Afghan mission "doomed to fail"

[normanchateau]

I will agree with you that Afgan is a based upon Tribalism, and it does come before nationalism...I think Afgan loyalities are divided to first family, then to tribe or clan, then to Afgan then to religion has there fall back postion.

You must have some very powerful evidence to prove unequivocally that religion is in fourth place in importance in loyalties in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Last year when Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for converting to Christianity, it was his family that denounced him and first brought his conversion to the attention of the government.

Source:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095263,00.html

Although an international outcry to the Karzai government resulted in Rahman being exiled from Afghanistan, it remains a shameful tragedy, in my opinion, that Canadians are dying to prop up a country with an Islamic constitution and a corrupt government.

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, that's exactly why we have to stay so thing's like that do not happen, and we can help Afghanistan become more "modern" or at the very least be able to defend themselves from the Taliban.

[Catchme]

I will agree with you that Afgan is a based upon Tribalism, and it does come before nationalism...I think Afgan loyalities are divided to first family, then to tribe or clan, then to Afgan then to religion has there fall back postion.

You must have some very powerful evidence to prove unequivocally that religion is in fourth place in importance in loyalties in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Last year when Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for converting to Christianity, it was his family that denounced him and first brought his conversion to the attention of the government.

Source:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095263,00.html

Although an international outcry to the Karzai government resulted in Rahman being exiled from Afghanistan, it remains a shameful tragedy, in my opinion, that Canadians are dying to prop up a country with an Islamic constitution and a corrupt government.

Of course there is no powerful evidence they have not provided ANY at any time, but yet say they have over and over, one needs only go back through all the pages to see they provided NOT 1 shread of any type of evidence. They even tried say, ad naseum, it was Harper who bought the new equipment they use when indeed it was Martin. To deny Canada's last 50 years as being primarily peacekeeping, boogles the mind, they do so even after government links were provided that noted otherwise.

Here is another government link that says otherwise, it seems they never read a link because it would prove their current belief structure was wrong.

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/military/025002-1011-e.html

Not only are we propping up a corrupt government we are propping up a government that has allowed the fundamentalist religious people to control society yet again which is contrary to what they say they are there doing.

It is shameful that our military is doing such things a propping up a corrupt government and enforcing its ideals upon the people in Afghanistan. But I am reminded of a few words that a Marine Vet said to us, when we were upset about the extremely high rates of horrendous injuries impacting the front line soldiers.

Save your tears for the millions of Iraqis that don't have a the benefit of prompt medical response or ongoing care like the Americans do.

If some American kid, even a disadvantaged one, decides he's going to pack up his life and go to a foreign country and turn hundreds of strangers into corpses and cripples, he deserves whatever fate has in store for him.

So does the family that allowed him to sign up, the community that encouraged him, and the nation that glorifies him. They can all shoulder the resulting burden - It is yet a fraction of what has been dealt to others.

Americans don't understand humanity, but they do understand cost. I hope it is served up in heaping helpings until America finally loses its taste for exporting misery.

-legless marine-

[Canadian Blue]

Of course there is no powerful evidence they have not provided ANY at any time, but yet say they have over and over, one needs only go back through all the pages to see they provided NOT 1 shread of any type of evidence. They even tried say, ad naseum, it was Harper who bought the new equipment they use when indeed it was Martin. To deny Canada's last 50 years as being primarily peacekeeping, boogles the mind, they do so even after government links were provided that noted otherwise.

To believe that we were primarily peacekeepers boggles my mind, especially from somebody who CLAIM'S to have been a member.

Here is another government link that says otherwise, it seems they never read a link because it would prove their current belief structure was wrong.

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/military/025002-1011-e.html

I read the link. It show's all of the war's we have fought in and make no mention of Canada's role being primarily peacekeeping.

Not only are we propping up a corrupt government we are propping up a government that has allowed the fundamentalist religious people to control society yet again which is contrary to what they say they are there doing.

Karzai is a moderate politician, and poll's have shown a majority of Afghan's want us there.

It is shameful that our military is doing such things a propping up a corrupt government and enforcing its ideals upon the people in Afghanistan. But I am reminded of a few words that a Marine Vet said to us, when we were upset about the extremely high rates of horrendous injuries impacting the front line soldiers.

What's even more shameful is leaving the country before the government can defend against the Taliban, and leave the general population to the wolves.

Save your tears for the millions of Iraqis that don't have a the benefit of prompt medical response or ongoing care like the Americans do.

