Afghan mission "doomed to fail"

geoffrey · January 19, 2007

But Afghans can take care of their own country, and this can be done easily, as soon as Pakistan stops allowing Madrassas from creating an endless supply of Jihadists to crossing the border to kill Canadian Soldiers.

I've never understood why Canada hasn't been more vocal against Pakistan's assistance of the terrorists. What interests do we have there? I can't think of any reasonable possibilities.

weaponeer · January 19, 2007

One thing we all need to understand here is hat NATO/Canadian commanders are not dumb. They know where the talibs are!!!

They will know when they begin to move to cross Afghan-Paki bordern. I would bet a years salary that western Spec Ops folks are in P-stan, watching, perhaps even in-beded with the talib units!! Just a guess. All the possible mountain passes are know, marked and most likely have their very own Preditor drone partolling at all times. A-stan is not Vietnam, no jungle, they will see talib units coming & handle it.

Last week 150 talibs were killed tring to cross into A-stan.....

Army Guy · January 19, 2007

Madmax:

It is now 2007. How many weeks does it take to train a military force? Afghans whom wish to defend this new found freedom, democracy and Islamic Fundamentalist religion, should be quite substansive by now. I would think a large Afghan Army should have been mobilized to defend themselves against the "hated" Taliban.

One could ask the Canadian military the same question, how long has it been that we have been trying to train an extra 5000 troops. Training an effective military force capable of operating together, in large numbers is very difficult. made in more difficult when there is no infra structure, or the pay levels are low, or there is no equipment, or what is available is of poor quality. Add to that, The fact that the whole method of insurgent warfare is entirily different than counter insurgent operations.

Poser:

Personally, when I watch propaganda clips of Canadian military training them to be military or police enforcement, I laugh and think wonder how hard of time they had; either finding those who look as inept as they look, or teaching them to look inept, for the filming.

It's not that funny at all actually, alot of this Afganis soldiers can not read or write, and they are learning how to soldier in actual combat conditions, more like learn it or die trying. as i said before they are excellant insurgent soldiers, but they are being trained for counter insurgent operations, two differnt beasts altogether. Don't let a few film clips fool you into thinking they are inept they have learned thier trade from 27 years of living it day in day out, and are quit capable of killing very effectivly..

PolyNewbie · January 19, 2007

The Taliban was destroyed within the first few weeks of the invasion. They were destroeyed because they were destroying the opium crops that the west depends on for income to conduct secret wars and coups of free governments around the world to replace them with dictatorships. The west has been doing this for 50 years and the money from opium crops has been financing it.

Aristide was a freely elected leader of Haiti. The west invaded because Haiti was free and must be put into a socialist government that sells the people out to the banks. Corrupt leaders are simply paid off and our private banks go in and finance the reconstruction after the war and put the people into debt. The country then becomes corporate controlled because it needs to finance the debt and has the slaves make our running shoes and T shirts while our corporations get rich from it all. Of course no one gets richer than the bankers because they are the ones that print the money but they also control the media which is why most people don't know about all this.

This is how the world is being subject to central banker control. The subjugation of people around the world is taking place as our governments fall further into debt to the bankers. Its doom guarenteed. Our economies must collapse at some point - our national debt is always rising and there are always fewer tax dollars to pay for public services. 28 % of your income tax goes to private bankers now and that will always increase.

See Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man by Perkins.

jdobbin · January 19, 2007

One thing we all need to understand here is hat NATO/Canadian commanders are not dumb. They know where the talibs are!!!
They will know when they begin to move to cross Afghan-Paki bordern. I would bet a years salary that western Spec Ops folks are in P-stan, watching, perhaps even in-beded with the talib units!! Just a guess. All the possible mountain passes are know, marked and most likely have their very own Preditor drone partolling at all times. A-stan is not Vietnam, no jungle, they will see talib units coming & handle it.

Last week 150 talibs were killed tring to cross into A-stan.....

Using body counts as a way of measuring victory was done in Vietnam. I think measuring victory is done by achieving security and cessation of hostilities.

