July 23, 201015 yr The true figure for the generic " Pakistani " residents is far higher as any Immigration Officer will tell you. hmmm... the "generic" ones report to immigration which keeps records? Instead of fencing and dancing round like a Panzer Commander without a tank. What's your point ? Edited to add grumpy Panzer Commander. my point is that obviously you would like to shoot "generic" Pakistanis but your gun is rusty and you lack ammunition. Your God like insight into other peoples minds may have let you down a bit there.
July 23, 201015 yr hmmm... the "generic" ones report to immigration which keeps records? Instead of fencing and dancing round like a Panzer Commander without a tank. What's your point ? Edited to add grumpy Panzer Commander. my point is that obviously you would like to shoot "generic" Pakistanis but your gun is rusty and you lack ammunition. Your God like insight into other peoples minds may have let you down a bit there.
July 23, 201015 yr Author View Postkoheesti, on 2010-07-22 15:09, said:Then again, he also wrote something about the "alleged" Holocaust. your posting explains a lot because you Sir seem to be an "alleged" goddàmn liar. Really? About what?
July 24, 201015 yr Your God like insight into other peoples minds may have let you down a bit there. the message in your posting is too obvious to misunderstand. my advice: join the club of Odysseus G, Koheesti and ChuckD. article #1 of that club: it is a pity that Ayrabs, Palestininans, Pakis, Injuns, Bongs, Afghans as well as all other worthy oriental and african gentlemen cannot be shot at sight. article #2: only poor boys with proven inferiority complexes, enabling them to make open or subtle slurs about ethnicity, faith, colour of skin, honesty or integrity are accepted as members. article #3: members of the club are supposed to refer at any time, whether appropriate or not, to the dark ages of any country who's passport an opponent carries and who's attitude does not conform with the clubs articles of association. article #4: the killings of hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, is bloody well justified. club members, especially those who are citizens of The Greatest Nation on Earth™ and The Second Greatest Nation on Earth have to defend the afore-mentioned killings with any arguments out of thin air (even the most stupid ones). article #5: retired staff or master sergeants, who spend some leisure time in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, shall be the military advisers of the club. after all... who can judge the performance of pilots better than those who watched some flying aircrafts? article #6: the club will reward members who have a proven track record of making the most silly, irrelevant, stupid and ridiculous comments in a public forum.
July 24, 201015 yr That looks like the syllabus at Naam's alma mater - Mel Gibson University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-WnPCgbqsA
July 24, 201015 yr Your God like insight into other peoples minds may have let you down a bit there. the message in your posting is too obvious to misunderstand. my advice: join the club of Odysseus G, Koheesti and ChuckD. article #1 of that club: it is a pity that Ayrabs, Palestininans, Pakis, Injuns, Bongs, Afghans as well as all other worthy oriental and african gentlemen cannot be shot at sight. article #2: only poor boys with proven inferiority complexes, enabling them to make open or subtle slurs about ethnicity, faith, colour of skin, honesty or integrity are accepted as members. article #3: members of the club are supposed to refer at any time, whether appropriate or not, to the dark ages of any country who's passport an opponent carries and who's attitude does not conform with the clubs articles of association. article #4: the killings of hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, is bloody well justified. club members, especially those who are citizens of The Greatest Nation on Earth™ and The Second Greatest Nation on Earth have to defend the afore-mentioned killings with any arguments out of thin air (even the most stupid ones). article #5: retired staff or master sergeants, who spend some leisure time in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, shall be the military advisers of the club. after all... who can judge the performance of pilots better than those who watched some flying aircrafts? article #6: the club will reward members who have a proven track record of making the most silly, irrelevant, stupid and ridiculous comments in a public forum. It is really a shame that Naam, with all his self-professed skills and degrees has resorted to simply being a troll.
