Afghanistan

[Black Dog]

I think many Canadians don't have a clue that to maintain your countries current freedoms and democracy comes at a PRICE.

....

If you don't wish to support and possibly die for your country, I really don't know why you want to live in a country like Canada.

Sorry: but what does chasing a bunch of primitives around some distant backwater have to do with "maintain(ing) your countries current freedoms and democracy?"

[Charles Anthony]

Hmm.... Did those passenger jets fly all the way from Afghanistan before arriving in Manhattan on that fateful morning?

I think that most people were convinced that the country was being used as a safe haven for al Qaeda attacks on the rest of the world. You disagree?

You have evidence of that?

I think this is in the realm of what is known as "common knowledge". It's the sort of thing that occurs when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence...like that the WTC fell down because planes ran into it.

-- and like that the Battle of Vimy Ridge defined Canada, too. Right????

"Everyone has a horrible fantasy that makes the actual horror seem (to him) worth putting up with." - Joseph Sobran

[M.Dancer]

Hmm.... Did those passenger jets fly all the way from Afghanistan before arriving in Manhattan on that fateful morning?

No...just the orders, planning, money......

[Army Guy]

Rue:

From a tactical point of veiw I do not believe using conventional armies to fight terrorists makes sense. I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not believe in using conventional armies as anti-terrorist units. I believe in creating small, fast moving, highly trained commando units that go in and out quickly after destroying their targets.

These units already operate in Afgan, made up of spec ops units from across the globe, Thier exploits are not made public because of thier nature, but they do happen around the clock 365 days a year.

Conventional forces are used to promote a presence, handle much larger operations, and do the PRT side of the house. both are needed side by side if we are to effectively put these guys out of bussiness.

I believe the idea we can use our troops as a visible symbol of cultural imperialism does nothing but make them siting ducks for terrorists. We have to resist the arrogant Christian missionary tendency of Canada to think we can go to such countries and proseltyze people with our Tim Hotons values

Yes it does make them sitting ducks, as it is almost imposiable to stop someone determined enough to blow themselfs up, or from digging huge holes and filling them with explosives for us to run over... but on the other side of the coin if they are concentrating on hurting us then they are leaving the Afgan population. alone. But thats not all we are doing standing around and waving our flag or handing out maple leaf pins. Coventional forces are very active in hunting these scum bags down, modern tech is a wonderful thing and you'll have to trust me when i say thier cas list is alot longer than ours...

Finally I talk a lot, but I am the first to say, since I am not dying and my life is not on the line, all my talk is just my opinion and it means f...ck all since I am not dying and the Canadian soldiers over their make it possible for me to be able to spew off like I do. I have my opinions, but that is all they are. know they are shared by some soldiers I have spoken with while others think its too impractical

These guys over thier a not just a bunch of goat herders, most have been fighting since they could pick-up a wpn, and they are good at what they do. They are very adaptable, changing thier tactics daily...but thier are not 10 ft tall and bullet proof, they can be killed and are being killed. we are making progress and flushing them out of the country...just this winter they were bragging about having 10,000 men and a 1000 sucide bombers ready for the spring offensive...well spring has come and gone in Afgan, and nothing but a few IED's.

What I will say is, as long as the troops are there and dying I will respect what they are doing and I am grateful for it as much as I hate seeing them die. I also agree with Argus that until we clearly define what the f..ck we are doing, it will continue to be a confusing continuing series of soldiers dying and Canadians repeating the word "eh?".

Why is it that the soldiers know exactly what is going on in Afgan, they are very clear about what we are doing over there. and all of them support this mission....i mean they are the ones with clearly the most to gain from pulling out of Afgan, but they are the ones that want to stay, they are the ones that come back over and over again, they are the ones that shoulder thier comrads lifeless bodies and carry them one last time to an awaiting herc. They are the ones who's voices go unheard...

