myata

You seem to forget (or deliberatly ignore??) that on the other side there supposed to be no smaller group of men, trained and armed by foreign pros (for over six years now and counting) and supposedly ready to fight for their country. Good and righteous men. These horrible stories are sure to make general population reject the thugs en masse. A fighter drawn by force and fear will run at first opportunity. Good governement spreads, thugs are hunted down with help from local population (much of which is still armed after decades of war, so I'm not sure the image you drew is quite correct, that is, these things happening without assistance from at least part of general population. The part that maybe sees the foreigners as occupiers trying to run their country, as many before them. And those locals helping them, as collaborators. With whom they deal without mercy. Which still isn't nice but at least may explain something. Which is hard to explain from the rosy - or black and white, whatever you like - picture of the world). Nice and simple mental picture. Unfortunately, not the one we see in reality. The reason for this disconnect between the reality (as seen) and nice and simple mental picture (as imagined) must be exlained. Ignoring reality while persisting with nice and simple mental ideas usually leads to disaster. And finally I would hold off that rightful anger. It won't be of much help. No matter how much better we are (or we think we are), what really matters for the success of the mission is what the locals think (really deep inside) about us. Not what we may think about them (ie. how barbaric they are and how they need to be brought into the 21 century). Because that will translate in them helping us, or them supporting Taleban (btw - who do you think them - Taleban - are? Aliens from another, axis of evil, planet?). Which would eventually decide the fate of the whole enterprise.

There is an unspoken (or even spoken once in a while) understanding now that if NATO troops are withdrawn now, there's high chance that the country will fall back under Talebans control. By saying this, generals shoot themselves in the foot. Really, it's a matter of simple logic; among these three statements one (at least) must be false; the three simply do not sit together, logically. 1. the Taleban, hiding in the remote mountain areas with virtually no help from anybody financial or otherwise with only a handful of fighters, on one side; 2. a country which is receiving massive financial and material assistance from abroad and whose population strongly rejects Taleban en masse, on the other; 3. the Taleban taking over the country the moment foreign troop leave; Just think of it; if you're saying that it's so hard for the government to recruit an army during the day and with massive help, it'd be twice as hard for the Taleban at night with none; so how could they ever take over, unless their level of popular support is much higher than somebody wants us to believe?

Can't deny them certain subtlety: you have to be fully qualified no matter the believes, but be able to refurse requested help based on the same.

A CTV article on comments from Rick Hillier on the condition of Afghan ArmyAfghan Army needs more time. Same view, no questions asked (why does it actually need so much more time if population is supposed to support it so much more than hated Taleban?). Its' important to keep asking these questions now, because we won't find it out from generals whether the mission is being successful or is heading into a disaster.

Why? Are you saying that such an attack is any less likely than missile strike from Iran on Europe and US the american shield (as claimed) is intended to protect from?

Sure. So, if tomorrow Russia negitiates to install MD shields in Cuba and Venecuela, to protect itself from intercontinental attacks from Chechen terrorists hiding in the jungles of Amazon, they 'll be met with complete and absolute understanding from US administrations? Like last time?

Agreed. While showing some undemocratic tendencies, Russia is by far not the worst of players this world has to offer. Continuosly undermining its influence on virtually every occasion is not the way to develop a lasting partnership. Which, given the direction the world is heading into, maybe more in its long term interests than a few quick points here and there.

OK so Taleban, specifically, did not receive any support (from US at least) after 94 and still managed to take over the country. OK thanks for admitting that they may indeed have had some support among the people. Now, how does it happen that among all the claims of how much support it has, the government in Kabul cannot achieve the same feat (ie. govern, on their own, most of country's territory, for any extended period of time, without depending on massive foreign involvement) in twice the time, and with infinitely more help than Taleban ever had? (whatever the amounts of financial aid they were getting before 94, it could not be compared with air craft, heavy artillery etc Afghan government has now)? Something must be wrong. Maybe the level of support is exaggerated? Maybe, we cannot measure it correctly? If we're betting on the wrong guy (faction) which cannot hold the power together on merits of their own strength, influence, etc, all of this will be for nothing. They'll collapse shortly after foreign props are removed as happened with the communist goverment. Thanks for the link btw.

Aha. So we now have to go to Belize and x hundred other places on this planet, to teach them how they should live in this century (and whether they asked for advice or not).

If it was indeed possible to "turn" peoples minds "around", maybe we should try it here first, on our own soil?(crime; homelessness; drug abuse; low living standard in some groups). And when we succeed, surely the others may come for advice, how to "bring their culture in this century".

I can't be amazed enough at the unabated boldness of this administration's attitude: we say that it won't be aimed at you and you have to believe us on our word. Forget all you learned before (nukes, missiles, etc) and just trust us. Such a solid foundation for a foreign policyand instills a lot of trust in your partners!

