quote:

---

Losing The Forgotten War In Afghanistan

by Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst

Washington (UPI) Jul 10, 2006

The war in Afghanistan is going far worse than almost anyone in the United States -- or even in the Bush administration -- realizes. And the bad news has been building up for a long time.

It seemed so easy when alliance forces hostile to the ruling Taliban and spearheaded by U.S. Special Forces rolled into Kabul in late 2001 and toppled the Taliban extreme Islamist regime that had protected the planners and perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 atrocities.

And it was the apparent ease of the conquest of Afghanistan that whetted the appetites of Pentagon and National Security Council hawks for the 2003 war to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq. After all, if overwhelming U.S. forces could remake Afghanistan so easily in contrast to the bleeding ulcer that bled and discredited the Soviet Union for eight years from 1979 to 1987, how hard could Iraq be?

Things have in fact been going from bad to worse in Iraq for a long time. And soon the lesson may be coming home to the American people that --although the casualties have thankfully been much less -- the same thing is happening in Afghanistan. And it has been happening for the same reasons....

Link to article

---

quote:

---

Afghanistan: Same war, different players

gwynne dyer
Editorial - Wednesday, July 12, 2006 @ 09:00

1839, 1878, 1979, 2001: Four foreign invasions of Afghanistan in less than 200 years.

The first two were British, and unashamedly imperialist. The third was Soviet, and the invaders said they were there to defend socialism and help Afghanistan become a modern, prosperous state.

The last was American, and the invaders said they were there to bring democracy and help Afghanistan become a modern, prosperous state. But all four invasions were doomed to fail (although the last still has some time to run).

When Britain deployed 3,300 troops to Helmand province early last month, then Defence Secretary John Reid said: "We hope we will leave Afghanistan without firing a single shot."

But six British soldiers have been killed in combat since then, and the new Defence Minister, Des Browne, announced on Monday that the British force is being increased by another 900 soldiers to cope with "unexpected" resistance.

The story is the same across southern Afghanistan. The Canadian army has lost six soldiers killed in action in Kandahar province since late April, and may soon face the same choice between reinforcing its troops or pulling them back, because the American combat troops in the vicinity are leaving at the end of this month. The U.S. forces are pulling out just in time.

A country that has been invaded four times in less than two centuries is bound to know a couple of things about dealing with foreign conquerors....

---

For the moment I'll simply say that this mission of rebuilding and bettering Afghanistan may be an impossible one after all, but if anybody in the whole wide world can do it, it's the Canadian Forces. The CF can't do it on it own, of course, but as an instrument and mentor in the kind of policy implementation the whole world would like to see, nobody does it better.

quote:

---

Canada's intentions in Afghanistan have been realistic and good

---

There's the Canadian political and military leadership, of course, but there's also the individual members of the CF, as well as the ordinary Canadian public (which is presently divided over the Afghanistan mission).

I'm not sure the 'intentions' of all these disparate groups can be reconciled under one heading called 'Canada's intentions.'

And while I don't doubt that most individual members of the CF want to do some good in Afghanistan, I think it's far from obvious that the intentions of the political leaders trying to sell Canadians on this mission are 'good.'

Standing apart from the 'goodness' of intentions is the question of their 'realism,' and here I don't see much room for debate, frankly.

During the parliamentary debates on Afghanistan, more than one mention was made of the 16-page 2006 Afghanistan Compact, which lays out such 'realistic' goals as this:

quote:

---

All illegal armed groups will be disbanded by end-2007 in all provinces.

---

quote:

---

By end-2010: A nationally respected, professional, ethnically balanced Afghan National Army will be fully established that is democratically accountable, organized, trained and equipped to meet the security needs of the country and increasingly funded from Government revenue, commensurate with the nation’s economic capacity; the international community will continue to support Afghanistan in expanding the ANA towards the ceiling of 70,000 personnel articulated in the Bonn talks; and the pace of expansion is to be adjusted on the basis of periodic joint quality assessments by the Afghan Government and the international community against agreed criteria which take into account prevailing conditions.

---

quote:

---

By end-2010, the Government will strengthen its law enforcement capacity at both central and provincial levels, resulting in a substantial annual increase in the amount of drugs seized or destroyed and processing facilities dismantled, and in effective measures, including targeted eradication as appropriate, that contribute to the elimination of poppy cultivation.

---

Nor does the 'Security' section of the Afghanistan Compact (a document held up by our parliamentarians as evidence of our commitment to the people of Afghanistan) have anything serious to say about the role those in other countries (i.e. Pakistan) are playing in supporting the 'Taliban' insurgency.

Not a surprise, then, that Stephen Harper (falsely) assured us all back in March that Pakistan was doing everything possible to assist in the Afghan effort: after all, what could Harper have missed during his six-hour layover in Islamabad that Hamid Karzai might notice during his daily experience of life in Afghanistan?

Were some Canadians' intentions about Afghanistan good?

Doubtless.

Has anything approaching a 'realistic' assessment of the situation been offered us by our political and/or military leaders?

Not remotely.

[ 13 July 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Canwest News Service ran an article on July 2 titled “Beer, doughnuts help troops celebrate Canada Day.” The story went on to tell about Canadian troops in Afghanistan having a special BBQ and two beers apiece to celebrate our national holiday.

It brought back memories. Just over 40 years before, in the summer of '66, I was a young Marine in a forward position in a sand pile just north of Tam Ky in South Vietnam on a combat operation named Kansas.

It was hot, very hot, and what we had to drink was river water. We got the water by driving a big water trailer into the river with its top open and let it fill up. We poured in some foul-tasting chemicals to kill the bugs and then it sat in the sun. Tasty stuff when you are thirsty — lukewarm toxic waste.

The high point of the operation came one day when helicopters arrived with an ammo resupply and enough cases of ice cold Coca-Cola for two cans per man each. I have had some great drinks in my time, but those two cans of Coke in that sweltering heat hit the spot more than any other, even if they weren't beer. And there weren't any Tim Horton's doughnuts either.

Things have changed between now and then: corporate franchises in the combat zone, cell phones and on-line chatting with the folks at home and other amenities of the new century. Forty years ago contact with home was via the postal service and letters took a week or more each way. Doughnuts came from the mess hall on the rare occasion that they made them.

One thing remains the same, however; a bad war is a bad war no matter what century it is in.

---

quote:

---

At the end of the day we will be judged mainly by our intentions,

---

Intentions mean nothing. Do you think an Afghanii will say "They killed my uncle and cousins, tortured my father, and destroyed my home. But it's okay, 'cause they meant well."?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Intentions mean nothing. Do you think an Afghanii will say "They killed my uncle and cousins, tortured my father, and destroyed my home. But it's okay, 'cause they meant well."?

---

This is a watershed debate for the left. Thrown to the side and discounted will be all those reflexive leftist anit-military people and those who think a simple anti-American stance (if they're for it, then I'm against it) will be sufficient. The left has a chance here to see the values it supports put into action in Afghanistan. I'm beginning to see that the fatal flaw of Canadian leftists is that they lack trust in their own country and in their fellow citizens. We can do this, maybe. We can bring peace to Afghanistan in the face of insurmountable odds, because we are Canadians and we have a history of this kind of thing. And yes, we have to kill some bad guys to do it. And we are on the right side, killing the right bad guys.

quote:

---

The answer to Paxamillion's question is clear. Canadians have not engaged in systematic atrocities against Afghanis. We've been killing the people who needed to be killed.

---

Now there is a defence that has been well used throughout history. I hope the parents of the co-alition forces that get killed can appreciate that the Afghani who killed them also believes that s/he only 'killed the people who need to be killed'.

quote:

---

We've been killing the people who needed to be killed.

---

You are a seriously twisted motherfucker. How do we know they needed to be killed? Why, because we killed them, that's why! And why did we kill them? Because they needed to be killed. Perfect circle of psycopathy. Never mind that they have the right to resist foreign occupation, as any person with any integrity and honour would understand (unlike those simpering cowards who prostate themselves before power, fearfully doing the bidding of the rich and powerful).

quote:

---

We can do this, maybe. We can bring peace to Afghanistan in the face of insurmountable odds, because we are Canadians and we have a history of this kind of thing.

---

This is your best effort at thinking this through? The philosophy of a High School cheerleader. It would be pathetic if it wasn't so sickening.

