Why are we fighting the Taliban?

[Topaz]

I would like to debate this topic and find out if anyone really knows why. You can't say they are the bad guys either! I just went to "google" and read about this group and they are no different than most of the countries in the Middle-East as far as treating their people. Paul Martin said he sent them there to help with rebuilding, but now things have changed since our military is going along with the US and trying to get them out of the country and the US is one of the countries, that paid to put them in power! So why are we there??

[M.Dancer]

You might first want to find what the mission was when Martin sent the troops, then research the policies of the Taliban and then look at the other countries in the middle east before you ask those questions again.

I say this because you are operating under a number of false premises.

[fellowtraveller]

Aren't there 37 countries participating in the military mission in Afghanistan?

[August1991]

Canada is a member of NATO and under NATO's provisions, if one member is attacked, the other members must come to its aid.

The attacks against the US in September 2001 were planned and executed frrom Afghanistan with the knowledge of the Taliban regime. As a result, NATO responded. We invaded Afghanistan because of the Taliban's support for Al-Qaeda. The purpose is to ensure Al-Qaeda cannot arise again in Afghanistan and to send a message to any regime which thinks of harbouring such terrorists.

The US didn't stop with NATO. It also sought the support of the UN. Canada's military mission in Afghanistan is supported by UN resolutions. Some 30 countries have troops in Afghanistan.

As far as the Taliban go, they were 20 year old religious thugs who took over a lawless country. Quite apart from their attitude to people, one of their most offensive crimes was this - symbolic of their general attitude.

[fellowtraveller]

I would guess that I may be the only poster here who has seen the Bamiyan Buddhas firsthand.

[kimmy]

I would like to debate this topic and find out if anyone really knows why. You can't say they are the bad guys either! I just went to "google" and read about this group and they are no different than most of the countries in the Middle-East as far as treating their people.

Do people really have such short memories about what the Taliban were like?

Public stonings of women accused of adultery?

Beheadings in the soccer stadium?

Driving over accused homosexuals with a tank?

Girls banned from attending school?

Females unable to receive medical care?

A quick refresher for people who've forgotten what kind of assholes our troops are currently fighting:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Two gunmen on a motorbike killed the southern provincial head of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs outside her home Monday in apparent retribution for her efforts to help educate women, officials said.

Safia Ama Jan was slain outside the front gate of her Kandahar home as she was walking to her office, said Tawfiq ul-Ulhakim Parant, senior adviser to the women's ministry in Kabul.

Ama Jan was known for being an active proponent of women's rights and education in this former Taliban stronghold, a region where insurgents have turned increasingly violent in the last several months.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60925?hub=World

Our soldiers are fighting the Taliban to buy time for Afghanistan's new, less evil regime to establish the means to provide law and order in the country.

-k

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I would guess that I may be the only poster here who has seen the Bamiyan Buddhas firsthand.

WOW you're my hero fellowtraveller.... can I kiss your feet or something?

[Rue]

I personally believe our fighting soldiers truly believe they are in Afghanistan to protect Afghanis from terrorists and to help build a democractic nation.

Here is what I personally believe. I believe that the Americans and the Russians before them were and are only interested in Afghanistan because of its strategic position and the geographic role it would play in hosting a pipeline that could transport oil from the Caspean Sea to Asian markets and get oil corporations more money then simply selling the Caspean oil to European markets.

The US had oil corporations (Unicon) all ready to build major pipelines through Afghanistan before the Taliban took over and demanded the US pay a premium to build the pipeline.

I personally believe the chasing after Osama Ben Laden and fighting terrorists is a cover to justiofy invading Afghanistan to try secure it as a subservient state so the pipeline can be built and no ransom paid to Taliban to run it through the country.

I believe if the US and other countries were genuinely interested in fighting terrorism instead of using such a notion as a pretense to secure oil pipelines and strategic positoning they wouldn't be invading countries and using coventional armies as proxy governments and political police but would be sticking to using small, elite, lightening attack, commando units that would be going in and out, killing terrorists and then disappearing.

The decision to leave conventional armies on the ground and turn them into non profit development organizations or fraternal organizations is nothing more then colonialism and the exercise of using conventional armies as security guards to protect financial interests.

