"West won’t win Afghan war"

[gerryhatrick]

West won’t win Afghan war

By ERIC MARGOLIS

As Canadian, American and British soldiers continue to die in Afghanistan, it is time the truth be told about this ugly little war.

Much of what we’ve so far been told by our governments and media has been untrue, wishful thinking, or crass jingoism.

The respected European think tank, Senlis Council, which focuses on Afghanistan, just reported the Taliban is “taking back Afghanistan” and now controls that nation’s southern half. According to Senlis, southern Afghanistan is suffering “a humanitarian crisis of starvation and poverty.

“U.S. policies in Afghanistan have re-created the safe haven for terrorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy,” Senlis found.

Claims that withdrawing Western garrisons from Afghanistan or Iraq will leave a void certain to be filled by extremists are nonsense. Half of Afghanistan and a third of Iraq are already largely controlled by anti-Western resistance forces.

Were it not for omnipotent U.S. airpower, American and NATO forces would be quickly driven from the area.

http://torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Mar...17/1852269.html

Powerful stuff. He provides a lot of detail about the current struggle, and if what he says is true it does not bode well for anyone. If he's correct it appears the Afghan war has become political in the same way Iraq has, leading military and civilian leaders to BS the Western public about the unpleasent realities (i.e. like how the Bushies constantly claim the enemy in Iraq is only terrorists, when in reality that's a small minority of the enemy there)

[killjoy]

There is not a single place in that article that demonstrates a 'lie' or any aptitude for history, or any reason at all why the author should know what they're talking about. In fact his whole fantasy about Russian influence is completely off target and laughable.

The 'lie' comes from journalists who do their stories from hotel rooms, or worse yet, at two in the morning drunk in some bar in Toronto as this author did.

.

[jdobbin]

There is not a single place in that article that demonstrates a 'lie' or any aptitude for history, or any reason at all why the author should know what they're talking about. In fact his whole fantasy about Russian influence is completely off target and laughable.

You've seen evidence that there isn't influence on the northern borders?

The Pentagon just this week expressed concern that the Pakistani and now the Iranian border were a threat to stability in Afghanistan.

Why not the northern border as well?

[killjoy]

Let's not get into what I've seen since you wouldn't believe it.

Concerns about the Pakistani border is well known and I've written extensively on the Pakistan influence in Afghanistan. The fact that the author ignores that and brings up Russia only accentuates my contention that this author doesn't know what he's talking about, imo.

Who did he interview?

Where was he when he wrote this?

What was his last piece?

That article amounts to an opinion with no greater authority than any poster here....except of course, lets not forget that the medium IS the message, so that he has zero understanding here means nothing since few question what's in print anymore. I mean it's the Toronto freakin' Sun here. Was this on the page before or after the one on alien abductions?

Here's a list of his "articles"- http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/

Every single one of them is the same theme: "Harper = Bush"

These are the same people who perpetuate the myth that the CIA created Osama, that the USA supported the Taliban and that the Taliban are "against" opium production.

.

[jdobbin]

Let's not get into what I've seen since you wouldn't believe it.

I was referring to any articles that support or refute the claim that there are problems on the northern border.

I have only recently begun hearing about problems on the Iranian border but I don't know how accurate those reports are yet. The only way to tell might be to see problems in Farah province and then track it back to Iran.

[killjoy]

I have only recently begun hearing about problems on the Iranian border but I don't know how accurate those reports are yet.

Much more believable, if you don't mind me saying, mostly because there is a track record there as well as the obvious schism between the US and Iran. Russia's "ambitions" at the moment have to do with subduing any reason to try and maneuver with it's brittle paid-with-nylons-and-vodka armed forces and everything to do with making money any way they can.

Ramadan is in two weeks. We'll see what happens.

.

[August1991]

The journalist seems to have summarized the report of a European think tank. You can read the original here.

Aside from the report's opinion, that strikes me as shoddy journalism.

[jdobbin]

Much more believable, if you don't mind me saying, mostly because there is a track record there as well as the obvious schism between the US and Iran. Russia's "ambitions" at the moment have to do with subduing any reason to try and maneuver with it's brittle paid-with-nylons-and-vodka armed forces and everything to do with making money any way they can.