I've really had enough of your asinine "with us or with the terrorists" shots at what you call "the left" every time Afghanistan is discussed. Go back playing with your GI Joes.

quote:

---

Have Canadian troops left anyone in such a situation that we know of so far?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I like the coalition rules of engagement I've been able to determine in Afghanistan. Don't try to kill us, and we won't kill you. Seems fair, especially when a whole lot of your fellow country men will help us kill you if you attack.

---

Mr. Mann your entire post is seriously off base, as Jingles and Otter have pointed out.

But with respect to what I have excerpted here --don't try to kill us, etc. What about the air strikes on wedding parties, the recent bombardment of a village (the air strike called for by unidentified coalition ground forces) the tuk tuk death and on. Guess they "needed killin'". What is this a fucking B grade western with soldiers from some of the world's most affluent countries harassing the people of one of the poorest.

What about brave Lt. Craig Allcott and Co. descending on the homes of Afghan citizens and forcefully carrying out house to house searches -- then threatening to kill anyone who joins the Taliban.

Apparently Karzai doesn't think the sons of Afghanistan "need killin'". But then, he's only listened to when useful like when he says he wants coalition forces to stay.

Please take some time to read sgm's excellent post here.

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
So we have a divide - those on the left who would find excuses for the the atrocities of totalitarian extremist Islam, and those who would confront it. It's an easy choice, when the smoke clears.

---

You can't be serious, reducing such a complicated equation to such a simplistic solution.

Of course if we were really serious about combatting totalitarians we would 1) not trade with them, 2) not permit ships of any nation that trades with, aids or otherwise supports totalitarian regimes to pass through our waters, including the Saint Lawrence Seaway and Inside Passage, and 3) sever all alliances and agreements with any nation that is either totalitarian or supports or aids totalitarian nations.

Fact is we are very selective in which totalitarians and extremist that we oppose because our policy really has little or nothing to do with combating those things. Policy is driven by economics and maintaining power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
And yes, we have to kill some bad guys to do it. And we are on the right side, killing the right bad guys.

---

We know you love the Canadians and hate the Americans - this subtle distinction in Afghanistan which so far only you have managed to draw.

Where do the noble British stand in this equation?

UK defends strike on Afghan town

quote:

---

British forces in Afghanistan have defended their decision to call in US planes to drop 500lb bombs on Taleban fighters in a town in Helmand province.

Witnesses say there were many civilian deaths and injuries but UK forces said there was no evidence of any.

Civilians in Nawzad told the BBC that aircraft dropped at least three bombs, destroying shops and a school. [...]

British troops said the school was being used by the Taleban to launch mortars.

There are reports of anything from 25 to 200 people being killed but it is almost impossible to verify as the fighting is continuing.

---

It is shameful that we have sent our children to wage this dirty war on behalf of the U.S. They will die in increasing numbers, before we bring them back in ignominious retreat. But what is most shameful is the old warmongers who smile and send them to their death under a false flag.

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

Because we are allies, damn it, no matter what you think about it. By law, by convention, by treaty, by strategic and tactical reality, Canada is inextricably interwoven into the US military machine. This is the starting point.

Because an overwhelming majority of Canadians support this state of affairs. I don't. This is the starting point.

[ 18 July 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Because an overwhelming majority of Canadians support this state of affairs.

---

I think Bush's lap dogs in Ottawa are off of opinion polls lately. Harper said "the debate over deployment is over," no matter what surveys of public opinion may suggest.

He might as well have said Canadians can't be trusted with democracy a la the doctor and the madman of the 1970's.

It's just like our two old line parties campaigning against opening free trade talks with the Yanks in 1989 and 1994. And it's likely why neither of the lying liars, Harper or Martin, received more than 24 percent of the eligible vote in the last election, the weasels.

Someone's keeping a list of all the failed right-wing ideological maneuvering Canada has adopted from Washington over the years and were proven to fail a second time, right here in our own frozen Puerto Rico du Nord.

And the Korean and Vietnam wars are there for the record, Brett.

ETA: Brett, we've got an illegit leader in Ottawa , and with his nose up the ass of that illegitimate leader in Washington, and waging war on behalf of the illegit CIA-installed mayor of Kabul. Do you think Harper wants to draw attention to himself with an opinion poll on his cow-towing to Uncle Sam ?.

[ 18 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
By law, by convention, by treaty, by strategic and tactical reality, Canada is inextricably interwoven into the US military machine. This is the starting point.

Because an overwhelming majority of Canadians support this state of affairs. I don't.

---

quote:

---

What disturbs me the most about the general tenor of this discussion is a lack of geo-political realism underlying much of the debate. So, for example, arguments like this are advanced: why should we focus on estreme Islamic terrorism when we support equally brutal and evil regimes?

---

So, when the NDP has asked serious questions in parliament about the dangers of mixing military activity and the provision of aid (concerns voiced by some of the aid organizations themselves), or about potential Canadian complicity in violations of human rights or the Geneva Conventions (by turning suspected 'Taliban' over to Afghan forces to face likely abuse or even torture), parliamentary necromancers like Peter MacKay have summoned the spirit of Neville Chamberlain to attack them for raising such issues: heroic poses against 'Islamofascism' are struck, while sentimental appeals to 'democracy' and 'freedom' round out the typical response to a critical question.

On the occasion of such exchanges, the utter lack of serious, realistic thought about the Afghanistan mission displayed by our political leadership would be comical if it weren't so depressing.

And what if members of the 'left' exceed the limits of parliamentary debate thus far and openly challenge Canada's assistance to the imperial aims of certain parties to the Afghan conflict?

They are generally dismissed as anti-Americans who don't understand the mission's benign intentions, even as Donald Rumsfeld publicly makes commments like this:

quote:

---

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that the United States must persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain "the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

Rumsfeld linked the costly and unpopular US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan to US concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its regional might, in an interview with the Pentagon's in-house television channel.

He said those who believe that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly or are taking too long need to understand that "success in Afghanistan and success in Iraq is critical to containing the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

---

And even as Rumsfeld comes right out with such a blast of 'geopolitical realism' ('We're in Afghanistan so we can project power into the region and achieve our aim of containing Iran'), Canadian 'leftists' who call attention to such facts and question whether Canada should be involved in such efforts are dismissed as 'anti-Americans' who lack a sense of 'geopolitical realism' (that is, when they aren't called 'conspiracy theorists' or worse).

quote:

---

So, for example, arguments like this are advanced: why should we focus on estreme Islamic terrorism when we support equally brutal and evil regimes?

---

I stand to be corrected in my numbers, but I don't think anyone's recently advanced the claim that 'extremist Islamic terrorism' has brutally killed as many people as, say, Suharto of Indonesia, a one-time darling of 'the west' (and of Canada's Jean Chretien, one might add).

Also, we should be honest and admit that, while some of our leaders have been declaring a 'change of course' with respect to their present-day 'focus' on 'Islamic extremism,' the substance of the past 'focus' was to actively support, fund, supply and train such extremists, particularly in Afghanistan, along with the help of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Again, this isn't ancient history: according to Hamid Karzai, Pakistan continues to be a base of support for such 'Islamic extremist terrorism' in Afghanistan, and our Canadian political leaders yet have surprisingly little to say about the fact, despite their being 'geopolitical realists' and all.

Finally, there's no doubt that terrorism, including jihadi terrorism, is a serious problem. The question, though, isn't whether we 'focus' on it or not, or whether such a focus should keep us from correcting the myriad other flaws in our foreign policy (of course, it shouldn't): the real question is why our Canadian political leaders are 'focusing' on this issue in a way that makes the threat and problem much worse, rather than making it better.

A hopelessly unrealistic and dishonest Afghan policy of killing enough 'scumbags' to bring peace; cutting off funds to the Palestinian Authority after the election of Hamas, contributing to a humanitarian crisis (according to Oxfam); 'Standing up for Canada' by cheering on the Israeli military's airstrikes even as they savaged civilian infrastructure, and killed numerous innocents, including Canadians in Lebanon.

Does any of this seem like a 'realistic' or coherent plan to reduce the threat of 'extreme Islamic terrorism'?

Not to me, at least.