It's very frustrating for soldiers to hear in our media that there still Canadians out there that don't know why or what we are doing in Afgan. and it's frustrating to find out that more than half of Canadians don't agree with the mission....It's not like our military woke up one day and said lets ship out our troops to some pissed off country and make a name for ourselfs. It was the people of Canada who done that in fact a majority of Canadians decided "what a noble mission", and now they hide behind that famous statement "things have changed,or we were suppose to be just handing out teddy bears, and candy, not fighting....who in the frig hands needs an armoured fighting veh to hand out candies ...

I don't know how many times i heard soldiers stand up and shout " when are these people going to wake the fuke up "at our TV in our mess.

[ScottSA]

It's very frustrating for soldiers to hear in our media that there still Canadians out there that don't know why or what we are doing in Afgan. and it's frustrating to find out that more than half of Canadians don't agree with the mission....It's not like our military woke up one day and said lets ship out our troops to some pissed off country and make a name for ourselfs. It was the people of Canada who done that in fact a majority of Canadians decided "what a noble mission", and now they hide behind that famous statement "things have changed,or we were suppose to be just handing out teddy bears, and candy, not fighting....who in the frig hands needs an armoured fighting veh to hand out candies ...

I don't know how many times i heard soldiers stand up and shout " when are these people going to wake the fuke up "at our TV in our mess.

The CBC is constantly trying to dis the Afghan mission. Yesterday I watched part of or whatever of (deep voice intonation) "The Road to Kandahar", which even managed to drag a retired general out and take the odd snippet out of context to make it sound as if Canadian forces didn't want to go, are over their heads, and accidentally ended up in the south instead of some cushioned northern sector. The media in both Iraq and Afghanistan seem intent on painting the respective missions as an ongoing series of mistakes, when the folks who are there or have been there are very clear as to what they are doing. The mission is not standing around holding imperialist flags and waiting to get shot at; it is mounting an offensive into enemy dominated territory. It's hardly surprising that there is resistance...what is really surprising is the lack of any substantial resistance.

[Who's Doing What?]

The CBC is constantly trying to dis the Afghan mission. Yesterday I watched part of or whatever of (deep voice intonation) "The Road to Kandahar", which even managed to drag a retired general out and take the odd snippet out of context to make it sound as if Canadian forces didn't want to go, are over their heads, and accidentally ended up in the south instead of some cushioned northern sector. The media in both Iraq and Afghanistan seem intent on painting the respective missions as an ongoing series of mistakes, when the folks who are there or have been there are very clear as to what they are doing. The mission is not standing around holding imperialist flags and waiting to get shot at; it is mounting an offensive into enemy dominated territory. It's hardly surprising that there is resistance...what is really surprising is the lack of any substantial resistance.

Funny. I saw parts of the same show and didn't get that impression at all. It would seem when you watch something with the ingrained bias that whatever a certain network is showing you is propaganda you get a distorted view of what actually is being broadcast.

[ScottSA]

Funny. I saw parts of the same show and didn't get that impression at all. It would seem when you watch something with the ingrained bias that whatever a certain network is showing you is propaganda you get a distorted view of what actually is being broadcast.

So when you hear the deaths of two soldiers refered to as "a terrible setback for the Canadian mission", you don't think it's a bit over the top? The Battle of the Bulge is "a terrible setback". Losing two soldiers in an offensive is a low casualty count.

[jdobbin]

Its time to grow up. You want to deal with terrorists stop f..cking around with these modern day cultural missionary crusade concepts. Create elite, fast moving commando units-get in and out, and yes move not just in Afghanistan but whereever the terrorists go-Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sudan. Terrorists hide behind boders. The war against them must ignore borders. Legally the UN needs to create an anti-terrorist commando operation that is empowered on behalf of all nations, to do what it has to do to take out terrorists. This is not about using conventional armies as police or political agents.

I think that should have been the strategy all along. In and out. Hit and run.

Somehow nation building got thrown in there. That's a long term strategy that pretty much precludes having troops available for any other mission. It also hasn't had much success on a grand scale.

[jdobbin]

Excellent post Rue. If we cut and run now all those lives will have been lost for nothing, but having said that, how long can we stay there and what will happen if we pull out now or another year or so? IMO when we leave, the Taliban will be back.

