Afghan National Army

[jbg]

NOWHERE in Co. McGrath's briefing does he state that the Afghan army is doing so well that by late spring of 2008 NATO will be able to turn over the job to the Afghans.

This is what Col. McGrath did state in his briefing:

http://uscavonpoint.com/articles2/Article.aspx?id=6963

NOWHERE did the Col. make the comments you, Topaz, attribute to him with respect to the progress of training of the Afghan Army; this is what the Col. did state:

Read the whole report of the briefing Topaz then explain to me how and why you would again totally misconstrue what actually took place.

`

Alexandra, having just been on the wrong side of youro misdirected barbs, I beseech you to stop looking for posters to attack. You have provoked me to the unthinkable; defending Topaz.

[myata]

Not true...The taliban had large backing by US, CIA funding which was matched dollar for dollar by other middle east countries....

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.

As for sweeping the country in less time again not true They fought the russians for some time, also keep in mind they stayed in power thru shear terror...lets not forget the Religion police, or the soccer staduim per game executions.

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.

Not Ambivalent, The army is not paid well (which is being adressed), Afgans are very family orientated ,and they are away from them alot...and being in thier army is alot more dangerous, than ours, they don't have all the right equipment, nor do they have the same tech advanced wpns we do, and western soldiers do not have to worry about thier families safety when away....there is alot more to it than what i've explained here. but you can get the piont.

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.

Depending on if the time is right, if we leave before or just after 2009 then it will have a big impact on the mission, and Afgans future....we all forget the missions that have been marked sucessful and they were at a min 15 years in the making, in some cases 20 to 50 years and still in the making...

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.

[Fortunata]

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.

Why do you think things can happen so quickly? This country has been devastated by war and Taliban governance for how many years? I don't think it's easy to turn a country around, especially since the Taliban kept it so uneducated and so backwards and it never was a bastion of modern. Perseverance and patience will turn Afghanistan around eventually. People want everything yesterday and fail to (or even want to) understand that a whole culture must be brought into this century before it is secure in the way the west want it to be. Do we want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

[myata]

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".

[old_bold&cold]

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".

You really are naive about what the world really is and how it is run. Our low standard of living here at home, that you talk about, would be most afghan citizens dream life style. The crime you talk about is just so much less viloent then they have there. As for homelessness, most of these people build their homes from old shipping crates and mud huts with thick walls to stop the bullets. What we have here in Canada, is just so much above what these people could hope for. For a very large part of their population 3 meals a day are out of the question. If they got one meal they would be considered lucky. You need to go to a third world country, not just afghanistan but one at peace like Belize city in Belize the country. Where the average income is less then $500.00 US per year. Just tkae a good look at what they wear and what they do to survive. Then come back here to Canada, and tell us about our poor and low standard of living. If we could raise the people of Afghanistans livestyle to that of our lowest, they would be so greatful, that they would name children after you. Maybe you need to o do some living and travel before you say things that will be laughed at.

[Army Guy]

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.

The soviets actually pulled out in 89 leaving behind thier puppet communist government, And the mujahideen continued thier fight until 92 when they captured Kabul and installed thier own government. And i would not call them moderate...perhaps if you compared them towards the Taliban in thier hay day but when compared again'st other muslim countries no way...During this time they still recieved support for the US and other middle eastern countries. To describe it as a government with control over the country is wrong, and a stretch....more like a loose collection of warlords fighting each other....This is the period that most but not all US support stoped

It should also be noted at this time that the mujahideen was made up of serveral factions, the Taliban being one of them, the Taliabn took control of Kanadar in 94, and then Kabul in 96.

This was achieved because they were popular with the people who were tired of war, coruption, and the warlords brutal reign over them.

So to sum up there was no real large army to fight, just a bunch of scattered warlords, plus they had the support of the people...

Taliban history.

[myata]

...

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).

[myata]

...During this time they still recieved support for the US and other middle eastern countries. To describe it as a government with control over the country is wrong, and a stretch....more like a loose collection of warlords fighting each other....This is the period that most but not all US support stoped

...

the Taliabn took control of Kanadar in 94, and then Kabul in 96.

OK so Taleban, specifically, did not receive any support (from US at least) after 94 and still managed to take over the country.

So to sum up there was no real large army to fight, just a bunch of scattered warlords, plus they had the support of the people...

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.

[myata]

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.

[old_bold&cold]

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.

When Canada trains troops it gives 6 months of basic training, and them they are supposed to be able to perform certain tasks in certain ways. That seems to be your line of thought. But to train soldiers to be combat trained it will take a year or so more. Even them it will take approx another year on the ground in the field before they are truly considered capable to take over and defend.

