Progress in Afghanistan: What's Next After 6 Years of War?

[Astronuc]

This situation in Afghanistan deserves it's own thread, since although it is one of two states in which which the US military is involved in direct conflict with entities designated as terrorists in the 'War on Terror', it is quite different from Iraq.

In an article, Joel Fitzgibbon, Australia's new Minister for Defense, outlines the challenge and the need for a strategic plan to secure democracy and stability in Afghanistan.

http://www.the-diplomat.com/article.aspx?aeid=5804

Are we winning the war in Afghanistan? It’s a hard question to answer. The better question may be: which war? The military mission? The war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people? Or the struggle to secure agreement among the International Security Afghanistan Force (ISAF) partners, on a coherent strategic plan which could deliver secure democracy and stability in the war-weary South Asian country?

Before attempting to answer these questions, it’s important to first acknowledge that significant progress has been made in Afghanistan. Economic growth is currently running at an impressive 8 per cent. Healthcare in Afghanistan also continues to improve and spread: more than 80 per cent of the population now has access to basic healthcare services, and infant mortality rates continue to steadily decline. The number of Afghan children receiving an education now exceeds six million, the highest number of enrolled school children in Afghan history.

For Australia’s part, our Defence Force engineers, tradespeople and project managers are rebuilding local infrastructure. They have helped construct roads and bridges, redeveloped the Tarin Kowt Provincial Hospital and the local Boys’ High School, and assisted in the construction of a causeway across the Garmab Mandah River. The causeway has both facilitated commercial trade and improved access to health services. Our Reconstruction Task Force also built and continues to run a Trade Training School which provides the local population with the essential trade and construction skills they need to rebuild their own province.

All these facts suggest real, if only steady, progress. Importantly, they also provide ISAF partners with evidence to reassure their own citizens that the international effort to secure and rebuild Afghanistan is a worthy cause and that success is much more than a pipe-dream.

But while progress has been made, we cannot ignore the reality that more than six years after the Taliban was ousted from power, success in Afghanistan is not a given.

I recently traveled to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, for a number of bilateral meetings and two important larger gatherings. The first was a meeting of Defence Ministers from Afghanistan’s Regional Command South (RC(S)): defence ministers from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, The Netherlands, Estonia, Romania and Denmark. That discussion followed a meeting of the same group in Edinburgh last December at which RC(S) members agreed to work on new strategies for the south and for Afghanistan more broadly. The intention is for the RC(S) plans to become our contribution to the development of NATO’s own strategic document for the future of Afghanistan.

. . . .

 

[Evo]

I am glad that you started this thread, there is a real storm brewing around Afghanistan and NATO. This is an excellent article explaining the situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/w...em&ex=1205726400&en=30e522edeaeefdc8&ei=5087

 

[Astronuc]

The US and Europeans are 'outsiders' in Afghanistan and the region, and they've had a rather poor history of meddling there. The US and NATO are caught between a rock and a hard place.

One of the biggest challenges in Afghanistan is the border regions with Iran and particularly the 'tribal areas' of Pakistan. The US and NATO cannot effectively cross the border, whereas the Taliban have no contraint.

The external challenges to the situation in Afghanistan include the US/NATO relationship and the conflicting interests of other parties in the region.

 

[mgb_phys]

Article 6 of the Nato treaty limits the operations of Nato to the Atlantic North of the tropic of Cancer.
Ironically this was introduced to stop Nato being used by the British and French to pursue colonial wars in Asia for their own political purposes.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is some background on Afghanistan. The situation is complicated because there are competing interests within Afghanistan as well as the surrounding region.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

The main issue for the US was the connection between Taliban and Al Qaida and bin Laden, who had sanctuary in Afghanistan, and now apparently in Pakistan.

Here is another resource on Afghanistan.
http://afghanistan-analyst.org/bibliography.aspx

Non-Governmental and international humanitarian organizations operating in Afghanistan
http://afghanistan-analyst.org/ngo.aspx


The government and people of Afghanistan are caught between the warlords and Taliban.

 

[Evo]

The US originally funded and trained Bin Laden and his men to overthrow the Russian occupation, and it backfired on us. So this is another sticky issue with the Russians.