It appears that these deaths are a political gift to the those who oppose the Afghanistan mission; they now have a larger propoganda cudgel with which to oppose the mission. at Least Layton is supporting them: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5121

Maybe a question we should be asking is, how far can we go to protect human rights abuses, particularly as we know what will happen to the women should the Taliban take over again. Knowing that, should we respect their national sovereignityand ignore the abuses; and in that case why bother with any other abuses around the world e.g. Sudan. Should we no longer be part of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Woman are already setting themselves on fire in the new Afghanistan. Women are veiled in Kabul as well as the rest of Afghanistan. Some of the people responsible for atrocities when the Taliban were in power remain in power and are now getting amnesty for what they did.

This question of it being bad if the Talibamn comes back has to be measured with just how little things have improved with a government we support.

Canada staying in Afghanistan until 2009 or beyond precludes us from being involved anywhere else in the world. Moreover, our so-called allies are not with us.

It may not matter if we leave two years from now, ten years from now or whenever. The Taliban will probably be back because we can't get at them in their sanctuaries.

[jdobbin]

English media in Quebec is becoming increasingly vocal on Afghanistan.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/colu...82-bce383437417

The prime minister should be ashamed of himself. In the bloodiest week so far for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan - eight men dead as of Wednesday - Stephen Harper chose to play petty politics instead of answering hard questions on the army's mission there.

To pick this week to fulfill his silliest electoral promise - the one to investigate how the Liberal government handed contracts to polling firms between 1990 and 2003 - doesn't say anything kind about Harper's sense of priorities.

To pick such a time to go Grit-hunting is either a puerile attempt to divert attention from Afghanistan or another display of how weakening the Liberals has become an obsession for Harper. Or it's a mix of both.

[Argus]

English media in Quebec is becoming increasingly vocal on Afghanistan.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/colu...82-bce383437417

The prime minister should be ashamed of himself. In the bloodiest week so far for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan - eight men dead as of Wednesday - Stephen Harper chose to play petty politics instead of answering hard questions on the army's mission there.

To pick this week to fulfill his silliest electoral promise - the one to investigate how the Liberal government handed contracts to polling firms between 1990 and 2003 - doesn't say anything kind about Harper's sense of priorities.

To pick such a time to go Grit-hunting is either a puerile attempt to divert attention from Afghanistan or another display of how weakening the Liberals has become an obsession for Harper. Or it's a mix of both.

Josse Legault? A representative of English Quebec? French Quebecers have always been opposed to any kind of military action anywhere in the world. Their attitude has always been "When they're standing in front of my house shooting at me, then and only then will I agree the government should take action". That's been the case for a century. Nothing has changed.

[jdobbin]

Josse Legault? A representative of English Quebec? French Quebecers have always been opposed to any kind of military action anywhere in the world. Their attitude has always been "When they're standing in front of my house shooting at me, then and only then will I agree the government should take action". That's been the case for a century. Nothing has changed.

If that is what you believe, I suspect that you must concede that Quebec will not be rich territory for Conservative seats if Afghanistan continues to generate casualties, especially Van Doos casualties.

[Michael Bluth]

Hey Dobbin four of the last six posts on this thread, and by far the biggest number of the total are yours.

Start a blog already!

[scribblet]

Woman are already setting themselves on fire in the new Afghanistan. Women are veiled in Kabul as well as the rest of Afghanistan. Some of the people responsible for atrocities when the Taliban were in power remain in power and are now getting amnesty for what they did.

This question of it being bad if the Talibamn comes back has to be measured with just how little things have improved with a government we support.

Canada staying in Afghanistan until 2009 or beyond precludes us from being involved anywhere else in the world. Moreover, our so-called allies are not with us.

It may not matter if we leave two years from now, ten years from now or whenever. The Taliban will probably be back because we can't get at them in their sanctuaries.

I havn't read anything about women setting themselves on fire, but neither do I read everything.

How does it preclude us being involved elsewhere, unless you mean lack of manpower and hardware etc. I realize we are spread pretty thin. Women have made gains over there, but surely they will lose it all if we pull out.

I do believe the Taliban will be back as we can't stay there forever, so it begs the question - can we or should we turn our backs on the abuses in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we cannot police the world. Should we stop worrying about this, not just Afghanistan, but everywhere - should we even try and can we live with that?

[jdobbin]

I havn't read anything about women setting themselves on fire, but neither do I read everything.

How does it preclude us being involved elsewhere, unless you mean lack of manpower and hardware etc. I realize we are spread pretty thin. Women have made gains over there, but surely they will lose it all if we pull out.

I do believe the Taliban will be back as we can't stay there forever, so it begs the question - can we or should we turn our backs on the abuses in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we cannot police the world. Should we stop worrying about this, not just Afghanistan, but everywhere - should we even try and can we live with that?

Here is the story from last month:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=411692007

ONE woman committed suicide by setting herself ablaze after her father-in-law tried to rape her. Another set herself on fire because her brothers would not let her marry, preferring that she remain their servant at home. Yet another told her mother before she died that her husband beat her daily.

Testimony gathered by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission documents how life for many Afghan women remains so bleak some choose a horrific and painful death instead.

Spread thin is an understatement. I doubt there would be enough for any other hotspot in the world for a number of years. Perhaps that would extend to a major disaster in Canada as well.

I have no problem with dealing with terrorist threats. In an out. The nation building of Afghanistan will never cease to be difficult as long as they remain tribal based and if Pakistan continues to interfere with impunity.

[scribblet]

Spread thin is an understatement. I doubt there would be enough for any other hotspot in the world for a number of years. Perhaps that would extend to a major disaster in Canada as well.

I have no problem with dealing with terrorist threats. In an out. The nation building of Afghanistan will never cease to be difficult as long as they remain tribal based and if Pakistan continues to interfere with impunity.

Thanks for the link. Did you read the comments -

How can we change things, especially for the women, and should we even try...

[Argus]

Josse Legault? A representative of English Quebec? French Quebecers have always been opposed to any kind of military action anywhere in the world. Their attitude has always been "When they're standing in front of my house shooting at me, then and only then will I agree the government should take action". That's been the case for a century. Nothing has changed.

If that is what you believe, I suspect that you must concede that Quebec will not be rich territory for Conservative seats if Afghanistan continues to generate casualties, especially Van Doos casualties.

Probably not. I suspect there are many Liberals and NDP members out there gleefully watching every body bag come home, watching the polls, and praying for more dead.

[jdobbin]

Probably not. I suspect there are many Liberals and NDP members out there gleefully watching every body bag come home, watching the polls, and praying for more dead.

If the Liberals were to win a surprise victory this spring, they would face the same downward pressure in support because they are committed to Afghanistan until 2009. I don't think there is anything gleeful about the situation.

I fear security in Afghanistan is going to be elusive and if Tories think that Canadian deaths give them street cred in the U.S., I think they are wrong.

Canada will have to evaluate just how committed our NATO allies are and whether anyone is doing something about the Pakistan threat.

[Michael Bluth]

I fear security in Afghanistan is going to be elusive and if Tories think that Canadian deaths give them street cred in the U.S., I think they are wrong.

Yeah, DJ Steve is just illin' and workin' on his street cred.

[jdobbin]

Most of the time overall casualties barely rate a mention from Afghanistan.

Since last Sunday, the U.S. has lost for soldiers in combat.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=US

The British have lost two soldiers.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=US

Everyone in Canada knows we lost eight soldiers.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=US

Meanwhile, kidnappings are on the rise. The Afghan government unwittingly opened the floodgates by exchanging Taliban for the freedom of those taken.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070415/wl_st...nceunrestkidnap

The New York Times reports today that American soldiers shot up the highway last month killing 12 civilians.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../704150407/1039

KABUL, Afghanistan - U.S. Marines reacted to a bomb ambush in eastern Afghanistan last month with excessive force, hitting groups of bystanders and vehicles with machine-gun fire in a rampage that covered 10 miles of highway and left 12 civilians dead, including an infant and three elderly men, according to a report published by an Afghan human rights commission on Saturday.

Families of the victims said last week they had demanded justice from the U.S. military and the Afghan government, and they described the aftermath of the Marines' shooting in Nangarhar province. One 16-year-old newly married girl was cut down while she was carrying a bundle of grass to her family's farmhouse, according to her family and the report. A 75-year-old man walking to his shop was hit by so many bullets that his son did not recognize the body when he came to the scene.

The PBS Frontline report this week showed that Canadian soldiers were putting villagers at risk just by communicating with them.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/637487.html

Kiley was embedded with Canadians from B Company, 1 Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment. Following these soldiers, on a mission to provide aid to villagers, Kiley shows us that for all the goodwill that our troops demonstrated, they put villagers at risk merely by talking to them. Why? Because they feared reprisals from the Taliban after the Canadians left, as they inevitably did.

I wonder if Khan's report to the Conservatives lays down what the long term prognosis for Afghanistan is.

Eric Margolis compares the numbers of troops NATO has in place and thinks now.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/04...023359-sun.html

Afghanistan's figurehead Hamid Karzai regime controls only the capitol. The rest of the country is under the Taliban, or warlords who run the surging narcotics trade that has made NATO the main defender of the world's leading narco state.

If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better?

[ScottSA]

Most of the time overall casualties barely rate a mention from Afghanistan.

Since last Sunday, the U.S. has lost for soldiers in combat.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=US

The British have lost two soldiers.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=US

Everyone in Canada knows we lost eight soldiers.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=US

There's an offensive on. 14 soldiers have been killed recently. Your point?

[jdobbin]

There's an offensive on. 14 soldiers have been killed recently. Your point?

That there will always be an offensive on while Pakistan remains a threat, while NATO allies remain uncommitted and while the Karzai government controls (if that) only Kabul.

[ScottSA]

There's an offensive on. 14 soldiers have been killed recently. Your point?

That there will always be an offensive on while Pakistan remains a threat, while NATO allies remain uncommitted and while the Karzai government controls (if that) only Kabul.

That's not a point, that's an observation. And it's not a correct observation. Are you aware that the entire North of Afghanistan is operating normally, embracing the infrastructure rebuilding and the new ethos? Are you aware that the Nato offensive is in the south and that's where the deaths are? Are you aware that deaths occur during offensives? Are you aware that offensives are the only way to win wars? Are you aware that from a logistics perspective 14 deaths in a week during an offensive is something to be celebrated rather than pointed at as a failure?

19,000 Americans died during the Battle of the Bulge, and another 60,000 were casualties. The Germans suffered 100,000 casualties. Lets get some perspective here. No, things are not perfect; they never are. But if the allies had been of the same mind as you they never would have invaded Normandy because, well, Vichy France is a danger, doncha know, and we might take even more than 14 casualties. Just for the record, a rough tally of that offensive was 425,000 casualties on both sides.

If your point is simply to harp against Afghanistan and try to make of it a failure, then carry on. But if you truly believe this stuff, then you need to read more. Your final posted argument is the crowning glory, of course:

"If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better?"

This is silly. How about because the USSR fell? How about because while the Pashtun are armed with the same weapons they had then, they are now facing weapon tech several generations ahead (except for the Canadian Leopards)? How about we ask a different rhetorical question: "If 2,200 English can beat 50,000 Indian troops using the same technology at the Battle of Plassey, what's to stop a few more thousand allies from scattering a few outnumbered tribesmen using outdated semifunctional weapons today?"

[jdobbin]

That's not a point, that's an observation. And it's not a correct observation. Are you aware that the entire North of Afghanistan is operating normally, embracing the infrastructure rebuilding and the new ethos? Are you aware that the Nato offensive is in the south and that's where the deaths are? Are you aware that deaths occur during offensives? Are you aware that offensives are the only way to win wars? Are you aware that from a logistics perspective 14 deaths in a week during an offensive is something to be celebrated rather than pointed at as a failure?

