Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[Bograt]

Pinko,

I am not an academic. Please let me offer this crude analogy to help communicate the current situation.

Imagine if there was a house fire in your city. When the firefighters received the call, they immediately deliberated and discovered that the home belonged to a convicted pedophile. They decided not to combat the fire.

Later, there was another fire. Prior to dispatching, the firefighters convened and discovered that the home belonged to someone with several unpaid parking tickets. They decided not to combat the fire.

Unfortunately, there was another fire. Again, the firefighters deliberated and discovered that the owner habitually drives 10 km/hr over the posted speed limit. They decide not to fight the fire.

Do you want your firefighters be selective in which fire they deem worthy to combat?

Yes this analogy is sophomoric. But it does a very good job in illustrating the nature of the Canadian Forces role. We are the hands and feet of Canadian foreign and defense policy. We go were we are told. We do what we are asked because we are professionals.

Your position is inconsequential and intellectually embarrassing. It equal to debating the philosophy of economic pluralism in a liberal democracy to someone who just had their home foreclosed.  Your position may have its value whist shared over a 5 dollar latte, but in the real world it is immediately discarded.

What I have always had trouble understanding is how you (and I group people like you into one homogeneous group) manage to walk the ethical tight rope- being passionately outraged at the mission while being completely dismissive of the consequences of failure. I would like for you (and other like you) to accept the responsibility of the consequences of your position. I doubt you would carry that albatross around your neck- it would get in the way of your latte.

Please take your academic pontificating down the street. We are busy putting out a fire.

 

[pinko]

Bograt:

As I understand the rules here I am free to post my point of view and while you may take issue with that point of view I will continue to post unless I am prevented from doing otherwise. You are free to draw whatever anologies you wish in making the case for your position. I am under no obligation to accept the veracity or legitimacy of such an analogy.

Rather than attacking me you would be better served by addressing the issues.

 

[George Wallace]

"Now just to set you straight, I, and most others here, realize that we can go back to Alexander the Great, and we probably still haven't reached the origins of the problems in Afghanistan.  What I am pointing out about WW II is that it has taken over 60 years to bring stability to a "Western Culture" in Europe, and it can never be expected that we will be able to bring stability to this Region, with such a vastly different culture, ethics and moral background.  This is not Mcdonald's where we can go in and get a Big Mac and leave in a few minutes/go in and end the atrocities and leave the next day.  This will probably take many more generations than it took in Europe, before we will ever see any semblance of stability in the Region. "

George:

With reference to your most recent remarks  comparing the events of World Warll and those of Afghanistan has it not occured to you that this is a radically different world we live in than the one you relate to around the time of WWll?

I question the premise of the comparison you have drawn but for the moment let us say that it is a valid one. You have indentified a number of different factors that need to be addressed and if you don't mind I'd like to focus on the issue of culture. I am wondering if you would elaborate on what cultural distinctions are to be drawn between the "western culture" and that of those resident in Afghanistan.  I have been led to believe that Afghanistan is composed of a variety of tribes with no particular allegiance to a national government. It might be helpful if you could speak to this issue and in addition address the way the British shaped the borders in the region as a former colonial power.

Here is a website that sets out tribal composition.

http://afghanistan.saarctourism.org/ethnic-groups.html

Pinko

I guess you don't really catch on at all.  That or you just want to Troll.  If it is the latter, we will soon let you return to your former sites with your "superiority complex" intact, but reputation here as being unimaginative, and ignorant.  Your choice.

It seems rather clear to me that you really don't have the abilities to rationalize and actually understand the problem.  "Sound bites" from Anti-American, Anti-NATO, Anti-Conservative/Stephen Harper, or a multitude of other "Anti-" crowds don't cut it here.  You have made some statements, but insist on not defending them, rather trying to turn the tables and interrogate us.  Please expand on your statements, and not use them as "sound bites".

We have asked you to answer some simple questions.  You insist on playing games and stepping around the questions put to you.  We don't tolerate that for very long on this site, as you may have noticed, had you done some research.  We are a relatively patient group, but not so patient as to allow a Troll to play games for more than ten to twenty posts. 

