Al Quaeda No 2. We Don't Kill Innocents

[WarBicycle]

I am retired from the Canadian military and spent four years in recruitment, we never had difficulty attracting recruits, the biggest obstacle we faced was getting the billets to fill. The attrition rate in the military has always been low, recruiters only fill vacancies they do not create jobs.

[Army Guy]

I guess i should have explained what i meant by the recruiting process, one in which there are serveral agencies involved, but for a quick explaination lumped them all into one...my bad...

Presently Canada and afganistan getting recruits is not a problem as we both have explained, and i'm not an expert on vacancies, however from my trade 031...as well as many others there are plenty of vancanies, and plenty of recruits just no one available to train them in thier trade...nor, house them, the infra structure needed for all the above....

in many of the other trades purple or support trades the lines of recruits awaiting to be trades trained is incrediably long .... this is our problem and one that will take serveral years to fix....

Recruiters are doing an awesome job, it's on the trade training side we need to do alot of work....

[WarBicycle]

That problem is caused by lack of funds, not lack of volunteers. The problem could easily be solved by providing more billets for former servicemen and women, and less for unskilled recruits, but that too would require more money. Thank your Member of Parliament for that mess.

[myata]

It has taken 6 years to build the recruiting process to where it is now, example we in Canada are facing the same problem, it's not getting the recruits it is training them that is the problem, and it will take Canada a few more years to allow our own build up of forces....

That's all nice and fine, but gazzilion of other countries did not need years under control of foreign powers to establish simple working functioning government; that includes Taleban government and yes after years of warfare too. The simple question you cannot answer is this: if this is legitimate government that enjoys full support of population (not some factions of it), then why cannot it function on its own; as Taleban government, with all limitations, unquestionnably did; and if it's not a legitimate government that enjoys full support of majority of population, why do we have to fight for it? because we happen to like this faction better than that?

Don't let the media fool you, the Taliban is a well funded machine, it is not cheap to field an army and equiped them, keep them supplied, and give them the cash to bribe the right people....History has proven over and over again that the superior force is not always the key to victory...

Funded by who? Somebody who supports it? Then even with loads of cash, it'd be hard to recruit many volunteers if it was accepted in the mass of population as a dead cause; they'd more likely to hand them over to the authorities... Something doesn't line up..

North vietnam proved that already, and so did the afgan freedom fighter...

OK now you're saying that Vietnam war was fought by bandits and terrorists while foreigners came to sew pure eternal love and peace. Too bad it needed napalm and casset bombs to sink in; and even with those, didn't work, eventually.

You know what; it's really a matter of perspective; I mean, really, for someone who's convinced that they're doing good, by any means, it's impossible to persuade them otherwise. That famous rationale / or defense, "It's done for your own good", it's 100% solid. Undefeatable. Because essentially it comes down to the morals, definition of good and evil. If I believe that by my very nature, I'm called to do good, and good is all I do, whatever I do, and however I do it, who's there to challenge it?

However, even though the question is impossible to resolve logically, there's always the practical test; i.e forget what I say (e.g about peace and love); and look at the results of my actions; and if those results involve violence; deaths; suffering; then probably "my" interpretation of good, 100% solid and undefeatable, isn't all good.

Because as a responsibale nation one can not kick the crap out of a nation, and then leave.

OK, that's exactly what I'm saying: why did we have to "kick the crap" out of the entire nation? I thought our beef was with a small isolated terrorist group hiding in the remote mountains? how did the latter quietly transformed into a democracy quest? global conflict of civilizations?

The Afganis people don't care what type of government they get...as long they have peace and work to feed thier families....NATO offered a democracy and they jumped on board.....

.....

This legimate government is made up of elected Afganis people and they are in charge of thier country, and destiny....if they are not prove it to me....

....

Do you have proof of this, or is it your opinion, This government was elected by the people, and in due time it will have another election....

You can't seem to understand, that very simply put, not everybody in this world shares our ways; if people did not come up with democracy on their own, they can't simply turn it on. It's not a hairstyle you put on in the morning.

In a society there's always certain ways, traditions to establish and delegate power; in some it's democracy; in others - monarchy; clans and so on, and so forth; if certain form of governance is imposed from outside, only two things can happen: either, existing power structures will adapt to the imposed form; i.e the same people who used to run country as local barons, warlords will become new "democratic" senators and governors; that's no different from colonial administrations of old; or, a democratic faction that has little or no real influence in the society gets propelled to the top by the outsiders; in that case, their influence would last exactly as long as the presense of outside power; I'll leave it up to you to decide which variant looks more like what you see in Afghan (maybe some sort of combination of the two); but neither has anything to do with real democracy.

Once again your opinion, the Taliban was not as popular as you think, Kanadar was the Taliban center of power, it is here that they took control of the country....and yet it is here that the average afganis will publicly speak out again'st them....

Surely in case of such daily atrocities, masses of volunteers would flock to the cause of those who opposed Taleban, and, eventually, defeat them. Which didn't happen. So, should we take the reality itself as an indication of the unpleasant possibility that with all their shortcomings, Taleban may have enjoyed some popular support; or shall we continue with less and less plausible explanations as to why things aren't really what they appear to be?

So really all those that need to be reeducated are the bad guys like the nazi's, cummunist regimes, and the taliban ...and they are not interested in reducation...., so they have to be relocated....for the sake of those that can not or will not fight for themselfs....

I commented on this before; you're certainly entitled to believe in our inherent superiority and right to enlighten others by force. Somehow though, in the long track of history, these beliefs invariably translated into wars, violence, dictate, and innocent deaths; something that wasn't declared purpose of enlightenment but what does it matter, the glorious goal justifies all collateral damage, correct?

[White Doors]

You can't seem to understand, that very simply put, not everybody in this world shares our ways; if people did not come up with democracy on their own, they can't simply turn it on. It's not a hairstyle you put on in the morning.

No, you don't seem to get it. Freedom > non-freedom.

That is not a value, it is freedom. And that is what we are providing, it has nothing to do with 'cultural norms' at all.

It is self evident that Human freedom is better than non-freedom irregardless of 'cultural sensitivities'.

That is just a fact. A fact that you seem not to get.

[Army Guy]

That's all nice and fine, but gazzilion of other countries did not need years under control of foreign powers to establish simple working functioning government; that includes Taleban government and yes after years of warfare too.