If some American kid, even a disadvantaged one, decides he's going to pack up his life and go to a foreign country and turn hundreds of strangers into corpses and cripples, he deserves whatever fate has in store for him.

So does the family that allowed him to sign up, the community that encouraged him, and the nation that glorifies him. They can all shoulder the resulting burden - It is yet a fraction of what has been dealt to others.

Americans don't understand humanity, but they do understand cost. I hope it is served up in heaping helpings until America finally loses its taste for exporting misery.

Give a link to that quote. As well that was about Iraq, not Afghanistan.

We don't turn hundred's of civilian's into corpses, and no we do not get motivated by Hitler.

BTW, how is your campaign of hatred against the Canadian Forces going?

[normanchateau]

Not only are we propping up a corrupt government we are propping up a government that has allowed the fundamentalist religious people to control society yet again which is contrary to what they say they are there doing.

Even the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan now states that no laws can be contrary to the laws of Islam. In other words, Islam trumps any human rights legislation. The government is a corrupt, Islamic sham and it's a mystery why Harper's party and a handful of Ignatieff-like Liberals would want to extend the ridiculous mission. Then again, both Ignatieff and Harper thought Canada should invade Iraq which says something about their mutual cognitive abilities.

[Catchme]

It boggles the mind that in the face of all the evidence presented showing we were primarily peacekeepers, for the last 50 years is still being denied! Though one has to note the denial does not come with links proving their denial, just empty commentary and verbal put downs of posters.

Says much perhaps of just what our military is today, or who it is controlled by, eh? However, I am not sure those who say they are in the military actually are, it seems to me they are more along the lines of Harper propagandists trying to build war support. Even to the point of saying it was Harper who bought the new equipment, when indeed it was the Liberals.

Some more links denoting our primary role as peacekeepers, and any link that shows what missions we have been on also notes they were primarily peacekeeping.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=280

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=150

Peacekeeping has traditionally been a primarily military activity but Canadian involvement in international peace support operations has expanded in ...

http://www.international.gc.ca/peacekeeping/menu-en.asp

Canada and Peace Support Operations

Peacekeeping is an important aspect of Canada's national heritage and a reflection of our fundamental beliefs. It is a dynamic concept that responds to changes in the international environment in order to continue to develop security for people affected by war. Canada builds on our established peacekeeping tradition to make strong and imaginative contributions to international peace and security.

Peacekeeping is also a significant component of Canada's foreign policy and our contribution to the multilateral security system. Fifty years of experience in peacekeeping and participation in an overwhelming majority of peacekeeping missions mandated by the United Nations Security Council has established an international reputation for Canada...

Peacekeeping has traditionally been a primarily military activity but Canadian involvement in international peace support operations has expanded in response to the complex emergencies that we now face. Canadian peace support efforts include such diverse groups as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and their provincial and municipal partners, Elections Canada and Corrections Services Canada, and takes place not just through the United Nations but also through regional forums such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

More peacekeeping primary focus proof

Even more proof

Again, I ask provide proof of your assertations that until now our primary military role was NOT peace keeping about 50 links should do, as I have provided about that many, even from the Peacekeeping Veterans site.

http://www.peacekeeper.ca/pk1a.html

Now back to what is going on in Afghanistan?

Oh yes, thre is worries that USA is pulling its troops out.

A NATO person was killed, what a waste for their families.

And, and I think the activity on this board towards these ends is showing>

Now, he's talking to any Canadian who will listen about what he maintains is a vital role in Afghanistan.

In his media and lecture circuit, the main message, carefully scripted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, is that Canadian troops are turning back the Taliban and helping to rebuild a shattered and destitute country

G& M says Prime Minister's office carefully scripting Afghan propaganda

The Strategic Counsel finds that 56 per cent of people say they oppose the decision to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan. ...

Over half of Canadians oppose Afghanistan

[Canadian Blue]

Even the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan now states that no laws can be contrary to the laws of Islam. In other words, Islam trumps any human rights legislation.

Are we talking Sunni or Shia?

The government is a corrupt, Islamic sham and it's a mystery why Harper's party and a handful of Ignatieff-like Liberals would want to extend the ridiculous mission.

Why would the Martin Liberal's send us into the south if they were going to pullout a few month's later.

Then again, both Ignatieff and Harper thought Canada should invade Iraq which says something about their mutual cognitive abilities.