As far as speculation of forces operating in Pakistan, it is just that: speculation. One thing is certain and that is almost the entire border area inside Pakistan is controlled by forces sympathetic to the Taliban. Karzai has repeatedly said that Pakistan is helping to destabilize Afghanistan and he is right.

If the situation doesn't change, we could be talking about insurgency ten years from now.

Army Guy · January 19, 2007

jdobbin:

Using body counts as a way of measuring victory was done in Vietnam. I think measuring victory is done by achieving security and cessation of hostilities.

I agree, but body counts do sell papers don't they. Canadian military does not put much stock into body counts, and most of the time uses rough est, as that is how the public judges sucess. But below is an example of achieving security.

My Webpage

As far as speculation of forces operating in Pakistan, it is just that: speculation. One thing is certain and that is almost the entire border area inside Pakistan is controlled by forces sympathetic to the Taliban. Karzai has repeatedly said that Pakistan is helping to destabilize Afghanistan and he is right.

If the situation doesn't change, we could be talking about insurgency ten years from now.

We will see come spring, The Taliban has promised to continue the fight thru the winter, but has failed to produce any real solid offensive. And with things changing in the south they may be forced to change thier tactics again.

jdobbin · January 19, 2007

I agree, but body counts do sell papers don't they. Canadian military does not put much stock into body counts, and most of the time uses rough est, as that is how the public judges sucess. But below is an example of achieving security.
We will see come spring, The Taliban has promised to continue the fight thru the winter, but has failed to produce any real solid offensive. And with things changing in the south they may be forced to change thier tactics again.

I've see that CTV report. But I have also seen a few reports about how the border continues to be a problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070116/ts_nm/afghan_dc

Two British soldiers were killed last week and a Afghan governor barely survived an assassination this week. The Taliban *are* fighting through the winter and 2006 was the worst violence since 2001. The Taliban may be losing every battle but they are still fighting and still protected in Pakistan.

For this reason, I think we might see another rough year in Afghanistan.

Army Guy · January 19, 2007

Yes we are seeing some fighting , nothing on the scale they promised. Nor do they have to win any tactical battles, they are fighting on a strategic level, one in which they are winning at this time , if they can convince Canadian citizens that the situation is hopeless, they know we will pull out our troops hence NATO will start to crumble and they will be granted thier victory, and allowed to run havoc in Afgan again.

Catchme · January 19, 2007

Because Pakistan has nuclear capabilities the US and NATO on't get firm with them, or allegedly anyway.

Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf has said that Pakistan will continue to increase its defence capabilities and stressed that Pakistan's nuclear and missile installations can withstand even a nuclear strike. He was speaking on the occasion of the 130th birth anniversary of founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
He added that Pakistan's defence was increasing in comparison to the external threat, Musharraf said," The security and safety of our nuclear and missile power is so much that if God forbid there is a nuclear attack on Pakistan, this would not be affected. Our defence power is increasing in comparison to the external threat to the country. Inshaallah, it will continue to increase."

Pakistan Nukes

Weird heh, that the USA wants to get firm with Iran, who has NO nukes and who has done nothing to the west when compared to Pakistan.

scribblet · January 19, 2007

Pakistan is not threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and is friendly towards the west, not weird at all. Iran will have nukes eventually unless someone very thoughtfully takes them out first (the nuke facilities).

jdobbin · January 19, 2007

Pakistan is not threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and is friendly towards the west, not weird at all. Iran will have nukes eventually unless someone very thoughtfully takes them out first (the nuke facilities).

The Taliban controlled territories of Pakistan do threaten Israel though.

Catchme · January 20, 2007

Here is some interesting inside information from Afghanistan that is not being managed by the military, and NO it is not a radical left site :rolleyes: but a speech from Afghan women visiting the USA.