Ramadan is in two weeks. We'll see what happens.

The cover story on Time this week is the possibility of war with Iran.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/...n.tm/index.html

[August1991]

The Guardian's summary of the report contains this quote:

""By focusing aid funds away from development and poverty relief, failed counter-narcotics policies have hijacked the international community's nation-building efforts and undermined Afghanistan's democratically elected government. Poppy cultivation is a food survival strategy for millions of Afghans, and the United States' and the United Kingdom's poppy eradication policies are fuelling violence and insecurity."

It is poppy cultivation and the opium trade that are the problem, and I wonder whether this think tank is trying to get attention by suggesting military failure.

Western governments should consider buying and destroying the opium or finding some legal outlet for it.

[jdobbin]

It is poppy cultivation and the opium trade that are the problem, and I wonder whether this think tank is trying to get attention by suggesting military failure.

Western governments should consider buying and destroying the opium or finding some legal outlet for it.

I think some people suggested that last year the U.S. left poppy fields alone to get a temporary peace with locals while they went after Taliban. The problem is that the Taliban have used the revenue from those poppy fields to continue their fight.

I wonder how much it would cost to buy out locals when by the very nature of taking that much opium off the market will raise its price?

[gerryhatrick]

There is not a single place in that article that demonstrates a 'lie' or any aptitude for history, or any reason at all why the author should know what they're talking about.

Well as I said, "if he's correct". I tend to believe him, because his main points are very believable.

In fact his whole fantasy about Russian influence is completely off target and laughable.

There's not a single place in your post that demonstrates that.

In either case, the portion about Russian influence in the North is the least interesting of the story. The idea that clans of Pashtuns tribal warriors and nationalist resistance forces under Jalalladin Hakkani and former prime minister Gulbadin Hekmatyar are part of the battle now is disturbing.

And btw, the guy is referencing the Senlis Council as being a source for his information, although exactly which portions isn't clear.

[gerryhatrick]

The journalist seems to have summarized the report of a European think tank. You can read the original here.

Aside from the report's opinion, that strikes me as shoddy journalism.

After looking at the credentials of this think tank I would say it's pretty good journalism. This particular think tank has 4 field offices operating in Afghanistan at the moment. They are well situated to give us a non-partisan view of the situation.

Here's the about page on the Senlis Council: http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/about_us

[killjoy]

There's not a single place in your post that demonstrates that.

Doesn't matter. Not a single thing in the article demonstrates anything beyond "The medium is the message"

Why do you not scrutinize the article even a fraction of the degree you would scrutinize my reply? Because it says something you like, that's why. European think tank or not (you didnt know until later aparently).

Again I ask you, what you should've asked yourself:

Who has this guy interviewed?

Where is he?

On what basis does he come to these conclusions?

There are no answers to that at all in his article. Just an opinion apparently pulled out of thin air. Well after all it is "The Sun" , lol.

I notice the think-tank article is much more level-headed in terms of "predictions", and Russian influence is one of it's least endorsed hypothosis. I also notice it gives reasons for its' predictions, such as Pakistan working hard on the border leading to increased Taliban in Afghanistan, i.e. they were pushed back there after running out in 2001/2. This is at least a whole picture, the news papers instead just get hyperbolistic and paint it like the hills are swarming with mounted Taliban streaming over the hills like the Mongols of Ol'. Hilarious. You're much better off with the Think Tank version, even though it's more reading.

.

[gerryhatrick]

There's not a single place in your post that demonstrates that.

Doesn't matter. Not a single thing in the article demonstrates anything beyond The medium is the message"

Why do you not scrutinize the article even a fraction of the degree you would scrutinize my reply? Because it says something you like, that's why.

I like the fact that Afghanistan is rising up against Canadian soldiers? Fu#k you, you're a piece of sh#t.

And not once but TWICE you've been told that the story has been based on a report from the Senlis Council, which has 4 field offices in Afghanistan. Yet you still continue to ask what the basis of the story is. It's even in the bloody story.