I think Ignatieff is extremely intelligent. However he screwed up during the leadership race, which was largely due to his own misjudgements.

Says much perhaps of just what our military is today, or who it is controlled by, eh? However, I am not sure those who say they are in the military actually are, it seems to me they are more along the lines of Harper propagandists trying to build war support. Even to the point of saying it was Harper who bought the new equipment, when indeed it was the Liberals.

Our military today is honourable, besides what have you done that's so great for your country?

Some more links denoting our primary role as peacekeepers, and any link that shows what missions we have been on also notes they were primarily peacekeeping.

They don't say the CF's primary role is peacekeeping, our primary role has always been defence. Strangely enough all of the experienced member's of the military seem to disagree with your ideas, even the ones who have worn blue berets.

Again, I ask provide proof of your assertations that until now our primary military role was NOT peace keeping about 50 links should do, as I have provided about that many, even from the Peacekeeping Veterans site.

The links prove nothing. Yes we were involved in peacekeeping, but it was never our primary role. We have always had a larger role in NATO.

Now please, stop with the lies.

Again, I ask provide proof of your assertations that until now our primary military role was NOT peace keeping about 50 links should do, as I have provided about that many, even from the Peacekeeping Veterans site.

50 Link's that show we have been involved in peacekeeping, but that have also shown that are primary role has been defence, and not peacekeeping.

[Catchme]

Not only are we propping up a corrupt government we are propping up a government that has allowed the fundamentalist religious people to control society yet again which is contrary to what they say they are there doing.

Even the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan now states that no laws can be contrary to the laws of Islam. In other words, Islam trumps any human rights legislation. The government is a corrupt, Islamic sham and it's a mystery why Harper's party and a handful of Ignatieff-like Liberals would want to extend the ridiculous mission. Then again, both Ignatieff and Harper thought Canada should invade Iraq which says something about their mutual cognitive abilities.

It is truly sad is not Norman, and the apologists out there trying to justify and parse to deflect what this means is mind boggling.

They are extending the mission as private security forces for Oil Companies, we pay they gain.

[Canadian Blue]

It is truly sad is not Norman, and the apologists out there trying to justify and parse to deflect what this means is mind boggling.

It's about as sad as somebody lying about military experience.

I've looked at both sides, and agree that we need more foriegn aid.

They are extending the mission as private security forces for Oil Companies, we pay they gain.

Strangely enough our soldiers that our serving in Afghanistan disagree with you.

As well, how is your campaign going, you know the one about how our soldier's are motivated by Hitler and nazi ideologies?

[normanchateau]

It is truly sad is not Norman, and the apologists out there trying to justify and parse to deflect what this means is mind boggling.

I'm not sure if it's sad or humorous. For example, CB deflects by asking if the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is Shia or Sunni. Well they have both Sunnis and Shias but the point remains that constitutionally Islam trumps all human rights in a country Canadians are needlessly dying for.

[Canadian Blue]

No, because as well all know with denomination's in religion, each one percieves its rules and laws differently.

Well they have both Sunnis and Shias but the point remains that constitutionally Islam trumps all human rights in a country Canadians are needlessly dying for.

Then why does the UN back Afghanistan's government?

Do you honestly believe that we can turn a theocracy into a liberal democracy overnight. As well Afghanistan is much better under Karzai than the Taliban.

Catchme, stop lying about your military experience. I don't think any former service member would make comment's like yours, unless their a complete shitpump.

Norman keep in mind that Catchme believes that all members of the military are nazi stooges, and apologists for Hitler. Because theirs a quote reference on an army website which has quotes from military general's and historical figures.

[White Doors]

She also thinks that Canadian soldiers are Nazi's and that funding should be cut to them and accused them of intentionally killing Afghan civilians.

[Jean_Poutine]

Now back to what is going on in Afghanistan?

Oh yes, thre is worries that USA is pulling its troops out.

Afghanistan was never a peacekeeping mission, and the US actually sent additional troops recently.

[madmax]

Combat also implies an exchange of fire - ie that troops are able to fight back. Combat deaths are less than half of the total.

So, I stand by what I said.

What you have done, is take and article at CANADA.COM and question the authors methodology by calling it shoddy journalism. You very much made it appear that the CBC supported your view of arranging military casualties. It does not. You have now clarified that you have taken the data at CBC and arranged it for you methodology.

You can stand by that. It is your methodology, not anyone elses.