To me, it looks like an almost calculated attempt to increase that risk by radicalizing populations in extreme difficulties, while openly declaring oneself on the side of a narrow-minded, black-and-white crusade that knows no right but might.

When it comes to the question of our continued mutual survival on this planet, there's nothing 'realistic' about a strategy like that.

[ 18 July 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

[ 18 July 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Aside, Harper needs to keep Canada Canadian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by snaapz:
Germany turned out nicely after WWII, and the French, american, british, occupation... even russian... was beneficial... same with Japan... Aside, Harper needs to keep Canada Canadian.

---

Ya, but it all came at a price. Germany was built up by the west again because it was still considered a flashpoint for the spread of communism to the west. Same with Japan, they were given most favoured nation trade status to pull them away from their socialist tendencies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by paxamillion:

Have Canadian troops left anyone in such a situation that we know of so far?

---

To the afghans, the canadian troops aren't any different from the american troops, which most assuredly HAVE.

We'll all fighting as one army, under american command. What's the difference?

quote:

---

During the first visit to Baluchistan by a Canadian news media organization since Canada sent troops to nearby Kandahar at the beginning of the year, the midlevel insurgents outlined their ideas about how the Taliban aims to defeat the foreign troops.
....

"There is a big difference between Canada and the United States," Mr. Azizullah said, tapping his fingertips together in a pensive gesture. "If we attack the Canadians, they call for aircraft and bomb everything in the area. The U.S. only tried to kill the Taliban. The Canadians try to kill everybody."
....

He confirmed a rumour that ammunition shipped by the government to Ghorak, a remote district northwest of Kandahar, regularly ends up in the hands of the Taliban. Many low-level administrators are willing to trade bullets for guarantees of protection from the insurgents, he said.

"The government officials give us ammunition and money," he said. "Without them, the fight is not possible for us. They help us carry our wounded men back to Pakistan. They give us their own vehicles and uniforms. Nobody can catch us."

Such alliances with local government officials helped the Taliban prepare a suicide bombing against Canadians earlier this year in the village of Bazar-e-Panjwai, Mr. Azizullah said. With a promise that the Taliban wouldn't harm any district officials, he said, some of them helped his insurgents recover an old Russian bomb that landed nearby in the 1980s, but didn't explode. They rewired the detonator and loaded it into a car, and the local authorities tipped off the insurgents about an approaching Canadian convoy. (Mr. Azizullah was vague about the date of the attack, and it's not clear whether any soldiers were killed or injured.)

But co-operation with the Taliban isn't inspired purely by fear, Mr. Azizullah said. Several southern tribes have been marginalized in the new government, making it easy for the insurgents to muster their support.
....

The frustrations of ordinary people allowed the Taliban to take over parts of the district of Panjwai this summer, until they were routed by a huge North Atlantic Treaty Organization offensive in September, he said. While Canadian and NATO officials say the defeat severely crippled the insurgency, the Taliban said they have learned from that loss. The next wave of insurgents will strike in smaller groups.

---

quote:

---

TIRIN KOT, AFGHANISTAN -- The United States has persuaded Afghanistan to spray herbicide on poppy fields in an effort to slow the country's opium boom, according to a senior Western diplomat.

A security review will be conducted before the plan goes ahead, the diplomat said. But already rumours of chemical eradication are spreading in southern Afghanistan, where many say it would spark a revolt among farmers and put Canadian soldiers at risk.

Afghanistan has not previously tried chemical spraying, as President Hamid Karzai expressed deep misgivings about the effects of herbicides on villagers and legitimate crops.

But U.S. politicians are now encouraging a more aggressive drug policy in Afghanistan, after estimates show this year's opium crop was 59 per cent bigger than the previous year's harvest.

---

quote:

---

U.S. contractors working in Afghanistan, such as DynCorp, have experience with spraying herbicides on drug crops. DynCorp aircraft reportedly spray herbicides on coca fields in Colombia, but a report by the international think tank Senlis Council suggests this wasn't effective, damaged the environment and killed the crops that ordinary people need to survive.

"Evidence shows that aerial spraying directly led to an increase in social unrest, instability and violence," says the Senlis report.

---

When I first started to take in the Afghanistan war, I too looked at it as Canada fighting the bad guys and saving people! This G.I.Joe inspired view of the world is pretty harsh though... Contrary to popular beleif, there is no cobra commander out in Afghanistan sitting there plotting to destroy anything 'good'.

Go back to the Glavin voice that you see coming out on this issue and recognize the tactics he's using. Glavin gives us the generalization of what he thinks the collective oppositions that form 'the left' and then tells us why his generalization of what he thinks the left thinks is wrong. We should put up an online pool to see what term he thinks we should collectively fear next... Jihalisfacism? It's also humorous to see the arguement that 'the left' doesn't recognize the threat from 'islamicism' (or jihadism, islamofacism, terrorism, or CobraHQ extrodinaire... Whatever buzzword we're using in this thread), when alot of the voices decrying war are stating that war is increasing the risk we apparently fail to acknowledge, not decrease it.
SGMs Quote fits well:

quote:

---

the real question is why our Canadian political leaders are 'focusing' on this issue in a way that makes the threat and problem much worse, rather than making it better.

---

quote:

---

Canada's intentions in Afghanistan have been realistic and good

---

The most dangerous Canadian is one that beleives above without taking the time to ensure thats true. Most Canadians simply assume we're Canadians and therefore what we do must be good. We took the same stance on Global warming too, or as Lonewolf is bringing attention to Homeless

Lose the assumption above and you can see whats happening in Afghanistan alot more clearly.

1. We're backing a 'force elected' set of warlords over it's nonelected predacessors. Whats kinda funny... Many of the warlords that supported the 'evil taliban orginization' are now corrupt elected officials instead. Feudal means the warlords look out for themselves as number 1.
2. We're trying to bring Democracy into a culture not yet ready for it, and we expect it to solve all problems. Afghanistan is a strong Feudal setup with it's people loyal to villages and warlords, not an abstract identity of a nation that we are... People voted based on which warlord (or village) they 'belonged' to... Which doesn't bode well for Democratic intentions.
3. We're relying on Pakistan to secure it's border... In the middle of Pashtun tribal lands that it has tiny amounts of influence over. We've even had Musharraf come over here and explain these things.
4. We've assumed our culture and way of life are completely surperior to theirs... When they chuck out their backwards ass values, we'll all be for the better. I find it funny that we act surprised when people are willing to die defending their 'inferior values'. (added in... Another person willing to die for what they beleive in

The list continues pretty readily... The number of misteps and assumptions that we've made under the banner of 'Good intentions' is pretty atrocious. Though the atmosphere is changing (brings some hope). A while back our generals could have marched soldier after soldier into enemy gunfire using "this'll waste their bullets" as justification and then attack anyone who critisized this tactic for 'Not supporting the troops'... Atleast now the line between supporting troops and supporting the mission has been drawn.

Even this thread title gets misleading. How the F* do you lose a war that never had victory conditions in the first place? The only way you can come to a win/lose mentality regarding a conflict like this is to hold that good vs evil mentality.

[ 28 November 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

[ 28 November 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

Now if you're talking about cultural sensitivity towards theocratic totalitarianism, no one in the world owes respect to Salafism.

I don't know much about Glavin, have only read two of his pieces, but right away I like him. Whether he is a legimate member of the left is a discussion for another time perhaps, but I think the more reflective peace workers will realize he has done the peace movement an important favour by pointing out the dangers of an unexamined embrace of all Islamic resistance movements, without differentiating Salafism.

quote:

---

certainly that's not the impression I get from the increasing number of Canadian soldiers returning from a tour of duty who often say that the Afghans are the finest people they've ever met. Constrast this with the US soldier who said he quickly came to hate "all Iraqis" because "they couldn't be trusted."

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure I agree with you about Canadians feeling culturally superior to Afghans -

---

quote:

---

but I think the more reflective peace workers will realize he has done the peace movement an important favour by pointing out the dangers of an unexamined embrace of all Islamic resistance movements, without differentiating Salafism.

---

I thought he did a piece on the 'islamicists' blanket and it was yourself that (through other posters ) narrowed this down to Salafism.

quote:

---

There are many other points we need to consider in getting a full picture of Afghanistan and Canada's role there, but this is already getting long.

