My thoughts on Afghanistan

[NJmaverick]

First off let me say that I think George Bush screwed up when he demanded the Al-Qaeda terrorists from the Taliban and refused all efforts to negotiate. There is a moral and practical implication to the saying that war should always be the measure of last resort. Obviously war is a terrible endeavor that kills many good and many innocent people and wrecks terrible havoc. Secondly history is full of lessons that show war is unpredictable and an expensive endeavor that has laid low empires and sometimes bankrupted them in victory.
Secondly Bush failed to give the Taliban any way to save face or appear to be acting honorably. The demand for proof of their crimes was not an unreasonable one and providing it would have allowed the Taliban to turn the terrorists over while saving face in the Muslim community.

That said there was not assurances negotiation would have been effective. In fact odds are they would have failed (based on the nature of the Taliban) However even failed negotiations would have given the invasion much greater moral support and would have allowed it to be viewed as the US making war a last rather than a first result (as we like to tell the world we do). So Bush is responsible for serious failings both from a practical as well as a moral standpoint.

Now that being said the invasion took place and Al-Qaeda is a real threat to our nation as 9/11 was a terrible attack that killed more Americans and destroyed more property than Pearl Harbor.

Bush failed in a second way by neglecting the conduct of this war while he went on his illegal wars in Iraq. Many needed resources were pulled from Afghanistan in order to prop up the failed invasion of Iraq. This neglect allowed all the early gains of pushing the Taliban out of Afghanistan to wiped out and put us nearly back at ground zero.

That leaves us in the situation we are in today. Afghanistan's government is weak and would topple immediately if NATO were to pull out right away. In addition there are areas of Pakistan that are lawless and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban operate with near impunity. These groups must be weakened by strikes at their leadership, before they grow strong enough to threaten the nuclear armed government of Pakistan. Having the ability to strike from Afghanistan does help keep those groups in check.

Now there are a few rules of insurgency warfare that say the longer an occupying force stays, the less welcome they become (not unlike house guests). So the longer our fores stay in the Country the more difficult victory is to achieve. I will also say though that the conventional wisdom of insurgency ware fare were turned on their head when the "surge" in Iraq worked. The standard doctrine stated that the increased troops would have simply caused the insurgents to relocate or lay low until the surge was over. However the wholesale use of brides proved to be an effective way to pull support from an insurgency and isolate and weaken them. The same surge plus bribes strategy may work in Afghanistan.

Beyond the ability to succeed, we also need to consider what would happen to all those Afghans that supported us. If were to immediately pull out of that nation those people would be at the mercy of the Taliban (who have shown they are lacking in mercy). So we would be responsible for their deaths and it would be nearly impossible to get support in future endeavors.

So basically if we were to pull out of Afghanistan the Taliban would take over. Women would stop being educated, our supporters would be killed, Al Qaeda would once again have a safe haven to operate from and nuclear Pakistan would face a threat from a neighbor as well as their own lawless regions. This is all a rather bad scenario that poses serious risks to our national security and the safety and well being of our citizens.


That leaves the question- Can something be done to affect a better outcome? Well the good news is we have much better people in the White House. There have been some recent articles about the short comings of our intelligence services that seem truly clueless as to what the Afghan people think or what's going on with them. Deal with an insurgency requires cool calm thinking leadership, not overly emotional from the gut type leadership (sound like anyone you know). By getting to know the people you can start to really win over the hearts and minds of Afghans that don't like or care for the Taliban and their iron fisted rule. With select bribes to sway the people that could go either way, it is possible (not assured) that the surge plan could work to weaken the Taliban and give the Afghan government time to strengthen itself to the point that they can deal with the situation.

Now I understand there are people that may feel that this plan just can't work or the cost in lives is too much, but I ask that you consider the consequences of leaving and at least appreciate that there is a lot at stake here and it is nor unreasonable to be supportive of efforts designers to try and prevent it from happening.