July 24, 201015 yr Your God like insight into other peoples minds may have let you down a bit there. the message in your posting is too obvious to misunderstand. my advice: join the club of Odysseus G, Koheesti and ChuckD. article #1 of that club: it is a pity that Ayrabs, Palestininans, Pakis, Injuns, Bongs, Afghans as well as all other worthy oriental and african gentlemen cannot be shot at sight. article #2: only poor boys with proven inferiority complexes, enabling them to make open or subtle slurs about ethnicity, faith, colour of skin, honesty or integrity are accepted as members. article #3: members of the club are supposed to refer at any time, whether appropriate or not, to the dark ages of any country who's passport an opponent carries and who's attitude does not conform with the clubs articles of association. article #4: the killings of hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, is bloody well justified. club members, especially those who are citizens of The Greatest Nation on Earth™ and The Second Greatest Nation on Earth have to defend the afore-mentioned killings with any arguments out of thin air (even the most stupid ones). article #5: retired staff or master sergeants, who spend some leisure time in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, shall be the military advisers of the club. after all... who can judge the performance of pilots better than those who watched some flying aircrafts? article #6: the club will reward members who have a proven track record of making the most silly, irrelevant, stupid and ridiculous comments in a public forum. I have no idea why I'm bothering but................... The message which was clear to all but the terminally blinkered, was a simple welcome to all legal immigrants, and glad you've come to contribute to society. No welcome whatsoever to Illegal Immigrants, who contribute nothing and supply a great deal of exploited labour and far worse to our sainted Isle. Sorry if the facts as written, cloud you infallible view on life. It's cloudy here. What's the weather like on your planet ?
July 24, 201015 yr Author article #4: the killings of hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, is bloody well justified. club members, especially those who are citizens of The Greatest Nation on Earth™ and The Second Greatest Nation on Earth have to defend the afore-mentioned killings with any arguments out of thin air (even the most stupid ones). All the Iraqis ad Afghanis killed in the past 9 years by US & UK forces would still amount to a slow month for the German death camp machine where "collateral damage" was defined as a guard getting a whiff of Zyklon B.
July 24, 201015 yr All the Iraqis ad Afghanis killed in the past 9 years by US & UK forces would still amount to a slow month for the German death camp machine where "collateral damage" was defined as a guard getting a whiff of Zyklon B. Oh boy....... Who or what country would you say has killed more in single a day than any other? How about who has used WMD's to not only kill more in a single blast but has also used chemicals to poison whole country sides regardless of who was there including their own soldiers? Which has ongoing results added to that tally via the effects that continue decades after use of such chemicals/devises? These effect will for all intent & purpose continue for who knows how many more decades. Again these effects not being limited to any declared enemy but anyone unfortunate enough to be near it. Just saying............Let those who are not living in glass houses throw stones I do not think you will find a rock proof house in any military
July 24, 201015 yr Who or what country would you say has killed more in single a day than any other? How about who has used WMD's to not only kill more in a single blast but has also used chemicals to poison whole country sides regardless of who was there including their own soldiers? Mr. Flying: Perhaps, as someone who continually likes to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes, it would be wise for you to read a little history about decisions leading up to the dropping of the two bombs. You might learn the dropping of those two bombs and the subsequent loss of Japanese lives in the 200,000 range was responsible for the saving of a countless number of both Allied and Japanese lives. Here are a couple of links if you really want to become educated on the subject of Operation Downfall: http://www.secondworldwar.org.uk/downfall.html http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/macarthur%20reports/macarthur%20v1/ch13.htm _______________________________________________________ The Japanese rape and pillage of Nanking caused more civilian deaths than did both bombs combined. Now where is your outrage? http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm _______________________________________________________ And, lest we forget, there are always the Germans and their slaughter of between 11,000,000 and 20,000,000 in something less than 2,000 days. While the German atrocities might likely not count up to 200,000 in one day, their daily average at the low end of the scale was around 5,500 murders per day. It would take them 36 days to reach the 200,000 killed by the atomic bombs. When you consider the Germans were killing 5,500 per day for over five years and the Atomic bombs stopped after two days, which is the more atrocious? Please spare us your mock outrage at the bombing which put an end to WWII and saved many thousands of US, UK and Japanese lives.
July 24, 201015 yr Thank you for providing a thoughtful post with the facts that the loonies try to ignore, chuckd.