What about germany, or japan, not to mention korea, there is more if you like.

The simple question you cannot answer is this: if this is legitimate government that enjoys full support of population (not some factions of it), then why cannot it function on its own; as Taleban government, with all limitations, unquestionnably did;

I have answered it, you just to refuse to believe in my answer....The Afganis government is functioning on it's own( please provide a quote or site that proves other wise) > the taliban did not have full control over the entire country, the entire north was in disbute thru out thier entire reign. (but you have stated that the taliban ruled "unquestionable" please provide a quote) you are mixing up fiction with fact.

and if it's not a legitimate government that enjoys full support of majority of population, why do we have to fight for it? because we happen to like this faction better than that?

Stay with me, because this government has been elected by the people of afganistan, and it has asked for NATO's assistance....

Funded by who? Somebody who supports it?

funding

poppies

Then even with loads of cash, it'd be hard to recruit many volunteers if it was accepted in the mass of population as a dead cause; they'd more likely to hand them over to the authorities... Something doesn't line up..

You seem to think that the Taliban are mostly ethic Afganis, and while they do make up a good portion of thier numbers not all are Afganis....your also assuming that all the taliban afganis live inside Afganistan, they don't they have a refuge in Pakistan. where large numbers of Afganis are still in refuge...

Your also looking at this problem with rose colored glasses, recruiting afganis style does not mean 2 guys dressed in siuts and ties knock on the door and discuss "what it will take to recruit your son....no it's done in the middle of the night 5 or 6 armed men bust into a house take what they want and leave....if the men or boys refuse to fight the family is wipe out....

lets take a look at numbers total afgan population is est at 26 mil....Taliban numbers est at a couple thousand....

OK now you're saying that Vietnam war was fought by bandits and terrorists while foreigners came to sew pure eternal love and peace. Too bad it needed napalm and casset bombs to sink in; and even with those, didn't work, eventually.

No i was resonding to your quote below. in which i responded ("History has proven over and over again that the superior force is not always the key to victory...North vietnam proved that already, and so did the afgan freedom fighter...")

Which i'll reword for you once again, overwhelming superior force does not translate into a victory....Just because the Taliban numbers are small does not mean a NATO victory...

also, even harder to believe that an isolated group with little support from the general population, could mount such a resistence, over the years, to an overwhelmingly superior force; ends in your propaganda just don't tie up

You know what; it's really a matter of perspective; I mean, really, for someone who's convinced that they're doing good, by any means, it's impossible to persuade them otherwise. That famous rationale / or defense, "It's done for your own good", it's 100% solid. Undefeatable. Because essentially it comes down to the morals, definition of good and evil. If I believe that by my very nature, I'm called to do good, and good is all I do, whatever I do, and however I do it, who's there to challenge it?

Your convinced that we are shoving something down thier throats, and we are not, i've asked you for a quote or facts but you have none. so i'm taking it as your opinion....our Government and NATO has been asked to assist the Afganis government with a terrorist problem, and to assist them in rebuilding thier nation....

you can read anything into that you want, but at the end of the day if you can prove to me any different then i'm all ears....

However me as a canadian soldier am not there to convince them of anything, not the people of Afgan nor the Taliban....my job as a Canadian infanteer is to provide sercurity, by hunting those taliban scumbags down and relocate them to another plain of existance. Allowing others to perform our second mandate reconstruction.......in doing this job we are governed by the rules of warfare and those set out by our government and the Afganis government nothing more...but then again if your going to judge me or my actions then we must judge you and your actions...

What in good god did you think we were going to do when we hit the ground in Afgan, with automactic wpns, tanks , jets , and helicopters...it does not take a rocket scienctist to figure out that Canadian soldiers where going to war that we were going to close with and destroy our nations enemies...you don't need all that equipment to hand out teddy bears or serve pancakes with maple syrup....So we are all guilty of knowing before hand what our troops were about to do....and what thier goals where...right from the second the first canadian soldier got off the plane in afgan....So yes I'm 100 % convinced that i'm on the good side, and i'm convinced that we are doing good, that i have done good, not only for Canada but for the Afganis people, atleast according to them the Afganis people..

However, even though the question is impossible to resolve logically, there's always the practical test; i.e forget what I say (e.g about peace and love); and look at the results of my actions; and if those results involve violence; deaths; suffering; then probably "my" interpretation of good, 100% solid and undefeatable, isn't all good.

I'll ask this question once more, when Canadians turned there TV on a night and they see all those wpns, tanks , planes , etc....whose sole purpose is not peace and love, but violence, death, and war....Did you not think then perhaps this is not for you or Canada....

My interpretation of 100 % solid and undefeatable is quit different than yours, i see a future for Afganis, one of peace, one with some hope of feeding thier families....i see a future without the Taliban, a force made up of a couple of thousand forcing there ways and will on a much larger population of over 26 mil....something you have failed to see, or fathomed possiable....

But even in this country such acts are very possiable, one man could walk into a crowded mall armed with a handgun , and force his will upon everyone there, and yet you would be screaming how is that possiable, how could one man effect hundrds of people ...thru the threat of violence, and the will to carry it out thats how......How could this be possiable if we all believe in law and order, how could this be possiable if we out number this one man....

How do we correct the night mare situation, by appling an equal amount of force and the will to carry it out.

You can't seem to understand, that very simply put, not everybody in this world shares our ways; if people did not come up with democracy on their own, they can't simply turn it on. It's not a hairstyle you put on in the morning.

Our ways you mean the ability to work, feed thier families, peace, have basic human rights, that sort of thing....

[myata]

What about germany, or japan, not to mention korea, there is more if you like.

Nothing. All are totally different cases. Nothing to do with this incident.

I have answered it, you just to refuse to believe in my answer....The Afganis government is functioning on it's own

No it's not, if it did you wouldn't be there fighting its enemies.

Stay with me, because this government has been elected by the people of afganistan, and it has asked for NATO's assistance....

Indeed, isn that what most installed puppet regimes do? For the very reason that they are puppet regimes, i.e can't stand on their own. Even after Stalin occupied Eastern Europe there were quickly "elected" government that asked Soviets to stay. To assist them (and so on) against (so forth). And as was explained, "election" in a country that does not have democratic traditions means very little (other than a holiday and a funny novelty for the locals, and a justification of actions for the misterminds of the invasion). And if they were free and etc we could certainly take out troops back and see them do it again. And even if they asked, we didn't have to agree (to have our troops fight for them).