[killjoy]

Wow. Emotional aren't we?

Screw you right back kid, I AM one of those soldiers. You call anyone who disagrees with you a piece of sh#t? And then you probably spend the rest of your time here prancing around claiming, "peace and dialog are the only way", lol!

Re-read my post brat.

That the "story" is based on the think tank doesn't change that it isn't necessarily a representation of said think tank. As I said, you're better off with the Senlis Council because at least they give you the whole picture not simply the perpetual–pessimism machine version the media makes it's money giving you.

.

[watching&waiting]

There's not a single place in your post that demonstrates that.

Doesn't matter. Not a single thing in the article demonstrates anything beyond The medium is the message"

Why do you not scrutinize the article even a fraction of the degree you would scrutinize my reply? Because it says something you like, that's why.

I like the fact that Afghanistan is rising up against Canadian soldiers? Fu#k you, you're a piece of sh#t.

And not once but TWICE you've been told that the story has been based on a report from the Senlis Council, which has 4 field offices in Afghanistan. Yet you still continue to ask what the basis of the story is. It's even in the bloody story.

You are going to get yourself banned here with that attitude. But Just because on group said one thing and then all the others have said the opposite, why is it that you can only see the one that fits your view. General R Hillier was one Question Period today and he said not only can it be won, that we are already winning and seeing the effects of it. He also said the troops are in favour of the action even more so now that they are deployed as battlefront soldiers, because they can see and believe in the cause. So why is it one statement in your mind makes all the rest wrong?

Also this is a UN and NATO mission and they again say it is being won. Maybe not as fast as they would like but yes it is being run. You really need to start to listen to the many people out there who have said the opposite of the position you hold and you are at most the one of the few.

[jdobbin]

You are going to get yourself banned here with that attitude. But Just because on group said one thing and then all the others have said the opposite, why is it that you can only see the one that fits your view. General R Hillier was one Question Period today and he said not only can it be won, that we are already winning and seeing the effects of it. He also said the troops are in favour of the action even more so now that they are deployed as battlefront soldiers, because they can see and believe in the cause. So why is it one statement in your mind makes all the rest wrong?

Was he asked to comment on O'Connor's remarks several days ago about not actually beating the Taliban because of Pakistan?

[gerryhatrick]

You are going to get yourself banned here with that attitude.

Thanks for the warning, but I'll gladly take the ban in this case.

But Just because on group said one thing and then all the others have said the opposite, why is it that you can only see the one that fits your view.

How does it "fit my view"? You're skating on the same thin ice that last poster was.

This is a think tank with 4 offices inside Afghanistan that is making Afghanistan the focus of it's efforts. I presented it as that. Don't be making up false implications about me, thx.

General R Hillier was one Question Period today and he said not only can it be won, that we are already winning and seeing the effects of it. He also said the troops are in favour of the action even more so now that they are deployed as battlefront soldiers, because they can see and believe in the cause. So why is it one statement in your mind makes all the rest wrong?

It should be obvious to an objective person.....General Hillier will always paint as rosey a picture as he can regardless of the negatives. If he did otherwise he would be accused of emboldening the enemy, no? If what this think tank is reporting is accurate and Hillier acknowledged it that would create shock waves throughout the media and the enemy would have a confirmed indication of how successful they are being and re-double their efforts.

You really need to start to listen to the many people out there who have said the opposite of the position you hold and you are at most the one of the few.

You just broke through the ice. You are saying I want NATO (and by extension, Canada) to be defeated in Afghanistan, so you get a F#CK YOU to.

Is this the rightwing tactic now, accuse messengers of hoping for a defeat in Afghanistan?

[Argus]

West won’t win Afghan war

By ERIC MARGOLIS

There is nothing more you need to read. Margolis is an Arabist who has written nothing, over the last five years, but a continuing stream of stories about how stupid, incompetent and hopeless every single western program, project, policy or miltary effort is anywhere in the Muslim world. He speaks glowingly of ancient Arab and Muslim culture, and contemptuously about all western governments, particularly the US and the UK. He makes excuses for Arab/Muslim violence and bigotry, and like an eager boy, speaks in awe of their magnificent and ferocious fighting ability and pride (even though they've been getting their asses kicked by everyone under the sun for at least a century).