We do enjoy your contribution, if you contribute.  So, that being said, can you elaborate as to your thoughts as to how we will find STABILITY in the Region should NATO and the demonized Americans leave?  What controls would you suggest be put in place to keep the Region from falling under the influences of a hostile Power?  You have suggested we all pull out of Afghanistan, but you have used no forethought, imagination, not thought outside of the box, to deliver a plan to us here as to what might happen should we leave Afghanistan.  Please inform us as to what you forsee as the future in the Region should we withdraw.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Bograt:

As I understand the rules here I am free to post my point of view and while you may take issue with that point of view I will continue to post unless I am prevented from doing otherwise. You are free to draw whatever anologies you wish in making the case for your position. I am under no obligation to accept the veracity or legitimacy of such an analogy.

Rather than attacking me you would be better served by addressing the issues.

Pinko,

The rules also state the following;

You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.

Your actions at www.freecbc.ca may be acceptable, however we do have guidlines and Moderators, I being one of them.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff

 

[McG]

...  you would be better served by addressing the issues.

It might be outstanding if you would take your own advice.  At the moment, it seems to me that you are avoiding many replies & issues while cheery picking the few things you find easy to address.

 

[pinko]

George:

When I discuss issue with people I choose the points I am interested in pursuing. You expressed a knowledge of history and seemed interested in some dialogue. If you want to pursue the discussion fine and if not that is your call.

 

[McG]

When I discuss issue with people I choose the points I am interested in pursuing.

However, you are now ignoring issues which you initiated.  Have you lost interest in your own themes, or is your silence an acceptance of the counter points raised against you?

 

[leroi]

"I am wondering if you would elaborate on what cultural distinctions are to be drawn between the "western culture" and that of those resident in Afghanistan.  I have been led to believe that Afghanistan is composed of a variety of tribes with no particular allegiance to a national government. It might be helpful if you could speak to this issue and in addition address the way the British shaped the borders in the region as a former colonial power."

Pinko, although you're addressing this question to Mr. Wallace, I 'm suggesting you pare-down the unrealistic, silly request you make of him.
Surely, you realize it would take several lengthy tomes, perhaps lifetimes, to address your unreasonable request above WRT cultural historical differences between western culture and sundry tribes of Afghanistan. :

You'll have better luck at your local library. 

Although Mr. Wallace is an erudite, intelligent individual he is not a miracle worker.  Nor are the rest of us.

 

[pinko]

MCG:

Not at all.

 

[George Wallace]

George:

When I discuss issue with people I choose the points I am interested in pursuing. You expressed a knowledge of history and seemed interested in some dialogue. If you want to pursue the discussion fine and if not that is your call.

I'm sorry.  I don't accept your interrogation techniques as discussion.  All I see is your avoidance of the issue.  You have been asked to expand on your views that we pull out of Afghanistan.  You don't show the capacity to do so.  You don't show the capacity to grasp the points that are put to you explaining the situation.  You are also trying to avoid discussion as to what the title of this topic is: "Afghanistan Debate: Why we should be there (or not) & how we should conduct the mission (or not)".

If you don't want to defend your position, admit it.  If not, please defend it.  As I said, your credibility is on the line, and it really doesn't look too good at present.

What are your suggestions to bringing stability to the Region, should NATO and the Americans leave?  

We already know of the culture and political/economic situation in the Region.  We know of the problems with Tribalism in the area.  We know of corruption in numerous agencies in the Region.  What we want to know is: What are your suggestions to bringing stability to the Region, should NATO and the Americans leave?

 

[geo]

Interesting that pinko wants us to cease and desist military action while expanding our work in humanitarian support, police training and the like....

To date he hasn't explained how the security aspect can be provided BEFORE we can do that kind of work.

You can,t do one without the other......

 

[McG]

Not at all.

If you have not lost interest in your themes and your silence is not acceptance, then I'm stuck concluding that you simply lack the arguments to continue on those issues.

In any case .... your new issue, the Durand Line, is another red herring in the should we be there or not debate.  Yes, it does bisect tribal regions, and it is not officially recognized by Afghanistan and a source of friction between that nation and Pakistan.  It is (like much in that region) a political issue that must be addressed between those two nations.  However, the existence of that problem (or the hypothetical nonexistence) does not change our need to be in Afghanistan supporting Afghans.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The Durand line and Pashtun irradentalism are a part of the conflict but I do not see them as the root issue.  It is true that Afghanistan is a heterogeneous amalgam of various ethnic groups with many tribes and clans within those groups.  This certainly has an impact on the conflict but again I do not see ethinicity as the dividing line (while most Afghan Taliban are Pashtun most Pashtun are not Taliban if you know what I mean).  The civil war that followed the Afghan-Soviet war was certainly arranged along more or less ethnic lines, but I don't necessarily see that today.

