Canadian troops making things worse: Afghan legislator

[Yaro]

That my point...we don't have to conquer it, we aren't trying to conquer it, afghans already have it...we are there to help the afghan gov't regain control. I am aware individual pakistanis in the hinterland support the taliban....but getting them new weapons is hard. The are on the way out. 5 to 10 years max.

nope, we do have to conquer it. The fact of the matter is that the current government of Afghanistan is a collection of factions who competed with the Taliban, no better and no worse. even if we were able to stop weapons and people coming in from Pakistan (it won't be possible, ever). New weapons of the type that the Taliban forces use are actually produced in large quantities in northern Pakistan, they won't run out of those either. There are millions of religious fanatics willing to die throwing themselves against UN forces in Afghanistan, they won't run out of them. Pakistan is more then capable of carrying this conflict at current levels indefinitely.

10 to 1 would be a failure. I believe the ratio we are seeing is something in the neighbourhood of 200 to 1.

depends on how you count them I suppose. I won't debate your number since I don't know its context.

[Yaro]

Since when were we trying to conquer Afghanistan? The British fought three wars in Afghanistan and the last two were successful. They didn't conquer and colonise Afghanistan but that was never their intent. They were successful in influencing Afghan foreign policy in their favour which was their intention and is a large part of the reason we are there now. They to were fighting regimes, not the country.

The British never fought a successful campaign in Afghanistan, that would be like saying if every member of the any military left Afghanistan right now and we say we kicked the Tali bans butt is calling it a victory. Any statement is true, if you are free to define the terms. After all there are still those that that argue Vietnam was a victory.

As for the difference between the regime and the country? There isn't much of one really, like it or not were we to leave tomorrow the popular vote would go to creating a Taliban like state.

[Wilber]

Britain pretty much controlled Afghan foreign affairs from 1880 til 1919.

[killjoy]

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan. The essential reason we can't win in Afghanistan because we are making no progress and they can sustain this situation indefinitely, we cannot. They don't need to "win" all they need to do is not give up fighting, and when they are willing to suffer 10 deaths for every one they inflict well lets just said sooner or later we will give up.

No.

First off, no offense, but your rationale is based on a pair of logical fallacies:

1. 'What has never happened before can never happen'.

That is contrary to what we see from 3000 years of social development world wide. Look two countries over to India and we see a religiously divisive, overpopulated and extremely poor country that has made unbelievable strides in the last century. Amazing as that may be it is neither a Shangri-la nor did it happen overnight. That would be a day-dream - completely unrealistic.

2. 'Afghanistan has never been occupied/conquered'.

It has been. Closer to the truth, it has never been occupied by a force that wanted to stay. In fact it's not unrealistic to state that the existence of an 'Afghanistan' at all isn't being contested as we speak. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan and if it weren't for money/arms/intelligence support from the very same countries that are there now (mostly the US and her Saudi allies) the Soviets, in all likelihood, would still be there. Essentially this makes it a little moot to ask, for example, "Why do we expect we can 'do it' when the Soviets couldn't?". The answer is; (1) that's not the goal, and (2)that's not a relative comparison considering the allies Afghanistan had.

After the power vacumm of the Soviet withdrawal, they were essentially insiduiously invaded and occupied again by Taliban elements, and the INI from Pakistan, and that was essentially the situation for the next decade. There hasn't been a 'free and un-occupied' Afghanistan' since 1979.

Also;

By any modern measure NATO is not 'occupying' Afghanistan. There were more than 120000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan when they were running away. In the early days the media and others scoffed at the 'Afghan National Army'. They were only a few thousand and recruitment was awful. Now they are a force of 35,000 who fight and can coordinate with air support and modern allies; they are starting a small 'air force' of transport helicopters, and recruitment is 3000-5000/month.

The media doesn't talk about the ANA anymore.

.

[killjoy]

What she is implying is that liberation comes from within, from people overcoming social inertia and moving past the status quo of corruption and oppression. In that sense, we can perhaps empower people to liberate themselves by ousting governments like the Taliban, but unless the good people take up the reins, then they will slide back toward the bad people and our efforts will have been for naught.

Can't argue with that. Great post.

.

[Argus]

How can Afghanistan be unwinable when it has been won so many times? At present the winners are ruling the place...we have an edge, we are not fighting the afghan army or even the afghan liberation forces....we are fighting the losers of the last war. They are without international support. Without a friendly ear. All they have are caves on the border.....

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan.

Nothing that carpet bombing the Pashtun villages in the hills won't resolve.

[Yaro]

At the end of the day I have made my prediction, we will see who is right and who is wrong.

[watching&waiting]

If the NATO troops manage to drive out the Taliban and then train the Afghanistan people to have an army and police forces capable of continued ability to secure its borders from outside insurgents, then we have won. This was why we went there in the first place. Mind you at the start the biggest targets were Al queda training camps and the Taliban. For a vast percentage of the country we have got a fair grip on things and it looks like we have won the hearts and souls of the people. It takes time to train an army and it takes time to train police, but we do have the time to do both and when all is said and done the people will be who rule the country and also have the ability to secure the country as well.

[Wilber]

At the end of the day I have made my prediction, we will see who is right and who is wrong.

Predictions are easy, actions are a little more difficult.

[Yaro]

Predictions are easy, actions are a little more difficult.

That's fairly nonsensical, I am predicting the results of the current actions. Well that and pointing out the accuracy of my past predictions on this and similar matters, so yes I am one of those "I told you so" types, we all have our crosses I guess.

[gerryhatrick]

How can Afghanistan be unwinable when it has been won so many times? At present the winners are ruling the place...we have an edge, we are not fighting the afghan army or even the afghan liberation forces....we are fighting the losers of the last war. They are without international support. Without a friendly ear. All they have are caves on the border.....

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan.