Canada went into Afghanistan without properly thinking it through. Afghanistan is now 50% controlled by the Taliban and within 2 years will be 100% controlled. The Taliban now consists of three components. One component are militant Muslim Talibanm fropm Afghanistan. Another component is the Pashtuns and many other tribes of people shut out of the current Afghanistan government council and who have joined Taliban. A third component is what I call mercanaries, outside Muslim radicals from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., whoa re inspired by their religious beliefs and another component-the unemployed Muslim male who can be from Afghanistan or anywhere else and is getting paid to fight.

Canada can not win this because Afghani citizens as much as they may not like Taliban or their fellow tribes, will not turn on their country men and be seen as collaborators.

The notion Canadian soldiers can walk into villages and serve tea and play cards is dangerous and naive.

We have turned our soldiers into sitting ducks in a war of attrition. All that is going to happen as the years go on is that many of them will die from suicide and terrorist attacks or isolated brief one to day day

gun fire battles. They will not and can not win th minds of Afghanis. The longer they stay, the more the resentment will build.

The fact is the current Afghani government is not democractic. It is a puppet regime consisting of drug lords who prop up the current President and are not sharing the wealth.

A civil war has begun in Afghanistan because too many tribes have been shut out of participating in the government.

Now as for the Taliban or militant Muslims, most of them are not Al Quaeda. They will form alliances with any Muslim against the US, Canada, etc., but it doesn't mean they are Al Quaeda. It means more like your enemy is our enemy today, then tomorrow once we have got rid of that enemy, we will then settle our differences.

Taliban is now really Pushtun. Pushtun are the same tribal warriors that the CIA propped to beat the Soviets. Pushtun have defeated far better and more equipped troops that our Canadians. We are talking abou the only warriors to actually beat the Ghurkas the world's toughest army.

These are mountain warriors that can subsist on little food or water and spend years in cold mountains waiting out their enemies.

So you ask me, Canada for naive reasons, has itself stuck in an oil war trying tp preserve the oil congamorates pipe-line empire.

That said I support our troops, I just do not think they should be there for the reasons and purpose we have them there.

I believe we should be part of a UN force of anti-terrorist commando strike forces hunting and killing terrorists world-wide.

I appreciate that will not happen. So I understand part of our army's fight is to prevent terrorism by fighting it overseas, but I do believe we are simply cultivating more terrorists by allowing ourselves to get bogged down in a colonial occupation. I believe the UN and not NATO should be calling any shots, and I think the solution is to get out but leave the option open to attack at any time against terrorists anywhere.

I think it is unrealistic to believe we can convince Muslims in Afghanistan to treat women as equals and allow them in schools, or to vote like we do, etc. This idea we can go to Afghanistan and teach them all to love Tim Horton's coffee and doughnuts is the same dumb colonial idiocy that we once called being missionaries and converting savages to Christianity. You can't impose democracy. It has to grow naturally from within a society. We seem to think we can just show up and impose it. Its like trying to grow a plant in a field of poppies. Well you can as long asyou are willing to take artificial means to do it. Once you let it be, the poppies will take over again because we are ignoring natural evolution and thinking we can speed up

a process that may take many more centuries.

Well you say, can we afford to wait for the Muslim world to develop to the point where it develops critical reasoning and democracy. Yes. But yes we will have to be prepared to quarantine and isolate them until they do. One way to do that is to be more prudent in how we interact with them and what kind of relationships we cultivate while we wait.

The American/British/French approach of propping up corupt regimes may require some fine tuning and more sophisticated manipulation of radical clerics and their governments. It may be instead of sending in the troops our governments should show a bit more cunning and allow the inter-net to infect the Muslim world with MacDonalds and Beyonce and Coke, and hip-hop music, and Nike and the NBA, etc., slowly.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

The media reports I am reading may not be entirely true, maybe a bit misleading and serving political agendas, but it sounds like the forces in Afghanistan are doing okay. Sure 30 Canadian soldiers are dead, but how many Taliban are reported to be killed? I read about hundreds every other week... not bad for a few pampered Canadians against these 'hardened mountain boys', eh Rue?

The latest thing I read is that Australia is recommending that more countries take combative roles rather than just defensive roles. If this happens then Canada's burden will be decreased somewhat.

I also wonder why you believe that Ghurkas are the toughest soldiers in the world? I googled them a bit, and all that I found is that the British were 'impressed' with them... thats all. I am an ex-Canadian soldier... and while I was in a position to make comments on our capabilities at one time - which still would have been incorrect as I was only a private and not privy to many different aspects of the forces, I cannot comment on any other nation's capabilities or who is tough and who isn't... I wonder where you get your information that you are capable of deciding which armed forces are capable and which aren't?