I remember a documentary years ago, where a famous US news reporter filmed Bin Laden's training camp. This was LONG before 9/11. At the time it was about the noble cause of freeing Afghanistan from the Soviets.

This link seems fairly accurate in the history, skip over the anti-US sentiments in the first 2 paragraphs. http://www.isreview.org/issues/20/CIA_binladen_afghan.shtml

 

[mgb_phys]

The US originally funded and trained Bin Laden and his men to overthrow the Russian occupation, and it backfired on us. So this is another sticky issue with the Russians.

When I was at school we had a sports day to raise money for athletes at the 1980 moscow olympics. Since we were boycotting it because of Afghanistan they didn't get any official funding.

Now I'm confused - was I pawn of international communism or was I fighting terrorism?

 

[Evo]

When I was at school we had a sports day to raise money for athletes at the 1980 moscow olympics. Since we were boycotting it because of Afghanistan they didn't get any official funding.

Now I'm confused - was I pawn of international communism or was I fighting terrorism?

Yes.

 

[Supercritical]

There are allegations of CIA contact with bin Laden, but it is by no means a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

The wiki article has much better citations against the connection than for it, in my opinion.

Both the US and Zawahiri deny working with each other, but it would be embarrassing for both parties to admit doing so - if the US would be a hypocrite for supporting future anti-US terrorists, then would not bin Laden also be a hypocrite for fighting alongside his future enemy?

In the end, I thought the Peter Bergen piece the wiki article cites was pretty good.

 

[Astronuc]

There are allegations of CIA contact with bin Laden, but it is by no means a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

The wiki article has much better citations against the connection than for it, in my opinion.

Both the US and Zawahiri deny working with each other, but it would be embarrassing for both parties to admit doing so - if the US would be a hypocrite for supporting future anti-US terrorists, then would not bin Laden also be a hypocrite for fighting alongside his future enemy?

In the end, I thought the Peter Bergen piece the wiki article cites was pretty good.

The key fact here is that al Qaida was founded in 1988, after the US support for the mujahedin. The concern in the mid-1980's was 'blowback', which was realized in the 90's.

Frontline has another piece on the search for bin Laden.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/

 

[Art]

Here is a good article in two parts from the BBC showing the history leading up to the present brand of Islamic extremism

Jihad and the Saudi petrodollar
BBC Middle East analyst Roger Hardy has spent the last two months investigating Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's austere brand of Islam.

In the first of a two-part series, to be broadcast on the BBC World Service, he looks at the fierce debate over whether Wahhabism and Saudi petrodollars have fomented extremism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7093423.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7106382.stm

 

[CaptainQuasar]

National Security Decision Directive 166 from 1987, which is probably what actually authorized the CIA to train the Mujahideen to build car bombs and give them various other forms of aid, is of course still fully classified unfortunately.

But at least it's one of the Presidential Directives we actually know the name of... Here's the http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/index.html". NSDD 250 is another classified one from later in '87 that also has something to do with Afghanistan.

Something of interest in the same vein I came across recently is the specifics of how the U.S. http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm" to Iraq (along with the various other kinds of support we gave Saddam Hussein during the 80's.)

⚛​

 

[Astronuc]

It certainly appears that some who subscribe to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam have facilitated extremism, and Saudi petrodollars have enabled that. However, one can look earlier to the writings of Sayyid Qutb.

The current problems with Islamic militancy may be correlated with the European colonialism of the past 2-3 centuries, which could be seen as a continuation of the past millenium beginning with the First Crusade in 1095. Of course, this was not unique in history, which has involved a plethora of migrations and wars over wealth and territory.

 

[Supercritical]

The key fact here is that al Qaida was founded in 1988, after the US support for the mujahedin.

Mujahideen ≠ bin Laden

Apparently, "Estimates are that there were about a 250,000 Afghans fighting 125,000 Soviet troops, while only 2000 Arab Afghans fought 'at anyone time'"

It is not correct to imply that US support for the Mujahideen meant support for bin Laden's groups. They were described as a "side show" to the Afghan resistance, which I tend to believe if the numbers quoted above are accurate (they are cited). In fact, many sources say Pakistan was the party who distributed the funds and weapons provided by the US, and that Pakistan did not want the US to have a say in the distribution.