19,000 Americans died during the Battle of the Bulge, and another 60,000 were casualties. The Germans suffered 100,000 casualties. Lets get some perspective here. No, things are not perfect; they never are. But if the allies had been of the same mind as you they never would have invaded Normandy because, well, Vichy France is a danger, doncha know, and we might take even more than 14 casualties. Just for the record, a rough tally of that offensive was 425,000 casualties on both sides.

If your point is simply to harp against Afghanistan and try to make of it a failure, then carry on. But if you truly believe this stuff, then you need to read more. Your final posted argument is the crowning glory, of course:

"If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better?"

This is silly. How about because the USSR fell? How about because while the Pashtun are armed with the same weapons they had then, they are now facing weapon tech several generations ahead (except for the Canadian Leopards)? How about we ask a different rhetorical question: "If 2,200 English can beat 50,000 Indian troops using the same technology at the Battle of Plassey, what's to stop a few more thousand allies from scattering a few outnumbered tribesmen using outdated semifunctional weapons today?"

Your observations on weapons should also include how 50,000 well armed and trained British troops couldn't manage in Afghanistan either.

Are you aware that we might be doing this offensive thing year after year because the root of the problem in never dealt with? Pakistan, tribalism, government corruption...all of these things are beyond what Canadian soldiers will be able to deal with by 2009.

As I said, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan precludes being involved anywhere else in force including in Canada for many years to come. Moreover, you brush aside our NATO allies who met in Canada this week and made only tiny offerings if anything.

As for your assertion that things are normal in the north. Hostilities are growing there. Many kidnappings and murders of foreign national workers have been taking place there. A Pakistani engineer was just killed there.

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?173455

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has lodged strong protest with Afghan government over killing of one Pakistani engineer in Northern Afghanistan and called for immediate arrest and award of punishment to the persons behind this murder.

Sweden was just attacked in a convoy.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/15/...Afghanistan.php

STOCKHOLM, Sweden: An explosive device blew up under a vehicle carrying Swedish soldiers in northern Afghanistan Sunday, slightly injuring one of them, the Swedish military said.

The explosion occurred early Sunday as three vehicles carrying a total of nine Swedish soldiers were on a patrol in the northern province of Jowzjan, the Swedish Armed Forces said in a statement.

One of the soldiers sustained minor injuries to his lower back and was airlifted to a German field hospital, the military said. None of the other soldiers was injured.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...er.html?ref=rss

A Vancouver carpenter has been killed in northern Afghanistan, where he had been completing construction of a school he had been working on for the past four years.

Mike Frastacky, 56, was shot to death on Sunday in a home he was staying at in the town of Nahrin.

His sister, Luba Frastacky of Toronto, told CBC Radio on Tuesday that Canadian Foreign Affairs officials said her brother was shot three times in the head.

She said he knew it was particularly dangerous in northern Afghanistan this summer, and that there was talk of a $10,000 bounty being offered for the death of a Westerner.

I don't know that nation building is possible when we seem to be losing ground with Afghans who feel less secure now than they did when the Taliban were in power. And that you can read in the largest opinion poll conducted by Afghans in the last year.

It is safe relative to southern Afghanistan but don't tell me they have bought into the whole plan. In fact, most of Karzai's challengers are coming from there.

I don't know that nation building is possible when we seem to be losing ground with Afghans who feel less secure now than they did when the Taliban were in power. And that you can read in the largest opinion poll conducted by Afghans in the last year.

[madmax]

That's not a point, that's an observation. And it's not a correct observation. Are you aware that the entire North of Afghanistan is operating normally, embracing the infrastructure rebuilding and the new ethos? Are you aware that the Nato offensive is in the south and that's where the deaths are? Are you aware that deaths occur during offensives? Are you aware that offensives are the only way to win wars? Are you aware that from a logistics perspective 14 deaths in a week during an offensive is something to be celebrated rather than pointed at as a failure?

JDobbin has a very good grasp of Afghanistan.

"If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better?"

This is silly.

Eric Margolis is not silly.