I see the conflict as one between tradition and modernity.  This is what sparked the conflict that drew the Soviets into Afghanistan in the late 70s.  The urban areas are populated by people who are exposed to the modern world and essentially live in an Afghan version of a modern city.  It is a world of commerce where tribe and tradition mean less that the people you do business with.  In the 60s and 70s the children of these urban folk went to school and some went to school in the Soviet Union.  This urban elite came home with ideals that were unacceptable to the rural powerbases of Afghanistan.  They tried to change the way that land was distributed and also tried to break the power of the mullahs and clan elders.  This led to a low-scale civil war that escalated and drew in the Soviets.

Progress in Afghanistan will be slow.  The rural/urban dichotomy will still exist, but perhaps the edges can blur through some give and take.  This might mean that social progess is not as fast as some would like, but it may also be faster than some would like (compromise).  This will be up to the Afghans.

There are many other players (India/China/Iran/drug lords etc), but I think that they take advantage of instability.  Resolve the root cause for the conflict and the impact of external actors will lessen. 

My two cents.

This can only happen, however, if the political leadership have the time and space to do so.  That time and space is bought in some part by military action.

 

[pinko]

Leroi:

Thank-you.

That was a very well thought out post.

Here is a copy of an article from the Hiffington Post. I would like some feedback on the article.

"NEW YORK -- During his triumphant European tour, Senator Barack Obama again urged NATO's members to send more troops to Afghanistan and called the conflict there, "the central front in the war on terror." Europe's response ranged from polite evasion to downright frosty.

It is unfortunate that Obama has adopted President George Bush's misleading terminology, "war on terror," to describe the conflict between the United States and anti-American groups in the Muslim world. Like many Americans, he and his foreign policy advisors are sorely misinformed about the reality of Afghanistan.

One understands Obama's need to respond with martial élan to rival John McCain's chest-thumping about "I know how to win wars." Polls put McCain far ahead of Obama when it comes to being a war leader. But Obama's recent proposal to send at least 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and his threats to attack Pakistan's territory, and warnings about Islamabad's nuclear forces, show poor judgment and lack of knowledge.

The United States is no longer "fighting terrorism" in Afghanistan, as Bush, Obama and McCain insist. The 2001 U.S. invasion was a legitimate operation against al-Qaeda, a group that properly fit the role of a "terrorist organization." But, contrary to the White House's wildly inflated claims that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda was a worldwide conspiracy, it never numbered more than 300 hard core members. Bin Laden and his jihadis long ago scattered into all corners of Pakistan and elsewhere. Only a handful remain in Afghanistan.

Today, 80,000 U.S. and NATO troops are waging war against the Taliban. Having accompanied the mujahidin fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980's, witnessed the birth of Taliban, and penned a book about the Afghan struggle, "War at the Top of the World," I can attest that Taliban is not a terrorist organization as the U.S. and its allies wrongly claim.

Taliban was created in the early 1990's during the chaos and civil war that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. Drawn from Pashtun tribes of southern Afghanistan, who make up half that nation's population, Taliban was a religious movement that took up arms to battle the Afghan Communists, stop the wide-scale rape of Afghan women, and halt banditry and the drug trade. Both Pakistan and the U.S. secretly aided Taliban.

The ranks of Taliban were filled with young religious students -- "talibs" -- and veteran mujahidin fighters whom the U.S. had armed and hailed as "freedom fighters." By 1996, Taliban took Kabul, driving out the Northern Alliance, the old rump of the Afghan Communist Party and its Russian-backed Tajik and Uzbek tribal supporters. Taliban, most of whom were mountaineers, imposed a draconian medievalist culture that followed traditional Pashtun tribal customs and Islamic law.

The U.S. quietly backed Taliban for possible use in Central Asia, against China in the event of war, and against Iran, a bitter foe of the Sunni Taliban. U.S. energy giants Chevron and Unocal negotiated gas and oil pipeline deals with Taliban. In 2001, Washington gave $40 million in aid to Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. only turned against Taliban when, at Osama bin Laden's advice, it gave a major pipeline deal to an Argentine consortium rather than an American one.