Now, there is no way for one to outright deny that the CIA supported (or even trained) bin Laden and his brethren. There could be any number of secret CIA projects that have yet to see the light of day.

I can say that the information that is available does not tend to support the connection.

The best I have found is that the US's support for the local Afghanistan resistance helped to create an environment in which groups like al-Qaeda could thrive, and that the international networks bin Laden helped to establish led to the emergence of al-Qaeda years, or even decades, earlier than would have otherwise been the case. This may be the "blowback" you were referring to, but it doesn't prove the CIA funded and armed bin Laden.

 

[Astronuc]

Mujahideen ≠ bin Laden

True. bin Laden's group was a side show, but he was affiliated with Taliban groups.

It is not correct to imply that US support for the Mujahideen meant support for bin Laden's groups.

and that was not implied, at least not in my posts.

The best I have found is that the US's support for the local Afghanistan resistance helped to create an environment in which groups like al-Qaeda could thrive, and that the international networks bin Laden helped to establish led to the emergence of al-Qaeda years, or even decades, earlier than would have otherwise been the case. This may be the "blowback" you were referring to, but it doesn't prove the CIA funded and armed bin Laden.

Again, there was no such claim that the CIA funded bin Laden, at least not directly.

Throughout the years of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, relations between the United States and Pakistan were best characterized by close cooperation. Still, United States policy makers became increasingly concerned that Zia and his associates- -most notably, General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, then head of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence --appeared to give preferential treatment to the Islamic fundamentalists, especially mujahidin leader Gulbaddin Hikmatyar.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/background.htm **

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made Pakistan a country of paramount geostrategic importance. In a matter of days, the United States declared Pakistan a "frontline state" against Soviet aggression and offered to reopen aid and military assistance deliveries. Pakistan's top national security agency, the Army's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, monitored the activities of and provided advice and support to the mujahidin, and commandos from the Army's Special Services Group helped guide the operations inside Afghanistan. The ISI trained about 83,000 Afghan Mujahideen between 1983 to 1997 and dispatched them to Afghanistan. Pakistan paid a price for its activities, as Afghan and Soviet forces conducted raids against mujahidin bases inside Pakistan.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/

Then there is

(12) In 1980, Representative Charlie Wilson began urging
the Central Intelligence Agency to arm Afghani mujahideen
fighters. The decision to double funding to Afghanistan was
unsolicited and was made without the knowledge of the
President. The book ``Charlie Wilson's War'', written by
George Crile, asserts that Representative Wilson thus
violated the Logan Act.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/s372-amend.html

Now going back to Gulbaddin Hikmatyar (Hekmatyar), one finds a relationship with bin Laden. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/blowback.htm

So US/CIA -> Pakistan ISI -> Hikmatyar <-> bin Laden

 

[edward]

Talk of a troop surge in Afghanistan

Where are we supposed to get the troops

As the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq fades from the front pages, analysts are turning their attention to what is often called the forgotten war. Many fear that progress in Afghanistan is stalled and that the country is in need of major new measures to reinvigorate the war effort against the Taliban and other extremist factions.

To that end, talk is increasingly turning to a troop surge for Afghanistan. The conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank, which was instrumental in designing the current surge strategy in Iraq, in January convened an "Afghanistan Planning Group" that will shortly announce recommendations for an influx of troops into Afghanistan as well. "It's clear to everyone who looks at it that more troops are necessary in Afghanistan," says Frederick Kagan, an AEI fellow and an architect of the surge strategy in Iraq.

It is clear to U.S. military officials that efforts in Afghanistan are faltering and that more troops could help turn the tide. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and now the deputy chairman of NATO's military committee, says that there is currently a shortage of maneuver and infantry forces in the country.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/03/21/talk-of-a-troop-surge-for-afghanistan.html

http://www.aei.org/about/contentID.20038142214500082/default.asp

I can see where this is going just by looking at who does the planning.

 

[edward]

The US originally funded and trained Bin Laden and his men to overthrow the Russian occupation, and it backfired on us. So this is another sticky issue with the Russians.

I remember a documentary years ago, where a famous US news reporter filmed Bin Laden's training camp. This was LONG before 9/11. At the time it was about the noble cause of freeing Afghanistan from the Soviets.

