Afghanistan

[madmax]

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.

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

Karzai doesn't have enough support of his own Pashtuns. Outside of his ethnic Background, those in the North, whom aren't the Pashtuns would be rid of Karzai in a heartbeat.

He lives a dangerous life for a person his opponents refer to as a school teacher and not a leader.

[ScottSA]

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

It wasn't 50,000, it was mostly civilian, and it was a fighting retreat from Kabul, not an advance. It was also a single battle in a series of three wars, all of which were won by the British rather handily. It's notable only because it's the only victory the Afghans had against the British in all the years fighting them.

[ScottSA]

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.

It is safe relative to anywhere in Asia, or Africa for that matter. What you seem concerned about is that it's not safe relative to Saskatoon. It never will be. You point to an IED that explodes in all the vast expanse of northern Afghanistan and intone that it's "getting worse"? A Pakistani engineer was killed? Perhaps a loud panic is in order here?

If Max is right and you do actually know something about Afghanistan, then you're being dishonest.

[jdobbin]

It wasn't 50,000, it was mostly civilian, and it was a fighting retreat from Kabul, not an advance. It was also a single battle in a series of three wars, all of which were won by the British rather handily. It's notable only because it's the only victory the Afghans had against the British in all the years fighting them.

The British had no problem taking Afghanistan. I think I pointed that out. They had a problem holding it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War

Even a second war with the Afghans didn't mean controlling them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-...43.E2.80.931880

Despite the success of the military venture, by March 1880 even the proponents of creating an Afghan buffer state were aware that defeating the Afghan tribes did not mean controlling them. Although British policymakers had briefly thought simply to dismember Afghanistan a few months earlier, they now feared they were heading for the same disasters that befell their predecessors at the time of the First Anglo-Afghan War. In 1881, following an electoral victory of the Liberal Party (UK) at home, the British had had enough, and despite a deciding victory at the Battle of Kandahar in September 1880 they pulled out. The British gained some territory and retained a little influence over Afghanistan, but in a clever stroke they placed Abdur Rahman Khan on the throne, a man of such supple loyalties that he was acceptable to the British, the Russians and the Afghan people.

So please tell me if the dominant British forces could not hold Afghanistan, how can a force even smaller do it? Moreover, how can they do it with a leader in Kabul who has no influence over the country and no military force to secure his leadership?

[jdobbin]

It is safe relative to anywhere in Asia, or Africa for that matter. What you seem concerned about is that it's not safe relative to Saskatoon. It never will be. You point to an IED that explodes in all the vast expanse of northern Afghanistan and intone that it's "getting worse"? A Pakistani engineer was killed? Perhaps a loud panic is in order here?

If Max is right and you do actually know something about Afghanistan, then you're being dishonest.

I can't recall Saskatoon placing a bounty on foreign nationals. Many of the aid workers and troops there say it is less safe this spring/summer than they have seen in four years.

[ScottSA]

So please tell me if the dominant British forces could not hold Afghanistan, how can a force even smaller do it? Moreover, how can they do it with a leader in Kabul who has no influence over the country and no military force to secure his leadership?

Easy. The British had infantry firing brown bess muskets and eventually single shot Martini Henry rifles, and they handily won every engagement anyway. You may not have noticed, but today's allied forces aren't trudging about Afghanistan forming fighting squares and holding off tribesmen in the hills, they are flying over top of them dropping bombs on them, driving circles around them dropping ordnance on them, and watching them in the dark to boot. War is no longer a numbers game, if it ever was. Your logic is not logic, it's sophism.

[jdobbin]

Easy. The British had infantry firing brown bess muskets and eventually single shot Martini Henry rifles, and they handily won every engagement anyway. You may not have noticed, but today's allied forces aren't trudging about Afghanistan forming fighting squares and holding off tribesmen in the hills, they are flying over top of them dropping bombs on them, driving circles around them dropping ordnance on them, and watching them in the dark to boot. War is no longer a numbers game, if it ever was. Your logic is not logic, it's sophism.

And the Taliban threaten civilians, burn schools in the night, lay IEDs for civilian and soldier alike and basically control the country-side every time NATO soldiers turn over custody to Afghan troops. It is quite the circle going round and round.

Superior technology is helping to keep casualties down but it doesn't stop old strategies from wearing down the population or its defenders.