---

This point being a biggy:

quote:

---

He confirmed a rumour that ammunition shipped by the government to Ghorak, a remote district northwest of Kandahar, regularly ends up in the hands of the Taliban. Many low-level administrators are willing to trade bullets for guarantees of protection from the insurgents, he said.

---

Heh, all this effort to find out who is financially backing and supplying the Taliban, only to discover the answer was in part us that were and still are supplying them

Then again, thats assuming most of what we've been fighting is actually Taliban, and not just tribal warlords attacking foriegners. Even identifying who we are fighting is exceedingly difficult.

[ 28 November 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

The second thing is maybe more difficult - establishing some credibility and broader support for the central government across the land. I'm not completely discouraged by the level of corruption and crime in the current government - it's their first elected government (I think?) and everyone has to start somewhere. But the deeply tribal nature of Afghanistan will dictate so much, for the forseeable future.

quote:

---

CBC: NATO also announced its new rapid-reaction force is ready for action. With land, sea and air capability, the 25,000-strong force will allow the alliance to respond to terror threats, failed states or regional conflicts, said de Hoop Scheffer.

---

Great. Ready to invade at a moment's notice "in defence of our values". The best thing that could happen to NATO would be for it to be abolished. It's founding Cold War reasons have declined to be replaced by service to the USA in the new, unipolar brave new globalized pax Americana world.

Report: Pakistan Urging NATO to Accept Defeat in Afghanistan

quote:

---

Back at the NATO Summit, the London Daily Telegraph is reporting the Pakistani government is urging NATO countries to accept defeat in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s foreign minister has reportedly told counterparts the Taliban is winning the war and that NATO is bound to lose. Pakistan has also called for negotiating with the Taliban towards a new coalition government that could exclude Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

---

NATO, will, of course, ignore such voices.

quote:

---

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

---

On the "other" side ...

quote:

---

Daily Telegraph: Many Afghans fear that Pakistan is deliberately trying to undermine Mr Karzai and Nato's commitment to his government in an attempt to reinstall its Taliban proxies in Kabul - almost certainly leading to all-out civil war and possible partition of the country.

---

This would substantiate the claim that Canadian troops are effectively playing the role of partisans in an incipient civil war. How many Canadians would support such a role for the troops? And, more to the point, what is the likelihood of a "good ending" in such circumstances? Can you say I-R-A-Q?

quote:

---

Daily Telegraph: To progress in Riga, Nato will have to enlist US support to call Pakistan's bluff, put pressure on Islamabad to hand over the Taliban leadership and put more troops in to fight the insurgency while persuading Mr Karzai to become more pro-active.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Today's news notes that there will be more "extra help" from other NATO countries in southern Afghanistan.

---

Fifty bucks ($50 CDN) says no country sends troops to Kandahar. Canadians are dying there - the Canadian government is quite pleased with that - why spoil the party?

quote:

---

N. Beltov wrote:
Ready to invade at a moment's notice "in defence of our values".

---

Not just in defence of 'our values.' Also in defence of our access to--well, you know:

quote:

---

It (the Guiding Political Document) recognizes that for the foreseeable future, the principal threats to the Alliance are terrorism and proliferation, as well as failing states, regional crises, misuse of new technologies and disruption of the flow of vital resources.

---

[ 29 November 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

Not even at its worst did the Taliban disembowel people. So, try and get this through your head: This is happening. It is happening now. It will continue to happen.

In all likelyhood our presence there is not helping to prevent it.

[ 29 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobolink:
If we leave Afghanistan now this will bee seen more often. Is this the type of Afghanistan we hope for? We are there now. Are the people of Afghanistan not entitled to the best defence we can mount against theocratic barbarians?

---

And who considers them barbarians?. They are theocratic barbarians, but that didn't make any difference to the west in the 1980's. We should keep in mind why the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred in the first place - it happened because western and Saudi imperialists organized it, funded it, and then made it happen in order to prevent secular socialist thought from taking root in Afghanistan. CIA operation cyclone cost U.S. taxpayers more than all of the dirty tricks and wars combined waged on Latin America's peasant populations.

What's happening now in Afghanistan has nothing to do with nation-building whatsoever. We know that Washington never donated one thin dime in war reparations to Viet Nam nor any of the other 35 nations carpet bombed since Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Our weak colonial administrators in Ottawa are only parroting what they are being told from Warshington. Ottawa is being manipulated, and it's up to us to decide what's real and what's not.

Personally, I think Pakistan, and believe it or no, Russia, and possibly Kuwaiti royals, and more than likely, Saudi princes are funding the Taliban as much today by as much support as they were enjoying during the multi-nation proxy war against the Soviet-backed PDPA government in the 1980's. Or at least, this is what a Scottish newspeper reported last year after a conversation with the former deputy finance official in the then Taliban government who was allegedly speaking from somewhere in Afghanistan.

On second thought, just scratch all that and go watch the Bourne Indentity on DVD. It explains everything we need to know in a nutshell.

[Electronica music]
Extreme ways are back again
Extreme places I didn't know
I broke everything new again
Everything that I'd owned
I threw it out the windows, came along
Extreme ways I know move apart
The colors of my sea
Perfect color me

[ 29 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I thought I had escaped my past, but Afghanistan caught up with me in Canada. Looking at the flag-draped casket of my wife's first cousin, Andrew Eykelenboom, a Canadian medic killed in Afghanistan, I was overwhelmed with feelings of grief and a surreal displacement of time and space.

I was born in Russia, drafted into the Soviet army at 18 and sent to Afghanistan in the 1980s. Attending Andrew's funeral, I stood with one foot in the present and one in the past. I remembered my Russian friends, living and dead. Friends like Andrei, who lost his legs in Kandahar near the road on which Andrew would die two decades later. I also remembered the suffering we visited on the people of that country.

[snip]

So how do we stop the cycle?

I kept asking myself this question after Andrew's funeral. The Soviet people did not vote to send troops to Afghanistan. Neither did we in Canada. It was "unpatriotic" to criticize the Soviet role in Afghanistan. Questioning Canada's mission now means being unsupportive of our soldiers. The Soviet slogan "Support our troops!" that I heard in the 1980s has become a Canadian one. Many Canadians choose not to educate themselves about this issue, and some still believe that our soldiers are peacekeepers in a country in which many Afghans see us as part of a U.S. occupation.

If, in willful or blind ignorance, we do not challenge our government to change the role of our troops from aggression to genuine peacekeeping and reconstruction, we are all responsible for the Afghan and Canadian lives about to be lost.

---

Every few days I talk to a man who's life was saved by Andrew Eykelenboom.

I always hear a lot of kind words spoken about Eykelenboom. I hear he was an excellent medic and saved plenty lives (both Afghan and Canadian) during his time in Kandahar.

Sad that he died so young. He seemed to have a promising life ahead of him.

[ 30 November 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Well, it seems to me that two things have to happen for peace to evolve in Afghanistan.

---

There is a third as well... We'll touch on that in a sec.

quote:

---

Somehow the infiltration of jihadi fighters into Afghanistan from Pakistan must be stopped.

---

I would watch with labelling them as Jihadi fighters as you're immidiately putting in the Islamic Jihad portion into the equation. Normal people defending their homelands vs intruders, something Afghani's have been doing for an incredible number of years, is not Jihadist fighters.

Y'know... Many suicide bombers, including the very first ones used by Hizbollah, are not religiously motivated. Nor are all fighters within the region. Now if you were to refer to them as Pashtun (in the south) or tribal warriors, you would be much more accurate.

This differentiation is important as it's exceedingly important to determine motives when dealing with a group of people like this. Jihad warriors would assume theres a religious aspect we cannot change. In truth, many of these fighters are supporting warlords or their villages instead. Feudal warlords always look out for themselves as number 1, and therefore can be approached/bribed much more readily ^^

quote:

---

The second thing is maybe more difficult - establishing some credibility and broader support for the central government across the land.

---

Exactly... We are disabling a Feudal structure and implementing a fledling democracy... Which means it will be extremely important to ensure the remananents of the Feudal society acknowledge their new rulers.

The one (and theres more, but this is key) that you missed in here that will be exceedingly important is to address the funding and arms of the resisting fighters. Heh, tis why I highlighted that one line as I did... Canadian soldiers dying to bullets that were provided to the Afghan amoury by Canadians is pretty much unacceptable.