Combat does not imply an exchange of fire. Combat has been around long before gunfire. And as far as I am concerned you are critizing an article that mentions clearly the number of Canadians killed in Afghanistan and choose to make that value less than half because you believe only casualties taken in a fair exchange is countable.

The enemy in Afghanistan, has adopted more tactics involving Suicide Attacks and IED to kill Canadian Soldiers without directly engaging in a firefight.

You can hold your opinion that we should only be counting combat death in firefights, and not IED's, strategically planted mines and Suicide bombers.

That is your choice. But because an author publishing at CANADA.COM does not, doesn't mean it is shoddy journalism.

He just wouldn't agree with you.

[Jean_Poutine]

What you have done, is take and article at CANADA.COM and question the authors methodology by calling it shoddy journalism.

Actually, if you re-read what I said, I called it shoddy journalism for leaning on one source.

You very much made it appear that the CBC supported your view of arranging military casualties. It does not. You have now clarified that you have taken the data at CBC and arranged it for you methodology.

I don't care what the CBC supports; I care about facts. All the data is available on one page at CBC, which I found quickly by simply searching for "Afghanistan" on their site. So, yes, a quick check makes that information available. I already knew about the risk on the roads through other reports, but gave that link because it lists each case in a way that you can verify, yet you ignored that and jumped to a conclusion. The information is there on that page to support what I said.

And as far as I am concerned you are critizing an article that mentions clearly the number of Canadians killed in Afghanistan and choose to make that value less than half because you believe only casualties taken in a fair exchange is countable.

I think it's clear that you're more interested in trying to win an argument than doing your homework.

Some people died in traffic accidents, but does that mean that their value is less than half? Of course not. I think I've made it clear in post after post that I respect the military and that I want to see everything done to minimize risk. Calling it all combat will do nothing to lower the risk, but may help to weaken support for the mission, and that's the intent isn't it? Obviously, if you have people shooting at you, there will always be risk. However, would IEDs and suicide attacks on roads be a risk for helicopters? It's better to understand problems and find methods for dealing with them in order to save lives in the future, and THAT is why I separated it the way I did, and I made that clear in that post.

[normanchateau]

Then why does the UN back Afghanistan's government?

The UN backs Iran's government. Iran actually voted in as President the despicable anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but I would not support Canadians dying for that regime if it were under threat from the Taliban or an equivalent extremist group.

[Canadian Blue]

Afghanistan isn't Iran, maybe if we pullout right away it will turn into Iran with the Taliban back in control.

It's vital we stay, for a number of reason's. The most important would be to prevent terrorists from setting up camp in a Afghanistan again as Bin Laden had done. The second is that if the nation isn't stabilized, it could result in civil unrest, and Afghanistan could become a bloodbath. The third is with the famine, NATO would basically be leaving people to fend for themselves, and this would damage our reputation abroad.

Their's a reason why a vast majority of our NATO partners are involved in Afghanistan.

[normanchateau]

Afghanistan isn't Iran,

Their's a reason why a vast majority of our NATO partners are involved in Afghanistan.

No, Afghanistan isn't Iran but you asked why the UN backed Afghanistan and I used Iran as evidence that the UN backs regimes which most Canadians don't support.

And you know perfectly well that the vast majority of NATO countries in Afghanistan are in the relatively stable north where their asses aren't on the line. That's token involvement in my opinion.

[madmax]

I don't care what the CBC supports; I care about facts. All the data is available on one page at CBC, which I found quickly by simply searching for "Afghanistan" on their site. So, yes, a quick check makes that information available. I already knew about the risk on the roads through other reports, but gave that link because it lists each case in a way that you can verify, yet you ignored that and jumped to a conclusion. The information is there on that page to support what I said.

It doesn't matter what the CBC supports. You should have stated that YOU had categorized the information to your needs and NOT the CBC. I didn't jump to any conclusions. You have done that after the fact, so why are your T*Ts still in a knot?

think it's clear that you're more interested in trying to win an argument than doing your homework.

Ditto. However, I think you have an ingrained perspective of supporting the status quo.

Some people died in traffic accidents, but does that mean that their value is less than half?

Why would you make a jerk statement like that?

I think I've made it clear in post after post that I respect the military and that I want to see everything done to minimize risk.

And

Calling it all combat will do nothing to lower the risk, but may help to weaken support for the mission, and that's the intent isn't it?

Ignoring how an enemy attacks you doesn't lower the risk.

Obviously, if you have people shooting at you, there will always be risk. However, would IEDs and suicide attacks on roads be a risk for helicopters?