[ScottSA]

Superior technology is helping to keep casualties down but it doesn't stop old strategies from wearing down the population or its defenders.

No, it doesn't stop them from wearing down spoiled Canadian civilians thousands of miles away. Afghanis and our soldiers appear to be doing very well. This reminds me of Giap (I think it was him, anyway) who admitted that NV was going to call it quits in 1968, except that anti-war sentiment in the US convinced them that they could wait it out.

[jdobbin]

No, it doesn't stop them from wearing down spoiled Canadian civilians thousands of miles away. Afghanis and our soldiers appear to be doing very well. This reminds me of Giap (I think it was him, anyway) who admitted that NV was going to call it quits in 1968, except that anti-war sentiment in the US convinced them that they could wait it out.

Nor does it keep armchair quarterbacks from risking soldier and civilian lives with repeated refrains of "stay the course."

Such thinking probably would have kept the U.S. in Vietnam even now just because there was no actual battle where the U.S. was defeated.

[ScottSA]

No, it doesn't stop them from wearing down spoiled Canadian civilians thousands of miles away. Afghanis and our soldiers appear to be doing very well. This reminds me of Giap (I think it was him, anyway) who admitted that NV was going to call it quits in 1968, except that anti-war sentiment in the US convinced them that they could wait it out.

Nor does it keep armchair quarterbacks from risking soldier and civilian lives with repeated refrains of "stay the course."

Such thinking probably would have kept the U.S. in Vietnam even now just because there was no actual battle where the U.S. was defeated.

No, it would have, according to the commander in chief of the NVA, made NV pull out of the war and curb the VC, who had been decimated in Tet anyway. Now we can't say with any degree of accuracy that the Taliban will knock it off, because they don't actually have a national backer...at least not one who will admit it...but that's all the more reason to keep the twofold pressure of social reform and military to bear. As hot wars go, this one is pretty tame.

[Jean_Poutine]

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.

I don't know, I kinda get tired of people that just sit around pissing on the efforts of the people serving over there. I mean, I can understand criticizing people that support a war for partisan reasons, and I would absolutely agree that it would be ignorant for people to treat the lives of soldiers like cannon fodder for those partisan reasons, but if the soldiers that are doing the heavy lifting over there are determined to see it through, why is is so friggin hard for someone sitting in a comfortable chair at home in Canada to respect that?

As for comparing Canada or NATO to the Soviets, I was watching a Senate Committee the other day, and I thought Romeo Dallaire made an excellent point. He talked about how an entire Soviet Division was defeated on the same ground where a much smaller Canadian force succeeded.

[jdobbin]

No, it would have, according to the commander in chief of the NVA, made NV pull out of the war and curb the VC, who had been decimated in Tet anyway. Now we can't say with any degree of accuracy that the Taliban will knock it off, because they don't actually have a national backer...at least not one who will admit it...but that's all the more reason to keep the twofold pressure of social reform and military to bear. As hot wars go, this one is pretty tame.

Given that the war continued many years after Tet, I find it pure speculation that North Vietnam would have stopped the fight if only only the U.S. remained committed.

By the way, northern Afghanistan in the news this morning:

http://voanews.com/english/2007-04-16-voa6.cfm

Officials in Afghanistan say a suicide bomber has killed nine policemen and wounded 25 others in the northern part of the country.

An Interior Ministry spokesman says Monday's attack occurred next to a police station in the city of Kunduz, where militant attacks are rare. The officers were outside doing morning exercises when the bomber struck.

Authorities initially reported 10 deaths.

Think I was telling your earlier that hostilities have been rising for the last several weeks. This is the worst incident since 2001.

[madmax]

but if the soldiers that are doing the heavy lifting over there are determined to see it through, why is is so friggin hard for someone sitting in a comfortable chair at home in Canada to respect that?

As for comparing Canada or NATO to the Soviets, I was watching a Senate Committee the other day, and I thought Romeo Dallaire made an excellent point. He talked about how an entire Soviet Division was defeated on the same ground where a much smaller Canadian force succeeded.

Excellent Points JP. That said, there is alot of partisan yacking going on. Some very misinformed.

The latest column by Eric Margolis, whom was a foreign correspondent during the USSR invasion, should not be dismissed as silly. You can comment on his work, but to state that his view is silly is unfounded. For you to bring in a comparable scenario is constructive.