You seem to think that the Taliban are mostly ethic Afganis, and while they do make up a good portion of thier numbers not all are Afganis....your also assuming that all the taliban afganis live inside Afganistan, they don't they have a refuge in Pakistan. where large numbers of Afganis are still in refuge...

Your also looking at this problem with rose colored glasses, recruiting afganis style does not mean 2 guys dressed in siuts and ties knock on the door and discuss "what it will take to recruit your son....no it's done in the middle of the night 5 or 6 armed men bust into a house take what they want and leave....if the men or boys refuse to fight the family is wipe out....

....

Taliban numbers est at a couple thousand....

You seem to imply that Afghanistan as a country just started out couple of years back; yet it existed for hundreds of years, and those tribal areas were always there, and they managed with them somehow anyways; not just managed at that but ousted, on at least two previous occasions, hugely superior foreign invaders (British and Russians).

And again, if we believe your point that Taleban has no, or very little support in Afghanistan proper, surely, 60,000 strong local army wouldn't need another 50,000 hugely superior foreign troops to fights 2,000 backward terrorists. The ratio would be, like, 100 : 2!

Yet, you keep saying that if we leave now, Taleban will take over. 2,000 fighters will defeat 60,000, armed and instructed by superior foreign army! Do you believe what you're saying?

So we are all guilty of knowing before hand what our troops were about to do....and what thier goals where...right from the second the first canadian soldier got off the plane in afgan....

If you took it in any way that anything I said is putting any blame on any of the soldiers for what's happening in Afghan (and other places, broadly speaking), you're mistaken. This is a discussion forum and I dispute a point that we shouldn't be there. I agree 100% that we're all implicated in this decision, and in fact, I'd like to see a law that would call for a referendum before troops are sent anywhere abroad, on mission like this. That way, we won't have that easy out, "it was the government that sent you there, and now we voted it down, so nobody's to blame".

I'll ask this question once more, when Canadians turned there TV on a night and they see all those wpns, tanks , planes , etc....whose sole purpose is not peace and love, but violence, death, and war....Did you not think then perhaps this is not for you or Canada....

No I thought it's for defence of this country; real defence not imagined threats or global democracy projects on the other side of the globe

But even in this country such acts are very possiable, one man could walk into a crowded mall armed with a handgun , and force his will upon everyone there, and yet you would be screaming how is that possiable, how could one man effect hundrds of people ...thru the threat of violence, and the will to carry it out thats how

Think of this: if these kind of cases still happen here in Canada; where we have all the means; money; traditions etc; and we can't make all people do what we want (i.e leave peacefully within the law); how can we pretend to be able to instill the same onto a whole country of totaly different people? wouldn't it be a pure and sheer utopia? pipe dream? fantasy? Sure if they want the rule of law and democracy, they'll come to us for advice and peaceful assistance; till then, we'd better spend our efforts where we may have at least a chance of success.

[Army Guy]

That's all nice and fine, but gazzilion of other countries did not need years under control of foreign powers to establish simple working functioning government; that includes Taleban government and yes after years of warfare too.

The above wea your orginal quote, to which i responded below

What about germany, or japan, not to mention korea, there is more if you like.

Nothing. All are totally different cases. Nothing to do with this incident.

So how does germany , japan, Korea not qualify as being under foreign control to establish a simple working government , after years of war....All had thier government replaced, infra structure destroyed after years of combat, then put back on track after years of assistance by foreign troops and polictical members.

And in these cases it has taken decades of help, so why is afgan any different...

No it's not, if it did you wouldn't be there fighting its enemies.

So Britain was not a functioning government during WWII when it called for british colonal countries for thier assistance fighting the nazi's....just because you can not defend a nation does not mean you do not have a fully functioning government...look at our country could'nt defend our great nation, from a determined attack...and yet we seem to have a working government....

Indeed, isn that what most installed puppet regimes do?

if you could prove that you would have a story....but this government was elected by the Afganis people, voting at ballot stations, those votes were counted by outside agencies such as UN and elections Canada officals plus many more...that would be some story if you could prove it....

And again, if we believe your point that Taleban has no, or very little support in Afghanistan proper, surely, 60,000 strong local army wouldn't need another 50,000 hugely superior foreign troops to fights 2,000 backward terrorists. The ratio would be, like, 100 : 2!

You truely don't understand about this terrorist network and how they operate....Lets just est a few facts, there is currently 60,000 in the Afganis army close to 70,000 police officers, plus close to 50,000 Nato soldiers ...NATO has been trying to recruit more NATO members because they is still a shortage of more than 10,000 troops required to secure the nation....that would tell me, that the answer to your question is no 60,000 Afganis army members would not be enough to protect the nation alone....regardless of the ratio....

Lets talk about the ratio for a minute...there is close to 65,000 police officers in Canada and yet there is still crime...how could that be they clearly outnumber the crimnals so how can we have crime....

Your ratio's would work if the Taliban wore uniforms clearly marking them as the bad guys, they attacked only military targets, or they did'nt use another country to hide in free from NATO attacks and airstrikes, for the most part any ways....Now start scatter them around 20 here 20 there ....more than enough to terrorize towns and villages, word spreads fast , and when you have a terrorized population it very difficult to find and destroy the bad guys....That is why they have been so effective....and why it takes so many soldiers to secure the country....

Yet, you keep saying that if we leave now, Taleban will take over. 2,000 fighters will defeat 60,000, armed and instructed by superior foreign army! Do you believe what you're saying?

I have not said that , however ....It is possiable, history has shown serveral examples of that...if 180,000 security forces can not fully secure the entire country side 24 hours a day, im sure that by pulling out NATO"S force will only hurt everything thats been todate...when you understand just how effective terrorizm is then it will dawn on you just how serious the problem is if we cut and run....a small group named the FLQ used terror as thier wpn , How many troops did Canada deploy to combat those few....

So ask your self what are "you" going to gain by having our troops withdrawn, some tax dollars ....what else....