July 24, 201015 yr Mr. Flying: Perhaps, as someone who continually likes to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes, Actually your claims have nothing to do with my post as I was not comparing but trying....albeit unsuccessfully in your case to show the futility of such comparisons. I was merely pointing out that all military actions usually have skeletons in closets that the country/owner of the military action would rather ignore. I also mentioned that ongoing destruction of life due to chemicals like 11 million gallons of agent orange dumped on the Vietnam country side. A comparison you choose to cut out of the post. As I said just pointing out that it is silly to throw stones whether they be from Israel,USA,Germany,Japan or any other....chai mai? Instead the few that like to claim they are in fact not racial/one sided etc....Always need to trot out the comparisons. As you just did & Mr K before you & the cookie eater ad nauseum So....... I am saying that is an endless circle. That in no way suggests the end justifies the means....not in your examples nor mine........ sorry & hopefully that clears it up for you....if not...Mai Dee Loi
July 24, 201015 yr Please spare us your mock outrage at the bombing which put an end to WWII and saved many thousands of US, UK and Japanese lives. Interesting when you look at the % of civilian deaths out of the total population. http://en.wikipedia....ki/World_War_II My grandfathers were lucky to survive. One was a pilot on the Ark Royal aircraft carrier, the other a playboy in Casablanca... earmarked for execution as the Yanks approached N.Africa. 24 mill Ruskies? Crikey. "The Russian Steamroller!" December 1937: Panay Incident January 1938: Roosevelt announces the 'moral embargo' (most of a year early) January 1939: Japan seizes Hainan (month early) February 1939: US announces 6 month warning of withdrawal from the 1911 treaty (about 6 months early) July 1939: Issues demand that Japan relinquish Hainan within 3 months or 'actions will be taken'. August 1939: enabling legislation for embargoes passes (11 months early) October 1939: US imposes first embargo, only on high-grade scrap and high octane AvGas. Japan ups purchases of the lower grade AvGas (which is what it uses, anyway). (as OTL, but 9 months early) November 1939: Japan joins Tripartite Pact June 1940: Germany invades France (as OTL) July 1940: Japan occupies Vichy Indochina (or portions thereof) (2 months early) August 1940: US tightens embargo, embargoing all scrap iron. November 1940: Japan occupies southern Indochina; US embargoes oil.(about 8 months early) April 1941: Japan attacks the Philippines and the DEI, but not Pearl Harbor --------------------- All seemed to work out fine for the Yanks.. The British lose the 'empire', the US takes it over... Goodness knows whats in store next.
July 24, 201015 yr All seemed to work out fine for the Yanks.. The British lose the 'empire', the US takes it over... Well, at least they are not speaking German and eating schnitzel every night. There is a positive way to look at it.
July 24, 201015 yr What makes you think If we would have folded, you would have been able to take on the axis on your own ? Russia may well have gone if we didn't hold then you would have been fighting on all fronts ( including S America if Hitler's plan to offer them partnership would have come off ). The old record of you saving us should sometimes be flipped over to the side that says we were mutually beneficial.
July 24, 201015 yr Where does anyone say that we "saved you"? There is no need to get defensive. All I said is that you were not conquered, so things could have been much worse. Is that not true?
July 24, 201015 yr agreed, one without the other much worse. You guys are our best-est buddies and fought valiantly!
July 24, 201015 yr All seemed to work out fine for the Yanks.. The British lose the 'empire', the US takes it over... Well, at least they are not speaking German and eating schnitzel every night. There is a positive way to look at it. Eeermm... Last I heard the UK Parliament is subordinate to Brussels. 'They' intend to run our economy from Berlin. (even if we dont join the Euro). There is a Euro police state now.. secret ops can be carried out within the EU. It seems to me, that 'they' did win, albeit without funny moustaches.
July 24, 201015 yr All BS aside, news that two US nationals have been captured in Afghanistan is a shocker. Safe return guys.
July 24, 201015 yr One unconfirmed report later said that one of the captived had been killed. My link
July 30, 201015 yr The best Afghanistan video I have seen yet: Endgame in Afghanistan: 'It's taken a year to move 20km' First time I have felt sorry for American soldiers. What a waste of life. The fact this video has been allowed out gives me hope that the powers that be are trying to wind down this endless war.
