Rolled out in a wheelchair and surrounded by heavily-armed coalition soldiers, a visibly ill Mullah Mohammed Ibrahim shares his decision to support the Afghan government.

"I want all Afghans to abandon hostilities," he says, "and to unite for peace."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

To have a senior Taliban commander lay down his arms is a major public relations coup for coalition forces, especially coming a day after insurgents killed 10 civilian contractors on their way to work at the Kandahar Airfield base.

---

This is another one of those bizarre stories reported by dummy reporters who never ask questions.

Here's what the Afghans said about this latest fan of the Canadians:

quote:

---

"Mullah Ibrahim was not a normal Taliban," says Asadullah Khalid, Kandahar's governor, "He was a planner for all suicide and IED (bomb) attacks."

---

And overnight - awoke from a coma (read the incredible article) as a repentant hero.

quote:

---

One month ago, Afghan police arrested Mullah Ibrahim, a Taliban official in the Kandahar region, where 2,300 Canadian soldiers are serving.

At the time, he was suffering from jaundice, fell into a coma and was brought to see Canadian doctors at the main military base at the Kandahar airfield.

Now recovered but in a wheelchair, Ibrahim credits God and the Canadians for saving his life.

He said he has renounced his Taliban ties and urged others to join him. Ibrahim said he wants to see peace and stability in his country.

Article

---

Extra ordinary circumstances. I wouldn't use it as an indicator of changing Afghan attitudes in general. It might have meant something if he had not been captured and sick and walked in with his troops and changed sides.

If I were there as a reporter I would ask him:

A: Does this mean that like Canadians you now oppose shariah law and support secular government; and

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Extra ordinary circumstances. I wouldn't use it as an indicator of changing Afghan attitudes in general. It might have meant something if he had not been captured and sick and walked in with his troops and changed sides.

---

Jerry, I would agree that this is not a major indicator of changing Afghan attitudes however this could be a start of the change. The article states two points of interest

a. 1500 former Taliban soldiers have lay down their arms and to abandon hostilities.

As Afghan residents renounce the Taliban,it will make it harder and harder for the Pakistani Intelligence services backed Taliban to cross into Afghanistan.

"1500 former Taliban soldiers have lay down their arms"

Does any thinking person actually believe these stories? Besides the fact that in every single battle, scores of "Taliban" and next to no civilians or occupiers are killed?

We are on the threshold of an unusual military victory, where we actually succeed in killing and capturing our entire enemy several times over!

Any positive developments must be ignored lest a perception that the quagmire may have stalled gains ground.

The Nabobs of Negativism will never acknowledge even a tiny step forward.

quote:

---

The fact that the defeatists are conspicuous by their absence in addressing the Mullah Ibrahim story conveys their desperation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

The Nabobs of Negativism will never acknowledge even a tiny step forward.

---

Excellent! That's what that other peace-loving democrat, Spiro Agnew, called prominent U.S. opponents of the war against the Vietnamese people! I haven't heard it since hearing it then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The fact that the warriors on this board have to invoke a silly article like this shows their desperation.

"1500 former Taliban soldiers have lay down their arms"

Does any thinking person actually believe these stories? Besides the fact that in every single battle, scores of "Taliban" and next to no civilians or occupiers are killed?

We are on the threshold of an unusual military victory, where we actually succeed in killing and capturing our entire enemy several times over!

Do they allow real journalists into Afghanistan?

---

Actually I posted the article to continue the reasonable discussion with Mr West in the previous thread about military operations involving Canada.

I am not desperate about the situation.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe there haven’t been any civilian deaths in these battles, maybe all the dead are in fact enemy soldiers killed in battle. It is a possibility that maybe you should think about before insulting everyone in the military, government and the reporters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

Since you already know all the answers and could not be possible wrong about anything, and that you are always willing to admit that you are in fact correct about everything. You should only be in the country for about 5 minutes before writing a great report about all the evils and wrongs of the Canadian forces. You could be home in less than 48 hours if you book your flights correctly.