Everything that happens in Afghanistan is based on tribal politics. Taliban came from the heart of the Pashtun tribal grouping, the world's largest tribe which also accounts for up to 20% of Pakistan's population. Tribal and clan loyalties trump all political alliances.

The Taliban leadership had nothing to do with 9/11, a plot that, according to European prosecutors, was hatched in Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan. Nor did it have anything to do with subsequent attacks ascribed to al-Qaeda. After 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell vowed to published a White paper demonstrating Osama bin Laden's culpability in the attacks. Curiously, the promised paper was never issued.

Osama bin Laden was a national hero of the anti-Soviet struggle, wounded six times in battle. Taliban's collective leadership, in keeping with the Pashtun code of hospitality and honor, refused U.S. demands to hand over bin Laden until Washington issued a proper extradition request with evidence of bin Laden's guilt and promised him a fair trial. Washington refused to go through legal channels and, instead, invaded Afghanistan.

Fast forward to 2008. Today, U.S. and NATO forces are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan but a loose alliance of Pashtun warrior tribes whose resistance to foreign occupation is legendary. They are descendants of the same Pashtun mountain warriors who battled Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. All these invaders were eventually defeated.

Former U.S.-backed mujahidin "freedom-fighters," like the legendary Jallal Haqqani and Gulbadin Hekmatyar, have also joined Taliban in resisting foreign occupation.

The war now being waged in Afghanistan by the U.S. and NATO closely resembles 19th century colonial "pacifications" in which a puppet ruler is installed, a native mercenary army ("sepoys") hired to fight, and western troops sent to crush rebellious tribesmen who refuse to follow the diktat of the imperial power.

Equally important, the real objective of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Afghanistan became recently evident. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul finally singed a long-discussed pipeline deal that will bring energy south from the new gas and oil Klondike of the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan to Pakistan's coast and India.

As the perceptive writer Kevin Phillips notes, U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan -- and Iraq -- have become "pipeline protection troops."

Barack Obama and John McCain had better look carefully before plunging deeper into the Afghan morass. In Afghanistan, we are not fighting "terrorists" but a medieval tribal people who just want to be left alone. This is an ugly little war about oil and gas, not freedom, democracy, or woman's rights. Every village we bomb, every wedding party our air powers massacres, brings new recruits to Taliban and its allies.

Even the secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said last April that there could be no military solution to the war in Afghanistan, only a political one. That means negotiating with Taliban and political inclusion for the Pashtun people. But President Bush and candidates McCain and Obama are not listening."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/lets-speak-the-truth-abou_b_115591.html

 

[McG]

I would like some feedback on the article.

No!  Many of us here have gone to the effort of responding to your junk and you do us the disservice of ignoring our debate.  Now, you cut & paste another person's work and demand feedback!?  If you want to participate in discusion, you make the effort of first round analysis.  You tell us how this article is relevant to your thesis that we should withdrawl.  You tell us what you think it means for Canada.  Otherwise, go violate your hat.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I would like some feedback on the article.

Never mind diverting the discussion, just answer the questions already put to you.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

What I see in the article are pipeline theories and the "blowback theory".  Others have addressed the pipeline.  Regarding blowback, Heckmatyr was indeed Mujahadeen and he received US support in the 80s.  He also shelled Kabul into a wasteland during the civil war and as a student threw acid in the face of unveiled female students.  War makes for strange bedfellows, and in defence of the US administration of the 80s I have read that they were uneasy with Heckamtyr.  In any case I fail to see the relevance to today's issue.  To me, the lesson for the West of the Afghan Soviet war is that disengagement leads to chaos.  The genie was let out of the bottle and we can't just sit back and hope that distance and isolation will protect us from consequences. 

I also find it odd to refer to the democractically elected leader of Afghanistan as a puppet. I watched the Afghans come up with a constitution, and others here watched the elections.  The soldiers of the Afghan National Army are tough soldiers who believe in their country and not 19th century sepoys.

To leave now would be to return Afghanistan to 1989. 

 

[observor 69]

For what it's worth my understanding of the latest thinking in NATO and Washington is ............. increase our forces until we become a big enough pain in the ass versus the Taliban advantage, their ability to hang on forever, that they will be prepared to negotiate.
Woman's rights, strong army and police and we are out of there.

 

[pinko]

You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yet another 'drive by posting' Pinko?

What I am reading as I follow this thread is some members replying to your post(s), which you then do the "I can't see you" reply.  It really takes away from the thread.