[Wilber]

We are talking abou the only warriors to actually beat the Ghurkas the world's toughest army.

The Gurkha's are not an army. They are regiments within the British and Indian armies composed of Nepalese hillmen. The only time they were an army is when they fought the British. It took the Brits two tries before they beat them. After that the British did what they always did, hired the people who gave them the toughest time to fight for them. That is why there were so many Sikhs and Gurkha's in the Indian Army, both during the Raj and after.

[kimmy]

The media reports I am reading may not be entirely true, maybe a bit misleading and serving political agendas, but it sounds like the forces in Afghanistan are doing okay. Sure 30 Canadian soldiers are dead, but how many Taliban are reported to be killed? I read about hundreds every other week... not bad for a few pampered Canadians against these 'hardened mountain boys', eh Rue?

Indeed. I thought the same when I read that as when I read Eric Margolis' articles on the situation. Rue and Margolis claim that the Taliban fighters will force Canadian soldiers out and take the entire country back...

...but the fact is, when the Taliban has engaged Canadian soldiers in combat, the Taliban has had its asses handed to it. These confrontations have been completely disasterous for the Taliban. The only successes the Taliban has achieved against Canadian soldiers have come from the suicide bombings.

Not to trivialize the casualties that have resulted from the suicide bombings, which have ensured that this mission is not painless for Canada... but do Rue and Margolis really propose that the Taliban will be able to take back the entire country with suicide bombings?

-k

[bradco]

"I believe we should be part of a UN force of anti-terrorist commando strike forces hunting and killing terrorists world-wide."

haha I like this, totally agree.....I would add that this force should also not just fight terrorists but fight regimes that harbour terrorists and fight groups that threaten the peace on behalf of democratically elected governments which represent the will of the people

We are in Afghanistan at the request of the recognized government which is allowed for under the UN Charter. If we leave, this government will be overrun by the Taliban, a group that harboured the terrorists that attacked our ally and largest trading partner. We have a duty to our ally to ensure they do not get back into power where they can repeat their actions. We also have a duty to Afghanistan to ensure these people are not in power. And yes I truly believe the vast majority of people in Afghanistan would rather have their current government than the Taliban.

"I believe if the US and other countries were genuinely interested in fighting terrorism instead of using such a notion as a pretense to secure oil pipelines and strategic positoning they wouldn't be invading countries and using coventional armies as proxy governments and political police but would be sticking to using small, elite, lightening attack, commando units that would be going in and out, killing terrorists and then disappearing."

If only getting rid of these groups was that easy. You cant go in kill a few of them with quick strikes and leave. They will come back. Invading Afghanistan may of had something to do with oil pipelines. However, the Bush Adminstration would have been there even if there was no need for a pipeline. To do otherwise would have been political suicide. They had to respond to the 9/11 attacks. I do believe that they have lost their way since then though. Iraq had nothing to do with national security and stole all the resources that should have been going to addressing real threats.

[Argus]

Here is what I personally believe. I believe that the Americans and the Russians before them were and are only interested in Afghanistan because of its strategic position and the geographic role it would play in hosting a pipeline that could transport oil from the Caspean Sea to Asian markets and get oil corporations more money then simply selling the Caspean oil to European markets.

Ah yes, conspiracy theories-R-us. This one has long been discredited, but nothing convinces people who don't want to be convinced. A pipline through Afghanistan? And how many decades will it be before such a pipline can possibly be safeguarded?

The thinking behind this conspiracy is about as silly as that behind the "We're only in Iraq for it's oil" one. Both presuppose that the natives will allow us to control their oil/land for decades to come, even though once we legitimze the governments through elections we really don't have any control over them, much less their resources. The idea Iraq will do what the US says for decades to come is as ludicrous as thinking we can run a pipline through Afghanistan - even if we wanted to - without it being blown up in a hundred different places by a wild assortment of warlords, drug terrorists and raggedy assed goat herders fighting for Allah.

I personally believe the chasing after Osama Ben Laden and fighting terrorists is a cover to justiofy invading Afghanistan to try secure it as a subservient state so the pipeline can be built and no ransom paid to Taliban to run it through the country.

Because, like, it's well worth our while to spend tens of billions of dollars to fight them rather than millions of dollars to secure the rights to build a pipeline. Never mind that by far and away the best chance of doing what you suggest is to simply support the biggest warlord, let him crush all the others, and then let him deal with everyone else so we can run your fabled pipeline.