---

Your cool, calm demeanour is starting to crack, isn't it? Sorry for pushing you in that direction, but it was quite deliberate. I don't like people defending murder and aggression coolly. I like to see some passion.

And no, Webgear, I will never agree to shut my mouth about war crimes when I haven't personally visited the arena yet. Have you read the manure that spews from embedded journalists in Iraq (or used to, more correctly, when your allies were still claiming the war had been won)? No, you need a good long distance from the horrors to develop the appropriate perspective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Your cool, calm demeanour is starting to crack, isn't it? Sorry for pushing you in that direction, but it was quite deliberate. I don't like people defending murder and aggression coolly. I like to see some passion.

And no, Webgear, I will never agree to shut my mouth about war crimes when I haven't personally visited the arena yet. Have you read the manure that spews from embedded journalists in Iraq (or used to, more correctly, when your allies were still claiming the war had been won)? No, you need a good long distance from the horrors to develop the appropriate perspective.

That's why I'm right and you're wrong. You're way too close for comfort.

---

Actually I am a bit of a wild card according to this year’s evaluation, my commander note my passion is usually high and that I am fanatical about issues I deal with.

Your are only cracking me up by laughing. With ever post you that you make, you make me laugh hard and longer than the previous post. If you kept this going I will die laughing before I even get to Afghanistan.

Hint we are talking about reporters and reports from Afghanistan not Iraq, if that slipped your mind. So you have no proof of war crimes being committed by Canadian troops that you have been stating over the last few months, but if you keep stating this it may come true.

You're accusing me of being unable to differentiate between Afghanistan and Iraq?

Ya got me -- I plead guilty!

When you manage to quit laughing while packing your gear to go kill people in Afghanistan that don't know you and mean you no harm, would you mind giving me a capsule glimpse of what you see as the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq?

quote:

---

Webgear:
The coalition offensive, dubbed "Operation Mountain Thrust," is part of a major push to squeeze Taliban fighters responsible for a spate of ambushes and suicide attacks against coalition forces and Afghan authorities in recent months.

---

One must understand the type of warfare being waged. Tactical victories to not necessarily equate to a stragegic victory, though tactical defeats of the US and its subordinates could hasten a strategic loss.

I can read you a list of tactical victories from first hand experience, along with friendly villagers and insurgents who switched sides in a similar war that dragged on for years with a lot of the same smiley faced reporting that we still see now. In the end it was a strategic defeat.

All that the insurgents in Afghanistan have to do to win in the end is not give up and eventually negotiate a peace. Unfortunately in Afghanistan the nature of the tribal and regional rivalries will probably see to it that any negotiated peace doesn't last too long once the foreign forces are gone.

One should also be wary of putting too much faith in the apparent friendliness of villagers. They often change positions more than troopers change socks.

In the case of the fellow in the wheelchair that is getting a lot of press for switching sides, the more one reads the more it sounds like the options might have been switch or die. Feel better about him when he is conspicous in the field leading troops against the insurgents.

Just a couple of references from the conservative side on these kind of wars might help understan them better:

William Lind

I agree that short term tactical victories will not win the strategic war with insurgents. Constant combat with the unfriendly local population is not the answer to the problem, the Afghan government with the help of Coalition Forces will have to win the “hearts and minds” (I do not like that term)of the people that are upset with the government.

Ethnic, tribal, and clan problems from over the centuries have to be resolved and corrected; the people have to be made into one national entity instead of different groups living in the same geographical area.

quote:

---

the Afghan government with the help of Coalition Forces will have to win the “hearts and minds”

---

quote:

---

A United Nations report that has been kept under wraps for 18 months accuses leading Afghan politicians and officials of orchestrating widespread human rights abuses, including massacres, torture and rape.

The 220-page report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights details atrocities committed over 23 years of conflict by communist, mujahedeen ("holy warriors"), Soviet and Taliban fighters.