Canadian soldiers are paying more for this mission than any Canadian, and yet they are commited....and remain commited...even when they know back in Canada people sit in thier chairs and cast doubt on the mission...play down everything that has been done...everything that has been accomplished....they grow tired of the mission, thier patients have run out....they want something new.....because that is who we are as a people a fat food nation, if we can't have it in 5 mins it's not worth doing......And once again the ones holding the bag is the soldiers because the very people they serve won't listen to them....because we are the ones that are going to have look at the Afganis people and soldiers in the eyes and try to explain to them , our people back home have lost taste for this mission, because it cost to much...they will also have to explain to the other NATO nations, we were are going home, because our people lack the will or vision to see this mission thru....

If you took it in any way that anything I said is putting any blame on any of the soldiers for what's happening in Afghan (and other places, broadly speaking), you're mistaken.

I don't think your blaming the soldiers, but remember your talking to a guy that has alot invested into Afgan, 12 months of blood, sweat and tears, but also 12 months away from my family ,i'll never get back,...and to many comrads who's sprite will forever be in the hills of Afganistan....And to forget all that because of a little money, or patients have run out....to me is an insult to those that have served....

and in fact, I'd like to see a law that would call for a referendum before troops are sent anywhere abroad, on mission like this. That way, we won't have that easy out, "it was the government that sent you there, and now we voted it down, so nobody's to blame".

Would that be enough, remember this mission started with the majority in favour....and now it's hard to find someone that is in support....soldiers feel abandoned, and ironically the only ones standing behind them is a government, and those few in the minority...

Soldiers feel strongly about this mission, they made it thier own , do the lack of support the recieve back home...it's this lack of support that actually makes our jobs that much harder...which pisses off soldiers to no end...

[myata]

So how does germany , japan, Korea not qualify as being under foreign control to establish a simple working government , after years of war....

OK, if you insist, though I thought it was pretty obvious already;

Germany and Japan have started regional conquests that led them to heavy losses of life and resources, and complete irreversible bankrupcy of ideology, and the society model dictated by it, even before the foreign invasion entered their territories. That is the only time a society may switch to a new model.

Nothing like that happened in Taleban, or Iraq for that matter; the ideological foundations of their societies were still strong at the time of invasion; invasion in that situation only strengthens and focuses opposition, and triggers further polarization of the society;

Because of significant residual threat, coalition forces had little choice whether to occupy Germany or Japan; presence of Soviets who wouldn't hesitate to take the slack was a big factor; unlike situation with Afghanistan and Iraq; overall, there was no need whatsoever to go there and redesign their countries according to our plan; it was sheer lunacy, derived from the democracy domino theory, as so many other beautiful visions that causes so much destruction and death before.

So Britain was not a functioning government during WWII when it called for british colonal countries for thier assistance fighting the nazi's....

Right; Afghan is fighting foreign invasion by a superior adversary... do you feel like this is beginning to sound less and less as a rational argument; much more like a desperate propaganda?

just because you can not defend a nation does not mean you do not have a fully functioning government...

Wait, you seem to like switching context in a flash, like GWB instantly went from fighting Al Quaeda in Tora Bora to global democracy quest on the planet; we aren't talking defending the nation against foreign invasion; simply keeping law and order, in the own country, against opposition that does not recognize the government installed by foreigners; if that doesn't define a functioning government, I don't know what is? maybe, democratic attire of the president?

if you could prove that you would have a story....but this government was elected by the Afganis people, voting at ballot stations, those votes were counted by outside agencies such as UN and elections Canada officals plus many more...

Election is not and never was an established way to delegate authority in these societies. You can show the paper leaf all you want, but it won't add one bit of power, or legitimacy, to the installed government. It's the people of the country who unlimately define whether government is legitimate or not; not a bunch of papers; not even democratic fanfares; they do (or don't do) it by cooperating with it; supporting it; defending it; the fact that mass of people aren't doing it; the fact that it can't stand on its own; tells me all I need to know; if you decided to believe otherwise, and it'll have to be that pure irrational belief a la "it's for your own good", because it has no ground in the fact; it's your choice, and there's little I can do to pursuade you otherwise.

You truely don't understand about this terrorist network and how they operate....Lets just est a few facts, there is currently 60,000 in the Afganis army close to 70,000 police officers, plus close to 50,000 Nato soldiers ...NATO has been trying to recruit more NATO members because they is still a shortage of more than 10,000 troops required to secure the nation....that would tell me, that the answer to your question is no 60,000 Afganis army members would not be enough to protect the nation alone....regardless of the ratio....

You probably thought, but didn't want to say that if we were to pull out, nobody would be able to tell how many of these 60,000 army and another 70,000 police would stay with the government in Kabul. Correct?

Lets talk about the ratio for a minute...there is close to 65,000 police officers in Canada and yet there is still crime...how could that be they clearly outnumber the crimnals so how can we have crime....

Let's talk about it when Canada's elected democratic government (see I have no legitimacy issues here) invites foreign army to keep law and order here? Sounds good?

Your ratio's would work if the Taliban wore uniforms clearly marking them as the bad guys, they attacked only military targets, or they did'nt use another country to hide in free from NATO attacks and airstrikes, for the most part any ways....Now start scatter them around 20 here 20 there ....

OK, I can talk about ratios; 2000/20 = 100 bands of Taleban; we have 60,000 army + 70,000 police + approx 15 mln / 4 = ~ 4 mln of able bodied male population in the "unstable regions" of the country (1/2 of overall population - 1/2 females - 1/2 elderly and kids); say 1/3 of army and 2/3 of police are busy with something else; that's 60,000; let's say half of able bodies male population carries, or has access to guns; that's 2 mln. So against our 100 bands of 20, we have 100 groups of 600 presumably well trained and committed army / police; plus 100 communities of 20,000 armed volunteers, all (or in great mass) presumably supporting new government. So the count would look like:

600 + 20,000 against 20

Correct? that's not even 7 samurajs; or 300 spartans for that; it's like nothing we've ever seen before!...

Unless of course, the real loyalties of those 20,000 aren't that clear, at all. Then, the equasion would be:

600 + ? against 20 + ???

I can see potential problem here; and that latter, much more probable situation would signify that we aren't as much protecting peace and democracy, as fighting in a civil war.

