). The events of 9/11 show that this was probably short-sighted, but hardly evidence of complicity.

The involvement, both direct and indirect, of Pakistan with the Taliban in those years can certainly not be denied. It can be argued that Islmabad wanted a friendly regime to the north. Once again, however, not an indication of US support of terrorism.

Regarding Al-Queda, the group formed in the early nineties and had the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood as its intellectual basis and money from wealthy benefactors as its lifeblood. I'm having a hard time seeing the connection of US support. The US was certainly targeting them by the late nineties due largely to the embassy bombings in Africa, but obviously not enough was done. The global salafist movement was perhaps seen as an abstract threat until 9/11. It should be noted, however, that the resources of a nation are finite. Priorities are made without the benefit of hindsight.

The Russian assasination of Chechens is another red herring. Seems like a matter between the Russians and the Chechens, and again not proof of any US complicity with the terrorists. No offence, but I fail to see any linkage.

Cheers,

TK 421


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 10 April 2006 08:23 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

TK 421
Afghanistan was pretty much the last place that the US military wanted to operate in.

Not as much as Iraq, however. The opposition to the US wars from within the higher ranks of the military is well known, reaching clear to the CJCS, a CENTCOM commander, other generals and field grade officers.

These wars have little to do with what the military wants or not, and much to do with politics and profiteering.

The plans for war and expanding US power where developed before the 2000 election. 911 provided the excuse that made it easy to whip up public support.

quote:

The FBI was focused on prosecution, not prevention.

The only real prevention for terrorism is social and economic, not military or law enforcement.

Military operations against terrorism are band aids to treat symptoms, they do not address the disease at all.

quote:

"Understanding Terror Networks" by Carl Sageman is an illuminating read on this subject and I highly recommend it.

Thanks for the reference.

I would reccomend the works of Gwynne Dyer for one, and some studies on 4GW such as "The Sling and The Stone" by Thomas Hammes. Hammes has a better grasp of tatics here than he does of the root causes.

From a conservative viewpoint the work done by William Lind makes a lot of good points (along with some pretty debatable ones if you are progressive).

ALL WAR ALL THE TIME
The military game has changed, and the U.S. isn't ready

William S. Lind

http://tinyurl.com/zrt3f

The Free Congress Commentary
By William S. Lind

http://tinyurl.com/eabbe

William Lind: Archives

http://tinyurl.com/3gg8v

As for US support of terrorists, they have been doing it for decades. Contras, death squads, Cubans in Miami, the list is long and dirty.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 10 April 2006 08:42 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A couple more interesting articles:

U.S. Military Secrets for Sale at Afghan Bazaar
By Paul Watson, Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2006

BAGRAM, Afghanistan — No more than 200 yards from the main gate of the sprawling U.S. base here, stolen computer drives containing classified military assessments of enemy targets, names of corrupt Afghan officials and descriptions of American defenses are on sale in the local bazaar....

http://tinyurl.com/zck37


Creative Destruction: From Iraq To Iran

http://tinyurl.com/eo877


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 10 April 2006 09:36 AM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jerry,

I would argue that while the war in Iraq was planned over a long period, the war in Afghanistan was a hastily improvised affair. Again, "Bush's War" offers a good high level glimpse of the planning for the war. The US was not "ready" to go to Afghanistan, but they were able to improvise a good plan based on an accurate assessment by a man on the ground and some good luck.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that the military does not choose its wars.

I do not agree, however, that wars are fought for profits. Wars are generally fought for reasons of security, particularly in a democracy. Going to war is a tremendously risky and expensive affair. States usually embark on a path of war because they fear the results of inaction more that the results of action. In the case of Afghanistan, the fear of further attacks spurred the US and indeed much of the free world to go to Afghanistan despite the daunting obstacles.

Thanks for the links, although I'm a bit far from my library (my building at work has an outstanding library). When I'm home on leave I'll raid it and read some more Dyer (when I'm not fishing for walleye or playing with my kids). I read through some of Lind's works when I was in staff school in the US (yes, I am one of those who have trained with the US). He is certainly seen as forward thinking if he is the same Lind I read then.

Some say war is changing. Perhaps war has not changed it is just that we are fighting different ones today than those in recent memory. Twenty years ago we trained for heavy metal thunder on the German plains against the Soviets. Now we face counter-insurgency. Regular and Irregular war have always existed. Armies tend to be ready for the last war, especially if they won it! Armies really like conventional war because it is "simpler" and "cleaner." As you said, however, we can't pick and choose!

I will grant, however, that the speed and scope of information dissemination is having an effect at both the tactical, operational and strategic/national levels. Public opinion always mattered, but now it can be affected much more quickly. War is still, however, a matter of will, and the will in question is not just that of the soldier who fights.

Cheers,

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 10 April 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

TK 421
Wars are generally fought for reasons of security, particularly in a democracy. Going to war is a tremendously risky and expensive affair.

I think that that is highly debatable, particularly over the past 50 years (never mind all of the wars of earlier centuries fought for resources and empire).

Wars might be expensive, but for some they are also very profitable and I think that good arguments can be made for the existence of an military-industrial complex that feeds on war and preparation for war, and whose interests it is to have war if it can be done without directly threatening their infrastructure.

It is particularly profitable when it is financed through borrowing rather than increased taxes.


quote:

I would argue that while the war in Iraq was planned over a long period, the war in Afghanistan was a hastily improvised affair.

That it was hastily improvised does not prove that it was primarily to get Al Qaeda or the Taliban. It was certainly a war of convenience. They were looking for a cause celebre, according to their own earlier writings, and 911 was the answer to their prayers.

Afghanistan gave them the fire to heat up the war fever to pull off Iraq against most of their qualified advice.

I think that the coalition of the willing followed the US into Afghanistan for political leverage, Canada included.

quote:

Some say war is changing. Perhaps war has not changed it is just that we are fighting different ones today than those in recent memory.

I think war is definitely changing. Although we have always had so called irregular wars, the emphasis has been on various models of conflicts between major units. With one side having such overwhelming control of the battlefield on one hand, and the destructiveness possible in a major army to army clash on the other, I think we will see most wars in the forseeable future fought in the irregular fashion. Most people trained in the metal vs metal clash will be out of their league in these wars which will require far more finesse and rely heavily on social and economic changes to be successful.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 10 April 2006 12:19 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, as Cueball pointed out above, there's fairly compelling evidence that the US was planning an attack on Afghanistan well before 9/11.

India joins anti-Taliban coalition (Jane's, March 15, 2001):

quote:
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

US 'planned attack on Taleban' (BBC, September 18, 2001):

quote:
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.


India in anti-Taliban military plan (India Reacts, June 26, 2001):

quote:
India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.

I distinctly remember reading such reports at the time.

This was all at the same time as the Bushies were in the middle of the dalliance with the Taliban that I described above, attempting to woo them for pipeline contracts. Military coercion was apparently also on the table, though. One story, possibly apocryphal, has it that when the Taliban started balking about signing the deal, the US responded "We will either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs."

Whatever the truth of the matter, it's clear there was more going on than a mere righteous and spontaneous response to the outrage of 9/11.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 10 April 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, the pipeline conspiracy theory.

Single source quotes from a "mid-level" official in Pakistan do not equal a US plot that pre-dates the 9/11 attacks.

The US had been providing assistance to the anti-coalition groups in the North. The US had fired cruise missiles against suspected Al-Queda camps prior to 9/11. This does not equal a grand plot just waiting for the "pretext" of 9/11.


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 10 April 2006 08:42 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread. If anyone is interested we can continue on a new babble page at:

http://tinyurl.com/mtfsu


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca