Afghanistan Lessons

[Derek 2.0]

But, the part you are forgetting here, is that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan looks almost exactly like the Soviet strategy to calm things down and maintain Afghanistan as a Soviet ally. The Soviets likely created this "Northern Alliance" in the first place, since much of the fight against the pro-Soviet Government fell along ethnic lines, and rather than a "Democracy vs. Communism" fight, it could have easily been described as a fight between the Pashtun majority in the south, and Uzbeks, Tadziks, and Kazakh's in the north......doesn't that sound familiar?

No, the Soviet strategy was to maintain the Communist puppet Government.......The West sought the draining of the swamp and nation building.......

I would bet a large number of those Soviet conscripts you mentioned, were motivated to go and fight - because they were fighting on behalf of their own people who lived on the other side of political boundaries drawn up arbitrarily, and dividing and separating tribes and families......now, doesn't that sound familiar also!

Soviet conscripts were motivated by three meals a day and a Chekist with a Tokarev........

The Soviets had no choice other than pull out, because their economy collapsed during its so called "Restructuring," that introduced Neoliberal capitalism and collapsed and sold off everything in the state economy that was of value. But, even if the Soviet Union had stayed together and kept functioning, they would not have been able to keep a lid on the situation in Afghanistan either! For much the same reasons that the U.S. has a crocodile by the jaws today and is afraid to let go.

The allocated Soviet resources to Afghanistan equaled those maintained in East Berlin.......in other words, a small portion of the former Soviet military........

After a brief time in the first year, when the majority of Pashtuns wanted an end to Taliban rule, the U.S and allies destroyed whatever goodwill they had by riding through the cities, rural farms and villages...busting down doors, occasionally shooting people suspected of being Taliban members; when the intelligent thing to do would have been to ignore most of the Taliban, and just go after whatever foreign Arab fighters were left in the country....since they would almost certainly be Al Qaeda.

......Or kill the Taliban as it retreated into Pakistan seeking shelter and relief.

But I agree to an extent, the West would have been far better off leaving the internal security of Afghanistan with the various tribal warlords and the Taliban if need be.......Nation building in the region, without a doubt was/is a failure without security.

But, after pissing off the locals, the Taliban...or what qualifies as Taliban now, is back at it again and shooting at them, and trying to overthrow the Government. And the situation will be back to the sectarian war that really took off during the Soviet Occupation and never really ended.

I've no doubt it will revert back once the West has left fully......of that I agree.

[Big Guy]

The use of opium is discouraged by Islam. In 2001, when the Taliban were in full control of Afghanistan, they outlawed the growing of opium and there was almost no production in Afghanistan. It was only when they were "liberated" by us did the growing continue to increase yearly to where it is to-day.

[WIP]

Actually, Canada's JTF2 commandos were sent to Afghanistan early on as part of Task Force K-Bar in December 2001.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/04/25/canadas_elite_commandos_and_the_invasion_of_afghanistan.html

Noted! It appears that this news was kept secret for many years. That Toronto Star article indicates that this commando group was very small in size, and used only for high priority operations. So, that probably wouldn't weigh heavily regarding the issue of local relations.

My point is that in general, there was a change in how Canadian forces were used and the way locals viewed them, from the Chretien Government to the Harper Administration.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My point is that in general, there was a change in how Canadian forces were used and the way locals viewed them, from the Chretien Government to the Harper Administration.

The Taliban who were killed by Canadian snipers early on didn't notice the difference. Only a handful of NATO nations committed to combat operations in theatre, including Canada.

This excerpt from that story represents exactly how the Chretien government wanted things handled back home...keep Canadians in the dark:

...But the government seemed to enjoy the political boost it got out of telling Canadians that its crack counter-terrorist team was on the frontline of the war on terror without having to disclose some of the more uncomfortable details to the House of Commons or the country.

Edited January 5, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Rue]

I must agree with Bush. Chretien did the above and with due respect Harper once he took over did not discuss the matter in the same way Chretiens did and but a curtain of silence around such operations.

Australia's intervention in East Timor became the new model. , The UN sat on its ass while Australia moved in quickly to prevent a disaster..

The UN and in particular Koffe Anan sat on their ass and let thousands die in Rwanda, Burundi Mali, Sudan, to name just a few conflict zones with mass killings. That legacy rendered the UN blood stained and it should be shut down and a new organization much smaller should be created to replace it.