Finally I would like to talk about the drone attacks in Pakistan. I know they are unpleasent in the sense that most good people don't like to rain death on others and innocents can get caught in the cross fire. However the real question is what is the alternative? Let Al-Qaeda grow stonger by leaving them to do as they please? Send in manned planes and risk pilots? Send in special forces strikes and risk troops being killed or captured? Woudl the Pakistan people like these choices better? The government is not on the stongest ground and their nukes make them a huge threat.

[StarfarerBill]

1. In answer to all your questions, another question:

Have we or anyone else bothered to ask the Afghan, Pakistani, and Yemeni people what they want?

[NJmaverick]

2. How do you ask them exactly?

beyond that what if the answer of the Pakistan people is they want an Islamic extremist government? Do we just turn of the nation and the nukes to the likes of the Taliban?

[StarfarerBill]

6. Since neither we nor their respective governments have asked, we don't know what they *do* want.

I think it's a fair possibility that they don't want foreign occupation/combat forces, though.

And for the umpteenth time: Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen are not ours to bestow or take away; they are sovereign nations which must be given the opportunity to work out their own internal differences. We have no right to dictate what they should or shouldn't want.

The help we give them must first be requested; then it should extend no further than to diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic aid.

[NJmaverick]

8. Not to bust on you, but how do you ask? Do you poll them or let them vote

Remember how the Taliban threatened to kill Afghans that voted? Beyond that what if 51% say leave and 49% say stay, is that a mandate or just a majority?

[StarfarerBill]

11. To be honest, I'm not sure.

But with the hundreds of billions we're spending on our occupation/attacks now, I'm sure we could find and fund a way.

If the majority say leave, we leave; if they say stay, we then ask in what capacity.

One stipulation if we stay, though: all work of whatever kind is done should be handled through the UN. A continued American/NATO presence will only make things continue to decline.

[ixion]

3. that's a very good question

I think their answer would be to get the hell out, and stay out.

People always prefer their local bad government to being governed by an outside power, including the Founding Fathers of the US.

[NJmaverick]

4. What are your tthoughts on a nuclear armed Taliban?

do you think they would pose a threat to anyone?

[ArmajaDasComatose]

13. "nuclear armed Taliban?" wishful thinking on your part?

[ixion]

15. no more a threat than a nuclear-armed anyone else

just because we have the nukes doesn't mean they're not a threat to anyone.

I think the idea that we have some sort of moral superiority that in that department -- given the fact that we are the ONLY country to have ever actually USED an atomic/nuclear device on another country -- is laughable, at best. We produce and sell nukes to other countries (like Israel). We're developing "tactical" nukes as I write this. How is that any better or different?

[NJmaverick]

23. The Taliaban hosted known terrorists in Al-Qaeda

they don't strike me as the type to have any sense of moral responsibility that would prevent them from unleashing them. Our nation has had nukes for decades (as has many other nations) and we have not unleashed them (the only exception would be the much weaker atomic bombs employed during WW 2). I think the fact that the world is still standind shows that there are nations that have excercised restraint and repsonsibility. What is it about the Taliban that leads you to believe they would be equally as responsible?


As for Israel we NEVER sold them nukes (please facts are important if you are going to hold sound positions). In fact Israel stole technology from us and Israel does not even admit to having nukes (although it is an open secret)

[DeeOwl]

37. "moral responsibility"?

"moral responsibility"?...that's rich, considering the US has been the only nation to date to use nuclear weapons in anger on a civilian population as well as the only nation to repeatedly threaten of using them again during the past decade, even on non-nuclear nations.

I'm more afraid that some religious fundamentalist nutjob General of ours decides that New York and Las Vegas are the modern equivalents of Sodom and Gomorrah and then he decides to rain some "brimstone" in the 50 to a 100 megaton range on those places, than I'm afraid of some psycho-regressive, neo-con basement-militia power fantasies like that of Palestinian-Taliban coalition invading the US via beach landings. (I actually heard this one few months ago from a teabagger type.)

Snap out of it: if it ever comes to the point where there is a mushroom cloud above a US city, it will be done by either our own militia-types or as a result of a conflict with another major nuclear power like China or Russia.

[ixion]

52. I'll re-phrase the statement

True enough: we've never sold Israel nukes above the board. However, we've never discouraged their pursuit of them, either.