No-no. They had US backing when they were fighting Soviets. After that there was a period of couple of years when "moderate" mojaheddins governed and it's them who were in US's favour. In that time, Taleban could only count on support from some circles in Pakistan and even then, not openly and hardly to anywhere near such a massive level Afgans are getting from the the West now. There must be a better explanation than for a fringe religious group to come to power "thru sheer terror". It's like saying, Nazis came to power "thru sheer terror" only. They needed people to take them all the way to Kabul (from border Pushtun areas where they originated). People who wouldn't fight for welthier and stronger mojaheddin government. Why? Perhaps, they enjoyed strong support from at least a significant part of population? Of course we can ignore such possibiliy and push forward the simplistic view that suits us best. To our peril. All the same (and more) could be applied to Taleban when they were coming into play and yet the result was drastically different. It would do us much good to understand why. The chief problem I have with that is that by massively supporting a faction which has not in any way proven its viability, i.e. ability to stand, survive on their own, we aren't doing any good. Already weak government would collapse the moment we step out. Somehow, we should have bet on someone who's able to stand on their own. Give them specific, targeted help, certainly. Run the country for them - recipe for disaster, no matter how well intended.

I'll have to point out, one more time, that when Taleban swiped the whole (or by very large margin, most of) the country, they did not have anywhere near as much financial or military help and were successful in half less time. Why? Could it be because the population is still ambivalent toward this new army, and won't rush to enroll? If so, what would happen when we eventually withdraw (and we're going to withdraw, eventually, are we?) How much of the army will desert? switch alliances? abandon the fight?

Then (if it is so indeed) I'm with him on this one. If we allow drug business set up shops around the country freely and without restriction (maybe even ads? - "Our weed is guaranteed 10% more potent than competition - or your money back"), we may end up with too many addicts to handle, no matter how much money (and do-good talk) is pumped into it.

OK, we had an interesting albeit somewhat inconclusive discussion along the lines of #7 (unfortunately no evidence was found that the notorious Grand Mufti was the chief mastermind and villain of the WWII, but we can always persist in hope that some day...), then went on to explore #5 in various aspects countries of the world were involved (or not). What next, though? Any other, fresh and productive, ideas?

And why in the world do we need to understand that? One thing is very clear: it's been 6 years and counting and that army is nowhere near being able to conduct all operations on their own.

Go on, continue. Why sudden shyness when we were getting close to the climax? Occupied ... expelled (correct?) .... made a distant minority in their own land (right?) Are we talking about same things (I'm not sure)

Ok (sigh) just curious how far out can this be stretched? Assuming the "punishment" was given in correct and just proportion (as "we" always do of course and by definition), the arabs of Palestine, having lost 60% of their proper land - not "empire", must have been more involved in the business of WWII than Germans themselves? Even complete with their Grand Mufti or whoever else related or not one'd want to stick to the subject. Correct? Is that what you meant to say?

Why can't (and shouldn't) the two approaches be combined? I.e fighting large scale drug trade while providing (reasonable) assistance to the addicts.

Another #7 (ya-a-a-a-a-a-a-awn). By the same logic, should Italy Romania Japan Spain etc whose nationals actively participated in WWII on the side of III Reich (or were sympathetic to it at some point like Franco) had 60% of their land annexed and cleansed in favour of some disposessed people having some remote historic relation to their land though currently residing half the globe away? What is said is that some unseemly deeds and quite possibly crimes committed by certain representatives of a group somehow justify summary wrong applied to the entire group. Which is nothing more than a standard common and routine excuse for atrocities directed against the group a la "place your favourite dictator/thug here".

Oh yeah, how could I miss the classic, #7 i had to do it because he is (infernally) bad

I won't deny that Dion doesn't look very attractive (but maybe his soul is?). It's simply a matter of who's the safer option. The Harper guy with his attitudes (and unclear agenda) brings alive some not so long forgotten memories. In my classification, the only time we'd need an activist in government is when country is in a deep trouble (or he/she's is absolutely and entirely brilliant). Neither being the case, it's best to tread softly, so Dion should do.

Really, there's no need to write long posts anymore, all these arguments were presented earlier and can be classified into easy numerical indexes: #1: it did not happen; #2: i had the historic right to do it (while he didn't) #3: i did it because somebody else did it to somebody else #4: i ignore anything that happened before this point of time #5: let's talk about this instead #6: i can't hear you Now, instead of spending long minutes typing long sentences, all one has to do is a few clicks resulting in nice and elegant argument like: - #1, please (please is optional) - #2 and #3 - #4, #4, #4! - #5, sorry

I don't know anybody (except Harpers team drumming it out of all proportions) who's overly concerned with crime. Don't get me wrong, I'll support something specifically and carefully targeted to put away dangerous multiple offenders. But that overall crime agenda would work - I'm less than certain about that. Now, what Harper is behaving as though he's already gotten the prize, cannot go unnoticed. I wonder how many may decide that perhaps it won't be safe to let him have it just yet. Which, given Liberal weakness, could return things to the present status quo.

Market isn't universally right and oftentimes needs regulation. E.g. just so that an occasional run on the bank wouldn't end up as a devastating recession. Gender discrepancy in the corporate government is an indicator that existing structure, on average, is not adequate for the changed demographics of the work force. The two will eventually have to be reconciled. Some companies are certainly realizing it on their own, of pure greed or other reason. The question is, should it be left entirely to the goodwill of the business or it would benefit from some sort of "assistance" (or prodding)? The answer, to me at least, is not obvious - while I don't advocate (and really like) the Norvegian solution.