Transcript of a speech by RAWA member Zoya at a benefit for RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan), called "Breaking the Propaganda of Silence," organized by the Afghan Women's Mission on October 7, 2006
...Now five years have passed since the start of the US "war on terror" in Afghanistan, which was trumpeted by the US media to be for "democracy" and the "liberation" of Afghan people. But today Afghanistan is still chained and burning in the fires of both the Taliban and the criminal "Northern Alliance" fundamentalists and the future of Afghanistan is in serious jeopardy.

Considering the US involvements in other countries and in the past 2 decades in our own land, most of our people know very well the hidden nature of this war. It was the US government who supported Pakistan in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germ of the Taliban emerged and supported Jahadi fundamentalist groups with billions of dollars against the Soviet Union....

Immediately after 9/11 tragedy, the international community awoke and started to talk about terrorism. The US invaded Afghanistan but it is crystal clear that US did not enter Afghanistan to liberate our people, but to punish its former hirelings and servants and a bleeding, devastated and hungry Afghanistan was bombed by the most advanced weaponry ever created in human history. The oppression of Afghan women was used as a justification to overthrow the Taliban regime. Innocent lives, many more than those who lost their lives on 9/11, were taken.

No doubt the war on terror toppled the misogynist and barbaric regime of Taliban. But it did not remove Islamic fundamentalism, which is the root cause of misery for all Afghan people; it just replaced one fundamentalist regime with another.

Five years have passed since the so-called "democratic" government of Hamid Karzai has been installed but the depth of tragedy and miseries of Afghan people still remain intact. Unlike what is being shown in the media, RAWA and other human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch paint a very different picture of Afghanistan.

The large scale of corruption and fraud in the 2005 parliamentary elections by the fundamentalists are clear indications that democracy cannot be practiced in a country infected by the germ of fundamentalist terrorists. The votes have been grabbed by the force of guns, money and authoritative power.

http://www.rawa.org/zoya_oct7-06.htm

Jean_Poutine · January 20, 2007

It's not Musharraf that should be of concern, but rather the possibility of him becoming another shah of Iran within a country that has nuclear weapons.

Also, the US has already used hellfire missiles from Predator UAVs to attack targets in Pakistan.

Who's Doing What? · January 20, 2007

Catchme, would you have the world do nothing?

Would you have the world sit back while Osama and his underlings plot more 9/11's?

Train even more jihadists in weapons and armed combat?

War is not pretty. Innocent people die. It happens. But alot more innocent people died and would have died because of Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters had the world done nothing. This is a necessary fight. It is not over or close to being over.

The woman in the article seems to feel fundamentalist islam is at the heart of the problem and I agree. Unfortunately until herself and her fellow muslim women stand up against fundamentalism in Islam nothing will change.

Really what would you be saying if NATO had gone into Afghanistan and tried to install a Christian govt?

First of all it would never have worked and would have started a civil war within days. Blaming NATO or the US because there is still an Islamic leadership of the country is foolish. Exactly who else would you have them install? Communists? Christians? Bhuddists? Athiests? :rolleyes:

It is up to the Afghani people to change the nature of their govt. now that they have the democratic means to do so. Perhaps this woman should run for office, instead of coming to the west and blaming us for all the terrible things we haven't been able to change fast enough for her.

Catchme · January 20, 2007

It is not what I think that matter,or what you think that matters or even what the alleged military of Canada says, it matters what Afghans say.

An American military presence in Afghanistan has no benefit for our people. In addition, thousands of civilians lost their lives because of radioactive and cluster bombs and "friendly fire". This fact is obviously a disgrace for those who strongly defend American military presence in Afghanistan.
- RAWA statement December 10, 2006

Canadian Blue · January 20, 2007

Why do polls constantly show the Afghan's want us to stay in the country then.

Catchme · January 20, 2007

Why do polls constantly show the Afghan's want us to stay in the country then.

As RAWA say:

The large scale of corruption and fraud

Have a look around RAWA site you may learn something.