And as far as the Taliban go: Sure, they're extremists. But I don't think they're any more or less morally responsible or irresponsible than anyone other group.

Certainly, the US has no moral high-ground by which to judge moral responsibility. Our "police actions" and other trysts have been the primary cause of the deaths of millions.

Millions.

So our "moral responsibility" is nil, at best. And hostilely-occupying Afghanistan is most certainly NOT going to improve that problem.

[LooseWilly]

53. The US has refused to extradite the known terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

...

In 2005 Posada requested political asylum in the United States through his attorney, and on May 3, 2005, the Venezuelan Supreme Court approved an extradition request for him.<3> On May 17, 2005 the Miami Herald conducted an interview with Posada in South Florida; later that day, the Herald and the Associated Press reported that he had been detained by the Department of Homeland Security. He had withdrawn his asylum appeal and was moving to sneak out of the country when arrested. His arrest coincided with large anti-Posada protests in Havana - organizers estimated that hundreds of thousands of Cubans participated in the rally. On September 28, 2005 a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada could not be deported because he faced the threat of torture in Venezuela. The Venezuelan government reacted angrily to the ruling, accusing the US of having a "double standard in its so-called war on terrorism".<13> The US government sought to deport Posada elsewhere, but at least seven friendly nations refused to accept him.<40> Under the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation the US is obligated to prosecute Posada for the alleged acts of terrorism, if it does not extradite him.<41>

The US Government has been heavily criticized in some circles, especially in the context of the so-called "war on terror". International law, including the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of September, 2001, states that countries should not give safe haven or any kind of assistance to people involved in present or past terrorist activities. The final declaration of the XIVth Ibero-American Summit, held in Salamanca in October 2005, includes a demand to "extradite or judge the man responsible for the terrorist blowing-up of a plane of Cubana Aviation in October 1976, which caused the death of 73 innocent civilians".<42> Posada was referenced in Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's address to the UN General Assembly on September 20, 2006. Railing against the U.S. for "imperialism" and "hypocrisy", Chávez called Posada "the biggest terrorist of this continent", and said: "Thanks to the CIA and government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government."<43>

During a United Nation Security Council meeting to review the work of its three subsidiary counter-terrorism committees, the United States was invited by the representatives of Venezuela and Cuba to comment on the evidence (above) in the Posada case. The US representative, Ms. Willson, then stated, "an individual cannot be brought for trial or extradited unless sufficient evidence has been established that he has committed the offence charged."<44> She also alleged that removal to Venezuela or Cuba could not be carried out as "it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were so transferred."<45> The Venezuelan representative denied the allegation, and pointed to the United States' own record in Abu Ghraib and in Guantánamo as examples of what Venezuela would not do.<46>
...

The US refuses to allow extradition of Kissinger and others who have been charged with war crimes.

The US refuses to investigate the use of waterboarding as a war crime, or a host of other allegations of use of torture. Specifically, President Obama refuses to pursue any such investigations.

These are all facts. These facts undermine the "soundness" of the position which you are trying to establish for yourself. In fact, they illustrate the double standard that you are either blind to, or are willing to ignore in order to further your disingenuous point.

The United States has displayed no more "moral responsibility" than any other nation-state, or even ethnic group. The US killed more civilians in the 70s and 80s than the IRA, and the US has killed more civilians in the 90s than the Palestinian Entifada. And in the 00s the United States has killed more civilians than God himself (ok, that last one might be a bit hyperbolic, but I think it's ballpark).

My guess- if Al Qa'eda had nuclear weapons, then the US would have to pull its troops out of Islamic oil producing nations, and face a lesser prospect of using those troops to influence internal politics in those nations in order to control the oil contract bidding procedures in the future. Ohhh, the Huuummaaaaannity!!!
:scared:

[seeinfweggos]

40. now really? No more dangerous than say France?