BTW

Gord Oconner was on TV yesterday and he made stated that we will not be staying past 2009. This is the first time, where he didn't hedge that we stay longer. This was a reversal of what he said on April 3rd of this year.

Updated Tue. Apr. 3 2007 2:22 PM ET

Canadian Press

MONTREAL -- Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says Canada will stay in Afghanistan until the progress that's been made becomes irreversible by the extremists who still threaten the country

Whereas this is an open ended statement, when he was question yesterday about the 2009 date, he stated the government has not chosen to issue anything past 2009.

[ScottSA]

No, it would have, according to the commander in chief of the NVA, made NV pull out of the war and curb the VC, who had been decimated in Tet anyway. Now we can't say with any degree of accuracy that the Taliban will knock it off, because they don't actually have a national backer...at least not one who will admit it...but that's all the more reason to keep the twofold pressure of social reform and military to bear. As hot wars go, this one is pretty tame.

Given that the war continued many years after Tet, I find it pure speculation that North Vietnam would have stopped the fight if only only the U.S. remained committed.

You think that because you don't have the slightest idea what happened in Vietnam and I strongly suspect you don't have the slightest idea what's going on in Afghanistan. I'll leave you to read up on Vietnam and what happened after Tet and why Giap felt the way he felt and why it was onvious from the homefront after Tet that it was a matter of waiting.

As for the North, you posting little snippets of violence doesn't change the fact that the north is as peaceful as anywhere else in Asia. Is Indonesia a lost cause because there is a beheading or three a week? Should the government go into exile and leave the country to the tender minstrations of Islam? If you have some deepseated conviction that we ought not be there then say what it is, but don't dishonestly try to claim we're "losing", and to paint a scenario of catastrophe. I absolutely dispise this backdoor tactic of so many on the left.

[ScottSA]

The latest column by Eric Margolis, whom was a foreign correspondent during the USSR invasion, should not be dismissed as silly. You can comment on his work, but to state that his view is silly is unfounded. For you to bring in a comparable scenario is constructive.

I said it's silly. It's silly. It's silly to make ridiculous comparisons between the soviet invasion and the allied invasion. Different tactics, different arms, different allies, different everything. It's as silly as the usual Vietnam comparisons and almost as silly as the imperial Britain comparisons.

[White Doors]

Eric Margolis IS silly madmax. You just mentioned 'partisan reasons' for god's sake. This guys is a hack.

He once excused the chechen terrorists for slaughtering those children in School in Russia because the terrorists were 'poor'.

Still think Mr. Margolis is not a hack? You should do more research on people you decide to defend.

[madmax]

Eric Margolis IS silly madmax.

Eric Margolis is a solid journalist (OP_ED, Columist, Broadcaster etc). You want to write your version of events in Afghanistan.

edited for White Doors

[White Doors]

Eric Margolis IS silly madmax.

Eric Margolis is a solid journalist. You want to write your version of events in Afghanistan.

He is not a solid journalist. He is now an OP-ED writer. That is not journalism.

[madmax]

He is not a solid journalist. He is now an OP-ED writer. That is not journalism.

From Wiki

Eric Margolis is an American journalist. He is a contributing editor to the Toronto Sun chain of newspapers, writing mainly about the Middle East, South Asia and Islam, and appears frequently on Canadian television broadcasts, as well as on CNN.

[edit] Background

Margolis was born in New York City in the 1940s to Henry M. Margolis, a New York businessman, restaurant owner, theatrical producer and investor, and Nexhmie Zaimi, his Albanian born mother who was a journalist and author. He holds degrees from the International School of Geneva, the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, the University of Geneva and New York University. During the Vietnam War he served as a US Army infantryman.

[edit] Journalism

In addition to being a contributing editor at the Toronto Sun newspaper, Margolis writes for Dawn, Pakistan's leading newspaper, the Gulf Times in Qatar, the Khaleej Times in Dubai, and The American Conservative. He appears regularly on such television outlets as CNN, Fox, CBC, Britain's British Sky Broadcasting News, NPR, and CTV National. He was a regular guest on the TVOntario shows Studio 2 and Diplomatic Immunity. During the 1990s he ran an e-mail-based Internet newsletter entitled Foreign Correspondent.

He is affiliated with several organizations including International Institute of Strategic Studies in London and the Institute of Regional Studies based in Islamabad, Pakistan.