I am sorry to say peacekeeping forces as envisioned by Lester .Pearson who many Canadians like to support as our role, can never happen in today's world of terrorism and a UN that is so corrupted it can't create a clear anti terrorist vision and come up with an international police force to contain terrorism.

Today if a country like France intervenes say in Mali or other French foreign colonies to contain Muslim extremists and prevent civil wars, its done unilaterally.

Once Obama is gone I think Western foreign policy in regards to terrorism and Russia will become more consistent with a new US President resuming the role as the US being the leader of the West.

This notion Obama has that the West is not lead by the US alone is naïve. The fact is the US has the only armed forces large enough to lead the West and coordinate any unified action against terrorists.

At best the rest of the West can only play supportive roles or like France, intervene in limited, time defined missions,

Obama has liked to wage a passive aggressive war through Muslim Brotherhood Muslim extremists or drones. Both have clear limitations and in particular the first tactic is something the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA get into bitter disputes over.

The US armed forces sees itself as a conventional force not one that acts by proxy through Muslim extremists or private security forces contracted out through Haliburton.

There is a role model of how the US Armed Forces views its role in conflict zones and it can be seen if you look up at how it operates in Djibouti.

That model which works has the US Armed Forces do many non conventional roles as community builders as well as maintaining

stability through military strength.

It defies and contradicts the stereotype of ugly American imperialist occupiers. Its very similar to the role the Canadian Armed Forces tried to follow in Afghanistan.

The problem is, when you send in conventional army on the ground for more than a few months, it automatically is seen as an invasion or occupation force and its soldiers are whether they like it or not turned into police, social workers, community workers and that is not going to work in the Middle East at this time.

Until Muslim extremism evolves to a new level of expression other than violence, we are in a protracted guerilla war and the only way to deal with such wars is through small, quick moving specially trained commandoes who get in and out, strike fast and use surprise, quickness and tactical planning to remain undetected. Easier said than done. The training is expensive, demanding,and its hard to find people with the ideal psyche for such work.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Rue

[Derek 2.0]

Noted! It appears that this news was kept secret for many years. That Toronto Star article indicates that this commando group was very small in size, and used only for high priority operations. So, that probably wouldn't weigh heavily regarding the issue of local relations.

My point is that in general, there was a change in how Canadian forces were used and the way locals viewed them, from the Chretien Government to the Harper Administration.

Of course, it was the Paul Martin Liberals that sought and received further combat operations in the South of Afghanistan.......well sending Canadian forces into further combat operations unprepared and under-equipped, a result of Liberal cuts in the 90s, and resulting in a disproportionate number of Canadian deaths and injuries from mines and IEDs........

[WIP]

Australia's intervention in East Timor became the new model. , The UN sat on its ass while Australia moved in quickly to prevent a disaster..

The UN and in particular Koffe Anan sat on their ass and let thousands die in Rwanda, Burundi Mali, Sudan, to name just a few conflict zones with mass killings. That legacy rendered the UN blood stained and it should be shut down and a new organization much smaller should be created to replace it.

I am sorry to say peacekeeping forces as envisioned by Lester .Pearson who many Canadians like to support as our role, can never happen in today's world of terrorism and a UN that is so corrupted it can't create a clear anti terrorist vision and come up with an international police force to contain terrorism.

I don't have time to address all of your points here, but I'll start with East Timor, because it's a rare example where foreign interference is necessary and warranted. In that case it was....once again, a relic of colonialism that precipitated the crisis. In all the years leading up to 1975, did any American or western leader tell the president of Portugal - okay, time's up! Time to close the empire and get out of Angola, Mozambique, East Timor and a few other small colonies they had scattered around the world?

Portugal was the last of the overt colonial empires...as opposed to the present, far more subtle and difficult to fight version of economic colonization run by: installing proxy presidents and dictators, and managed by international banking and globalized trade agreements. Portugal still was running a political colonial operation in each of their colonies, and no surprise that revolutionary groups were actively fighting to remove their administrations. The U.S. tried to offer tacit support of the dictatorship in Portugal...just as they did with Europe's other Nazi ally - Spain, after the end of WWII, because...supposedly, these dictators were still necessary bullwarks against communism! So, they kept the situation festering for decades until Portugal's little empire collapsed overnight.