[chowder66]

57. Partial answer...?

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57168.shtml

excerpt;

What Do Afghans Want? Withdrawal - But Not Too Fast - and A Negotiated Peace By Milan Rai
ZCommunications
Saturday, Oct 10, 2009


In his major speech on Afghanistan on 4 September, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown emphasized Britain's self interest in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan: 'We are in Afghanistan as a result of a hard-headed assessment of the terrorist threat facing Britain.' In this, he was only following the lead of US President Barack Obama, who launched his new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan at the end of March with the warning that: 'if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can'.

Neither the Prime Minister nor the President often speak of the wishes of the Afghan people. But these wishes, so far as they can be known, ought to be at the centre of British policy.

What we know is that the majority of people in Afghanistan (77%) want an end to the airstrikes that have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan civilians. We also know that the majority of Afghans (64%) want a negotiated end to the conflict, and are willing to accept the creation of a coalition government including the Taliban leadership.

We also know that a majority of Afghans oppose the Obama surge that is increasing the number of foreign troops in the country. 73% of Afghans think that US-led forces in the country should either be decreased in number (44%) or 'kept at the current level' (29%). Only 18% of Afghans favour an increase.

more at link....

[bigtree]

5. the Taliban is there to stay; whether Americans like it or not

two articles today:


‘Afghan Insurgency Can Sustain Itself Indefinitely’: Top U.S. Intel Officer
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/afghan-insurgency-can-sustain-itself-indefinitely-top-us-intel-officer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7422050


Karzai: "We don't want to undermine the Taliban... We want to undermine the terrorists."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Karzai+says+doesn+need+favour+foreign+powers/2419687/story.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7421484

[NJmaverick]

7. Well there are flavors of Taliban as they are a loose association

at this point in time some of the less extreme and malignant ones may be open to negotiation/bribery and may become supportive of the Karzai government. Negotiations and attempts to pull away the less extreme parts seems like a prudent strategy.

It may fly in the face of the Bush docterines of we don't talk to terrorist and we don't negotiate with out preconditions, hoever at this point in time we may not have any other choice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Ah yes, the falling dominoes and bloodbath theories..again.

All coupled with a failed war...again.

We lost. Get out. Get over it.

And build a pretty monument to the cannon fodder if that's what it takes.

[NJmaverick]

10. We have seen those blood baths in our previous pull out, as the NY Times article

I showed you yesterday showed. So it's more than just a theory. As for dominoes, are you willing to gamble on them not falling when nukes are involved?

[polly7]

14. Oh please.

I'm sure the bloodbaths in any pullout will be a helluva lot less than they are with invasion and occupation. Gawd. The logic is stunning. It's like the people of these nations have no brains, no will whatsoever and have to depend on brutal, foreign intervention to live, period. It would be almost laughable if it weren't so tragic.


ETA: I think PIPELINE when I think of Afghanistan. I really don't think of nukes there,

[NJmaverick]

18. All you offer up is unsubstanciated opinion and a view that anyone that doesn't share

your opinions is laughable. I really don't see what there is to respond to. You have no numbers, facts, projects, historical references or anything else that can be discussed or debated. I guess if we going with the most votes for one positions is right, you are registering your opinion.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

21. And you have an opinion that these nations with the oil and

pipelines have no right to control their own destiny.


You're wrong.


Period.

[NJmaverick]

25. My first reply still stands

your "vote" has been noted.

[polly7]

26. I don't really care if it's been noted or not. nt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. You pulled out one article out of thousands that debunked the "bloodbath".

I am more than willing to "gamble" that Pakistan won't fall to the Taliban bogeyman.

a) The Pakistan military won't allow it.
b) India and China won't allow it.
c) The Taliban in Pakistan are, for the most part, contained in tribal areas and have no chance of taking over the government.

[whatchamacallit]

54. Condi is that you?

:eyes:

[Bigmack]

36. Tierra....

I think our experiences in the SE Asia Wargames makes it simpler for us to understand the unwinnability of Vietghanistan.

It's much harder for others to imagine how a rag-tag bunch of dark-skinned people without all our modern weapons can defeat/stalemate the mighty US military.

They're talking about 300-500 casualties a month already.

Slow learners.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Yep. The OP is based on a comic-book version of war.

Not to mention an "Apocalypse" movie version of CIA heroes saving the planet from scary aliens.