This link seems fairly accurate in the history, skip over the anti-US sentiments in the first 2 paragraphs. http://www.isreview.org/issues/20/CIA_binladen_afghan.shtml

We keep creating monsters that we have to go back and kill. In the late 70's the CIA helped establish the Baath party in Iraq.

 

[mgb_phys]

We keep creating monsters that we have to go back and kill. In the late 70's the CIA helped establish the Baath party in Iraq.

Good job we never medled in Iran then !

 

[edward]

Good job we never medled in Iran then !

Are you serious. Actually we did a lot of meddling in Iran.

 

[mgb_phys]

Irony - it's like 'goldy' or 'brassy' but made of iron

 

[Astronuc]

Amid War, Afghanistan Builds Its First National Park
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90171390
by Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson

Morning Edition, May 7, 2008 · In Afghanistan, Americans are working with the government in Kabul to create something that has never existed before in this war-ravaged country: a national park.

It takes several hours by four-wheel-drive vehicle, riding on rocky roads that wind through mountains and across streams, to get to the 220-square-mile site.

But the drive is easy compared to the obstacles planners face to make this park in central Bamiyan province a reality.

Yet another step in the right direction.

 

[RonPaul2008]

There has been no progress in Afghanistan. We have done more nation building over there than hunting down those responsible for September 11th. In six years, we have not captured Osama Bin Laden, we have not made Americans safer because of our lax border policy, and we have violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation without just cause and without the reason of self defense.

The pro-war advocates may argue until they are blue in the face that we have toppled a dictator, built their infrastructure back up after we destroyed it (though even that is not neccesarrily the case), and have "brought them democracy" whether they desired it or not. Even if we have made Iraq a little better under the guise of fighting the war on terror, what has this brought Americans other than higher taxes and grieving mothers who lost their sons to an unjust cause? The best way to keep Americans safe and fight terror is to secure our borders and fire everybody at the CIA to find more capable intelligence. If we're not at least going to catch Osama Bin Laden, we can at least prevent another September 11th or worse by voting for Ron Paul, closing foreign military bases, and establishing a non-intervention policy - not an isolationist policy, because we are a nation built on trade. Let the free market handle the rest.

 

[mgb_phys]

Come away from the computer Ron - you know it's time for your medicine.

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. loses ground as Afghanistan erodes, By James Rupert, September 20, 2007
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003893062_afghanistan20.html

The U.S.'s declared ally, Pakistan, is playing a double role that has made it a sanctuary where jihadist guerrillas can recruit and train fighters, raise money and infiltrate Afghanistan. Since 2001, Pakistan has arrested many al-Qaida leaders and has fitfully confronted home-grown jihadists. Still, it tolerates a broad support network for Taliban and other guerrillas that includes active-duty members of Pakistan's security forces.

So far, Karzai's government and the United States have been fortunate in northeastern Afghanistan. Local tribes, notably in Nuristan province, are historic rivals of the ethnic Pashtuns who dominate the Taliban movement, and they tend to resist the Taliban's calls for jihad.

But, said the Afghan government engineer Wahdat and others, that natural advantage is being squandered because the government and its foreign backers have failed to establish schools, clinics, police forces and other services to meet even basic needs of people scattered in Nuristan's roughly 300 mountain villages. The resulting vacuum, and the depth of people's need, let's Islamic extremists keep deepening their roots here.

Breeding insurgency
While the government operates almost no schools in Nuristan, the Saudi-based World Muslim League and other Arab religious foundations pay salaries for hundreds of mullahs, missionaries and madrassa teachers, said Abdulhai Warshan, a Nuristani journalist for the Afghan service of Voice of America radio. This Islamist network has been rooting itself in every district of Nuristan since the 1980s, when Arabs (and the U.S. government) helped fund the Afghan guerrilla war against the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

With Nuristanis increasingly eager to educate their children, and no government schools in sight, "the Arab madrassas [religious schools] have offered free religious teaching" according to the Saudis' fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine, Warshan said. For a quarter-century, "it has been the only way ordinary people could educate their sons, and now Wahhabism and extremism have penetrated our area."