...even when they know back in Canada people sit in thier chairs and cast doubt on the mission...play down everything that has been done...everything that has been accomplished....they grow tired of the mission, thier patients have run out

Can you allow that some of us are concerned because the well intentioned desire to help has resulted in a wrong action; something that cannot succeed, not anymore than a full brain transplant is possible; something that may, and did result in more destruction and suffering; with no clear result anywhere in sight;

These questions have to be asked, continuously, because if simply left to run its course, the reality would still present itself, eventually, as in Vietnam.

[WarBicycle]

Here's a video showing some of Afghanistan's 60,000 man army doing what it does best. If we were to leave now this idiots would easily be defeated in less than a year.

[Army Guy]

OK, if you insist, though I thought it was pretty obvious already;

Germany and Japan have started regional conquests that led them to heavy losses of life and resources, and complete irreversible bankrupcy of ideology, and the society model dictated by it, even before the foreign invasion entered their territories. That is the only time a society may switch to a new model.

There is no way the taliban could fit into that description, regional conquests you mean like training terrorists for outside use .....not much call for terrorists in your own country is there....hvy losses of life,( war in the north,) execution of it's own citizens for things like flying a kite , listening to music,going to the store without a male nope does'nt sound like irreversible bankrupcy of idealogy....certainly not a society dictated to, how to live, what to wear, different rights for sexes, are you sure the taliban don't fit into those discriptions you wrote....

Nothing like that happened in Taleban, or Iraq for that matter; the ideological foundations of their societies were still strong at the time of invasion; invasion in that situation only strengthens and focuses opposition, and triggers further polarization of the society;

are you saying that they were not strong when the allieds finally entered Germany, or closing on the Japanese islands,....All of them were strong, and focused....it was after defeat that the people finally opened thier minds and hearts to occupation thru hard work and trillions of dollars.....because the oppresive governments were removed and were not a threat of coming back....

Because of significant residual threat, coalition forces had little choice whether to occupy Germany or Japan;

i suppose that a few thousand taliban terrorists left over would not count as a significant reisidual threat....

Wait, you seem to like switching context in a flash, like GWB instantly went from fighting Al Quaeda in Tora Bora to global democracy quest on the planet; we aren't talking defending the nation against foreign invasion; simply keeping law and order, in the own country, against opposition that does not recognize the government installed by foreigners; if that doesn't define a functioning government, I don't know what is? maybe, democratic attire of the president?

You seem to have this thing with facts....We have already established the fact that the Afganis people elected the canidate of thier chioce.... i can provide any of a number of links if you like) if you got proof to support other wise , please provide it....if not then your comments about a government installed by a foreign power is false.....

As for keeping law an order , i've already explained to you that even a few terroist can shut down a nation....a couple of thousand could cripple a nation....

as for simply keeping law and order, how is our war on drugs going, what about gang violence , murders etc....how is it that our nations 65,000 cops can not eradicate those problems.....perhaps there is more to it than just numbers....maybe the problem is larger than we thought....but for you it's because the numbers don't add up, that the entire road to victory has not been mapped out....i would have thought you come to the conclusion that there is no map, and we are winging it....

Election is not and never was an established way to delegate authority in these societies.

What are you suggesting here that they can't have one because they have not done thier time, or are not ready for one....who decided you, on what creditials....

It's the people of the country who unlimately define whether government is legitimate or not; not a bunch of papers; not even democratic fanfares; they do (or don't do) it by cooperating with it; supporting it; defending it; the fact that mass of people aren't doing it; the fact that it can't stand on its own; tells me all I need to know

OK i get it you refused to take in the fact that this is what the afganis people wanted, that it was recieved with open arms by them....it was them that chose thier current leader, and it's government....The majority of afganis do support the current government , they may not agree with all of thier policies, but it is thiers....

but you have not provided any proof other wise other than it is your opinion, it is not me that "if you decided to believe otherwise, and it'll have to be that pure irrational belief a la "it's for your own good", because it has no ground in the fact; it's your choice, and there's little I can do to pursuade you otherwise".....your entire augument is based on opinon....

I can see potential problem here; and that latter, much more probable situation would signify that we aren't as much protecting peace and democracy, as fighting in a civil war.

2 thousand odd people do not make a civil war,

Can you allow that some of us are concerned because the well intentioned desire to help has resulted in a wrong action; something that cannot succeed, not anymore than a full brain transplant is possible; something that may, and did result in more destruction and suffering; with no clear result anywhere in sight;

These questions have to be asked, continuously, because if simply left to run its course, the reality would still present itself, eventually, as in Vietnam.

Wrong action, by whoms terms , who's credials , what proof do you have that it will not suceed....once again it's all opinion....what i do know is it is bettered to have tried and failed than not tried at all....All the average Canadian is asked for is some coin,,, nothing else ....the heavy lifting is being done gladly by our Armed forces....

And for some reason they are the only ones still commited....imagine that....The results are there you just have to look....progress is being made....

So when you ask can we allow you to be concerned , the answer is NO, concern and debate was to have happened before we hit the battle field, you owe our military atleast that much....changing your minds half way thru a mission, proves without a shadow of doubt canadians failed to do that....that our blood was spilled becaused we the people did not do our homework, that we were blind sided with an iraq or afgan choice...and took the lesser, only to find out according to you was a mistake as well...

That is what your bringing to the table....it was a mistake, one that has to be debated once again, one that will take years to reverse because the Canadian people "you know the ones that sent us " will not get up off thier asses and change it, this mistake you claim we have made....and in the mean time it is us the soldiers that will continued to fight and die, for a cause that the majority of canadians don't believe in....That is what i call supporting the troops....can you see why we are frustrated....

And the solution is right thier in front of your face, either do something dramatic like mass peace rallies, demonstrations, writing members of parl.......to bring us home now, or you can support the mission, allowing us to get the funding and equipment we need to perform the mission...you don't have to like it just do something....anything....either way atleast it will look like your supporting us, and not paying us lip service, like what is being done today.... if you chose to do nither then stop whinning and complaining...

[Army Guy]

Here's a video showing some of Afghanistan's 60,000 man army doing what it does best. If we were to leave now this idiots would easily be defeated in less than a year.

I disagree , you can not judge an entire army by a few actions of some of it's men....I've faught along side of some very competant Afganis soldiers, and will do so again.

[myata]

There is no way the taliban could fit into that description, regional conquests you mean like training terrorists for outside use .....