Certainly is a concern after 5 years. Sounds like you have a great solution. Hope it works out for you. Should stabilize the country and fewer Canadian Casualties to. But even better, they do work in the mountains. Helicopters were the most effective tool of the USSR. Which is why the US gave the Islamic Fundmentalists Stinger Missiles. Luckily there doesn't appear to be any in circulation or used since the 2001 invasion.

It's better to understand problems and find methods for dealing with them in order to save lives in the future, and THAT is why I separated it the way I did, and I made that clear in that post.

It was your opinion. You are entitled to it.

[Army Guy]

Catchme:

Mien Kampf, not Kumf. Nice being apologists for Hitler's military now eh?! As for saying I am putting them all into 1 basket, most certainly. That you excuse them blows my mind.

Excuse me for my spelling, did'nt know we were being graded. How does reading an material written from that period of time make me an apologists, perhaps we should have had a book burning party at the end of the war. maybe we should have put each and every german soldier on trail, and hung them all, i mean the are all NAZI's right ?, perhaps we should do the rest of the world as well start with the Russians, the the Japense, then who's next they are all the same according to your thought process.

To set the record straight i am not an apologist for hilter or the Nazi party, i will freely admit that have read some of Hilters and the nazi party written material, i've also read, many other writtings from Granstien, to disney...if that makes me a bad man...then i guess your right i'm bad, but lets not discount other military members, historians, and many of the others that have done so as well...

And NONE of my proof has been discounted unlike yours. So please put an an example up of what contention of mine has been discounted?

All of it, below is a list of all our current and past UN ops. since by your own admission the maxuim number of Canadian soldiers that have serve on peace keeping mission to date is 125,000. An impressive number, also mentioned in the below links

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

As for the peacekeeping being our primary focus perhaps you can explain these numbers , they are our NATO Commitments to NATO operations, they have nothing to do with any peace keeping or peace keeping operations.

In Germany alone over 300,000 Canadian soldiers served in Germany alone , does not take into account any other DND member serving in any other NATO country.

Bosina and afgan have over 58,000 soldiers serve in NATO operations.

The below numbers do not include other NATO operations Such as the NAVY contributions or Airforce numbers in other NATO OPS,

My piont being we are now well over 358,000 Canadian soldiers served in NATO operations well over twice your quoted number , but how could that be if Peacekeeping is our primary focus ?

My Webpage

My Webpage

And no not many have or will agree, the Canadian military focus has not been of peacekeeping, that you have so deluded yourself says much.

I guess i find myself in good company then, with the likes Retired Gen Mackenzie, and Currently serving Gen Hiilier whom have written articles debunking your myth.

My Webpage

Was it not Gen Hillier that was quoted as say We are soldiers our job is to kill, nothing peacekeeping about that quote.

normanchateau:

You must have some very powerful evidence to prove unequivocally that religion is in fourth place in importance in loyalties in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Last year when Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for converting to Christianity, it was his family that denounced him and first brought his conversion to the attention of the government.

Source:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095263,00.html

Although an international outcry to the Karzai government resulted in Rahman being exiled from Afghanistan, it remains a shameful tragedy, in my opinion, that Canadians are dying to prop up a country with an Islamic constitution and a corrupt government.

In most cases yes, it's not only my opinion but what they are instructing as part of our overseas package, keep in mind i did not say it did not have an impact, but when dealing with indiv Afgan his family,is always first, then his tribe/clan then Afgan and finally to religion...address those concerns first and in most cases you'll have it right.

[normanchateau]

normanchateau:

You must have some very powerful evidence to prove unequivocally that religion is in fourth place in importance in loyalties in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Last year when Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for converting to Christianity, it was his family that denounced him and first brought his conversion to the attention of the government.

Source:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095263,00.html

Although an international outcry to the Karzai government resulted in Rahman being exiled from Afghanistan, it remains a shameful tragedy, in my opinion, that Canadians are dying to prop up a country with an Islamic constitution and a corrupt government.

In most cases yes, it's not only my opinion but what they are instructing as part of our overseas package, keep in mind i did not say it did not have an impact, but when dealing with indiv Afgan his family,is always first, then his tribe/clan then Afgan and finally to religion...address those concerns first and in most cases you'll have it right.

Army Guy, I'm still not convinced that religion ranks fourth in terms of loyalties in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Your evidence is:

(1) your opinion

(2) "what they are instructing as part of our overseas package".