August 27, 201015 yr CIA pays many in Karzai administration: report Afghan President Hamid Karzai speaks during a trilateral regional summit in Tehran, August 5, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Raheb Homavandi 9:36am EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA is making payments to a significant number of officials in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration, The Washington Post reported on Friday. Citing current and former U.S. officials, the paper said the payments were long-standing in many cases and intended to help the agency maintain a source of information within the Afghan government. Some Karzai aides were CIA informants and others received payments to ensure their accessibility, the Post said, citing a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The CIA payments have continued despite concerns that the agency is backing corrupt officials, the report said. The Post said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano disputed the official's characterization, saying, "This anonymous source appears driven by ignorance, malice or both." Corruption and governance in Afghanistan are being scrutinized in Washington as U.S. President Barack Obama plans a strategy review in December, a month after mid-term Congressional elections will be held and amid sagging support for the war. The Washington Post also cited a former CIA official as saying that the CIA payments to Afghan officials were necessary because "the head of state is not going to tell you everything" and because Karzai often seems unaware of moves that members of his own government make. Obama pressured Karzai earlier this year to do more to root out corruption, which Washington says complicates efforts to win over the population to the effort by foreign and Afghan forces to fight a widening insurgency. In addition to cleaning up Afghan governance, Obama's war strategy hinges on building up the country's army and police forces to take over security responsibility. The New York Times reported on Thursday that one of Karzai's key national security advisors who is under investigation for allegedly soliciting bribes was on the CIA payroll. Karzai's half-brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, a businessman and political power broker in Kandahar has been widely accused of amassing a vast fortune from the drug trade, intimidating rivals and having links to the CIA, charges he strongly denies. http://www.reuters.c...opnewsafternoon LaoPo
August 28, 201015 yr Lao Po: 1. Change the Karzai government to the US Congress and current administration. 2. Now change the CIA to Lobbyists and PACs. 3. What do you get? 4. Business as usual. Change all this to the Thai government and what do you get, again? See number 4. above. Since I have little intimate knowledge of any EU government, I would think it is basically the same type operation. Can you share with us how your particular government works?
August 28, 201015 yr Lao Po: 1. Change the Karzai government to the US Congress and current administration. 2. Now change the CIA to Lobbyists and PACs. 3. What do you get? 4. Business as usual. Change all this to the Thai government and what do you get, again? See number 4. above. Since I have little intimate knowledge of any EU government, I would think it is basically the same type operation. Can you share with us how your particular government works? By saying "current administration", are you trying to imply that the previous administration was above all that? Where the irony is, is that the American government has denounced corruption in Afghanistan, yet bribes Afghan government officials. But to be fair, the "current administration" does have to deal with certain legacies and commitments left to it by the previous administration. By the way.....I'm don't think that the "he does it, so I'm ok doing it too" argument actually justifies anybody's crimes/sins/aberrations/hypocrasies/etc.
September 3, 201015 yr This is a lengthy read but for anybody interested in the situation in Afghanistan and the likely outcome, I felt some of you might want to read it. ______________________________________________________ Militancy and the U.S. Drawdown in Afghanistan September 2, 2010 | 0856 GMT By Scott Stewart The drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq has served to shift attention toward Afghanistan, where the United States has been increasing its troop strength in hopes of forming conditions conducive to a political settlement. This is similar to the way it used the 2007 surge in Iraq to help reach a negotiated settlement with the Sunni insurgents that eventually set the stage for withdrawal there. As we’ve discussed elsewhere, the Taliban at this point do not feel the pressure required for them to capitulate or negotiate and therefore continue to follow their strategy of surviving and waiting for the coalition forces to depart so that they can again make a move to assume control over Afghanistan. Indeed, with the United States having set a deadline of July 2011 to begin the drawdown of combat forces in Afghanistan — and with many of its NATO allies withdrawing sooner — the Taliban can sense that the end is near. As they wait expectantly for the departure of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan, a look at the history of militancy in Afghanistan provides a bit of a preview of what could follow the U.S. withdrawal. A Tradition of Militancy First, it is very important to understand that militant activity in Afghanistan is nothing new. It has existed there for centuries, driven by a number of factors. One of the primary factors is the country’s geography. Because of its rugged and remote terrain, it is very difficult for a foreign power (or even an indigenous government in Kabul) to enforce its writ on many parts of the country. A second, closely related factor is culture. Many of the tribes in Afghanistan have