_________________

quote:

---

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

---

I think this is the furthest evidence that the Pakistani are unable to control their tribal regions borders with Afghanistan. Considering the entire plan being put into place in Afghanistan involves Pakistan holding this border... Ya I can see how the bound to fail portion kicks in.

The current route is bound to fail... And theres likely 2 solutions we're facing that both involve our eventual withdrawl. When we leave, the Afghani military we leave behind will be left to it's own measures to defend (and thats assuming they are forced to defend, they might just merge in with the forces we're currently fighting). This would put training of the Afghani forces (I would hope sensitivty training is included, but doubtful giving time constraints) as a number 1 priority.

Leaving troop levels how they are give us a limited time. Winter should be slowing the battle on the field a bit, come next spring... I'm hard pressed to say that the current forces wouldn't be facing extreme casualty figures at that time. If the Afghani military isn't ready by then... We'll need more troops in there to secure the borders while the Afghani troops continue their training.

So our 2 choices... Withdrawl by next spring and watch what happens OR increase troop levels somewhat dramtically to give the Afghani army enough time to train to be able to replace NATO troops.

Personally, judging by the corruption of gov't, I don't think the military will be any different (EI, it's more than corrupt already... As we can see by the flow or munitions to Taliban forces through the Afghani military). Heh, funny enough... It's quite likely any training we give to an afghani national army prior to leaving is simply going to become the trained Taliban army of Afganistan when we leave ^^

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Sgm

Every few days I talk to a man who's life was saved by Andrew Eykelenboom.

I always hear a lot of kind words spoken about Eykelenboom. I hear he was an excellent medic and saved plenty lives (both Afghan and Canadian) during his time in Kandahar.

Sad that he died so young. He seemed to have a promising life ahead of him.

[ 30 November 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
Today's Globe features an essay by a veteran of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan:

Link.

---

That's behind a subscription wall and I can't access it the usual back door way.

quote:

---

At Andrew's funeral, the shock and disbelief on the faces of his military friends were all too familiar. So were the official speeches. And the Canadian media coverage seemed like an echo of the Soviet press. "Positive changes are evident. However, it would be premature to say that Kandahar is not a 'hot spot' any more," the Soviets said in the 1980s. "Things have improved," one Canadian newspaper said now, yet "significant problems" remain. "Development is occurring" in Kandahar, the paper added, just like a Soviet journalist had observed in 1988.

---

As for breaking the cycle, Lanine offers this:

quote:

---

If, in willful or blind ignorance, we do not challenge our government to change the role of our troops from aggression to genuine peacekeeping and reconstruction, we are all responsible for the Afghan and Canadian lives about to be lost.

---

quote:

---

I have long ago decided that I support our mission there as long as a significant majority of Afghans (all Afghans) want us there, and as long as the ones closest to the action, our soldiers, continue to believe it is worth the effort and lives.

---

What makes you think a simple majority, never mind a significant majority of Afghans want us there? At least one Afghan made his feelings about Canada's presence unmistakably clear the other day.

And really, our soldiers' feelings about whether it is worth it or not is entirely irrelevant. It isn't their place to say. They aren't equipped with the tools to allow them to make an informed decision. They are immersed in a particular culture that doesn't allow them to question their very purpose. I remember the horror and rage of a couple of NCO's when I, in reference to UN missions in which they had been involved and about which they were reminiscing, opined that peacekeeping was a cynical fraud. They weren't happy about that. They believed in the mission. Why? Because it was the mission.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Jingles, I think the majority of Afghans want foreign forces to remain until there is no chance of a return to power by the Taliban.

[...]

In Iraq, for example, returning US soldiers don't seem to have any difficulty criticizing that war, in a far more repressive political climate. So far, this is not what we are hearing from Canadian troops returning from Afghanistan.

---

Hi Brett,

What indefatigable persistence in the face of the facts! Still speaking in the name of the majority of Afghans! And the majority of Canadian troops! And still beating the drums for the ever-more-elusive "Al Qaeda" threat to modern civilization!

Admirable.

I prefer to quote real people:

Brother of slain soldier criticizes combat role in Afghanistan

quote:

---

The brother of a soldier from Ontario who was killed days ago in Afghanistan says his family is not only sad, but angry at the federal government over the death of Cpl. Albert Storm.

[...]

"I'm angry at a lot of things. I'm angry because Canada, being a peacekeeping role, has gone into a combat role," George Storm told CBC News.

"I'm angry that our government just can't come to some kind of understanding with the foreign countries and [with] all the other servicemen that are there, whether they're from NATO groups, Dutch, U.S. They need to solve this peaceably and bring our boys home."

---

quote:

---

If you believe that al Qaeda is a trivial or imaginary threat

---

Brett... I think you highly overestimate AQ's influence or capacity.

Iraq - AQ had no provable ties to Iraq prior to the American occupation. Zarqawi mid-way through brought himself to fame by renaming his 'Monotheistic' jihad something or other group to AQ in Iraq (a PR godsend for the Bush admin... If you go conspiracy theory, there is enough reason to suspect Zarqawi was an American pawn for this reason). Since then, several other militant groups (sunni) have united under the AQ banner. The same groups have approached American forces asking for help vs 'Shia deathsquads' stating that they pose no threat to America, just want to defend their families from impending civil war (this was a month ago... We're now in that civil war).

Afghanistan - AQ is actually based here... When 9/11 first occoured, the Taliban stated they would find and turn over bin laden if given proof of his involvement. The US attacked 5 days from then ^^ Taliban and AQ are not the same thing. The forces we are currently fighting (taliban and tribal) are not AQ either.

You give the AQ boogyman much more credit than it can deserve.

added:

quote:

---

So far, most everything I've read from returning Canadian soldiers indicates a faith in the mission despite the huge obstacles to success, and a belief that they are genuinely helping Afghans.

---

This would make me believe that the average soldier is unaware of Pakistans inability to control their border and the degree of corruption within Afghanistan. Would they have the same 'faith' in the mission if they knew it's quite likely the arms currently being used against them were aquired from the Afghani military we're apparently there to help?

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann: But more important to me is the perspective of the actual Canadian soldiers who are fighting the Taliban (and aiding in re-construction.

---

The overwhelming majority of (Canadian) money is going into the US-style counter insurgency. And what little money is available for re-construction and so on is well hidden and can't be traced to evaluate its effectiveness, as a number of observers have pointed out.

quote:

---

... if the Afghan mission is hopeless or impossible or counter-productive or not worth it, we will hear this opinion from returning soldiers quite quickly , I believe. So far, most everything I've read from returning Canadian soldiers indicates a faith in the mission

---

Yea right. Soldiers whose duty it is to carry out the mission, and have no say in determining what it is, are to be the yardstick of that mission.

As the Senlis Council notes in their recent policy paper, "Losing Hearts and Minds",

quote:

---

... the Canadian forces have done a brave job under extreme circumstances and should be commended for this. Nevertheless .... the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is still much too focused on a military strategy which for five years now, has failed to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan population. Further, this military strategy has not tackled the root causes of the current security crisis: extreme poverty, the lack of devlopment, and an almost complete dependence on opium poppy cultivation.

The failure to tackle these root causes has provided Afghanistan's insurgency movements with a broad recruitment base ... to successfully compete with the weak Kabul government ...

---

Rather than adopting the approach of "I support the mission unless proved otherwise" it might be more useful to ask yourself, "Why are the goals so murky, 5 years after the initial bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, and how come the supporters of the counter-insurgency can't outline any sort of plan, criteria or indicator of success or exit strategy?"

quote:

---

The head of the Senlis Council, a woman named MacDonald, I believe, has said that turning Afghanistan over to the Taliban would be equivalent to returning Germany to the Nazis. The Senlis Council, along with many others, has been extremely critical of the way the war in Afghanistan is being conducted, but even they are not calling for an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops.

---

The Senlis Council is of the view that

quote:

---

The current crisis cannot be resolved through military means alone. Canada should focus on a new approach in Kandahar based on immediate food and medical aid, the establishment of emergency local Jirgas to establish political structure in Afghan communities, and the introduction of a science-based search for alternatives to the dominant illegal opium industry that currently holds Afghanistan in its grip.