[edit] Political views

Margolis identifies his politics as "Eisenhower Republican". Though his domestic political persuasion is moderately conservative (he is a staunch anti-communist and a supporter of capitalism), Margolis' views on the Middle East are sharply at odds with the neoconservatives.

Margolis is best known from his coverage of Palestine and Kashmir. Margolis' mother, Nexhmie Zaimi, was also a journalist who spent a long time in the Middle East documenting the plight of the Palestinians during the 1950s[1]. Her influence, plus Margolis's role as a foreign correspondent in the Mideast and travelling with the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War, has given Margolis a strong interest in the Muslim World. He strongly supported NATO's intervention in the Kosovo war and also supports the rebels in Chechnya.

Write your version of events in Afghanistan.

Here>>

[Figleaf]

The British had infantry firing brown bess muskets and eventually single shot Martini Henry rifles, and they handily won every engagement anyway.

So, tell us... how many British went in and how many came back out?

...today's allied forces ... are flying over top of ['tribesmen"] dropping bombs on them, driving circles around them dropping ordnance on them, and watching them in the dark to boot.

You make it sound like an atrocity.

[jdobbin]

You think that because you don't have the slightest idea what happened in Vietnam and I strongly suspect you don't have the slightest idea what's going on in Afghanistan. I'll leave you to read up on Vietnam and what happened after Tet and why Giap felt the way he felt and why it was onvious from the homefront after Tet that it was a matter of waiting.

As for the North, you posting little snippets of violence doesn't change the fact that the north is as peaceful as anywhere else in Asia. Is Indonesia a lost cause because there is a beheading or three a week? Should the government go into exile and leave the country to the tender minstrations of Islam? If you have some deepseated conviction that we ought not be there then say what it is, but don't dishonestly try to claim we're "losing", and to paint a scenario of catastrophe. I absolutely dispise this backdoor tactic of so many on the left.

It is always leaves me a little surprised when right wingers indicate how they would have won the Vietnam war. Somehow, it usually involves years more in that country in the belief that resistance would finally break.

Don't forget it was a Republican president who campaigned on a an exit strategy.

I don't think I ever mentioned losing. I said this fight will go on because the underlying problems are just not going away. This is something the right wing just doesn't seem to get.

[jdobbin]

Much of the debate today in the Commons has been about how long the mission will be in Afghanistan.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070416/...han_cda_commons

"We on this side of the House have a duty to demand clarity and accountability from the government and the defence minister has demonstrated a very poor grasp of his responsibilities," he said.

Ignatieff pointed to remarks by O'Connor last week, who in commenting on the deaths of soldiers said: "I've got my fingers crossed it won't happen again."

The soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bomb attacks in western Kandahar province.

"Canada deserves more than a defence minister who crosses his fingers and hopes for the best," said Ignatieff.

[Argus]

Much of the debate today in the Commons has been about how long the mission will be in Afghanistan.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070416/...han_cda_commons

"We on this side of the House have a duty to demand clarity and accountability from the government and the defence minister has demonstrated a very poor grasp of his responsibilities," he said.

Ignatieff pointed to remarks by O'Connor last week, who in commenting on the deaths of soldiers said: "I've got my fingers crossed it won't happen again."

The soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bomb attacks in western Kandahar province.

"Canada deserves more than a defence minister who crosses his fingers and hopes for the best," said Ignatieff.

Yeah, didn't take him long to start trying to capitalize on the deaths. Ignatieff might be a political illiterate with no no ideas, but he's got the morals of a weasel, so that should see him in good with the Liberal types.

Canada deserves better than Ignatieff, that's for sure. Thankfully, it's got it.

[Who's Doing What?]

Canada deserves better than Ignatieff, that's for sure. Thankfully, it's got it.

WHERE???????

[ScottSA]

It is always leaves me a little surprised when right wingers indicate how they would have won the Vietnam war. Somehow, it usually involves years more in that country in the belief that resistance would finally break.

No, I cited General Giap, the highest ranking General in the NVA as the one who said it.

I don't think I ever mentioned losing. I said this fight will go on because the underlying problems are just not going away. This is something the right wing just doesn't seem to get.

Underlying problems have a habit of going away when they have their weapons taken away from them or when the cost of being an underlying problem is higher than the benefits of not being an underlying problem. This is something the left never seems to get. This and the perpetual misidentification of the problems...