In East Timor, this left a power vacuum, which the right wing genocidal government of Indonesia (remember, this was still the government that massacred hundreds of thousands of its own people in the overthrow of a leftwing government considered too friendly to the Soviet Union). Nevertheless, Australia could do nothing about the U.S.-sponsored Indonesia dictator, but they could send a small contingent of troops to East Timor, as Indonesia had no legal claim of any sort to the territory. Worth noting that they didn't have a legitimate claim to West Timor either, where they tried to ethnically cleanse primitive tribes and terraform the place for their own agricultural needs...but that was all water under the bridge by 1975!

We have a very complicated, deceitful situation in Rwanda and that eastern Congo region, as the start of the genocide began with the U.S. supported coup leader who had the presidents of his own country and Burundi killed, so that he could march in and take over the country. The genocide was not all from the Tutsi minority, as presented by the U.S. to western media. Both sides were carrying out genocidal slaughter in the country. And what's worse, is the end result was the U.S. backed coup leaders being firmly in charge and the CIA using their forces,a long with Uganda's military in operations inside the eastern Congo. The genocide continues, and it is with the backing of Big Money mining operations and the U.S. Government.

Lester Pearson's big failing was not recognizing that colonialization and it's effects have to be considered before you can even begin to talk about international armies acting as peacekeepers. Otherwise, who's peace is kept and for who's benefit?

[Big Guy]

The Taliban are taking back Afghanistan faster than anticipated;

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/01/taliban-comeback-150128092123970.html

Looks like just a matter of time before all those $billions Canada poured into Afghanistan can officially be considered as wasted.

But there is hope - The White House now considers the Taliban not "a terrorist organization" but "an organization that uses terrorist tactics". See, we were wrong all the time!?!

I notice that the bright lights (both in government and on this board) who were promoting our involvement in Afghanistan are the same folks now promoting increasing our involvement against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Are we not supposed to learn by our mistakes?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... In all the years leading up to 1975, did any American or western leader tell the president of Portugal - okay, time's up! Time to close the empire and get out of Angola, Mozambique, East Timor and a few other small colonies they had scattered around the world?

Yes...at least for the Americas. See "Monroe Doctrine". Why was/is it incumbent on "any American leader" to do this ? Is this just another weak April Glaspie "green light" argument.

[eyeball]

Are we not supposed to learn by our mistakes?

Yes, and the lesson in Afghanistan is to pay attention to people who know what the hell they're talking about, like Gust Avrakotos. Lest anyone refer to broken clocks he also warned his superiors that the Iran Contra debacle would be...exactly what it was.

[WIP]

Yes...at least for the Americas. See "Monroe Doctrine". Why was/is it incumbent on "any American leader" to do this ? Is this just another weak April Glaspie "green light" argument.

Are any of the colonies I mentioned in the Americas? Your response is so obscure I'm wondering if you were on some mind-altering substance when you wrote this down.

Monroe Doctrine: significance is the U.S. policy justification for declaring to have the right to interfere in the affairs of all states in the Americas.

April Glaspie: significance is the heresay evidence from an underling that she gave Saddam Hussein the "green light" to invade Kuwait back in 1990.

So, how do these points connect with anything from my post other than an attempt at name-dropping?

[bush_cheney2004]

...So, how do these points connect with anything from my post other than an attempt at name-dropping?

They "connect" by countering your claim and questioning its relevance. Portugal did have colonies in the Americas.

Why is/was it incumbent on the United States to dictate colonization in other parts of the world ?

Couldn't your fallen empire handle the task ?

[WIP]

They "connect" by countering your claim and questioning its relevance. Portugal did have colonies in the Americas.

Why is/was it incumbent on the United States to dictate colonization in other parts of the world ?

Couldn't your fallen empire handle the task ?

Yes, I think we've all heard of Brazil! And Brazil became independent long before the US of A started trying to join the empire club. So once again, The Monroe Doctrine has nothing to do with the post I wrote - which was a critique of the European colonial empires. How the hell do you connect April Glaspie with this anyway?