The Taliban is still active in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan (Chitral and Bajaur).

 

[mgb_phys]

Local tribes, notably in Nuristan province, are historic rivals of the ethnic Pashtuns who dominate the Taliban movement, and they tend to resist the Taliban's calls for jihad.

You mean it's more complicated than "this time you guys are the goodies and you are the baddies - now change ends"?
Who would have thought it !

 

[Astronuc]

It's certainly complicated because of the heterogenity in Afghanistan with rival factions/tribes and the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pashtun people move back and forth across the border. The Taliban grew in the Afghan refugee communities in Pakistan, so they move back and forth across the border.

Pakistan's Chitral District: A Refuge for al-Qaeda's Top Leadership?
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370220
By Hassan Abbas

In the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda leaders, security services continue to focus on Pakistan's Chitral district in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). Chitral became a concern after the release of a bin Laden videotape from September 2003 in which trees native to the Chitrali mountain range were evident. Extensive search operations for the al-Qaeda leader and fellow operatives by Pakistani and U.S. forces were conducted in the area in February-March 2003 (Dawn, March 7, 2003). More recently, in May there were claims that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had established an office in Chitral to monitor militant activities in the district (The Nation, May 1). Other links to the district include Abu Khabaib, an Arab explosives expert who has been spotted several times in the hills of Chitral. He is known to have helped Sheikh Ahmed Saleem, an Arab member of al-Qaeda. Saleem has been giving money to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi for recruiting militants for al-Qaeda in Pakistan (Daily Times, October 2). Finally, because Chitral is adjacent to Afghanistan's Nuristan province, there is concern that Taliban and al-Qaeda militants are crossing the border between the two countries.

With respect to the last point, it is still an issue.

The US and some European Allies have Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincial_Reconstruction_Team

Led by the US, Kamdesh Civil Military Operations Center (CMOC), is an extension of the Kamdesh PRT and provides reconstruction and development assistance to the people of Nuristan. The PRT is also working with DynCorp International to train the Afghan National Police (ANP) through the US funded Afghanistan Police Program

I don't know how effective DynCorp is there, but I have my doubts.

Digressing a little further -

Four Years Later, Much Of U.S. Aid In Afghanistan Has Little Impact
http://www.coxwashington.com/reporters/content/reporters/stories/2005/10/10/BC_AFGHAN_4YEARSON09_1STLD_COX.html
By MARGARET COKER, ANNE USHER
Cox News Service
Monday, October 10, 2005

SHOWKHEI, Afghanistan — Most mornings, boys from this village walk to a mud-brick school constructed two years ago, compliments of U.S. taxpayers. But the building is already in disrepair, its walls crumbling and its roof pitted by termites chewing into untreated wooden beams.

Village elders in Showkhei, some 20 miles from the main U.S. military base at Bagram, were unanimous in the summer of 2003 when soldiers arrived and asked what they needed: a bigger school for their children. The soldiers sent a construction firm called Ahmad Jamil Construction to Showkhei to double the size of the existing school from five rooms to 10.

But no one from the military came back to inspect the quality of materials or the company's work, villagers said. The next time they saw the soldiers was weeks later at a ribbon-cutting ceremony. U.S. officials took pictures of the new building and then left, said school principal Said Rakhman.

Two years and $20,000 later, the locally made mud bricks crumble to the touch, and termites have infested the roof beams, leaving villagers with the morbid pastime of guessing when the ceiling will fall.

"Do they just care about photographs?" asked Rakhman. "My children have to stay in this building, their children don't."

Use of inferior construction materials is just one of myriad complaints lodged by auditors and aid workers who are critical of U.S. efforts to rebuild Afghanistan.

Four years after American forces invaded Afghanistan to purge the Taliban, the United States has spent more than $1.62 billion to reconstruct this war-ravaged Central Asian country.

Some vital and visible results of the U.S. intervention are evident. After 25 years of open warfare, millions of Afghans have returned home, voters have elected a government and many women are back at work.

But a report published in July by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited bureaucratic squabbles, poor planning and a lack of coordination and oversight in the spending of U.S. reconstruction money in Afghanistan. The effect is that building and public works projects by the State Department and the Pentagon have had little impact on improving the country's long-term reconstruction, the GAO said.