I'm not aware of that; i.e. any facts or evidence, implicating Taleban in terrorist attacks outside, directly or indirectly; unless you belong to the proud democratization coalition that freely mixes their paranoid fantasies with reality (WMD; 45 min ballistic missile attack on UK; Al Quaeda as ally of Saddam - btw do I hear something familiar?), you'll have to either present such facts / evidence, or retract this statement. I'm not a friend of Taleban if I need to repeat it over, but accusing them of imaginary sins does nothing to understand the problem.

are you saying that they were not strong when the allieds finally entered Germany, or closing on the Japanese islands,....All of them were strong, and focused....it was after defeat that the people finally opened thier minds and hearts to occupation thru hard work and trillions of dollars.....

I'm not in the mood to open another discussion on the war history of the world; enouigh is to say that Taleban did not invade anybody and were a legitimate government of Afghanistan (or most of it) at the time of invasion.

We have already established the fact that the Afganis people elected the canidate of thier chioce.... i can provide any of a number of links if you like) if you got proof to support other wise , please provide it....if not then your comments about a government installed by a foreign power is false.....

Election in an occupied country cannot be free by definition; the only choice population has (if it knows what a democratic choice is, which this one does not), is between the candidate supported by the occupying power, or big trouble. No you can't show any links that a) foreign army withdrew, completely; Afghan people organized and successfully ran free democratic elections;

Without such evidence it's yet another colonial pseudo "election" as any number before it ("native' "independent" administrations of colonies under British; "elections" in Eastern Europe or the same Afghanistan under Soviets), etc), I don't really care how much paperwork you show for that.

as for simply keeping law and order, how is our war on drugs going, what about gang violence , murders etc....how is it that our nations 65,000 cops can not eradicate those problems.....

Indeed it's very grave; yet we aren't asking US, or NATO to send in their armies, to keep law and order here? Maybe that's one of the things that makes us independent and sovereign?

but you have not provided any proof other wise other than it is your opinion, it is not me that "if you decided to believe otherwise, and it'll have to be that pure irrational belief a la "it's for your own good", because it has no ground in the fact; it's your choice, and there's little I can do to pursuade you otherwise".....your entire augument is based on opinon....

....

2 thousand odd people do not make a civil war,

....

I don't understand, what further evidence you're looking for? In mathematics there's a method of proof called "from opposite". Let's imagine that all what you're saying is true; then we'll have 30 active afghan military / police and about 1,000 of armed local volunteers per 1 (one!!!) Taleban fighter. And they need another 25, of NATO troops, armed with war planes and latest equipement, just to keep the order. No it's not credible. Not just incredible, impossible. Outside of domain of reality. I.e myth, fantasy...

....

OK on one side you're saying that if we were to withdraw, Taleban would take over; on the over hand, they aren't anywhere strong enough to "make a civil war";; then, HOW in the world would they take over??????????

[WarBicycle]

I'm not aware of that; i.e. any facts or evidence, implicating Taleban in terrorist attacks outside, directly or indirectly; unless you belong to the proud democratization coalition that freely mixes their paranoid fantasies with reality (WMD; 45 min ballistic missile attack on UK; Al Quaeda as ally of Saddam - btw do I hear something familiar?), you'll have to either present such facts / evidence, or retract this statement. I'm not a friend of Taleban if I need to repeat it over, but accusing them of imaginary sins does nothing to understand the problem.

I'm not in the mood to open another discussion on the war history of the world; enouigh is to say that Taleban did not invade anybody and were a legitimate government of Afghanistan (or most of it) at the time of invasion.

Election in an occupied country cannot be free by definition; the only choice population has (if it knows what a democratic choice is, which this one does not), is between the candidate supported by the occupying power, or big trouble. No you can't show any links that a) foreign army withdrew, completely; Afghan people organized and successfully ran free democratic elections;

Without such evidence it's yet another colonial pseudo "election" as any number before it ("native' "independent" administrations of colonies under British; "elections" in Eastern Europe or the same Afghanistan under Soviets), etc), I don't really care how much paperwork you show for that.

Indeed it's very grave; yet we aren't asking US, or NATO to send in their armies, to keep law and order here? Maybe that's one of the things that makes us independent and sovereign?

I don't understand, what further evidence you're looking for? In mathematics there's a method of proof called "from opposite". Let's imagine that all what you're saying is true; then we'll have 30 active afghan military / police and about 1,000 of armed local volunteers per 1 (one!!!) Taleban fighter. And they need another 25, of NATO troops, armed with war planes and latest equipement, just to keep the order. No it's not credible. Not just incredible, impossible. Outside of domain of reality. I.e myth, fantasy...

....

OK on one side you're saying that if we were to withdraw, Taleban would take over; on the over hand, they aren't anywhere strong enough to "make a civil war";; then, HOW in the world would they take over??????????

The Taliban are one of the mujahedeen They were not elected into office; they captured the city of Kandahar and then began a military advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996. The Taliban did manage to re-unite most of Afghanistan, but were unable to end the civil war. Nor were they able to improve the conditions of Afghans, access to food, clean water and employment declined during their rule. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. The Taliban provided a safe haven to al-Qaeda, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack Saudi Arabia and the UAE cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban. Only Pakistan recognized it as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

Edited April 22, 2008 by WarBicycle

[Oleg Bach]

The Taliban are one of the mujahedeen They were not elected into office; they captured the city of Kandahar and then began a military advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996. The Taliban did manage to re-unite most of Afghanistan, but were unable to end the civil war. Nor were they able to improve the conditions of Afghans, access to food, clean water and employment declined during their rule. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. The Taliban provided a safe haven to al-Qaeda, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack Saudi Arabia and the UAE cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban. Only Pakistan recognized it as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

With proper pricing of opium, the locals could buy good food and water when needed. This affair is about westerners wanting opium real cheap...free if they could. To say that Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban is a farce. What do the Saudis know about deplomacy? They are not very diplomatic when they whip you to death or chop of your head...but they are very diplomatic when it comes to hidding the fact that they put up all the money to train terrorist in Afghanistan...and they put up the cash for the nut bars that flew planes into the sky line of New York.