It has already been shown that to properly defend Afghanistan as a country they would need a minimum of 80,000 strong army. Not 5,000 but 16 times that number. This all takes time and of course money. These guys are paid about 25% of what you make in a week, for a months service. They are prepared to be brave and die in the efforts, but while thta is fine from one perspective, it is bad from the stand point, that for every afghan solier killed before his training is complete, they have to start one again from scratch. So yes while we train these eager recruits, we need to see to it that they live long enough to maybe some day be able to train others of their own, to see things be self sufficient.

When you are a terrorist, you do not have alot of training and you do not have to be all that special. You hide in a crowd and set off explosives to harm as many innocent lives as possible. Even a failed targetted mission is still a success for the terrorist. They can train a recruit in days to perform suicide missions, because there is no concern for the life of the person about to go into a crowd, dressed like those in the crowd and set off body explosives. Even the fire fights, where taliban are using the peope in villages as a screen from which to fire, makes it next to impossible to kill those responsible. To fight this type of engagement, takes a lot of specialized training, to be able to do this. This is not the 6 month basic training stuff, but rather a year or more of special training and even more training in the field.

That is why this takes so long to accomplish. To fight guerrilla style wars, it only takes a brave man, with a mission he thinks is good. Mix that with easily had explosives and you have a Taliban warrior. The problem is that in the fight for those who are moderate Islamists, there are huge civillian casualties, and most of the blame for this is aimed at the soldiers of NATO. That means that young people are easier targets for taliban recruitment. That is changing slowly but yes it is changing in our favour. That is why we need to still be there and finish what we have started.

[Fortunata]

But to train soldiers to be combat trained it will take a year or so more. Even them it will take approx another year on the ground in the field before they are truly considered capable to take over and defend.

It's not just the combat soldier that has to be trained. Trainers have to be trained. Officers. Intelligence. And then there is the equipment. There is so much more than most people even think about when you start from scratch.

[myata]

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?

Edited October 25, 2007 by myata

[old_bold&cold]

Myata

I come to your neighbourhood with a group of armed men. Your neighbour speaks up and is shot dead right there infront of everyone. His daughter is then tied to a tree and whipped until her back is just a mess of blood and flesh, all his other daughters are dome the same way for not dressing in the old religious ways. These guys say they will be back in two days and if everyone is not obeying their rules and dress codes they will be punished, and it you seek outside help they will burn the whole neighbouhood down. If you even blink the wrong way you will die.

That is how the Taliban take over power. They do not ask but take over and you either follow or die. Those are the only two choices whn they come.

So just how do you think the people can fight such a thing?

[Moxie]

Myata

I come to your neighbourhood with a group of armed men. Your neighbour speaks up and is shot dead right there infront of everyone. His daughter is then tied to a tree and whipped until her back is just a mess of blood and flesh, all his other daughters are dome the same way for not dressing in the old religious ways. These guys say they will be back in two days and if everyone is not obeying their rules and dress codes they will be punished, and it you seek outside help they will burn the whole neighbouhood down. If you even blink the wrong way you will die.

That is how the Taliban take over power. They do not ask but take over and you either follow or die. Those are the only two choices whn they come.

So just how do you think the people can fight such a thing?

A very good analogy, now I'll sit back and wait for the responses.

Personally I don't believe one can have dialogue with these vile dogs, they have one goal an Islamic state that mirrors the seven hundreds. Women and children mean nothing to Muslim Taliban Men, other than objects to abuse or strap bombs on them. A camel has more worth than a female.

[myata]

Myata

I come to your neighbourhood with a group of armed men. Your neighbour speaks up and is shot dead right there infront of everyone...

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.

[Guest trex]

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.

Plus, the fact that the CIA helped put them there in the afghan-soviet war, they didn't mind allowing a harsh brutal dictatorship to continue as long as it is cooperative with the US. So there is no guarantee that anything like a fair democratic state as we know it will be created this time either. In fact the odds are against it, because of the way we are doing it, by force of war. As we see in Iraq what the outcome of forcing a political system is, it does not result in a functional society at all, but only puts those in power who are sympathetic to the empire.

And that is all that matters to them.

As for George Bush, he seems very happy. Why is this man smiling? Because, as he says, "We're kicking ass..."

[jbg]

Personally I don't believe one can have dialogue with these vile dogs, they have one goal an Islamic state that mirrors the seven hundreds.

Jack Layton said he could.

[Fortunata]

Jack Layton said he could.

Can you provide evidence of where Jack said he could? I suggest that you are lying. If memory serves he said it would behoove all sides to have dialogue if it would reduce casualties and help bring peace.