The only part where I criticized modern U.S. foreign policy regarding Portugal, is that the U.S. turned a blind eye to the Portugal empire as long as they were sufficiently anti-communist...same goes for South Africa in that regard. Reagan and Thatcher had to be shamed into allowing sanctions against Apartheid South Africa, and had no intentions of enforcing them even afterwards.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I think we've all heard of Brazil! And Brazil became independent long before the US of A started trying to join the empire club. So once again, The Monroe Doctrine has nothing to do with the post I wrote - which was a critique of the European colonial empires. How the hell do you connect April Glaspie with this anyway?

I guess you have never heard of Labrador....the Monroe Doctrine specifically speaks to your false assertion. The Glaspie reference was for extra credit and you did not score.

The only part where I criticized modern U.S. foreign policy regarding Portugal, is that the U.S. turned a blind eye to the Portugal empire as long as they were sufficiently anti-communist...same goes for South Africa in that regard. Reagan and Thatcher had to be shamed into allowing sanctions against Apartheid South Africa, and had no intentions of enforcing them even afterwards.

Meh...the UK & US fought commies...as did Canada, from which the apartheid reserve system was imported. The U.S. acts in nation state self interest, not your geo-political preferences.

[WIP]

I guess you have never heard of Labrador....the Monroe Doctrine specifically speaks to your false assertion. The Glaspie reference was for extra credit and you did not score.

No wonder I try to ignore your posts!

[bush_cheney2004]

No wonder I try to ignore your posts!

I understand...ignoring facts is very convenient. The U.S. didn't even exist when Portugal (and Spain) carved up the known world.

[Big Guy]

Hey WIP - Welcome to the ever increasing number of posters who have seen the light. It takes a little self discipline to jump over posts after seeing the author but it is a process that becomes easier with time.

[eyeball]

The U.S. acts in nation state self interest,

Does how one acts to serve their interest matter, even a bit?

[bush_cheney2004]

Does how one acts to serve their interest matter, even a bit?

Does it matter to a grizzly bear ?

[On Guard for Thee]

No wonder I try to ignore your posts!

Many do.

[WIP]

Hey WIP - Welcome to the ever increasing number of posters who have seen the light. It takes a little self discipline to jump over posts after seeing the author but it is a process that becomes easier with time.

I don't mind contrary arguments and claims...these are issues that are difficult to figure out and none of us have complete information, or know exactly what sources to trust.

But I get tired of someone who just wants to play gotcha! Most of these issues we're sifting through, are big and have big implications for a lot of people in the world. So, turning all the misery, death and destruction in the world into a game is demeaning and maybe even psychotic.

[Big Guy]

So our government has finished an audit of the cost and effectiveness of our "expedition" into Afghanistan;

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/16/the-canadian-government-abandoned-a-2-2b-afghanistan-aid-program-it-barely-understood-audit-finds/

Our aid program cost the Canadian taxpayers about $2.2 billion dollars. Yes folks, that's well over two thousand million dollars and what did we get for it? Pretty well ziltch!

Almost none of our programs are still operating, most of the assets are now in the hands of war lords or Taliban and the narcotics trade is at its highest.

The good news is that the young people are better educated (but the schools are closed or closing) but the bad news is that these same young people are becoming heroin addicts and/or joining the Taliban.

The frightening part is that the same bright lights and the same government which burned those billions in an Afghanistan civil war are the same geniuses who have decided to get us involved in another foreign civil war and feeding us the same garbage.

We are there to kill those scumbags and murderers and send little girls to school and blah, blah, blah.

After all, we have a large military and we only lost about 150 in Afghanistan.

And some of us are falling for it again. So far we have wasted only $125 million in taxpayer funds in Iraq - but it is still early and we're gonna stay "until the job is done".

Why? Because it is the right thing to do!!!!

Where have you heard that BS before?

But we are following the lead of the USA who have a history of success in Vietnam, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. How can we go wrong?

God Bless America!

God Save The Canadian People !!!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

But we are following the lead of the USA who have a history of success in Vietnam, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. How can we go wrong?

What did you expect...Canada never does any leading.

[On Guard for Thee]

What did you expect...Canada never does any leading.

Only when it comes to peacekeeping.

[Shady]

Afghanistan was a NATO mission. As a member of NATO, Canada did it's part. Much more so than larger European countries, who, to this day, are still taking a vacaction from history.