[FarLeftFist]

12. If we used military force to free Iranians from oppression wouldn't that be considered humanitarian

Those in the Green Revolution are practically begging us for help.....But then again so are alot of Afghani's.

[NJmaverick]

19. The idea to help them is certainly tempting from a moral and ethical perspective

but nearly impossible from a practical one.

[robdogbucky]

16. Who am I?

“the bravest woman in Afghanistan.”

Malalai Joya

"In 2005, I was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament. Women like me, running for office, were held up as an example of how the war in Afghanistan had liberated women. But this democracy was a facade, and the so-called liberation a big lie...

Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.

You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s...

So far, Obama has pursued the same policy as Bush in Afghanistan. Sending more troops and expanding the war into Pakistan will only add fuel to the fire. Like many other Afghans, I risked my life during the dark years of Taliban rule to teach at underground schools for girls. Today the situation of women is as bad as ever. Victims of abuse and rape find no justice because the judiciary is dominated by fundamentalists. A growing number of women, seeing no way out of the suffering in their lives, have taken to suicide by self-immolation..."

The big lie of Afghanistan
My country hasn't been liberated: it's still under the warlords' control, and Nato occupation only reinforces their power

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/25/afghanistan-occupation-taliban-warlords


I prefer to have input from locals on such matters, comprende?




Just my dos centavos


robdogbuvcky

[ArmajaDasComatose]

17. "But this democracy was a facade, and the so-called liberation a big lie..."

Much like the USA

[NJmaverick]

22. This letter is long on complaints and extremely short on solutions

it's easy to complain about things one does not like. It's much harder to actually offer up plans to fix them or alterantive approaches.

[robdogbucky]

24. Another voice

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war

Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

"When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan. A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed...

But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency. "I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

But many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there -- a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.

As the White House deliberates over whether to deploy more troops, Hoh said he decided to speak out publicly because "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right...' "



More centavos

[NJmaverick]

27. I am not sure I am keen on the views of someone that was "happy" killing others

from the article

<<<"There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys." >>>

Killing is something you do out of necessity and is not something that would make a person "happy"

[robdogbucky]

28. Other voices

RAWA Statement on Massacre of over 150 civilians in Bala Baluk of Farah Province by the U.S.

As the US occupiers continue killing our innocent and sorrowed people without regret, this time they committed yet another horrible crime in Bala Baluk village of Farah Province. On 5th May 2009, the US airstrikes targeted people’s homes, killing more than 150, mostly women and children. This is another war crime but Pentagon shamelessly includes Taliban as the perpetrators too and announces the civilian deaths being only 12!

The so-called ‘new’ strategy of Obama’s administration and the surge of troops in Afghanistan have already dragged our ill-fated people in the danger zone and his 100-day old government proved itself as much more war-mongering than Bush and his only gifts to our people is hiking killings and ever-horrifying oppression. This administration is bombarding our country and tearing our women and children into pieces and from the other side, is lending a friendly hand towards the terrorist Gulbuddinis and Taliban -- the dirty, bloody enemies of our people-- and holding secret negotiations and talks with such brutal groups.

While our grieved people are burying the torn bodies of their loved ones in mass graves; the traitor lackey Said Tayeb Jawad, in his comfort in the USA, tries to dim the war crimes of his masters and about the killings of civilians, shamelessly salts people’s wounds saying, “this is a price we have to pay if we want security and stability in Afghanistan, the region and the world.”!

If his or other ignoble spies like him would lose their children and dear ones like the people of Bala Baluk, would they still become so stone-hearted and remain silent in the face of US/NATO war crimes in Afghanistan? The only way our people can escape the occupant forces and their obedient servants is to rise against them under the slogans of: “Neither the occupiers! Nor the bestial Taliban and the criminal Northern Alliance; long live a free and democratic Afghanistan!”

http://www.rawa.org/index.php



Sincerely,

rdb

[NJmaverick]

29. RAWA is a pacificst group

it stands to reason they oppose any of these ideas.

[anonymous171]

47. Yes, and unlike you, they actually live and operate in Afghanistan

It stands to reason that their opinion might be more than a little different from your own. Also a great deal more credible I might add.