As for the "Senlis Council" they appear to be a group which lobbies for changes in global drug laws. This is where they are coming from. You'll find other reports of theirs recommending ways to change drug policy with regard to opium in Afghanistan, for example. I would be astonished, therefore, if they did not say that the present efforts at eradicating poppies was a miserable failure.

[killjoy]

Is this the rightwing tactic now, accuse messengers of hoping for a defeat in Afghanistan?

Delusional? Drunk?

Whatever the "rightwing" tactic is I'll bet it beats your tactic of discombobulating into an emotional and hysterical mess.

.

[gerryhatrick]

As for the "Senlis Council" they appear to be a group which lobbies for changes in global drug laws. This is where they are coming from. You'll find other reports of theirs recommending ways to change drug policy with regard to opium in Afghanistan, for example. I would be astonished, therefore, if they did not say that the present efforts at eradicating poppies was a miserable failure.

The disturbing portion of this report has nothing to do with eradicating poppies. The disturbing portion is the claim that the enemy has extended far beyond just the Taliban to include clans of Pashtuns tribal warriors and nationalist resistance forces.

[gerryhatrick]

You call anyone who disagrees with you a piece of sh#t?

You got what you got because you accused me of wishing for our defeat in Afghanistan.

Pretty clearly an appropriate and well-deserved response.

[Argus]

As for the "Senlis Council" they appear to be a group which lobbies for changes in global drug laws. This is where they are coming from. You'll find other reports of theirs recommending ways to change drug policy with regard to opium in Afghanistan, for example. I would be astonished, therefore, if they did not say that the present efforts at eradicating poppies was a miserable failure.

The disturbing portion of this report has nothing to do with eradicating poppies. The disturbing portion is the claim that the enemy has extended far beyond just the Taliban to include clans of Pashtuns tribal warriors and nationalist resistance forces.

The Taliban were always made up of clans of Pashtun tribal warriors and a variety of mixed warlords and chieftains. In any event, it's just one opinion. I'm curious, though. What kind of a "think tank" has "offices" in Afghanistan? Not just one, but FOUR? Who is the "Senlis Council"? They have a spiffy web site, but I've never heard of them before. I can't find anything whatever on it's head, Emmanuel Reinert except with relation to the Senlis Council and Afghanistan. I can't find much of anything on the Senlis Council either, except the same claims regarding Afghanistan repeated in a variety of news media. If they existed five years ago I can't see where. And who is funding them? They have an agenda, obviously, and must have a lot of money if they have 'four offices in Afghanistan". Where does this money come from?

I am wary of claims made by groups of unknowns pushing an agenda.

[killjoy]

You got what you got because you accused me of wishing for our defeat in Afghanistan.

What? That doesn't even make sense. You started your swearing out of frustration at my scrutinizing of your source and nothing more, now you're covering up. Instead you should grow up. I said nothing remotely close to you 'wishing for our defeat' in Afghanistan except in your imagination. You're on drugs. Get off of them. There was nothing 'well deserved' about your tantrum at all.

You need to slow down and chill out.

The story says what you like because of the threads I see you making they're all anti-harper and all anti-mission-in-Afghanistan...The article does "speak" to you, and that's why you take it as gospel even though I'm sure you'd be just as critical about any kind of "propaganda" threads I would make sourcing the "Toronto Sun".

Now you make pretense to insult when you simply don't like the obviousness of what I pointed out.

.

[gerryhatrick]

You got what you got because you accused me of wishing for our defeat in Afghanistan.

What? That doesn't even make sense. You started your swearing out of frustration at my scrutinizing of your source and nothing more, now you're covering up.

After I post this proof of what I indicated above, I'm done with you. This denial of what you so obviously did is the last straw. I don't need to waste my time with dishonest persons.

You said:

Why do you not scrutinize the article even a fraction of the degree you would scrutinize my reply? Because it says something you like, that's why.

You backpeddle all you want, it's clear to everyone that you're saying.