Taliban Rising

Sir Bandelot · December 8, 2008

"The report by the International Council on Security and Development, formerly known as the Senlis Council, says that the Taliban has a permanent presence in 72 per cent of Afghanistan. Last year that figure was only 54 per cent."

"The report also says that the Taliban has a virtual noose around Kabul, the Afghan capital. It says that three of the four roads leading into city fall are hit regularly by Taliban attacks, and only one road into Kabul is considered safe."

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/home/cont...showbyline=True

Sounds pretty grim on the Afghanistan front. The Taliban are an increasing threat. Seems that no matter how many our troops kill, there's more to be found.

Could this be why we need those transport helicopters, because the roads are now too dangerous? Why don't we get to hear more about whats going on!

Edited December 8, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

Cameron · December 8, 2008

Canada disputes bleak Afghan picture painted by international think tank
KANDAHAR — Claims by an international think-tank that the Taliban is growing in power and influence in Afghanistan drew instant condemnation Monday from Canada's ambassador to the war-torn country. The findings by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS), formerly known as the Senlis Council, said the Taliban now has a permanent presence in 72 per cent of the country compared with 54 per cent a year ago.

Link

The word comes in, and the word goes out. This makes it all hard to believe what is really going on over there.

wulf42 · December 8, 2008

They simply do not have enough boots on the ground....what we are seeing is a Vietnam type thing, we take ground then leave and they retake it. If this war is going to be won we need to overwhelm them and kill them with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Nato countries have to contribute more troops than with what they have right now!

Sir Bandelot · December 8, 2008

The word comes in, and the word goes out. This makes it all hard to believe what is really going on over there.

The truth is probably somewhere in-between, but that is still not good news and going in the wrong direction.

I'm sure more boots on the ground would improve things. Maybe Obama can help with that, before its too late.

The psychological war also has to win more support from the ordinary people. No one in their right mind would support foreign troops invading, who cannot protect you.

-VMG- · December 8, 2008

Did anybody actually think we could do anything for Afghanistan? It's a waste of time... Even if we were to control the country and install a government there would be someone coming in and tearing it all down... They will never stay democratic.

The sooner we get outta there the better... it's hopeless... just like the war in iraq. It's like a long distance relationship... we won't be able to control what goes on over there after we leave... and we can't stay forever.

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2008

Did anybody actually think we could do anything for Afghanistan? It's a waste of time... Even if we were to control the country and install a government there would be someone coming in and tearing it all down... They will never stay democratic.

They don't have to stay democratic...just harmless.

The sooner we get outta there the better... it's hopeless... just like the war in iraq. It's like a long distance relationship... we won't be able to control what goes on over there after we leave... and we can't stay forever.

You don't have to....just wait until 2011. However, the Americans may stay for 50 years, just like Germany, Japan, and Korea. They are even building hotels on Marvin Gardens in Iraq.

-VMG- · December 8, 2008

They don't have to stay democratic...just harmless.

That's not going to happen.

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2008

That's not going to happen.

OK...but please consider that the USA is "democratic" but also very very dangerous.

Get my point?

-VMG- · December 8, 2008

OK...but please consider that the USA is "democratic" but also very very dangerous.
Get my point?

yea i understand... but it seems what they want to do is make them democratic... more likely capitalist as well.. and they think that is going to make them harmless.

Alta4ever · December 8, 2008

yea i understand... but it seems what they want to do is make them democratic... more likely capitalist as well.. and they think that is going to make them harmless.

Whats wrong with capitalism, its worked a heck of a lot better then any of the experiments tried else where.

jdobbin · December 8, 2008

They simply do not have enough boots on the ground....what we are seeing is a Vietnam type thing, we take ground then leave and they retake it. If this war is going to be won we need to overwhelm them and kill them with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Nato countries have to contribute more troops than with what they have right now!

And go into Pakistan too?

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2008

yea i understand... but it seems what they want to do is make them democratic... more likely capitalist as well.. and they think that is going to make them harmless.

That's because it's a policy model that has worked in the past (e.g. post war Japan). Most people just want a little peace and quiet and a viable economic base. Hell, we've got murderin' and rapin' right here in Canada/USA. But we also have NHL hockey on cable or satellite at the same time.

normanchateau · December 11, 2008

"The report by the International Council on Security and Development, formerly known as the Senlis Council, says that the Taliban has a permanent presence in 72 per cent of Afghanistan. Last year that figure was only 54 per cent."
"The report also says that the Taliban has a virtual noose around Kabul, the Afghan capital. It says that three of the four roads leading into city fall are hit regularly by Taliban attacks, and only one road into Kabul is considered safe."

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/home/cont...showbyline=True

Sounds pretty grim on the Afghanistan front. The Taliban are an increasing threat. Seems that no matter how many our troops kill, there's more to be found.

Maybe this is why Harper announced in October of this year that Canada will withdraw in 2011 whether the Taliban win or lose.

Imagine if a Liberal Prime Minister had announced to the Taliban the exact date of departure of Canadian troops. Harper would have called him an idiot or worse. Why announce it to the Taliban in 2008 rather than 2009 or 2010? How does this help our troops?

Harper's decision to cut-and-run from Afghanistan is reminiscent of his cowardly decision to run to the G-G to beg for permission to shut down his government until 2009.

Topaz · December 11, 2008

Maybe this is why Harper announced in October of this year that Canada will withdraw in 2011 whether the Taliban win or lose.
Imagine if a Liberal Prime Minister had announced to the Taliban the exact date of departure of Canadian troops. Harper would have called him an idiot or worse. Why announce it to the Taliban in 2008 rather than 2009 or 2010? How does this help our troops?