traditionally been warrior societies that live in the mountains, disconnected from Kabul because of geography, and tend to exercise autonomous rule that breeds independence and suspicion of the central government. A third factor is ethnicity. There is no real Afghan national identity. Rather, the country is a patchwork of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara and other ethnicities that tend also to be segregated by geography. Finally, there is religion. While Afghanistan is a predominantly Muslim country, there is a significant Shiite minority as well as a large Sufi presence in the country. The hardcore Deobandi Taliban are not very tolerant of the Shia or Sufis, and they can also be harsh toward more moderate Sunnis who do things such as send their daughters to school, trim their beards, listen to music and watch movies. Any of these forces on its own would pose challenges to peace, stability and centralized governance, but together they pose a daunting problem and result in near-constant strife in Afghanistan. Because of this environment, it is quite easy for outside forces to stir up militancy in Afghanistan. One tried-and-true method is to play to the independent spirit of the Afghans and encourage them to rise up against the foreign powers that have attempted to control the country. We saw this executed to perfection in the 1800s during the Great Game between the British and the Russians for control of Afghanistan. This tool was also used after the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and it has been used again in recent years following the 2001 U.S. invasion of the country. The Taliban are clearly being used by competing outside powers against the United States (more on this later). But driving out an invading power is not the only thing that will lead to militancy and violence in Afghanistan. The ethnic, cultural and religious differences mentioned above and even things like grazing or water rights and tribal blood feuds can also lead to violence. Moreover, these factors can (and have been) used by outside powers to either disrupt the peace in Afghanistan or exert control over the country via a proxy (such as Pakistan’s use of the Taliban movement). Militant activity in Afghanistan is, therefore, not just the result of an outside invasion. Rather, it has been a near constant throughout the history of the region, and it will likely continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Foreign Influence When we consider the history of outside manipulation in Afghanistan, it becomes clear that such manipulation has long been an important factor in the country and will continue to be so after the United States and the rest of the ISAF withdraw. There are a number of countries that have an interest in Afghanistan and that will seek to exert some control over what the post-invasion country looks like. The United States does not want the country to revert to being a refuge for al Qaeda and other transnational jihadist groups. At the end of the day, this is the real U.S. national interest in Afghanistan. It is not counterinsurgency or building democracy or anything else. Russia does not want the Taliban to return to power. The Russians view the Taliban as a disease that can infect and erode their sphere of influence in countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and then move on to pose a threat to Russian control in the predominately Muslim regions of the Caucasus. This is why the Russians were so active in supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban regime. There are reports, though, that the Russians have been aiding the Taliban in an effort to keep the United States tied down in Afghanistan, since as long as the United States is distracted there it has less latitude to counter Russian activity elsewhere. On the other side of that equation, Pakistan helped foster the creation of the Pashtun Taliban organization and then used the organization as a tool to exert its influence in Afghanistan. Facing enemies on its borders with India and Iran, Pakistan must control Afghanistan in order to have strategic depth and ensure that it will not be forced to defend itself along its northwest as well. While the emergence of the Pakistani Taliban and the threat it poses to Pakistan will alter Islamabad’s strategy somewhat — and Pakistan has indeed been recalculating its use of militant proxies — Pakistan will try hard to ensure that the regime in Kabul is pro-Pakistani. This is exactly why India wants to play a big part in Afghanistan — to deny Pakistan that strategic depth. In the past, India worked with Russia and Iran to support the Northern Alliance and keep the Taliban from total domination of the country. Indications are that the Indians are teaming up with the Russians and Iranians once again. Iran also has an interest in the future of Afghanistan and has worked to cultivate certain factions of the Taliban by providing them with shelter, weapons and training. The Iranians also have been strongly opposed to the Taliban and have supported anti-Taliban militants, particularly those from the Shiite Hazara people. When the Taliban captured Mazar-e-Sharif in 1998, they killed 11 Iranian diplomats and journalists. Iran does not want the Taliban to become too powerful, but it will use them as a tool to hurt the United States. Iran will also attempt to install a pro-Iranian government in Kabul or, at the very least, try to thwart efforts by the Pakistanis and Americans to exert control over the country. A History of Death and Violence It may seem counterintuitive, but following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the casualties from militancy in the country declined considerably. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies Armed Conflict Database, the fatalities due to armed conflict in Afghanistan fell from an estimated 10,000 a year prior to the invasion to 4,000 in 2002 and 1,000 by 2004. Even as the Taliban began to regroup in 2005 and the number of fatalities began to move upward, by 2009 (the last year for which the institute offers data) the total was only 7,140, still well-under the pre-invasion death tolls (though admittedly far greater than at the ebb of the insurgency in 2004). Still, even with death tolls rising, the U.S. invasion has not produced anywhere near the estimated 1 million deaths that resulted during the Soviet occupation. The Soviets and their Afghan allies were not concerned about conducting a hearts-and-minds campaign. Indeed, their efforts were more akin to a scorched-earth strategy complete with attacks directed against the population. This strategy also resulted in millions of refugees fleeing Afghanistan for Pakistan and Iran and badly disrupted the tribal structure in much of Afghanistan. This massive disruption of the societal structure helped lead to a state of widespread anarchy that later led many Afghans to see the Taliban as saviors. Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the communist government in Kabul was able to survive for three more years, backed heavily with Soviet arms, but these years were again marked by heavy casualties. When the communist government fell in 1992, the warlords who had opposed the government attempted to form a power-sharing agreement to govern Afghanistan, but all the factions could not reach a consensus and another civil war broke out, this time among the various anti-communist Afghan warlords vying for control of the country. During this period, Kabul was repeatedly shelled and the bloodshed continued. Neither the Soviet departure nor the fall of the communist regime ended the carnage. With the rise of the Taliban, the violence began to diminish in many parts of the country, though the fighting remained fierce and tens of thousands of people were killed as the Taliban tried to exert control over the country. The Taliban were still engaged in a protracted and bloody civil war against the Northern Alliance when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001. During the initial invasion, very few U.S. troops were actually on the ground. The United States used the Northern Alliance as the main ground-force element, along with U.S. air power and special operations forces, and was able to remove the Taliban from power in short order. It is important to remember that the Taliban was never really defeated on the battlefield. Once they realized that they were no match for U.S. air power in a conventional war, they declined battle and faded away to launch their insurgency. Today, the forces collectively referred to as the Taliban in Afghanistan are not all part of one hierarchical organization under the leadership of Mullah Mohammad Omar. Although Mullah Omar is the dominant force and is without peer among Afghan insurgent leaders, there are a number of local and regional militant commanders who are fighting against the U.S. occupation beside the Taliban and who have post-U.S. occupation interests that diverge from those of the Taliban. Such groups are opportunists rather than hardcore Taliban and they might fight against Mullah Omar’s Taliban if he and his militants come to power in Kabul, especially if an outside power manipulates, funds and arms them — and outside powers will certainly be seeking to do so. The United States has tried to peel away the more independent factions from the wider Taliban “movement” but has had little success, mainly because the faction leaders see that the United States is going to disengage and that the Taliban will be a force to be reckoned with in the aftermath. Once U.S. and ISAF forces withdraw from Afghanistan, then, it is quite likely that Afghanistan will again fall into a period of civil war, as the Taliban attempt to defeat the Karzai government, as the United States tries to support it and as other outside powers such as Pakistan, Russia and Iran try to gain influence through their proxies in the country. The only thing that can really prevent this civil war from occurring is a total defeat of the Taliban and other militants in the country or some sort of political settlement. With the sheer size of the Taliban and its many factions, and the fact that many factions are receiving shelter and support from patrons in Pakistan and Iran, it is simply not possible for the U.S. military to completely destroy them before the Americans begin to withdraw next summer. This will result in a tremendous amount of pressure on the Americans to find a political solution to the problem. At this time, the Taliban simply don’t feel pressured to come to the negotiating table — especially with the U.S. drawdown in sight. And even if a political settlement is somehow reached, not everyone will be pleased with it. Certainly, the outside manipulation in Afghanistan will continue, as will the fighting, as it has for centuries. ______________________________________________________ "Militancy and the U.S. Drawdown in Afghanistan is republished with permission of STRATFOR." http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100901_militancy_us_drawdown_afghanistan?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100902&utm_content=readmore&elq=14d4bae851cb4f6e92de25d56b8a3933
September 3, 201015 yr Author This is a lengthy read but for anybody interested in the situation in Afghanistan and the likely outcome, I felt some of you might want to read it. ______________________________________________________ Militancy and the U.S. Drawdown in Afghanistan September 2, 2010 | 0856 GMT By Scott Stewart It's a great read but he left out the part about being a war for oil and resources like Michael Moore told me. While I wish our side hasn't lost so many of our own, the Afghans should be happy that since the US & NATO invasion about 50,000 Afghans are alive today that otherwise would have been killed had the pre-invasion status quo remained.