And funny as all that is it was reported that, in fact, the Afghan government was in touch with Taliban factions for just this purpose.

And funnier yet, the HarperCons -ervatives, after calling Layton down and nicknaming him Taliban Jack, now agree with negotiations. Talk about a hypocritical flip-flop.

[Army Guy]

myata:

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?

I don't think anybody said they did not have the support of the Afgan people, you have to take a look at "WHY" The Taliban ideals "at the time" where exactly what they wanted, the made campaign promises that they had no intention of keeping...sound familar...

In fact i've stated that not all Afganis want NATO thier either, be it the Taliban, some Warlords, some clans, the list is large..What i did state was the Majority of AFgan people do want us there. Not because they want to become westernized, but what we have to offer, a democractic country one of thier chosing...a country free of war, and terror, so they may start living the dream, raise thier kids in relative safety, to feed them, to give them a future.

So WHY could the taliban provide this and NATO cannot...

1) they had the majority of support amoungst the people...the Russian conflict was brutal, and this is fresh in thier minds. They did not want a eastern ( communist) form of government, they wanted revenge...which they got.

2) After defeating the Russians and thier pupet government they did nothing, with the country, reverting back to fighting each other once again....it was here that the Taliban stood out from the crowd, promising a new government, a new way of thinking..actually an old way but after 30 years of war....And in a few shooking moves and a few years they had siezed control of the country which was back in caus once again...armed with thier new plan most of the people supported them...

3) once in control of the nation they had access to new monies, not just those from foreign countries but from Afgan it self...bils in funds...And when the could not live up to what they had promised the people they reveted back to ruling by fear....DON'T under estamate the power of fear it has been proven to work thru out history for thousands of years.

Todays Afganis government is not ruled by fear, and reconstrution takes years to complete. And add to this problem a terror net work compounds that problem 10 fold...The Taliabn organization is a huge network of people, money, and equipment, keep in mind that bils of Afganis gold ,silver, etc where taken out of the country by fleeing Taliban forces...so they do have this funding plus funding from other muslim countries...

NATO and present AFGANIS armed forces are just not enough to control the entire country night and day, take a look at the Canadian area of operations appox the size of PEI and the accomplish that with 2500 troops or about 1000 combat arms pers...The people know we can not offer security day and night to all areas, and the Taliban take advantage of that...when NATO forces leave they swoop in to terrorize the people once again....Until NATO forces get bigger, ot the Afganis army gets bigger this is going to be a constant problem...Which is why we don't need to be speaking about leaving but actually expanding our current commitment.

Remember it is much, much more easier to run a terror net work than it is to defend again'st one.

I know this does not begin to explain the questions you've asked, and aside from actually visting afgan you may not get the answers you seek.

[myata]

Thanks for good analysis, but some ends still don't meet:

..What i did state was the Majority of AFgan people do want us there. Not because they want to become westernized, but what we have to offer..

Just a comment - what does it mean "want us"? Want us do the dirty work? Want us keep pumping money? If you were asked, would you like security guards at your home full time plus a good hand out monthly, all without your moving a finger and for free, why would anyone disagree? The real question is, how much of their own sweat are they willing to put in if (and whether) they want to keep us there?

Todays Afganis government is not ruled by fear, and reconstrution takes years to complete. And add to this problem a terror net work compounds that problem 10 fold...The Taliabn organization is a huge network of people, money, and equipment,

OK. Why more, and better people cannot be found to do the same work, now that the country is not governed by fear and is receiving most generous assistance in equipment, money and whatever else?

keep in mind that bils of Afganis gold ,silver, etc where taken out of the country by fleeing Taliban forces...so they do have this funding plus funding from other muslim countries...

And put where - in the hides of Hindukush mountains? Under the total and absolute domination of US airforce? .... Which countries are supporting Taleban with funding?

NATO and present AFGANIS armed forces are just not enough to control the entire country night and day, take a look at the Canadian area of operations appox the size of PEI and the accomplish that with 2500 troops or about 1000 combat arms pers...

I understand and agree 100% that Canadians cannot control entire Kandahar and NATO - Afganistan. What I don't grasp is why Afghanis seem to be less willing to control their own country than when they were under (seemingly) much less friendlier regime? Could it be that our perception of situation is not the same as that of an average Afghani?

Remember it is much, much more easier to run a terror net work than it is to defend again'st one.

No I don't agree with that statement. We would have been all awash in terror networks in the West if it were so (due to sheer number and variety of potential causes). Perhaps those networks that are really hard to fight, may have some support from population?