Nothing that carpet bombing the Pashtun villages in the hills won't resolve.

Hey yeah, we should do that!

And when Canada is demonized in the Arab world for it, that's OK. They hated us already, right?

And when a terrorist plot is launched and thousands of Canadians killed, that would have nothing to do with the carpet bombing we conducted because terrorists wanted to hit us before that, right?

We should feel absolute freedom to conduct brutal assaults upon any area of Afghanistan or Pakistan because nothing we do can bear any responsibility for any future response. Isn't it wonderful!?!

[Argus]

How can Afghanistan be unwinable when it has been won so many times? At present the winners are ruling the place...we have an edge, we are not fighting the afghan army or even the afghan liberation forces....we are fighting the losers of the last war. They are without international support. Without a friendly ear. All they have are caves on the border.....

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan.

Nothing that carpet bombing the Pashtun villages in the hills won't resolve.

Hey yeah, we should do that!

And when Canada is demonized in the Arab world for it, that's OK. They hated us already, right?

And when a terrorist plot is launched and thousands of Canadians killed, that would have nothing to do with the carpet bombing we conducted because terrorists wanted to hit us before that, right?

We should feel absolute freedom to conduct brutal assaults upon any area of Afghanistan or Pakistan because nothing we do can bear any responsibility for any future response. Isn't it wonderful!?!

It's really very simple. We don't carpet bomb Pashtun villages. I agree that would make the Muslim world go ballistic. Instead we give the weapons and support to some Muslim warlord. It doesn't matter who. Let him slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands. The rest of the Muslim world won't even notice, then.

If we had put in place a strongman, given him money and support, and then just sat back and watched, he'd have killed a million people by now and no one would be complaining about it. He'd even be admired in the Muslim world for his strength and determination.

[gerryhatrick]

It's really very simple. We don't carpet bomb Pashtun villages. I agree that would make the Muslim world go ballistic. Instead we give the weapons and support to some Muslim warlord. It doesn't matter who. Let him slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands. The rest of the Muslim world won't even notice, then.

If we had put in place a strongman, given him money and support, and then just sat back and watched, he'd have killed a million people by now and no one would be complaining about it. He'd even be admired in the Muslim world for his strength and determination.

Oh yeah, that "Muslim world" is so stupid, huh? I mean, totally, huh?

[Wilber]

Predictions are easy, actions are a little more difficult.

That's fairly nonsensical, I am predicting the results of the current actions. Well that and pointing out the accuracy of my past predictions on this and similar matters, so yes I am one of those "I told you so" types, we all have our crosses I guess.

Not really, anyone can make a prediction, outcomes are determined by the people who act.

[BubberMiley]

Let him slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands. The rest of the Muslim world won't even notice, then.

If we had put in place a strongman, given him money and support, and then just sat back and watched, he'd have killed a million people by now and no one would be complaining about it.

And so long as millions of people continue to die, you're happy?

[killjoy]

One of the simplest solutions to Afghanistan is money, and lots of it. If people are being paid to work and getting what they need the last thing they want to do is fight. That's a near universal truth.

Further you legitimize the poppy production for morphine, like in Greece, as there is a world morphate shortage right now.

Production is every bit as important to the mission as destruction.

.

[Argus]

It's really very simple. We don't carpet bomb Pashtun villages. I agree that would make the Muslim world go ballistic. Instead we give the weapons and support to some Muslim warlord. It doesn't matter who. Let him slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands. The rest of the Muslim world won't even notice, then.

If we had put in place a strongman, given him money and support, and then just sat back and watched, he'd have killed a million people by now and no one would be complaining about it. He'd even be admired in the Muslim world for his strength and determination.

Oh yeah, that "Muslim world" is so stupid, huh? I mean, totally, huh?

Yes.

[Argus]

Let him slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands. The rest of the Muslim world won't even notice, then.

If we had put in place a strongman, given him money and support, and then just sat back and watched, he'd have killed a million people by now and no one would be complaining about it.

And so long as millions of people continue to die, you're happy?

Hardly. I'm simply being realistic. You have millions of savages - barbarians who are no more civilized, cultured or advanced than our forefathers of a thousand years ago. There does not appear to be any civilized way to treat with them, therefore, force is required to keep them in line. The best way to use force on such a herd of savages is to get them to do it to themselves. That's how the British ruled the world.

[jbg]

If we had put in place a strongman, given him money and support, and then just sat back and watched, he'd have killed a million people by now and no one would be complaining about it. He'd even be admired in the Muslim world for his strength and determination.

Not so fast. The Left, to this day, is whining about the CIA putting Shah Riza Pahlevi in in place of Mossadegh (sp) and the support of Saddam Hussein over the mullahs of Iran.

[gerryhatrick]

This Afghan legislator has been vindicated by the Senlis Council.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publi...ication/preface

[killjoy]

Vindicated by a think tank you learned about after others did the digging behind the source of a Sun article you posted. Despite not having read the think tank's findings yourself you seem to expect us to, and it doesn't stop you from claiming it vindicates this one legislaturer's comments.

.

[gerryhatrick]

This Afghan legislator has been vindicated by the Senlis Council.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publi...ication/preface

Kick. Everyone should read this report from the Senlis Council. The message might not be happy and preferable, but we owe it to our soldiers to stay aware of the realities and this is one possible reality.

Given that they have four field offices in Afghanistan they should be considered capable of informed comment on the state of the nation.

[killjoy]

Everyone should read this report from the Senlis Council.

Did you?

Didn't think so.

.

[Argus]

This Afghan legislator has been vindicated by the Senlis Council.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publi...ication/preface

Kick. Everyone should read this report from the Senlis Council.

The who? The what? Who are the Senlis Council? How many members do they have? What is their mission? Who is funding it? And with what aim?