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

Since the Northern Alliance criminals were installed into power, RAWA has been saying that it is impossible to bring peace, human rights and stability with a gang of criminals in power. Today even the western media points out the Jehadi warlords as a main problem in destabilizing Afghanistan, which proves RAWA's analysis. However, the fundamentalist Karzai government, in order to cover up its own irresponsibility, corruption and weaknesses, points at Pakistan's interference and support to the Taliban as the only main issue in Afghanistan and pretends that if this interference is stopped Afghanistan will become a heaven on earth! Karzai's government raises hue and cry on the Pakistani statement about the need of a "coalition government", but everyone knows that a coalition government with all the criminals such as Taliban, Jehadi, Gullbuddin and others is already in place....
...The biggest factor that strengthens the Taliban is the hatred and disgust that our people have against the Jehadi mafia in the system. When people have no security, when they see lawlessness and how the criminals embezzle millions of dollars from international aid, they are indifferent about the rise of the Taliban. Haji Nek Mohammad who had lost his beloved in a NATO's air strike in Kandahar said, "I prefer to join the Taliban forces because Taliban have so far killed only 2 people in my village while the coalition forces killed 63 people in a single day."

http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-06_e.htm

madmax · January 20, 2007

It's not Musharraf that should be of concern, but rather the possibility of him becoming another shah of Iran within a country that has nuclear weapons.

There are indeed similarties. Only the Shah, came to power with the aid of the CIA in overthrowing an elected government. Because of his illegitimacy, it took 25 years for islamic radicals to get rid of the Shah. This was not a great individual.

Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government he felt was corrupt. Probably true. However he didn't do it with US aid. The Military in Pakistan has always had some control of Pakistani government. Most of this control comes from the ISI and their connections to Islamic Radicals. The Democratically elected government was not composed of a high percentage of Islamic Radicals, something under 5% IIRC.

So which is greater to fear, democracy in Pakistan, or the control of a Military Ruler whom got his power from Generals and Secret Service whom support terrorist activities in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

The more he restricts his own supporters the greater the chance for rebellion. This is his BASE.

So, the Gordian Knot that he is in, if he chooses not to act against Terrorism we pay the price, or he acts against terrorism and he may pay a price.

So, are you suggesting the Pakistan give up it's nuclear arms?

madmax · January 20, 2007

The woman in the article seems to feel fundamentalist islam is at the heart of the problem and I agree. Unfortunately until herself and her fellow muslim women stand up against fundamentalism in Islam nothing will change.

Until Fellow Muslim Women Stand Up against Fundamentalism!!!!

What on earth do you think RAWA is and is Doing? These women from Afghanistan, saw their country go from secular communist with islamic elements, to full blown radical islam. They have dealt with wars that you could never comprehend, Islamic Warlords, Taliban, Barbarism of the Northern Alliance, beatings and murders behind closed doors in their own homes, Open Executions by the Taliban, to get these behind doors things out in the open so everyone sees justice, not to mention the poverty and oppression of being a women in Afghanistan. To the imposition of another war, and once again support for Islamic Fundamentalism, Religious Police, childbrides and pedophillia. While the western media tries to pretend that we have freed them.

And so when these women STAND UP AGAINST FUNDAMENTALISM, and ask the Western Media to LISTEN to their concerns,

You brush it off like they are doing nothing.

They are living it and speaking out against it, and risking their lives to do so, and would like to convey these evens so that western society knows what is going on in their country today.

madmax · January 20, 2007

Why do polls constantly show the Afghan's want us to stay in the country then.

Do you believe these polls? Do you think if these polls are accurate in their percentage, that those Afghans who have answered, are answering the question honestly. While I believe they are nothing to fear from Canadian involvement, do they really have no fear of us or our long term goals? I have no problem believing the honesty and integrity and humanitarian goodwill of our nation towards Afghans.

Are these polls done in hot spots or in regions that are anti pashtun?

Canadian Blue · January 20, 2007

So are these women asking that all NATO forces leave so their country can go back to what it was like before 2001.

madmax · January 20, 2007

So are these women asking that all NATO forces leave so their country can go back to what it was like before 2001.

Is that what you read?