[Army Guy]

Just a comment - what does it mean "want us"? Want us do the dirty work? Want us keep pumping money? If you were asked, would you like security guards at your home full time plus a good hand out monthly, all without your moving a finger and for free, why would anyone disagree? The real question is, how much of their own sweat are they willing to put in if (and whether) they want to keep us there?

Yes many are putting everything into this rebuilding effort, but one must also put into context it is a very poor nation and providing for ones family, ones clan is a day to day struggle for them. For most a cardboard box in down town toronto panhandling for change would be upper class citizens to them.

For those that are assisiting in the reconstruction they do so for poor wages, no benifits, and under constant threat from taliban and others, not only agains't themselfs but thier families and clans as well.

To further put that in context Afgan has approx 8 to 10 mil people, and must raise an army of 80,000, and have an armed police force of near double that number....

Canada has a population of 30 plus mil, and our armed forces is at only 56,000...and we've been trying to increase those numbers to 75,000 ...it is a slow process, and we have all the resources they don't..It is not an easy task...

I'm not forgetting about the rest of your questions , pressed for time , sorry.

www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html

[myata]

Thanks for the first hand information, it's always important to keep in check with reality.

Here, I'll try to formulate my questions in more general terms. Certainly, according to our standards, Taleban regime was backward, authoritarian and brutal. No doubt about that. But in that country and that time, it worked. I mean, they governed more or less the whole country, for several years, and were nowhere near falling on their own.

Now we came with this wonderful idea of democracy. It never existed in Afghanistan. It is, in my limited knowledge of course, pretty much a feodal society which haven't even developed into a strong monrachy just yet. People live the lifestyle of their farthers and grandfathers. What is the chance that they'll turn their minds around, 180% in only one or two generations? Answer: nil.

Think of it: even in this country, with its free media, TV ads, public schools and so on, there're multiple communities that still live lifestyles that mainstream Canadians consider backward outdated etc. All what's going on around didn't make much impact on them. For many more years than we ever going to be in Afghanistan.

Now to practical questions. You're saying, they're poor, aren't paid much, not enough resources for the army. But why? Is it because we don't send enough money? Or maybe, because the money stick somewhere in the upper echelons and never trickle down to the common folk? Which is completely normal for a feodal society - lords get stuff, peasants work. See, could it be, that despite all the democratic entourage, the society runs by its own laws and traditions, and the people think, "OK we have those - what's the word - suravis? here, they kind of do some good with their money and they have lots of guns and they want us to play their game - OK we'll go with it for a while, until they get too arrogant, then we'll kick them out as others before them". How can we be reasonably confident it is not the case? I doubt opinion polls would be of much help.

And finally, we can forget the democracy and simply say that we're there to fight Al-Kaeda kind of terrorists, plain and simple. Then we have to see, whether the strategy pays in results, or these resources can be used more efficiently somewhere else.

[Army Guy]

Thanks for the first hand information, it's always important to keep in check with reality.

Here

,

There is some much misinformation out there it is scary, that and the fact that our government does little to set the record straight. And your welcome for the info, but don't let it stop there. There is plenty of people on this board with first hand info, that has been in afgan recently Weaponeer is one plus a few more. and there is plenty of reliable material out there....

I'll try to formulate my questions in more general terms. Certainly, according to our standards, Taleban regime was backward, authoritarian and brutal. No doubt about that. But in that country and that time, it worked. I mean, they governed more or less the whole country, for several years, and were nowhere near falling on their own.

Not true, your forgetting about the civil war that raged in the north and other parts of the country up until 2001, northern alliance was doing pretty much what the Taliban are doing today, bombings ,hit and run operations...basically making the country unstable.

Now we came with this wonderful idea of democracy. It never existed in Afghanistan. It is, in my limited knowledge of course, pretty much a feodal society which haven't even developed into a strong monrachy just yet. People live the lifestyle of their farthers and grandfathers. What is the chance that they'll turn their minds around, 180% in only one or two generations? Answer: nil.

Here is another mis conception, that in order to have a democracy one must have it built on a north american model. When in fact aside from chosing thier own government very little reflects a western democracy, and since this is thier first one mistakes have to be excepted as part of the growing process...nothing is going to be perfect...and it will not represent anything like we want it to here in the west.

The driving force to get the people to change is a strong one, the same one the wanted before the taliban came into thier lives...they want peace, jobs to so they can feed thier families, and look after thier clans...and for much of the country NATO has done that, atleast provided some what of a peace, according to regular Afgans any way. The jobs are being made everyday, more and more of the countries infra structure is coming alive, such as factories, market places, etc etc...They do see the difference but it is painfully slow...to all observers...

Now to practical questions. You're saying, they're poor, aren't paid much, not enough resources for the army. But why? Is it because we don't send enough mone

y?