I believe if the US and other countries were genuinely interested in fighting terrorism instead of using such a notion as a pretense to secure oil pipelines and strategic positoning they wouldn't be invading countries and using coventional armies as proxy governments and political police but would be sticking to using small, elite, lightening attack, commando units that would be going in and out, killing terrorists and then disappearing. So why wasn't that done?

Canada went into Afghanistan without properly thinking it through. Afghanistan is now 50% controlled by the Taliban and within 2 years will be 100% controlled.

Thanks, General, for that carefully thought out military assessment. I'm sure you put every bit of your long years of military training and experience into it.

Canada can not win this because Afghani citizens as much as they may not like Taliban or their fellow tribes, will not turn on their country men and be seen as collaborators.

They've been slaughtering each other for decades.

Taliban is now really Pushtun. Pushtun are the same tribal warriors that the CIA propped to beat the Soviets. Pushtun have defeated far better and more equipped troops that our Canadians. We are talking abou the only warriors to actually beat the Ghurkas the world's toughest army.

First of all, the only way the Afghans ever beat foreign armies was through throwing themselves against them with vastly superior numbers and gleefully taking massive casualties in order to kill a few infidels.

The Afghans might be ferocious fighters, but that's because of a lack of care in their own well-being. They have no tactics, no organization to speak of, and are good at little more then blowing themselves up. There's little or no evidence they have any major support within Afghanistan, and most of their recruits appear to be coming from Pakistan, while most of their suicide nuts are from Arab countries.

These are mountain warriors that can subsist on little food or water and spend years in cold mountains waiting out their enemies.

Let them have fun up there.

I believe we should be part of a UN force of anti-terrorist commando strike forces hunting and killing terrorists world-wide.

Wow. Sounds cool. Like something from a TV show or video game. So tell me, General, what does your "anti-terrorist commando strike force" do with a terrorist training camp that has ten thousand men on it? That's how many were at bin laden's camp before the invasion.

[betsy]

Much as we would like to focus on rebuilding and helping Afghanistan to a new democracy....it is impossible to achieve when Taliban insurgents are shooting teachers, bombing buildings etc..., intimidating anyone from trying to rebuild.

So of course, we've got to fight them in order to achieve what we all envision for Afghanistan.

[killjoy]

...but the fact is, when the Taliban has engaged Canadian soldiers in combat, the Taliban has had its asses handed to it.

The current KIA ratio between Canadians and Taliban is about 52-1.

I remember arguing with someone who had similar ideas: Oh the Soviets couldn’t beat them (when they had the help of the Saudis and the US and Pakistan, no), oh the Gurkas couldn't beat them - so what? they used knives and their bare teeth fer crissake, -- and finally I remember him telling me that when the winter comes the Taliban will have all the advantages just like the Soviets had over the Germans.

Some of those people have to stop dreaming myths and start visualizing reality. What would you rather be faced with a bad winter and mountains and long distances? In a 8 wheel-drive armoured high-tech heated vehicle that can see your heat signature from 3000 meters or "hear" you with audio detection from 2000 meters, with air support and UAV detection and, and, and….or, alternatively, on a horse with an AK-47?

If you answered the later choice you don't have an understanding of todays conflicts.

.

[Wilber]

I also wonder why you believe that Ghurkas are the toughest soldiers in the world? I googled them a bit, and all that I found is that the British were 'impressed' with them... thats all. I am an ex-Canadian soldier... and while I was in a position to make comments on our capabilities at one time - which still would have been incorrect as I was only a private and not privy to many different aspects of the forces, I cannot comment on any other nation's capabilities or who is tough and who isn't... I wonder where you get your information that you are capable of deciding which armed forces are capable and which aren't?

If you are interested in the Gurkhas you might enjoy a book by Byron Farwell titled The Gurkhas. They have a very interesting history and like most of his books, it's a good read.

[M.Dancer]

They are what you need if you are in a pickle

http://www.rhamar.com/images/brands/KUHNE%...s%202,650ml.jpg

[jbg]

I would like to debate this topic and find out if anyone really knows why. You can't say they are the bad guys either! I just went to "google" and read about this group and they are no different than most of the countries in the Middle-East as far as treating their people. Paul Martin said he sent them there to help with rebuilding, but now things have changed since our military is going along with the US and trying to get them out of the country and the US is one of the countries, that paid to put them in power! So why are we there??

Chretien sent them there. And there is and was a clear need for the West to depose anyone responsible for blowing up the WTC.