Mostly they are diplomatic when it comes to dealing with crimminals like Cheney and Bush who I am sure they hold in contempt- but none the less deal with them quietly and diplomatically. If the Saudis were NOT personal and buisness friends of the Bushites...Bush would have gone to the source and stomped on the bearded Mercedes driving goofs who were totally responsible - He would have invaded Saudi Arabia and NOT Iraq. BUT that would be like bitting the hand that feeds you - so they like mad dogs tore after another set of hands...and in the fury no one noticed that Bush attacked the wrong nation. Just like a pack of crazed vicious dogs...no one can tell who is biting who. The international pack mentaly has fogged the real issue- WHO PAID FOR THE HIT ON NEW YORK? I don't care who physically did it - because you can not do anything unless you are funded....Saudi Arabia is the blight on the middle east - and these Shemite false princes are to blame.....Israel is mothers milk in comparison to the venom that is Saudi.

[WarBicycle]

With proper pricing of opium, the locals could buy good food and water when needed. This affair is about westerners wanting opium real cheap...free if they could. To say that Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban is a farce. What do the Saudis know about deplomacy? They are not very diplomatic when they whip you to death or chop of your head...but they are very diplomatic when it comes to hidding the fact that they put up all the money to train terrorist in Afghanistan...and they put up the cash for the nut bars that flew planes into the sky line of New York.

Mostly they are diplomatic when it comes to dealing with crimminals like Cheney and Bush who I am sure they hold in contempt- but none the less deal with them quietly and diplomatically. If the Saudis were NOT personal and buisness friends of the Bushites...Bush would have gone to the source and stomped on the bearded Mercedes driving goofs who were totally responsible - He would have invaded Saudi Arabia and NOT Iraq. BUT that would be like bitting the hand that feeds you - so they like mad dogs tore after another set of hands...and in the fury no one noticed that Bush attacked the wrong nation. Just like a pack of crazed vicious dogs...no one can tell who is biting who. The international pack mentaly has fogged the real issue- WHO PAID FOR THE HIT ON NEW YORK? I don't care who physically did it - because you can not do anything unless you are funded....Saudi Arabia is the blight on the middle east - and these Shemite false princes are to blame.....Israel is mothers milk in comparison to the venom that is Saudi.

The Taliban is funding its war effort through the cultivation and sale of narcotics. Destroying the drug trade will eliminate the Taliban's primary financial source, seriously diminishing their ability to wage a protracted insurgency. Aerial eradication, which is done by spraying the poppy fields with chemicals is one of the most effective methods to destroy opium, but the Afghan government won't allow it

[Oleg Bach]

The Taliban is funding its war effort through the cultivation and sale of narcotics. Destroying the drug trade will eliminate the Taliban's primary financial source, seriously diminishing their ability to wage a protracted insurgency. Aerial eradication, which is done by spraying the poppy fields with chemicals is one of the most effective methods to destroy opium, but the Afghan government won't allow it

Along Queen Street East in Toronto - Cocaine sales are soaring and all that money finds it's way into our banking system. You would think that the narcs and politicans would shut down the coke and crack trade...but they won't...same as the opium trade. Poppy gum has keep a few British families living in splendor for a few hundred years. Do you really think they want to get real jobs? The Afghan government can not collapse an economy that has existed for ages though dope..that would be irresonsible government. Maybe they actually care about the finacial well being of the average Afghani? It's a crux and conundrum..the west needs the money as does the east and trade will continue as long as their are buyers...just like the raging come back of cocaine in Toronto..the cops are not going to mess with a billion dollar buisness....so you can have a theatrical war if you want and it will be to no avail...All the money spent on weapons and wages to fight the Taliban - if sent to them directly these funds would surpass opium profits....BUT - then profits from weapons sales would plumit...so we are pretty much screwed.

[Army Guy]

I'm not aware of that; i.e. any facts or evidence, implicating Taleban in terrorist attacks outside, directly or indirectly; unless you belong to the proud democratization coalition that freely mixes their paranoid fantasies with reality (WMD; 45 min ballistic missile attack on UK; Al Quaeda as ally of Saddam - btw do I hear something familiar?), you'll have to either present such facts / evidence, or retract this statement. I'm not a friend of Taleban if I need to repeat it over, but accusing them of imaginary sins does nothing to understand the problem.

Are you sure your researched this topic, Under the Taliban regime they set up many training camps, for many different terrorist groups, one of the major terrorist groups to use these camps was Al Quaeda which is operating around the world as we speak...If you don't like the links i provided there is hundrds more...

taliban training camps

terror training camps.

I'm not in the mood to open another discussion on the war history of the world; enouigh is to say that Taleban did not invade anybody and were a legitimate government of Afghanistan (or most of it) at the time of invasion.

Sure your not,

...Taliban took control of most of Afgan by force of arms, there was no elections no nothing, they took what they wanted established a brutal dictatorship....They did'nt have time to invade anyone they were to busy slaughtering thier own....including diplomatic staff from Iran .....take some of your time and read about these people your so fond of, and what they are capable of....Legitimate government of afganistan....why is it your ready to believe that these scumbags formed the legitimate government thru force of arms, but can not for the life of you give the current government which the Afganis people voted for and elected....

taliban

Election in an occupied country cannot be free by definition; the only choice population has (if it knows what a democratic choice is, which this one does not), is between the candidate supported by the occupying power, or big trouble. No you can't show any links that a) foreign army withdrew, completely; Afghan people organized and successfully ran free democratic elections;

Take your blinders off just for a minute, on one hand you legimize the taliban regime and your ok with that....but you refuse to believe that an election one as we know it took place in Afgan....one without major interference from NATO, or what ever ghost you can think off....Impossiable....NATO did not back a canidate, it did not even assist with counting votes....all NATO did was provide security, other agencies including elections Canada ran the polling stations, counted the votes, etc....are you now suggesting one big conspiracy involving NATO, and elections canada and the hundrds of other depts that assisted in the election....

elections

[myata]

Are you sure your researched this topic, Under the Taliban regime they set up many training camps, for many different terrorist groups, one of the major terrorist groups to use these camps was Al Quaeda which is operating around the world as we speak...If you don't like the links i provided there is hundrds more...

You see, that link between Taleban and Al Quaeda needs to be proven. In our practice we do not condemn people just because somebody throws up an accusation. Any such accusations are brought before a court that determines whether it has a merit; especially when accusation is brought by somebody proven to be wrong (45 minutues claim; WMD claim) in the previous instances; after all, that's what we want to educate them, poor, in, right? Rule of law, democracy, you know...