In Kabul, U.N. spokesman Aleem Siddique said the report had been presented to the Afghan government, which has yet to give a green light for publication. "We need to ensure it is published at an appropriate time," said Siddique, adding that it may be released next month.

---

quote:

---

Ethnic, tribal, and clan problems from over the centuries have to be resolved and corrected; the people have to be made into one national entity instead of different groups living in the same geographical area.

---

That is right, and the probability of that being forced on them by foreigners is pretty low. Chances are as long as there are foreign troops interferring in there country and a puppet government which exists at the pleasure of foreigners the focus will be on getting rid of the foreigners rather than solving their internal problems.

Of course in the process of getting rid of foreigners the different factions will use the foreigners for all that they can get to give them both resources and an edge against internal rivals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

If you're going to prop-up a government ...

---

quote:

---

Karzai appointed 13 former commanders with alleged links to drug smuggling, organized crime or illegal militias to senior police positions across the country.

---

quote:

---

Ludin, Karzai's chief of staff, said the added names were needed to ensure ethnic balance and greater representation of former mujahedeen fighters.

"The list included only one Uzbek and very few Hazaras," said Ludin. "There was also a feeling candidates with jihadi backgrounds were missing," he said.

---

quote:

---

"Keeping mujahedeen commanders out in the cold is not a good strategy because it turns them into anti-state elements. You have to include them," he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

If you're going to prop-up a government ...

---

Illuminating article. I wonder if we would be in this mess at all if the US had of accepted Afghanistan as a "partner" (for lack of a better word) during the 50's - 70's, instead of allowing the Soviet Union to influence and then invade during the 80's. Alot of the attrocities occured during the time of the invasion by the Soviet Union.

It is interesting to note, that Afghanistan was one country with one leadership prior to the invasion by the USSR. Further, Afghanistan was a very progressive seccular society (albiet with a very strong Muslim population).

At the time of the invasion during the 80's, the USSR was not a very nice entity, with a human rights track record which would make Ghengis Khan look positively beneign. One must remember that the Soviets turned their collective backs on socialism when they went to communism, and there waws nothing good in that kind of Orwellian society (unless of course you were in the Party, then life was good).

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

Anyways... Good article, very informative of the way things

were

.

---

You break me up.

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You break me up.

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

quote:

---

SunTzu
It is interesting to note, that Afghanistan was one country with one leadership prior to the invasion by the USSR. Further, Afghanistan was a very progressive seccular society (albiet with a very strong Muslim population).

---

It was one country in one hell of a mess prior to the involvement of the USSR, and one could argue that the USSR supported government was more progressive than what replaced it.

Maybe things would have been better if Eisenhower had decided to support Afghanistan instead of declining, and maybe things would have been better if the US had not used the country as a battleground in its war against the USSR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

It was one country in one hell of a mess prior to the involvement of the USSR, and one could argue that the USSR supported government was more progressive than what replaced it.

Maybe things would have been better if Eisenhower had decided to support Afghanistan instead of declining, and maybe things would have been better if the US had not used the country as a battleground in its war against the USSR.

Now it is a profit center for western defense interests and a political tool for the neo-cons and other regressives. The conquest and occupation of Afghanistan has less to do with Afghanistan than it does with other interests closer to home.

---

It was a mess then in comparison to Canada's society then yes. However, Afghanistan then was not nearly as bad as anyone would beleive it was. The city centres were absolute gems, and it did not get messy until you got away from the city centres... That was when you ran into the fuedal system, and tribal warfare, which abided by it's own very strict systems of rules of conduct.

quote:

---

It was not nearly as brutal as the Taliban became.

---

Probably selectively, yes when you compare legal regimes. Of course in the areas of chaos where ongoing warfare, rape and murder were taking place one might argue differently. Part of the reason that the Taliban came to power was to put and end to all of that.

Of course our involvement in Afghanistan really isn't about the Taliban anyhow. They are nothing but a red herring when it comes to the invasion and conquest of the country by the US and its subordinate foreign armies.