Canadian Blue · January 20, 2007

No, I'm simply wondering what the solution is, as many on this thread want us to pullout. I also highly doubt thing's will get better for the Afghan's as RAWA states if we leave the area. Looking at different news sources it seem's to me that quite a few Afghan's want us to stay.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4989456.stm

Who's Doing What? · January 20, 2007

The woman in the article seems to feel fundamentalist islam is at the heart of the problem and I agree. Unfortunately until herself and her fellow muslim women stand up against fundamentalism in Islam nothing will change.

Until Fellow Muslim Women Stand Up against Fundamentalism!!!!

What on earth do you think RAWA is and is Doing? These women from Afghanistan, saw their country go from secular communist with islamic elements, to full blown radical islam. They have dealt with wars that you could never comprehend, Islamic Warlords, Taliban, Barbarism of the Northern Alliance, beatings and murders behind closed doors in their own homes, Open Executions by the Taliban, to get these behind doors things out in the open so everyone sees justice, not to mention the poverty and oppression of being a women in Afghanistan. To the imposition of another war, and once again support for Islamic Fundamentalism, Religious Police, childbrides and pedophillia. While the western media tries to pretend that we have freed them.

And so when these women STAND UP AGAINST FUNDAMENTALISM, and ask the Western Media to LISTEN to their concerns,

You brush it off like they are doing nothing.

They are living it and speaking out against it, and risking their lives to do so, and would like to convey these evens so that western society knows what is going on in their country today.

What the hell are they doing here, when they should be back home rallying support?

A small minority of women standing up will do nothing.

They need a large majority if they have any hope at all of effecting change. So ya, coming over here and telling us how bad of a job we're doing is BS, because what else would she have us do?

Go home and get your movement growing.

Don't come over here and tell us that despite teh fact some of our best and brightest are dying over there trying to help her and her cause, that we are doing it all wrong. Apparently we just aren't good enough for her and her followers. For that she is easily dismissed.

Jean_Poutine · January 20, 2007

There are indeed similarties. Only the Shah, came to power with the aid of the CIA in overthrowing an elected government. Because of his illegitimacy, it took 25 years for islamic radicals to get rid of the Shah. This was not a great individual.
Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government he felt was corrupt. Probably true. However he didn't do it with US aid. The Military in Pakistan has always had some control of Pakistani government. Most of this control comes from the ISI and their connections to Islamic Radicals. The Democratically elected government was not composed of a high percentage of Islamic Radicals, something under 5% IIRC.

So which is greater to fear, democracy in Pakistan, or the control of a Military Ruler whom got his power from Generals and Secret Service whom support terrorist activities in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

The more he restricts his own supporters the greater the chance for rebellion. This is his BASE.

So, the Gordian Knot that he is in, if he chooses not to act against Terrorism we pay the price, or he acts against terrorism and he may pay a price.

So, are you suggesting the Pakistan give up it's nuclear arms?

It's the fall of the shah, not his rise to power, that I was referring to. The US saw him as an ally, but western influence was a key part of his downfall. If the same were to happen to Musharraf with nuclear weapons in the mix, problems with the border would seem minor. Therefore, while I do think it's important to pressure Pakistan, it's a balancing act.

It would be great if Pakistan would give up nuclear weapons, but that's not going to happen.

I think the best way to deal with the Pakistan problem includes three things:

1) Increase security on the Afghan side of the border. Canada and the US get along great, but each country still has its own border security. Therefore, why expect Pakistan to do it all when clearly more can be done on the Afghan side?

2) Use special ops and UAVs to go after problem makers in the Pakistan provinces that the Pakistani government doesn't control. I'm not sure about special ops, but I know that UAVs have already been used in Pakistan.

3) Cracking down on the border will not make problems within Pakistan go away. Therefore, the US should make it clear, and they probably have privately, that if there is another attack and it can be traced back to Pakistan, attention will be focused on Pakistan, and it won't be the kind of attention that Pakistan wants. In other words, make it clear that it's in their own interest to get a handle on the problems in their country as a matter of self-preservation.