So your second link, MI5, does not offer any such evidence; simply states that it exists, matter of factly; as it did about that infamous 45 minute missile attack, taken from 10 year old student essay; no it won't bear any weight with me..

The first one, Wikipedia, which I generally trust as an initial source of information for further research, doesn't mention any such links. It only describes Al Quaeda training camps, with no reference to Taleban. Now of course everybody knows that over the course of their history the group resided (and continues to reside) in many countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, etc), none of which nonetheless merited a full invasion by NATO; Afghanistan was only the latest link in the chain; so until some solid evidence is presented about confirmed involvement of Taleban in the Al Quaeda terrorist activities, please refrain from reiterating that "sponsor terrorism" adage; I'm going to ignore it until such time anyways, on the same ground as "WMD", or "45 minute attack" etc propaganda.

...Taliban took control of most of Afgan by force of arms, there was no elections no nothing, they took what they wanted established a brutal dictatorship....

wait, wait, who said that they had to have these "elections"? Look around you... Do you see many places where they hold elections? Including our most worthy friends like Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Should all of them be branded illegitimate and qualify for an educational invasion on that ground??

Take your blinders off just for a minute, on one hand you legimize the taliban regime ..

OK, we're down to that old song again... For the record, no, I'm not legitimizing Taleban, or devil incarnate for that matter; people of Afghanistan gave them some legitimacy when they allowed them to stay in power longer than any of the groups before them, including groups supported by outside powers. On the other hand, to "legitimize" our friendly government, we'll have to stop propping it, and demonstrate that it has enough support among its own people to stand on its own.

[AngusThermopyle]

people of Afghanistan gave them some legitimacy when they allowed them to stay in power longer than any of the groups before them, including groups supported by outside powers.

I wouldn't exactly say they "allowed" them to stay in power. I would say they were helpless under fear of death to do anything to remove them. There is a difference between the two.

[Army Guy]

You see, that link between Taleban and Al Quaeda needs to be proven. In our practice we do not condemn people just because somebody throws up an accusation. Any such accusations are brought before a court that determines whether it has a merit; especially when accusation is brought by somebody proven to be wrong (45 minutues claim; WMD claim) in the previous instances; after all, that's what we want to educate them, poor, in, right? Rule of law, democracy, you know...

Lets review the facts shall we.

1) The taliban offered refuge and protection to the group known as Al qaeda, knowing full well what the AlQaeda agenda was.

Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — with previously established connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs and largely isolated from American political influence and military power — provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense,

alquada

2) The Taliban actually incorporated Al Qaeda members into it's own military forces...

Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. (Quote from Wikipedia below )

plus Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the slaughter at Mazar-e-Sharif

Perhaps the biggest favor al-Qaeda did for the Taliban was the assassination by suicide bombing[51] of the Taliban's most effective military opponent mujahideen commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly before September 9, 2001.

3) The Taliban actually trained members of Al Qaeda.

Visit My Website

4) The Taliban was being somewhat funded by Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin.

5) Bin Ladin son marries into the taliban.

Taliban-al-Qaeda connections, were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he may have helped finance the Taliban (Quote from wikipedia)

taliban

How many links do you need to link the both together....

[Peter F]

I wouldn't exactly say they "allowed" them to stay in power. I would say they were helpless under fear of death to do anything to remove them. There is a difference between the two.

But they did "allow" the Taliban to stay in power. They weren't helpless or too fearful of death to remove them.

The Northern Alliance was in the field actively campaigning to overthrow the Taliban government. These are not people who are helpless under the fear of death.

Opposing the Northern Alliance was the forces of the Taliban; in the field and actively campaigning to destroy the Northern Alliance. These are not the actions of people who are helpless under the fear of death to do anything to remove the Taliban. In fact these actions are indicative that they are willing to risk life and limb in order to preserve what they have under the Taliban and reject the alternative of the Northern Alliance.

Then the USAF/USN and JTF intervened and the support of the Taliban collapsed under the rain of bombs and paychecks. Did the Taliban suddenly turn into a bunch of bleeding-hearts no longer keeping people helpless under fear of death? No. In fact the Taliban probably became even more draconian and fearful...yet their support collapsed and the Northern Alliance rolled through Afghanistan like the proverbial sh*t through a goose.

Now the situation is even more stabalized. Money flows in from the West like manna from heaven. The Taliban is reduced to bombs in market places and cockamamey attacks on the periphery.

...Yet we are to believe that while the former half-trained and half-paid poorly armed sloggers of the Northern Alliance - now 60,000odd strong, re-equipped with AFV's, Artillery, supporting arms and actually trained and organized - are now incapable of taking on an enfeebled Taliban? That 40,000+ foriegn troops are necessary to protect the security of the Islamic Republic for the next 10-20 years?

I'm sorry...but that says to me that there are some serious Popular Support issues at play here.

[Qwerty]

I'm sure members of this board would find this man a perfect candidate for immigration to Canada.

[M.Dancer]

But they did "allow" the Taliban to stay in power. They weren't helpless or too fearful of death to remove them.

The Northern Alliance was in the field actively campaigning to overthrow the Taliban government. These are not people who are helpless under the fear of death.

Ergo no one was allowing then Taliban. They clung to power like a drowning sailor clings to a life buoy. In the end they would have been driven out of power by the Northern allaince....and whether the Northern Alliance would have been driven out is another question which is now moot.

The facts are that the US aided the northern alliance by conducting an air offensive against the Taliban forces and now, the northern alliance is no more. In its stead is a national government elected.

[Peter F]

Ergo no one was allowing then Taliban. They clung to power like a drowning sailor clings to a life buoy. In the end they would have been driven out of power by the Northern allaince....and whether the Northern Alliance would have been driven out is another question which is now moot.

The facts are that the US aided the northern alliance by conducting an air offensive against the Taliban forces and now, the northern alliance is no more. In its stead is a national government elected.

True, but those who made up the Northern Alliance didn't just vanish into the hills, nor were they shipped out.

So what happened? Nothing happened to them - they're still there and just as committed to thier motivating cause as ever. The USAF hasn't gone anywhere - except move from airbases in Diego Garcia and former Russian Republics to bases within Afghanistan itself.

So why is the Islamic Republic so weak and incapable of keeping the Taliban out if they are stronger now than they were when they threw the Taliban out?