If there would have been more benefit for the US to deal with the Taliban rather than attack it the western countries would be defending them rather than attacking them and all of their brutality would be dismissed with the usual bag of excuses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Probably selectively, yes when you compare legal regimes. Of course in the areas of chaos where ongoing warfare, rape and murder were taking place one might argue differently. Part of the reason that the Taliban came to power was to put and end to all of that.

Of course our involvement in Afghanistan really isn't about the Taliban anyhow. They are nothing but a red herring when it comes to the invasion and conquest of the country by the US and its subordinate foreign armies.

If there would have been more benefit for the US to deal with the Taliban rather than attack it the western countries would be defending them rather than attacking them and all of their brutality would be dismissed with the usual bag of excuses.

And, if we cared about human rights and such in Afghanistan now we would have objected to and refused to accept a new government based on Islamic law rather than secular, and would be arresting many of the war lords for their crimes rather than protecting them and letting them sit in government.

---

Change in Afghanistan WRT human rights and other such things that we in the western world cherish, will only come with time. Attempting to force it right here right now, would impose a greater evil then we are trying to circumvent. When something is forced, it is less likely to "stick".

The huge dichotomy between the urban and rural areas has been, perhaps, the fault line along which Afghanistan has crumbled these past 30 years. Any changes within Afghan culture must come from within, and will take time. Security, development and education can help set the conditions for success, but the definition of that success must be an Afghan one.

Cheers,

quote:

---

Originally posted by TK 421:
These are issues well above my pay grade, but I think that Sun Tzu has the right of it here. Forcing our view of government, religion, culture and social values on the people of Afghanistan would be a disaster. Those issues must be Afghan issues. We came here to fight terrorism, not change a culture.

The huge dichotomy between the urban and rural areas has been, perhaps, the fault line along which Afghanistan has crumbled these past 30 years. Any changes within Afghan culture must come from within, and will take time. Security, development and education can help set the conditions for success, but the definition of that success must be an Afghan one.

Cheers,

TK

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:
Change in Afghanistan WRT human rights and other such things that we in the western world cherish, will only come with time. Attempting to force it right here right now, would impose a greater evil then we are trying to circumvent. When something is forced, it is less likely to "stick".

So change will come, just not next week, or next year. It will take patience and time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Too bad your pals in the Pentagon didn't think that way WRT Iraq...

...but then, "human rights" isn't exactly high on their agenda.

---

quote:

---

TK 421:
Forcing our view of government, religion, culture and social values on the people of Afghanistan would be a disaster. Those issues must be Afghan issues.

---

Exactly, and is a good reason why we should not have a military presence there if changing Afghan society away from the regressive, conservative values that it now has, even in the US created Karzai government.

There are far better ways to facilitate the modernization of Afghanistan than killing Afghans and needlessly wasting Canadian lives which is what we are doing.

quote:

---

We came here to fight terrorism, not change a culture.

---

Those who believe that they are fighting terrorism there have been fooled. Terror is a tool used by both sides around the world. The mess in Afghanistan is just one part of a larger global war for power and resources.

Of course leading up to this war was all of the villefication of the Taliban and Islamists for their extreme cultural views and treatment of women and others based on human rights grounds. Another bit of BS put out by the US and its subordinate states to build support for military action and deflect public views from the root issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
terrorism is a function of culture.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that, particularly as you had just pointed out that terror is used by "both sides".

quote:

---

rici:
I'm not sure what you mean by that, particularly as you had just pointed out that terror is used by "both sides".

---

Both sides have a culture that uses terrorism. Also, in the current case Islamic terrorism uses cultural differences as one reason to justify its terrorism.

If a culture did not accept terrorism as a valid tool then it wouldn't use it. And in the case of perceived cultural clashes if the cultures were closer in content then there would be less of an opportunity to whip up support for terrorist acts.