Afgan see economy at bottom of link.

And yes it is because we don't spend enough money, and the Afgan don't have enough money.

See, could it be, that despite all the democratic entourage, the society runs by its own laws and traditions, and the people think, "OK we have those - what's the word - suravis? here, they kind of do some good with their money and they have lots of guns and they want us to play their game - OK we'll go with it for a while, until they get too arrogant, then we'll kick them out as others before them". How can we be reasonably confident it is not the case? I doubt opinion polls would be of much help.

We can't be sure of anything, nothing is garenteed in rebuilding a nation...but is it worth it, the average Canadian might not think so, but i've seen the difference in the 2 tours i've completed, ...But thats because i've seen the changes, our first tour in the early years we rarely seen any children out playing or working and yet today they are every where...the markets are full of people, the traffic is unbearable. It all pionts to growth and our nations efforts.

And finally, we can forget the democracy and simply say that we're there to fight Al-Kaeda kind of terrorists, plain and simple. Then we have to see, whether the strategy pays in results, or these resources can be used more efficiently somewhere else.

Despite what the media is reporting the Taliban and terroist actives are not as strong as they were once (before op Madusa) and other operations, yes we are still hearing about the bombings and rocket attacks but what we don't hear of much is the organized attacks....these have dropped off..so it is in my opinion that so has the Taliban activity and our current operations are paying off and working.

As forgeting democracy, that would be a huge mistake...it needs to be built at the same speed as our security efforts, hence why it is such a big part in the PRT reconstruction teams. it will be years before we see dramactic results in this nation, as with any long term nation we have been involved with...

[myata]

Not true, your forgetting about the civil war that raged in the north and other parts of the country up until 2001, northern alliance was doing pretty much what the Taliban are doing today, bombings ,hit and run operations...basically making the country unstable.

I only recall Northern Alliance coming into any prominence when the got US prop. Before that, as far as I can recall, we were only active in one or two northern provinces. Taleban did control most of the territory - without any support from any foreign power.

Here is another mis conception, that in order to have a democracy one must have it built on a north american model. When in fact aside from chosing thier own government very little reflects a western democracy, and since this is thier first one mistakes have to be excepted as part of the growing process...nothing is going to be perfect...and it will not represent anything like we want it to here in the west.

Oh my. I'd love to believe nice and fuzzy dreams too. But there's also such thing as realilty. Which is made of traditions, lifestyles, internal power balance and so on - things that just won't change on an inspiration from a friendly outsider. Afghan people will have to find their own path to freedom. Guiding them along the path which may not be right for them, propping up a government that cannot govern (or why would it need such a massive propping otherwise?) - ironically may work against the very trends to democracy we want so much to encourage.

Despite what the media is reporting the Taliban and terroist actives are not as strong as they were once (before op Madusa) and other operations, yes we are still hearing about the bombings and rocket attacks but what we don't hear of much is the organized attacks....these have dropped off..so it is in my opinion that so has the Taliban activity and our current operations are paying off and working.

Today the media is reporting a massive Taleban attack on a district 10-15 miles from Kandahar city. Population fleeing, claiming that previously safe area is becoming dangerous agian. Media is also reporting bodycounts. But I don't think its about bodycounts. It's the show of power. If Taleban dare to attack foreigners next to their stronghold, less and less people will openly support the government. More will think twice and perpaps give some covert support to the opposition even if to keep their options open. Of course the view is better from closer up.

As forgeting democracy, that would be a huge mistake...it needs to be built at the same speed as our security efforts, hence why it is such a big part in the PRT reconstruction teams. it will be years before we see dramactic results in this nation, as with any long term nation we have been involved with...

I'm sorry, but I entirely fail to understand that (i.e "building democracy"). Would you like a stranger from outside come in and start building your life - for you? Freedom either exists, and then it has to be able to prove itself. Or it doesn't, then the best thing we can do is wait and hope.

[Guest trex]

Today the media is reporting a massive Taleban attack on a district 10-15 miles from Kandahar city. Population fleeing, claiming that previously safe area is becoming dangerous agian. Media is also reporting bodycounts. But I don't think its about bodycounts. It's the show of power. If Taleban dare to attack foreigners next to their stronghold, less and less people will openly support the government. More will think twice and perpaps give some covert support to the opposition even if to keep their options open. Of course the view is better from closer up.

Taliban Fighters Move In Near Kandahar for First Time Since 2001

What does this mean? For the past few weeks there have been stories of the Taliban gaining ground, reclaiming areas that they were previously ousted from. Is it just a minor flare up of the violence or something to be more concerned about?