October 17, 201015 yr I thought this was an unusual article, not necessarily because I agree with it, and I'm not saying I do, but because of the publicising of a military report. Troops 'overwhelmed and cannot defeat Taliban' THE Taliban have ''overwhelmed'' foreign troops and cannot be defeated by military means, one of Australia's top combat soldiers has warned. Brigadier Mark Smethurst says securing Afghanistan could take decades, but success is uncertain without a fundamental change in strategy. His critical assessment comes in a report that contrasts sharply with federal government claims of progress in Afghanistan. Advertisement: Story continues below While the key role of Australian troops is mentoring local forces, he says the Afghan army cannot operate independently, despite seven years of training, and the police are even worse. The Afghan government is ineffective and has failed to deal with corruption, human rights abuses and a non-existent justice system. Aid distribution, he says, has been ''wasteful, ineffective and insufficient''. Brigadier Mark Smethurst implicitly criticises the Howard government's approach, and poses questions about the present government's agenda. While successive governments have stated we are in Afghanistan to deny al-Qaeda terrorists a base, the brigadier says the key reason is to maintain the US alliance. In a paper that makes uneasy reading for MPs before this week's parliamentary debate on Afghanistan, he implies that if we haven't achieved our primary aim by 2012 - training Afghan troops - we should pull out. ''Compared with other counterinsurgency campaigns, the chance of a solution in the short term appears remote,'' he says. ''Even with the strongest possible action and co-operation at the national level, it is difficult to see solutions emerging in less than 10 years unless proactive action is taken now.'' Brigadier Smethurst is a highly regarded special forces officer, with service in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan in a 28-year career. At present deputy commander of Special Operations Command, he is tipped for a key coalition post in Afghanistan. While his paper was written last year, he told The Sunday Age the basic tenets held true. Called Creating Conditions for the Defeat of the Afghan Taliban: A Strategic Assessment, it was recently published online by the Australian Defence College. He describes the Taliban as a ''very capable adversary'' who are winning the propaganda war and whose tactics had ''overwhelmed the coalition''. The insurgents ''cannot be crushed by a conventional military campaign'', he says. As public support for the nine-year-old war in the West wanes, foreign efforts have made limited progress. He calls for a co-ordinated military and political strategy aimed at providing security, building Afghan forces and creating a functioning Afghan government. Yet all three aims face massive obstacles, he writes. The number of troops in Oruzgan, where Australians are based, is less than half the number recommended. If Australia fails to reach its 2012 target, ''any further commitment should be questioned, as Australia could be drawn into a greater security dilemma as the Taliban and al-Qaeda networks expand their control further into Pakistan and the region''. While Australian and Dutch troops in Oruzgan had made substantial achievements, creating ''ink spots'' of security, ''there is little real security beyond the areas of operations''. The lack of security means Australian aid workers and police trainers have had limited impact and ''struggle to maintain a presence''. Greater progress could have been made if Australia had adopted a ''whole of government'' approach when the Howard government sent reconstruction troops to Oruzgan in 2006. The nature of Australia's commitment also raises ''many questions'' about the agenda of Labor governments, with the defence white paper issued by the Rudd government last year declaring conflict in the Middle East was not the ADF's principal task. He warns the coalition must not be seen to fail in Afghanistan, because of the boost it would give to the Taliban in nuclear-armed Pakistan. A solution lies between the extremes of defeating the Taliban and reconciling with them. He says walking away from Afghanistan risks allowing the country to flourish as a breeding ground and haven for Islamic extremism. http://www.defence.gov.au/jetwc/publications/shedden-10.html Link Edit: Sorry, the link to the original report seems to have...
Create an account or sign in to comment