Even though our culture uses terrorism too, we are far more permissive and tolerant than the radical Islamic one that we are confronting in Afghanistan. If we pursue a more progressive and tolerant state in that country there has to be considerable cultural change.

quote:

---

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Certainly, but acceptance of [terrorism] is ideological.

---

Sadly, the history of human depravity contradicts that. Tactics are accepted to the extent that the supporters feel that they are effective (and, to a lesser extent, necessary). The fire-bombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima, which were both clearly terrorist in nature -- that is, they sought to gain victory by inculcating terror by brutally attacking civilian populations -- were both broadly accepted by "our" culture, and to a large extent continue to be. My experience of Ireland is that it does not diverge culturally much from Canada, but terrorism was clearly acceptable to a large number of people in Ireland. Other examples abound.

But I am not so pessimistic as the above lines indicate; all of those incidents were opposed by segments of the population, just as there are Israelis who are horrified by the tactics used against Palestinians, and Palestinians horrified by bombing Israeli discotheques, and so on in every society.

So I agree that cultural mores can overcome terrorism. In that sense, it is possible to oppose terrorism initiated by your own society through cultural practices.

quote:

---

Sadly, the history of human depravity contradicts that.

---

I'm not sure that my rejection of terrorism, or of war in general, is ideological in origin, although I've certainly constructed an ideology around it. I suspect, honestly, that it's esthetic in origin: I find violence distasteful, even sickening.

But my original point was that the people who sling around the phrase "we're fighting terrorism" (or describe their "enemy" as "terrorists") are, in general, confusing tactics with ideology, and this confusion is not conducive to a solution.

Specifically, TK421 said "We came here to fight terrorism, not change a culture."

The part that Coalition forces have to play here is to prevent disagreements over the direction that the country is taking leading to full-scale civil war as was the case in the 90s. Coalition forces (both OEF and ISAF) are a strong deterrent to any warlord thinking about a forceful regime change.

When talking about change and progress one needs to manage expectations over here. That was absent during the late 70s, leading to a string of coups by communists whose vision of Afghanistan was completely at odds with rural Afghans.

As to terrorism,terror is indeed a tactic or a means to an end. In this case, we are fighting Al-Queda or any of its successors/allies. We (the military) are but one component of that fight. It is preferable that young men do not join terror networks and we must seek ways to prevent their ranks from growing, but once those terror networks are established they need to be dealt with.

Cheers,

TK

p.s. I'm pondering the WW II bombing campaigns and their relation to terrorism. My time is limited on these means, so I'm going to have to mull this one over.

quote:

---

TK 421:
It is preferable that young men do not join terror networks and we must seek ways to prevent their ranks from growing, but once those terror networks are established they need to be dealt with.

---

Which puts the invasion and occupation into a Catch 22 situation at best. Being there encourages people to aid the terrorists and join their ranks. One wonders if the number of insurgents being killed is lesser or greater than the number joining them because of the foreign presence.

quote:

---

That was absent during the late 70s, leading to a string of coups by communists whose vision of Afghanistan was completely at odds with rural Afghans.

---

From all accounts that I have seen except the knee jerk anti-communist ones the communists were a better choice than the radical Islamists. It looks like we backed the wrong side in the 70s. Nothing new, however.

quote:

---

I'm pondering the WW II bombing campaigns and their relation to terrorism.

---

Start a new topic when you figure it out.

Here is an interesting piece on Afghanistan:

quote:

---

The Globe & Mail
....One plan calls for a convicted Taliban prisoner to fake an illness at the city's main jail, at which point an ambulance full of gunmen would try to slip through the compound's gates. Other targets include United Nations compounds and Afghan police stations.....

---

On can not help but wonder if our friend in the wheelchair was a dry run to test responses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

On can not help but wonder if our friend in the wheelchair was a dry run to test responses.

---

No way, Jerry, I'm winning the bet on this one --

I guessed it first!:

quote:

---

Watch for a suicide bomb attack from an unlikely source.

---

quote:

---

During a recent visit, there was no sign of the rumoured Taliban fighters. But it was impossible to ask around, because the neighbourhood is considered too dangerous for a reporter to roam the streets.