[robdogbucky]

30. Reading is fundamental

More from that article about Hoh

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html

With "multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups," he wrote, the insurgency "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and Nato presence in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified." American families, he said at the end of the letter, "must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can be made any more."

If the United States is to remain in Afghanistan, Hoh said, he would advise a reduction in combat forces.

He also would suggest providing more support for Pakistan, better U.S. communication and propaganda skills to match those of al-Qaeda, and more pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to clean up government corruption -- all options being discussed in White House deliberations.

"We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath," Hoh said. "But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve."


Solutions, I got your solutions right here...

Get out now



rdb

[NJmaverick]

31. Yes it is, so here is some reading for you

know the people you are quoting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Association_of_the_Women_of_Afghanistan

[robdogbucky]

33. Read that a long time ago

Bertie

'tis why I respect them so



and you are?




rdb

[robdogbucky]

32. Know whom you are quoting, more reading,

Blah, blah, blah

Noise, confetti, flack, noise-makers

Blah, blah, blah


The links of Hamid Karzai to the UNOCAL company are well known -- Karzai having served as a well paid consultant to UNOCAL when it was negotiating with the Taliban. The man who spotted Karzai's 'leadership potential' and recruited him to "the fold" was then RAND program director, Zalmay Khalilzad.18 The Bush Administration's special envoy to Afghanistan, appointed nine days after Karzai took office, is Zalmay Khalilzad, graduate of the University of Chicago, another UNOCAL consultant and whose father was an aide to King Zahir, who actually drew up the risk analysis of the proposed $2 billion CENTGAS pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan.19

Khalilzad was undersecretary of defense for George Bush I, during the war against Iraq. After a stint at the Rand Corporation think tank, he headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department and advised Donald Rumsfeld. But he was not rewarded with any promotions. The required Senate confirmation would raise extremely uncomfortable questions about his role as UNOCAL adviser and one-time staunch Taliban defender. He was assigned instead to the National Security Council -- no Senate confirmation required -- where he reports to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice .

http://cursor.org/stories/karzai.htm



Lets, see, attack the source, distract & redirect, erect strawmen, avoid answering, check.


rdb

[NJmaverick]

35. Why not address the issues I raised, instead of just playing cut and paste games?

[Bigmack]

39. No cut and paste here... well, not much, anyway...

I know of a country that killed around 600,000 of its people in a bloody Civil War... out of a population of 31 million. One side actually held slaves! There were atrocities on both sides, and a bitter aftermath. Animosities still exist 150 years after that war ended.

We didn't have a Great Power to occupy us and keep us from fighting. We certainly would have united and fought that occupying army, and the causes of the war would still be unresolved.

Why are the Afghans any different?

Shouldn't we let those poor people resolve their own problems in the same totally uncivilized way we did? They don't seem to be exporting any terrorists these days... they've moved to Yemen... or somewhere.

Here's the cut and paste:

`I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.' –
Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant (during the first part of my time in the Corps.) Medal of Honor recipient.

[NJmaverick]

42. I think the difference is that they hosted Al Qaeda

it would have been like our nation allowed pirates to operate out of our ports. Had we done that most of the European powers would have invaded us and get rid of the pirates, and I couldn't have blamed them.

[Bigmack]

50. The south hosted...

pirates and "wreckers" along the Carolina Coast, the Florida Keys, and out of New Orleans.

If Britain had invaded New York or Boston to fight them, we'd have shit bricks.

Sorry... I love women and kids... don't want them screwed over by the fundie assholes in Vietghanistan... but the question is simply: Can we bomb and shoot a 14th century people into the 21st century?

The Taliban is only part of the problem. Culture can't be ignored. They don't want the West and all the nifty bullshit we have.

You have to remember, too... The US simply cannot impose our will on everybody.. especially tough people. Didn't work in Vietnam, won't work in Vietghanistan.