With a new strategic approach to the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, Canada will be able to bring about a winning strategy, one that can truly be effective in both its military objectives and in its development and reconstruction agenda.

---

This is never going to happen under NATO and US leadership. The locals don't see any difference between "Operation Enduring Freedom" and the ISAF NATO mission. The foreign devils are all the same. In a word - our brave soldiers are fucked. That's why we want them to come home ... alive.

quote:

---

The Dutch went into Uruzgan expecting the same kind of bloody welcome that Canadians have found in Kandahar. But the bloodbath never happened. Is it because they treat the local population better?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

I think this is an important story.
Can Canada's mission be changed to this now, or have we poisoned the well?
Can we put enough pressure on the Cons to get them to do it?
Does Hillier need to be fired to get it done?

---

You are dreaming, my friend. The Afghan people will bide their time (as they did with the Canadian cowboys) and destroy these unwelcome intruders just as they have always done.

None of the previous invasions did that.

quote:

---

..Canadian tanks fired their cannons in battle for the first time in half a century Sunday, replying to a Taliban rocket attack on their forward operating base.

The squadron of Leopard Tanks arrived at the base Saturday, rolling through the nearby village of Panjwaii with an impressive show of force for local citizens and the Taliban.

The Taliban obviously noticed. Two rebel rockets landed near the base at twilight Sunday, shattering the relative calm with a loud explosions. Canadian troops responded with two mortar bombs, the flash on the mountain top clearly visible from below in the fading light.

Then, at 5:10 p.m. local time, a Canadian tank fired its first shot in combat in five decades. It was followed by a second blast at the Taliban a few moments later, the boom of the 105-millimetre cannon echoing off the rocks.

---

Harper's Shock and Awe

Apparently Harper wanted his own little "Shock and Awe"

[ 03 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Harper has, yet again gone well beyond his mandate:

Harper's Shock and Awe

Apparently Harper wanted his own little "Shock and Awe"

---

quote:

---

The squadron made little attempt to hide its arrival and a few of the Leopards left on patrol to a local strongpoint early Sunday morning.

Their first target was an abandoned grape drying hut with metre-thick mud walls said to have the resiliency of bullet-proof armour.

But against the tank guns, the hut never had a chance. A line of Leopards took turns firing rounds at the hut, the sound of the shots surprisingly quiet considering the damage that was being inflicted.

The shells punched holes through the mud walls and blew the roof off in a dramatic plume of smoke and dust.

---

WTF?? Were there "insurgents" hiding in the grape hut? Or are our troops just blowin' stuff up to see how the equipment works and such?

Was the hut "abandoned" for the season, to be used again after the next grape harvest? Were the grapes a danger to us, or were we protecting them? It seems to me you don't build a grape drying hut with metre thick walls to be used once. Quite likely it had been there as long as there have been grapes in the area.

quote:

---

]"The Taliban refer to the tanks as the superbeast. They used to refer to the Russian attacks as beasts and we're called the superbeasts now."

---

Gosh darned I'm so fucking proud. Anyone recall what happened to those sissy Soviet tanks?

Harper doesn't know or care shit about military maneuvers; the importance of the military is only with respect to the prestige it bestows on PM Harper.

Call to include Taliban rebels in negotiations
Published: Friday, 1 December, 2006, 10:48 AM Doha Time (Reuters via Qatar)

quote:

---

ISLAMABAD: The Taliban will have to be brought into talks if Nato is to succeed in bringing stability to Afghanistan, Pakistani senators told visiting British parliamentarians yesterday.

...

"We do feel the situation in Afghanistan has, of late, deteriorated, in part because of mistakes made by policy-makers in Washington and in London," said Mushahid Hussain Sayed, chairman of the Pakistani Senate’s own foreign affairs committee.

"There has to be negotiations, a dialogue with all elements of Afghan society - ethnic or political, including, frankly, members of the resistance," said Sayed, secretary-general of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League.
...

He backed Pakistan’s strategy of using jirgas, or tribal councils, to reach out to the Taliban in the ethnic Pashtun belt straddling the border. - Reuters

---

tick tick tick

"The enemy of the conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of events." - John Kenneth Galbraith

[ 04 December 2006: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

[ 04 December 2006: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

OTTAWA — The opposition parties are threatening to pull the plug on the Tory minority government over its handling of the mission in Afghanistan.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe warned Monday he might table a non-confidence motion if the mandate of Canadian soldiers in the war-torn country doesn't change.

And the other opposition parties suggested they might join a Bloc effort to that effect in the new year.

Mr. Duceppe said the mission needs to be “rapidly and profoundly” retooled and must focus more heavily on reconstruction instead of fighting.

- snip -

Mr. Duceppe described Afghanistan as one of three possible reasons to defeat the government. The others are climate change and the alleged federal-provincial fiscal imbalance.

- snip -

Such a motion on Afghanistan would pose a particular dilemma for the Liberals, who signed up Canada for the mission in the first place while they were in power.

The party is now divided on the issue but its new leader has been critical of the current mission.

- snip -

Among Canadian federal parties, only the NDP has formally called for a troop withdrawal and it appears likely to support any motion of the sort Mr. Duceppe is proposing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Afghanistan could be Tory Waterloo

---

If you want to give yourself a little scare -- go to the article and read the comments that follow. Actually most of the comments that follow many G&M stories. We are becoming one badly polarized country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
If you want to give yourself a little scare -- go to the article and read the comments that follow.

---

The final comment was interesting, although I disagree with it:

"All the people on this board supporting Duceppe's idea should be careful of what you wish for. Christmas could come early for Harper."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Whatever has happened to the Canadian left? Two generations ago, our leftist Canadian predecessors went to Spain to fight fascism. Confronted with a more despicable form of totalitarianism in the form of Salafist philosophy, we search for reasons to allow the Taliban and al Qaeda to continue their depravity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Yes, and one generation ago we were apologizing for the the Soviet Unions unwarranted and ineffective campaign to squash traditional Afghan culture. Now you want us to support it because the uniforms are different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Whatever has happened to the Canadian left? Two generations ago, our leftist Canadian predecessors went to Spain to fight fascism.

---

Yes. A pro-fascist Coalition including Mussolini and Hitler backed Franco in invading Spain in an attempt to overthrow the existing Republican government. Volunteers heroically rallied from Canada, the U.S., and a myriad of other countries (against the wishes of their governments) to defend the Spanish government against the invaders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
My point is that there are times when leftists can in all good conscience endorse military action because it is justified. [...] I fear from many comments I read here and elsewhere that some on the left have come to reflexively reject any military realities whatsoever. Among other things, this may be politically fatal for the left, if I am correct.

---

Interestingly, he was assassinated.

As for Brett's point, I should say accepting an imperial occupation would be the death knell for the left, as they would no longer be "left" if they were to support it. Its not just an item on a name tag, but a set of ideas.

This idea of forcing a people to bend to our own conception of the world through an military dicatorship is traditionally one of the great big mistakes that the USSR ritually engaged in.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
This idea of forcing a people to bend to our own conception of the world through an military dicatorship is traditionally one of the great big mistakes that the USSR ritually engaged in.

---

The USSR didn't carpet bomb 25 nations including Nagasaki and Hiroshima or prop up 36 brutal right-wing dictatorships in the last century and this. The USSR didn't have 800 military installations around the world as per U.S. imperialism today.

In fact, the U.S. military industrial complex and multinational right-wing clique were alone in their belief that the USSR was a threat to people's freedom. It was their right to loot and pillage the world's resources and labour they were afraid of losing, which is happening today.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And I'd not say the war is lost, in fact the Taliban can't accomplish much of anything unless they are willing to engage in company and battalion size actions. They have tried over the last few months and lost every time, with high losses, and inflicting few themselves. If it is one thing NATO is good at is conventional warfare.

The difficulty facing the emerging democracy is the drug warlords and the external brazen support coming out of Pakistan to the Taliban.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lavite:
Well, I disagree that The Taliban are paid mercenaries. They have a clear political agenda based on their religious beliefs.

---

I think it's the Taliban mullahs, drug lords and mujahideen leaders who have clear agendas for control of Afghanistan, but I don't think the people neccessarily share those beliefs. The Afghani people would likely prefer something better since the west aide and abetted the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afganistan in the 1980's and 90's.