For Afghans this is cause for despair. In a country ranked among the world's worst in terms of poverty, literacy and infant mortality, the slow reconstruction endangers short- and long-term stability.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05742.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Action in Afghanistan is finding it's way into Pakistan.

Pakistan officials: Suspected US strikes kill 12
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - Two suspected U.S. missile strikes Friday on villages close to the border with Afghanistan killed at least 12 people, most of them militants, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

American forces recently ramped up cross-border operations against Taliban and al-Qaida militants in Pakistan's border zone with Afghanistan — a region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden.

Two missiles believed to have been fired from U.S. unmanned drones launched from neighboring Afghanistan hit the villages in North Waziristan just before dusk, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

A missile strike in one village killed at least 12 people, while there were no reported casualties in the other, they said. The officials did not identify the victims.

. . . .

The problem I have with this approach is the 'collateral damage' - killing of innocent non-combatants, who are often women and children.

 

[Art]

I know it is fashionable to declare the war in Afghanistan to be a war for the survival of western civilisation but I wonder what would actually happen if the US and the rest of NATO pulled out?

It would probably simply revert to the tribal system and associated customs and rivalries it has practised for the past 1000 years and 5 years from now most people would be hard pushed to find it on a map.

If by some chance some group there decided to use parts of it as a training ground for attacks on the west then a few surgical strikes would quickly solve that problem. Realistically given the entrenched views of the populace there the only other alternative is a genocide followed by the introduction of a more westernised race which in case anyone thinks I am advocating that approach I would like to say that would be an obvious non-starter.

 

[mgb_phys]

1, Take a bunch of tribes that have been knocking 7bells out of each other since Adam was a lad.
2, Draw a few lines on map and declqre that two halves of one family are now enemies and that another 2 tribes are now friends.
3, Change your mind regulalrly about which side are your friends and allies as convenience suits.

The ironic thing is that the USA is only the 3rd biggest empire to make this mistake in Afghanistan!

 

[Astronuc]

I know it is fashionable to declare the war in Afghanistan to be a war for the survival of western civilisation but I wonder what would actually happen if the US and the rest of NATO pulled out?

It would probably simply revert to the tribal system and associated customs and rivalries it has practised for the past 1000 years and 5 years from now most people would be hard pushed to find it on a map.

If by some chance some group there decided to use parts of it as a training ground for attacks on the west then a few surgical strikes would quickly solve that problem. Realistically given the entrenched views of the populace there the only other alternative is a genocide followed by the introduction of a more westernised race which in case anyone thinks I am advocating that approach I would like to say that would be an obvious non-starter.

The US went in precisely because the Taliban were sheltering bin Laden and al Qaida, who were using Afghanistan as a base and safe haven. That could have led to more serious problems for Pakistan, as well as allowed bin Laden to set up strike groups against US and allies.

The tribes and warlords could have reached an accomodation, and much of Aghanistan would have been hell for any woman.

Unfortunately, under the US control, opium production has recovered, and the warlords use the cash to buy weapons. On the other hand, those drug warlords don't like the Taliban and will fight them.

The main security issue now is the resurgence of al Qaida and Taliban on the Afghan/Pakistan border in Waziristan, Kurram (Karam), Khyber, Mohmand, Bajaur, Dir, Chitral and further east Charsadda, Malakand and Swat.

The new head of ISI may be taking stronger measures against al Qaida and Taliban, and their Pakistani supporters. The US is firing missiles from Predator drones into Waziristan against Taliban targets.

 

[Art]

I am not questioning the justification for the original attack on Afghanistan I am questioning the need to stay there and try to change an unwilling populace to adopt Western values.

We may think life for women was hell in Afghanistan from our western viewpoint but it is not for us to impose our value system and morals on other people by force.

Britain, when at the height of it's international power, tried 3 times to subjugate Afghanistan and each time, after initial military victories, were comprehensively beaten and left with their tails between their legs.

This despite the lack of press coverage and rules of war at that time which allowed Britain to prosecute the war anyway it liked including using tactics that would nowadays be termed as terrorism.

Whether we like it or not there is absolutely nothing western gov'ts can do win over the Afghan people and persuade them to change their laws and customs other than, as I said before, wiping them all out and starting again.