Harper's decision to cut-and-run from Afghanistan is reminiscent of his cowardly decision to run to the G-G to beg for permission to shut down his government until 2009.

I think said that because he hopes to get a majority government by then and at that time he can do what he wants. The idea of the Taliban taking over the roads is that they think by doing so, the foreign military will then have to rely on air power which will COST a lot more to transport people and supplies. They will do to NATO what they did to Russia, bankrupt them and the US is in very serious problem now.

ToadBrother · December 11, 2008

They simply do not have enough boots on the ground....what we are seeing is a Vietnam type thing, we take ground then leave and they retake it. If this war is going to be won we need to overwhelm them and kill them with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Nato countries have to contribute more troops than with what they have right now!

The Russians had lots of boots on the ground and were still shown the door. Before them the Brits were shown the door. Even Alexander the Great simply kept to the Silk Road and tried to avoid taking on the peoples of the region. They are among the toughest, bravest and most stubborn fighters the world has ever known, and I'm not actually sure there's a way to defeat them. I look at the mission more as a way keeping the Taliban in check by giving them targets to shoot at, so they can't help out their good pals in Al Qaeda by setting up new training camps. Any notion that NATO is going to somehow magically create a democracy there is sheer fantasy.

ToadBrother · December 11, 2008

That's because it's a policy model that has worked in the past (e.g. post war Japan). Most people just want a little peace and quiet and a viable economic base. Hell, we've got murderin' and rapin' right here in Canada/USA. But we also have NHL hockey on cable or satellite at the same time.

The situations are completely dissimilar. The Allies had an advantage in that they had a unifying figure in the Emperor who they could get to sell damned near anything to the defeated Japanese people. More importantly, Japan was already a major industrial power, and while it took rebuilding to get it all back up and running, the basic infrastructure for everything from manufacturing to ship building was already there.

Afghanistan has been since the most ancient times an impoverished piece of dirt that no one could really conquer, but that no one particularly wanted to conquer. The Spice Road was the most important part of Afghanistan, and even back then the locals were known as savage warriors.

Of course, the single biggest mistake was using the opportunity of occupying the country to continue the moronic War on Drugs. Those poppy farmers turned quickly from gratefully liberated to the disgruntled.

Oleg Bach · December 11, 2008

Taliban shmalliban...we are just as tough as those guys - and just as ruthless and clever if we want to be..but we choose to be above murder - because we are NOT weak...we are strong...It is they that rage little crazed little cowardly girls.

eyeball · December 11, 2008

OK...but please consider that the USA is "democratic" but also very very dangerous.
Get my point?

Yes, America is one of the greatest dangers the world has ever faced. People have been underscoring that point for years.

bush_cheney2004 · December 11, 2008

The situations are completely dissimilar. The Allies had an advantage in that they had a unifying figure in the Emperor who they could get to sell damned near anything to the defeated Japanese people. More importantly, Japan was already a major industrial power, and while it took rebuilding to get it all back up and running, the basic infrastructure for everything from manufacturing to ship building was already there.

Even better...as it reinforces the idea that the "west" believes in this economic and political model so strongly it will try to force others to adopt it.

Afghanistan has been since the most ancient times an impoverished piece of dirt that no one could really conquer, but that no one particularly wanted to conquer. The Spice Road was the most important part of Afghanistan, and even back then the locals were known as savage warriors.

"Poverty" is a value judgement, and only has metrics when compared to the "western" benchmark.

Of course, the single biggest mistake was using the opportunity of occupying the country to continue the moronic War on Drugs. Those poppy farmers turned quickly from gratefully liberated to the disgruntled.

The moronic war on drugs was comparatively successful while the Taliban ran the show.

OddSox · December 11, 2008

Perhaps the bad guys have just switched over from Iraq?

"U.S. troops start to relax as Iraq security improves" - http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

ToadBrother · December 11, 2008

Taliban shmalliban...we are just as tough as those guys - and just as ruthless and clever if we want to be..but we choose to be above murder - because we are NOT weak...we are strong...It is they that rage little crazed little cowardly girls.

The Soviets tried that too. These Afghani tribesmen are indomitable. Every single power that's tried to beat these guys has eventually been sent packing. The very best we can hope for, short of NATO turning the place into a nuclear wasteland, is to keep sending in troops as targets to make sure Al Qaeda doesn't get a foothold.

Topaz · December 11, 2008

The Soviets tried that too. These Afghani tribesmen are indomitable. Every single power that's tried to beat these guys has eventually been sent packing. The very best we can hope for, short of NATO turning the place into a nuclear wasteland, is to keep sending in troops as targets to make sure Al Qaeda doesn't get a foothold.

I don't if the Soviets knew at the time that the US were helping the Afghani & Taliban with supplies and money and I just wonder if the Soviets are doing the same, which just shows how really stupid war is, your enemy today, your friend tomorrow.

blueblood · December 11, 2008

The Soviets tried that too. These Afghani tribesmen are indomitable. Every single power that's tried to beat these guys has eventually been sent packing. The very best we can hope for, short of NATO turning the place into a nuclear wasteland, is to keep sending in troops as targets to make sure Al Qaeda doesn't get a foothold.

Except for the Persians and Greeks...

M.Dancer · December 11, 2008

Except for the Persians and Greeks...

Mongols, Moghuls and arabs too......

ToadBrother · December 11, 2008

Except for the Persians and Greeks...

They never meaningfully controlled anything beyond the Spice Road. The tribes of the region were never really subjugated. For the most part none of these guys really wanted to control the region save where the major trade route went, and once the Portuguese opened up the sea routes and the Spice Road died, no one much cared.

Edited December 11, 2008 by ToadBrother