Every attempt to make a stand or a counterattack the Taliban has tried ended in total disaster. That's why you'll likely see them shy away from that again and go back to the occasional roadside bomb.

And the Afgan government forces have been fighting effectively side by side with NATO.

A long way to go before the government has adequate control in some regions, but the situation is far from grim.

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lavite:

And I'd not say the war is lost, in fact the Taliban can't accomplish much of anything unless they are willing to engage in company and battalion size actions.

---

I disagree, Lavite, on two counts:

1) The Taliban is already believed to be fielding battallion sized units.

5 soldiers from Gagetown have been charged with drug trafficing. The family of one of the soldiers spoke at length about how their son had turned to drugs, after he returned from Kandahar last March, to cope with his mental problems resulting from seeing the deaths of so many women and children

Professionals interviewed and shown on Global Vancouver, spoke of many yearsit would take for our soldiers to recover from the PTSD, if ever, and that costs would be high, not only monetarily but societally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Have searched everywhere looking for a thread on our soldiers in Afghanistan, or who have returned home. Found none and wanted to discuss, how this phoney war is impacting them.

---

There's plenty of discussion by returned soldiers at army.ca, or troops.ca.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Professionals interviewed and shown on Global Vancouver, spoke of many yearsit would take for our soldiers to recover from the PTSD, if ever, and that costs would be high, not only monetarily but societally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
Perhaps a 2 year deployment to defend our interests on Hans Island will help them cool off.

---

Are you still here? Should not be too long now, as your postings are getting increasingly nasty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lavite:

Sadly, if the U.S. had finished Afganistan before starting another war at the same time, Afganistan would be peaceful. Resources have been divided.

---

I read where the last successful U.S. strategy in Southern Kandahar was to pay off local war lords and mujahideen to the tune of $100 G's a piece. The Brits have attempted to do the same. It's a tad shy of the $500 million USDN a year handed off to Omar, Hekmatyar et al in the 1980's-90's, and the same amounts that went to Massood until 1992 when he was cut off by Warshington. Coincidentally, the Lion of Panjir had his U.S. funding cutoff immediately after he declares war on the Taliban. And then the U.S. ambassador suggests to Masssood that he surrender to the Taliban. Hmmm Things weren't looking good for the Afghani people then.

I guess they can slide covert funding by Congress for only so long. Oh well. Do you think there really is a plan for exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, or are the hawks just planning on milking U.S. taxpayers over the longest haul possible ?. The MIC "Complex Inc" love a good conflict to supply stuff to though. Oh ya, they're laffing all the way to the bank. And they're counting on all those red "have-not" states in hustling U.S. taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year they can hold out from the peace mongers. They've become rich beyond their wildest dreams with selling pots and pans, food services, GI apparel, guns, hammers and nails, ass wipe, clap-trap, plastic body bags, you name it, the suckers are buyin'. They're buyin' because they've been sold a lie that it's about freedom and democracy. And what a steaming pile o' crap it is. I wonder if taxpayers are still paying the low-low $5 bucks a bullet as it was in the 80's, or do we think they've been hit by inflation like everybody else?. It's bin "oops" one long glorious hustle for the 'Plex and super-elite friends of the Republicon Party. And the really sad part of it is, those elitists wouldn't whiz on the average Republican conservative Party- supporting slob if he was on fire, or even give a damn about the people they're supposed to be helping out over their by turning their countries upside down in search of one or two guys and some WMD oil PSA's. DO THE HUSTLE!!!

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And it was a suprise to the NATO forces that the Taliban tried it not once but several times in a row with the same result, a total defeat.

A comment I heard from a SF Col "I hope they don't stop. A few more of these and there won't be any Taliban left.

And I'd be interested in your concerns. Yes, a protracted unconventional war can lead to victory. But generally only after the force at some points transitions to more conventional warfare.

South Vietnam didn't fall to guerillas, it fell to mechanized divisions invading from North Vietnam.

Exceptions like the Last Boor War do exist. A conventional that went unconventional and eventually surrendered but on concessions that they wanted, so technically they won or at least broken even.

I think that if the Afghani people don't begin seeing some benefit to having NATO forces there some point soon, they will turn on the west and begin aiding the Taliban, or at least by not helping the foreign occupiers.

A mercenary army doesn't fight on empty stomachs. The Taliban are not promising social security and education for the people - it will be bee keeper garb for the women, and Taliban soccer rules as usual if they win. Come to think of it, isn't that exactly the way it is in imperialist Saudi Arabia, Pakistan after the Talibanization, Kuwait and Iran by wild coincidence ?. Hmmm Who's paying them ?. Where are the money and weapons coming from?. We know. It's all just fun and games now, and democracy for Afghanistan is the last thing on the agenda.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Lavite:
Sadly, if the U.S. had finished Afganistan before starting another war at the same time, Afganistan would be peaceful. Resources have been divided.

---

Pipe dream. The only difference is that the allies would be bogged down in Afghanistan without their armies seriously depleted world wide. Iraq was both a tactical and strategic mistake that has brought the US military to the brink of collapse, but releasing all of those resources for Afghanistan would still not bring peace with the current strategy of conquer and occupy in support of a puppet government.

quote:

---

South Vietnam didn't fall to guerillas, it fell to mechanized divisions invading from North Vietnam.

---

Not that simple. The NVA invasion came after the US got tired of going nowhere in a guerilla struggle (with moments of more conventional warfare) and pulled their forces from South Vietnam. From my experience with the South Vietnamese forces in the end the North Vietnamese Boy Scouts could have probably secured victory over the ARVN. South Vietnam fell because the guerillas could not be beaten, but not defeated.

quote:

---

Fidel:
The Taliban, OTH, cannot get women to volunteer for their cause, or at least not by their free will.

---

Actually, I think that the biggest impediment to women fighting for the Taliban is probably not women's attitudes but the religious and social limitations of the Taliban's nut bar beliefs. It might be that a long drawn out war might make the inclusion of women necessary, and that would do more to change their social system than anything that has been tried so far.

Also, because we find the Taliban attitude towards women replusive I would not assume that all or possibly even most Taliban women feel the same way. Our own right-wing nut bar so called Christian women come to mind.

In Somalia the radical Islamists are using women fighters.

PS:

quote:

---

Canadian soldiers will be taking part in a major new offensive to remove Taliban extremists from Kandahar province, the commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) confirmed on Saturday.

The troops will play a "very important role" in hunting for Taliban fighters, Maj.-Gen. Ton Van Loon told reporters after making a surprise visit to two of Canada's operating bases in southern Afghanistan.

The British-led mission will see Canadian troops operating from the bases they've established in the Panjwaii district, west of Kandahar city, but "there would also be movement involved," the general said, although he would not provide details or say when the mission would begin.

He said the Canadians will continue working with the Afghan National Army as they try to separate hardline members of the Taliban from the civilian population.

---

quote:

---

NATO says the new offensive will build on the success of Operation Medusa, which wrapped up in mid-September and attempted to establish a stable environment in the area in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and development initiatives.

Operation Medusa was believed to have resulted in the death of hundreds of Taliban. Five Canadian soldiers died in the offensive.

---

quote:

---

Kandahar, Dec. 16 (AP) - As British troops sped away from a suicide bomb attack that wounded three of their own, witnesses in this southern Afghan city say the soldiers opened fire, sending residents scurrying in fear of their lives.

Within minutes of the Dec. 3 bombing, one civilian lay dead and six wounded from the gunfire - one of seven occasions in the last month that NATO forces shot Afghan citizens. Seven people have been killed and 11 injured, eroding public support for the battle against a resurgent Taliban.

NATO says in all the shootings, the soldiers acted in self-defense....

Brig. Richard Nugee, chief spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said soldiers have an "inherent right" to self-defense.

---

Seven incidents in the past month where NATO troops fired on Afghan civilians. The information was provided by NATO's International Security Assistance Force unless otherwise noted:

Dec. 12: A motorcyclist traveling at a high speed approached a security cordon in Kandahar city and didn't stop after verbal warnings. Canadian troops fired a warning shot, which ricocheted and hit the civilian, who later died.