Could it be that what they are instructing is not evidence-based but merely opinions? Over the years, I have learned that what is taught and what is written is not necessarily correct. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

When something doesn't sound intutively correct, I like to search further. I would question the view that religion ranks relatively low in importance in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as it seems to contradict the evidence, e.g., the thousands of Afghan people who participated in demonstrations and protests after the man who converted to Christianity escaped death by fleeing to Europe. Those people were clearly not happy. And if they weren't motivated by fanatical devotion to Islam, why were they protesting?

Could it be, Army Guy, that Canadian forces are consciously (or unconsciously) playing down the importance of Islam in Afghanistan in order to justify Canadians risking their lives in this dangerous mission? I wonder how much instruction Canadian forces receive in details of the Afghan constitution which states that the rules of Islam over-ride any human rights in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

[Army Guy]

normanchateau:

Those people were clearly not happy. And if they weren't motivated by fanatical devotion to Islam, why were they protesting?

I did not say it did not play a role, nor did i say a minor role, just after the 1 st 3 i mentioned. Not forgetting that Afgan is still deeply divided on tribal lines..it is human nature to look after ones family first, even here in Canada, next being tribal or clan or in case of Canada from ones home town...

Most of our interaction with local afgan people we are dealing with family/ tribal related problems and solutions, leaving the religous problems to the Afgan government.

Could it be, Army Guy, that Canadian forces are consciously (or unconsciously) playing down the importance of Islam in Afghanistan in order to justify Canadians risking their lives in this dangerous mission?

Again it was not my intention to down play the religous problems at all, and no the forces are not down playing them either. Instead what we are telling you is about dealing with people on the tactical level, and not the stragitic level, a good example of that is we soldiers don't get involved with dealing with the incident you mentioned it was our own dipolmats such as those inbedded in the PRT that handled that one.

I wonder how much instruction Canadian forces receive in details of the Afghan constitution which states that the rules of Islam over-ride any human rights in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

We are briefed on not only thier constitution, laws ,customs, way of life, these briefings last over a course of 6 months, It by no means makes us experts but familar with the topic...keep in mind most of us are training for combat ops, and most of our energy was spent there....There is a big difference between the interputations of Islam with the current Afgan government and the Taliban, as is eveident with children going to school, or women recieving an education, or not listening to western tradio, or flying a kite to list a few examples.

[scribblet]

Yes, that's exactly why we have to stay so thing's like that do not happen, and we can help Afghanistan become more "modern" or at the very least be able to defend themselves from the Taliban.

Especially to help the women who have the most to gain by us staying and helping. We didn't expect the new gov't to be completely secular, we knew it would be a Muslim state, but what they have now is infinetely better than the Taliban.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6111000850.html

Five years after the Taliban fled Kabul under the cover of night, signs of fragile but real progress abound. Simple pleasures once prohibited -- song and dance, the flutter of kites -- have resumed. And for the first time, women and girls once repressed under Taliban rule are able to take better control of their lives and their futures.

[madmax]

In most cases yes, it's not only my opinion but what they are instructing as part of our overseas package, keep in mind i did not say it did not have an impact, but when dealing with indiv Afgan his family,is always first, then his tribe/clan then Afgan and finally to religion...address those concerns first and in most cases you'll have it right.

For anyone challenging this, I would like to add my 2 cents.

This is very accurate. Afghans are Muslim (yes a few exceptions), so it isn't of importance until dealing with "Infidels". The "Infidels" currently are only a problem to the "Taliban". When dealing with day to day Afghan Activities, it is a good rule of thumb.

After Family, Tribe/Clan, then comes whom the Clan is supporting, or just as important. Who is supporting the Clan.

[madmax]

Especially to help the women who have the most to gain by us staying and helping. We didn't expect the new gov't to be completely secular, we knew it would be a Muslim state, but what they have now is infinetely better than the Taliban.

"infinitely" better. I think not. In fact the mere fact that people are questioning the new government and it's promises, particularly the security from various factions. If it was "INFINITELY better, we wouldn't even be having a discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6111000850.html

Five years after the Taliban fled Kabul under the cover of night, signs of fragile but real progress abound. Simple pleasures once prohibited -- song and dance, the flutter of kites -- have resumed. And for the first time, women and girls once repressed under Taliban rule are able to take better control of their lives and their futures.

I think I could have read this same quote, back in December 2001. 5 years earlier.