Some residents of Loy Wiyala have already signalled where their loyalties lie. Beside the slums stands a vast graveyard, where local legend says al-Qaeda fighters are buried. The government repeatedly destroys their graves, but somebody always visits the dusty field at night to rebuild the piles of rock and crude mud tombs. Now the graves are freshly painted, and green Islamic flags flutter proudly in the dusty wind.

---

An interesting point from the Globe and Mail article.

"Some residents of Loy Wiyala have already signalled where their loyalties lie. Beside the slums stands a vast graveyard, where local legend says al-Qaeda fighters are buried. The government repeatedly destroys their graves, but somebody always visits the dusty field at night to rebuild the piles of rock and crude mud tombs. Now the graves are freshly painted, and green Islamic flags flutter proudly in the dusty wind."

The Taliban flags were either white or white with black letttering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

The Taliban flags were either white or white with black letttering.

---

quote:

---

But the "key issue," according to ICG's Schneider, is Pakistan's support for the Islamist group. "The main reason the insurgency is sustaining itself is that it has a place to go to regroup, to rest and resupply, and to re-infiltrate into Afghanistan," he told IPS, adding that its headquarters appears to be in Quetta in Balochistan, a city controlled by the Pakistani military.

---

The above quote refers to the Balochistan city of Quetta as the Taliban headquarters.

Since Balochistan is an independent nation that is illegally occupied by Pakistan,the military controls Quetta and supports the Taliban in order to continue Afghanistan's destablisation.

If Pakistan does not acceed to American requests to stop providing safe haven for the Taliban,what is to stop the Americans from supporting the Balochs in their continuing struggle for freedom from Pakistani occupation?

Considering that it is Pakistani intransigence that is creating the instability in southern Afghanistan,one would think that from the American perspective, a quid pro quo is required.

If the CIA covertly supported the Balochs,it could be officially denied,the same way Pakistan denies harbouring and supporting the Taliban.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Very interesting. So the Al Qaeda graves are being maintained by non-Taliban Afghans?

---

No, I would guess that the tombs and flags are not being maintained by non-Afghans members of the insurgence.

I have read several reports recently that stated that most Afghans did not care for their Arab comrades in the Soviet-Afghan war because many of the foreign fighters were not prepared to conduct combat operations, and that they found the Arabs to be no better than the Soviets most of the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Here is an interesting piece on Afghanistan:

From Search-and-Destroy to Reconciliation?

---

quote:

---

AFGHANISTAN:
From Search-and-Destroy to Reconciliation?
Paul Weinberg

TORONTO, Canada, Jun 8 (IPS) - A day before the spectacular arrests of 17 Muslim men under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act, a McMaster University professor now working in Afghanistan was in Ottawa to tell Canadian officials that their war against the Taliban is ill-advised.

Dr. Seddiq Weera, an adviser to the Kabul-based National Commission on Strengthening Peace in Afghanistan, is in a position to know. After visiting senior members of the Taliban, he concluded that the insurgents are ready to negotiate and that persisting in efforts to keep the losing sides in the civil war from participating fully in Afghan life will only intensify the violence.

..........................

At the core of Weera's proposal is a new commission with a broader mandate than the one he works for. "Why not invest in a national peace initiative that can be a preventive measure? It will reduce the hostilities, isolate the terrorists and reduce the number of troops needed," he told IPS.

Afghanistan is going to require assistance in peace-building in the form of expertise and financial help, he says. Meanwhile, the Canadian government has urged him to wait until 2008, when something called the Afghan National Development Strategy is slated to begin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

No, I would guess that the tombs and flags are not being maintained by non-Afghans members of the insurgence.

I have read several reports recently that stated that most Afghans did not care for their Arab comrades in the Soviet-Afghan war because many of the foreign fighters were not prepared to conduct combat operations, and that they found the Arabs to be no better than the Soviets most of the time.

---