Dec. 3: British troops speeding away from a suicide bombing opened fire, according to witnesses. Witnesses and doctors said one Afghan was killed and six wounded. (see above)

Nov. 30: An Afghan on a motorcycle approached a convoy in Kandahar province. Warning shots were fired and hand signals given. Troops fired, wounding the civilian.

Nov. 28: A civilian vehicle approached a joint NATO-Afghan patrol in Kandahar province. Warning shots were fired but the vehicle didn't stop. Troops fired, killing one Afghan.

Nov. 26: A convoy in Helmand province was approached by a "suspect vehicle." Flares and warning shots were fired but the vehicle did not stop. Troops fired, killing one Afghan.

Nov. 22: A civilian van was "driving suspiciously" near a convoy traveling between Kabul and Bagram. Troops signaled for the van to stop and fired a number of shots. The driver lost control and crashed; one civilian was killed and four were injured.

Nov. 15: A civilian van approached a NATO patrol at high speed in Helmand province and continued after hand signals were given for it slow down. The patrol fired in self defense, killing two Afghans and injuring one.

Source: AP

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

The offensive, entitled Operation Falcon's Summit — or Baaz Tsuka in the Afghan language — was billed in a NATO news release as a show of strength and a demonstration of the coalition's ability to combat and defeat the Taliban.

---

Then, a couple of sections later:

quote:

---

Afghans angry, fearful over shootings of civilians by NATO troops
................

Foreign troop convoys are coming under increasing attack. Taliban militants exploded more than 100 suicide bombs in the country this year, a more than fivefold increase from 2005, often targeting NATO forces in armored personnel carriers and jeeps.

Most victims of NATO shootings are Afghan civilians -- motorists who have failed to stop when ordered to do so, or people caught in the chaotic aftermath of bombings. The shootings have deepened resentment among Afghans as NATO struggles to contain an insurgency that has found new strength five years after the ouster of the Taliban regime.

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

NATO has issued radio and newspaper advertisements warning Afghans to stay away from troop convoys. Last month, the alliance announced that more warning signs would be put on military vehicles, but far less than half the military vehicles seen on the street by AP reporters in Kabul and Kandahar carry any type of warning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
What happened to the hearts and minds campaign?

---

Good question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
[QB] army.ca or troops.ca QB]

---

Went looking for the PTSD could not find, but I did find:

quote:

---

"Let us never forget the duty, which we have taken upon us"- Adolf Hitler

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
Perhaps a 2 year deployment to defend our interests on Hans Island will help them cool off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PSTD, as you should well know has nothing to do with having to "cool off", nor does it just go away!

---

quote:

---

This optimistic view, he said, sometimes puts him at odds with his intelligence officers.

“My own intelligence people . . . continue to believe what is quite blatantly, from my perspective, Taliban propaganda,” Gen. Richards said. Taliban threats in recent months have proven empty, he said, which should make observers more skeptical about the insurgents' ability to mount a serious offensive.

---

[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Two Afghanistan experts painted a sobering picture of the conditions there yesterday, arguing support among Afghans for NATO forces is plummeting, the U.S.-driven policy of poppy eradication is wrongheaded, and the war might not be winnable in its present form.

U.S. scholar Barnett Rubin and Gordon Smith, Canada’s former ambassador to NATO, delivered their withering comments to a Commons committee only days after Canada’s top military commander, Gen. Rick Hillier, touted progress being made there.

---

quote:

---

Smith recently released a critical report of his own, titled Canada in Afghanistan: Is it Working? He questions whether NATO can achieve its stated goals, even within 10 years. Canada has committed to maintain its military presence until 2009.

He argued NATO needs to hike its troop commitment, while using development aid more effectively and opening negotiations with theTaliban . Smith also said NATO must create a market so Afghan farmers can sell their opium for legal use in medical products like morphine.

Both Rubin and Smith suggested Canada needs to have a new debate about its role in Afghanistan. Liberal MP Keith Martin welcomed their remarks.

---

[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

The current issue of This Magazine (March/April 2007) features a four-page article by Vancouver-based journalist Jared Ferrie, entitled "Staying the course: why Canada can't pull its troops out of Afghanistan."
....

It is perhaps unfair to overly scrutinize Ferrie's views concerning the two main political parties, as his treatment of their positions and actions is rather glib. Most of his ire is reserved for those calling for Canadian troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. In doing so, Ferrie makes credulous use of the pronouncements of Karzai government officials, mixed in with some poor use of evidence, unsupported argument, and numerous uses of innuendo in an attempt to discredit those with whom he disagrees. It is beyond the scope of this essay to pursue Ferrie's use of distortion and innuendo, though readers are encouraged to write to the editors of This Magazine to pursue the matter with them.
....

When he isn't uncritically repeating statements by Afghan government officials, Ferrie does make brief mention of serious accusations against the Karzai government, "notably by the courageous female MP Malalai Joya." Yet the next sentence relates how "the current Afghan government's human rights record is light years ahead of any in the past three decades." It is understandable why Ferrie avoids citing any of Joya's statements regarding the government of her country as she is unequivocal in her assessment that there has been "no fundamental change in the plight of Afghan people" since the toppling of the Taliban regime....

Ferrie makes much of assertions that any significant pull-out of NATO forces would swiftly usher in a return of Taliban rule. Yet he seems remarkably unaware of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, as related by numerous journalists reporting from inside the country. There is copious evidence that in fact the Taliban are currently in control of large swaths of Afghan territory. The implications of this fact, along with the continued presence of the NATO war machine, are of course lost on Ferrie.
....

Only by ignoring the ugly realities in Afghanistan can war supporters such as Ferrie accuse others of not addressing important questions about the war. Yet the evidence indicates that we are pursuing a war doomed to fail and thus adding untold misery to a country that knows far too much suffering.

---

[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

At least we felt safe under the extremists, say Kandahar residents too afraid to go out after dark

By Chris Sands in Kandahar
Published: 08 April 2007
The Independent

"Faiz Mohammed Karigar, a father of two, fled Kandahar when the Taliban held power in Afghanistan because he was against their restrictions on education. Now he wants the fundamentalists back.

"When the Taliban were here, I escaped to the border with Iran, but I was never worried about my family," he said. "Every single minute of the last three years I have been very worried. Maybe tonight the Americans will come to my house, molest my wife and children and arrest me."..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:

"Faiz Mohammed Karigar, a father of two, fled Kandahar when the Taliban held power in Afghanistan because he was against their restrictions on education. Now he wants the fundamentalists back."

---

Maybe withdrawing NATO troops WOULD quickly lead to renewed Taleban rule.

This question exposes the contradiction: Are we in Afghanistan because Afghans want us there, or because some version of our "national interest" requires us to be there?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

This question exposes the contradiction: Are we in Afghanistan because Afghans want us there, or because some version of our "national interest" requires us to be there?

Are we there primarily as imperialists, or does our presence there depend on Afganis wanting us there?

---

Neither, Canada is only there because the US wants it there. Canada would have no military presence otherwise. As proxy imperialists the only contorted Canada "national interest" is a mixture of fear of, and excessively willing appeasement of , the Americans.

[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Thankfully there's no oil in Afghanistan, so the "we're there for oil" argument isn't colouring the discussion.

Nato is in afghanistan for the same reason USA is in Iraq - Geopolitical engineering.

---

"geopolitical engineering" yes, but Afghanistan does not need to have oil too be strategically important for oil.
The US and Co. was originally negotiating with the Taliban prior to 911 for the Unicol pipeline through Afghanistan.

Some info links here, but just google it.

quote:

---

IF "so many Afghans" want the Taleban back, then maybe This Magazine's article, quoted supra, is correct.
Maybe withdrawing NATO troops WOULD quickly lead to renewed Taleban rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Maybe withdrawing NATO troops WOULD quickly lead to renewed Taleban rule.

---

You think the opposition to Canadian aggression against Afghanistan was based on the view that the Taleban were toast!?

quote:

---

This question exposes the contradiction: Are we in Afghanistan because Afghans want us there, or because some version of our "national interest" requires us to be there?

---

As of today, six fewer of "us" are in Afghanistan.

If Afghans want us there, we should tell them: "Nope."

Luckily, no Afghans, other than those tiny few whose noses are deep in the rectum of the U.S. and will one day no doubt end up like Najibullah, have ever expressed the slightest wish or invitation to have Canadians sending tanks and toy soldiers there.