[wuushew]

34. The follies of empire will bleed us dry

[anonymous171]

38. Faulty premise. The Taliban are not Al-Qaeda. nt

[NJmaverick]

43. I never claimed they did, please reread what I wrote

[anonymous171]

45. Whoops. I see that you are correct. But you cannot blame me for inferring that

After all, You are basically arguing that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have some kind of grand alliance and that both groups have the same goals.

[bullwinkle428]

41. Executive Summary : Fight them over there, so we don't have to

fight them over here.

[NJmaverick]

44. That would be a very poor summary, in fact it couldn't be further afield of the truth

the fact of the matter there is no simple solution to terrorists.


You have to win hearts and minds (to limit their support and recruiting)

You have to harden ourselves from attacks

We have to have great intelligence

We have to attack their leadership and infrastructure

We have to do our best to deny them safe havens to operate


Even after all these different measures are employed there is not assurance against a successful attack.

[polly7]

46. What don't you get about how killing, maiming, decimating nations,

'collateral damage / aka children, innocent men and women, 'creates' terrorists. Most of the 9/11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia. Can you please explain to me why it's been completely 'hands off' and completely ignored?

[NJmaverick]

51. You don't have a clue what I get and don't get

as for the Saudi's that nation has the ability to totally decimate our national economy and that puts us at an extreme disadvantage.

[Odin2005]

55. K&R

[robdogbucky]

56. Ah, Page 4 and still no recs

That should tell you something.

Dear Bertie:

Are you clowns trying to sell this incoherency as some sort of valid analysis?

I just now finally read your screed, against my better judgment, and it is worse than I had assumed. Yes, I had not read it when I submitted linked information that I just knew would be of interest, probably more to others than you.

Just as well, as I never expected you to actually respond to any of my points raised by those links. No, of course not, you could never do that, and you did not disappoint. Langley or Foggy Bottom or some undisclosed location must be really dredging the dregs, the bottom of the barrel of your think tank –generated-sounding arguments and alleged logic systems to use you to unveil this newest dreck.

Let’s look at your writing shall we? You attempt to recap in those first couple of paragraphs and then reach some conclusion that you feel that yes, Bush screwed up. Genius, how long did it take for you to offer that up, to observe it, to finally conclude he made a pisser. What, no one left to believe any lies about “fighting them there before…” or “WMDs”? Your additional statement re: “war should always be the measure of last resort,” seems disingenuous and a major backpedal by someone so eager to aggressively meet our supposed enemies and until now so pleased with the institution of pre-emptive warfare.

You really should look in a mirror or play rewind when you write “history is full of lessons that show war is unpredictable...” etc. and attempt to lay blame for this, any way you look at it a fuck up, again, at the feet of the cited Bush. No shit Sherlock to the former and it doesn’t surprise me about the latter. You then try to sound reasonable again and assert that negotiations could never be guaranteed and then try to spin further along the lines of “maybe Bush should have tried, etc.” C’mon, I don’t believe for a second that when you voted for Bush that you had any intentions of supporting his negotiating, something which was never attempted. Your “logic,” is from the Jean Kilpatrick/John Bolton/Charles Negropante school of “diplomacy.” In other words you mean to say “this wisdom came from our best think tanks so don’t question it.” Blaming Bush at this point is really pathetic, you being an eternal war sympathizer. Is this just the think tank’s version of the one step back, two steps forward meme?

You then return to the main stem, the Big Lie, the element that is central to your eternal war strategy. AQ is less a threat to America than your mindset and Wall St. 9/11 was the biggest psy ops operation ever attempted. At least since the last assassinations. You gave yourself away with the Pearl Harbor reference. How ‘bout Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Put that in perspective and you mind find new reasons for everything you are promoting. Unsuccessfully in this quarter by the way. Then you go back to the Bush thingy. Wow, I feel really privileged to be seeing/hearing the latest from the dark side. The rest is just gibberish and the usual wishful thinking from the MIC rationalizers at the Pentagon. A new disinformation campaign rolled out right here at DU and catapulted for all to witness.

Really, you took the entire bakery, not just the cake when you wrote “Wholesale use of brides…” Your best work yet.
I can’t wait to see the sequel. You just can't make this stuff up, really, this was posted by you here on DU. Amazing.


rdb