Far better imo to stand back, observe, and use tactical strikes when and where deemed necessary to neuter international threats.

 

[mgb_phys]

The US went in precisely because the Taliban were sheltering bin Laden and al Qaida, who were using Afghanistan as a base and safe haven.

There are a lot of countries we could invade if they are harbouring terrorists. This one just happened to have an oil pipeline route.

The tribes and warlords could have reached an accomodation, and much of Aghanistan would have been hell for any woman.

Yep, think we used the same reason for ruling India for 300years.

Unfortunately, under the US control, opium production has recovered, and the warlords use the cash to buy weapons. On the other hand, those drug warlords don't like the Taliban and will fight them.

Which is why we allow them to grow heroin and sell them the weapons - it worked in Laos, Panama and even in Afghanistan/Pakistan last time.

The new head of ISI may be taking stronger measures against al Qaida and Taliban, and their Pakistani supporters.

Tricky since many of the Pakistani supporters are in government and we support the goverment.

The US is firing missiles from Predator drones into Waziristan against Taliban targets.

If past experience is anything to go by they are firing at something - might be people, might even be fighters and with a bit of luck they are enemy fighters.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, the crux of the matter at hand is that the US and other nations (NATO) have committed armed forces to Afghanistan now - rightly or wrongly - and they're going to stay - probably until it gets too expensive to do so. The US and NATO are there at the behest of the Afghani government.

At the moment the Bush administration is trying to get bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In early September of 2008, Pakistan military claimed that they "almost" captured al-Zawahiri after getting information that he and his wife were in the Mohmand Agency, in northwest Pakistan. After raiding the area, officials didn't find him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

At the moment, the US is trying to locate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders/groups close to the border with Afghanistan, and attack them. The US is trying to encourage Paksitan's ISI to do the same. There are some conflicts therein.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, the crux of the matter at hand is that the US and other nations (NATO) have committed armed forces to Afghanistan now - rightly or wrongly - and they're going to stay - probably until it gets too expensive to do so. The US and NATO are there at the behest of the Afghani government.

At the moment the Bush administration is trying to get bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

At the moment, the US is trying to locate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders/groups close to the border with Afghanistan, and attack them. The US is trying to encourage Paksitan's ISI to do the same. There are some conflicts therein.

Most people there (Northwest Frontier Province) are pretty decent. The problem is al-Qaida and some of the Taliban. For example, al-Qaida and Taliban are making life difficult for the Kalash people in the Kunar Valley (just south of Chitral). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash

Next door to Chitral is Nuristan and Kunar (with Nangarhar just south of Kunar), which are problematic places in Afghanistan. Taliban and al-Qaida have been floating back and forth across the border, although that is becoming increasingly difficult with intervention of the US in Afghanistan and ISI in Paksitan. On the other hand, US incursions into Pakistan will increase tensions with the ISI.

The tribal areas, particularly Waziristan (Pakistan) in conjunction with Paktika and Khost provinces in Afghanistan are problematic given the smuggling and weapons trafficking going on.


A good perspective on the problem is given in -
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000H2NAW6/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Art]

Well, the crux of the matter at hand is that the US and other nations (NATO) have committed armed forces to Afghanistan now - rightly or wrongly - and they're going to stay - probably until it gets too expensive to do so. The US and NATO are there at the behest of the Afghani government.

The Russians were there also at the behest of the then Afghan gov't so I'm not sure how much genuine legitimacy this bestows.

At the moment the Bush administration is trying to get bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

I'd like to think the Bush administration has been trying to capture Bin Laden since Sept 12th 2001.

At the moment, the US is trying to locate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders/groups close to the border with Afghanistan, and attack them. The US is trying to encourage Paksitan's ISI to do the same. There are some conflicts therein.

During the first world war snipers always aimed at officers first, to the extent both Britain and Germany complained at a very high level about each other's practices.

Despite tremendous success in wiping out each other's officer corp on a near daily basis it made not an iota of difference to the war itself. New officers were appointed and the war went on.

The same is now true today. The only good thing that comes out of killing Taliban leaders is the bragging rights in the paper the next day. In terms of defeating the enemy it is meaningless.