They're Beating Us on Both Screens

We don't have nearly the requisite level of resources to succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan

Dude! Don't just say "succeed"! You're getting to be as bad as THEM.

it's possible that if we left Iraq then we'd have enough manpower to succeed in Afghanistan

Maybe so, but if we leave Iraq to the bloodbath - immediate or protracted - of our former collaborators, that will not help us succeed in Afghanistan.

since "We don't have nearly the requisite level of resources to succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan" I assume you have a clear definition of "succeed"? care to share?

Since the war only exists for its ability to cement Bush's domestic power and to enrich his friends it makes no sense to spend much money on them. And winning a war? That would mean it would be over and he'd have to find another war to launch.

Notwithstanding the Russian experience in Afghanistan, not to mention the British experience there, you really think it possible the US, with or with or without NATO's assistance, can succeed?

Long-term "success" in Afghanistan would require a substantial incursion into Pakistan. Any incursion into Pakistan would likely result in the overthrow of Musharraf's government by more radical Islamist elements within the ISI and the Pakistani military. Once Islamist elements, one can assume more ideologically sympathetic to the Taliban, control Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, what would a prudent US or NATO military commander in the field in inhospitable Afghanistan expect?

History has taught us Afghanistan/Afghanis/Mujahadin cannot be conquered.

There is a huge difference between the perception of Soviet/English invasion of Afghanistan and NATO presence in Afghanistan. The current insurgency is a headache only in Pushtoon dominated southern areas (but it has the potential of destabilizing other parts of the country). Other ethnic groups don't like the Taliban, and will at any given turn caste their lots with anyone who is not a Talib. The Soviets and the English had to put up with the entire country not liking them (including the secular liberals, Marxists and Maoists). That is clearly not the case here.

As to doing something about Pakistan... This article from Asia Times puts it much better: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ25Df01.html

Without Pakistan comes on board, there is really no hope of settling things down in Afghanistan. How? I don't know, but here are some suggestions:

1. Give the Pakistani army some sort of security assurance vis-a-vis India. The Bangladesh debacle has thought them the lesson that the US and the West will leave them out to dry. So they seek some strategic depth in Afghanistan.

2. Get the Afghan government to ratify the Durand Line and give up all territorial claims on Pakistan.

3. Get some one who knows something about the region appointed in the State Dept and other relevant positions; not just anyone whose favorite food happens to be filafal.

4. Try to get the Pushtoon nationalists with a more secular (or even feudal outlook) on board. Use them as a plank to keep the Taliban at bay. Also provide the requisite aid etc etc.

5. Do the same thing in Pakistan.

6. Try to get the Kashmir business resolved. Pakistan wants to simmer that pot, but at the same time wants to retain a measure of plausible deniability: "Hey it wasn't us, but those crazies in Afghanistan wanting to help their fellow Muslims in Kashmir."

7. Keep a very sharp eye on who is sending how much money to where from where in the gulf region. Someone is funding all this funny business in Afghanistan, and the channels seem to be the old pipelines that supplied the Soviet-Afghan tussle.

"Afghanistan is not, however, yet as bad as Iraq and it's possible that if we left Iraq then we'd have enough manpower to succeed in Afghanistan -- especially when you consider that we're not ally-less in Afghanistan..."

Or maybe it's that the Taliban have fewer illusions about the post-Cold War world now than we do. They seem to have given up their dreams of a unified Afghanistan under Taliban control, and are smartly (at least for their purposes) focusing on the region they might one day govern again: Pashtunistan. How ally-ful are we in Pashtunistan?

"Other ethnic groups don't like the Taliban, and will at any given turn caste their lots with anyone who is not a Talib"

The warlords will help us as long as we help them with their opium production and distribution. Shades of Laos.

We don't know what "a committment to succeed in Afghanistan" might look like. Mu guess is just a different circle of hell.

US occupation troops are the problem, not the solution

Our Army and Marine Corps are great, arguably the best in the world, at what a military is supposed to do, defeat the military establishments of foreign powers. They are lousy, do more harm than good, at something no rational person would expect a military to be any good at at all -- building a government for another people. As Talleyrand told Napoleon about his mad project to give Spain a new dynasty to replace the crazy Bourbons, "You cannot fashion a comfortable throne from bayonets."

What, exactly, would more US troops do to keep Afghanistan from sliding back towards the Taliban? The Afghanis, at least the Pashtun, would not be inching back that way unless they wanted to. The government we helped put in place, that we threaten to make look to the Pashtun as completely a Quisling govt every time our forces kill Afghani non-combatants and the Karzai govt can't or won't do anything to stop it, started out with a near-monopoly on force. If the Taliban has regained a foothold in villages where, at the outset of their return, selling them out to the Karzai govt would have been both safe and profitable, that can only mean that their return was not unwelcome. The Taliban still is at a severe disadvantage compared to the govt and NATO forces in terms of the ability to coerce the locals with force. If they are able to not just hang on, but expand their influence, that means that the locals side with them out of choice. The problem for "our" side isn't a force deficit, it's a choice deficit among the locals.

The Afghanis, at least large numbers of Pashtuns, are living up to a long history of choosing not to live under foreign or Quisling rule. More US troops, more military force, would only help insofar as we were willing to kill all of these Afghanis who choose the risk of resistance to foreign armies over a secure submission to foreign rule. Since more Afghanis would choose resistance the more ruthless we became, we would end up having to commit frank genocide. Perhaps, if we coveted their land for Lebensraum, this would make some sort of pragmatic sense, however evil it would be. But we don't covet their land, we have no intention of sending US settlers to take over cultivation of lands emptied of Afghanis by our genocide, so killing Afghanis in some grotesque parody of forced democracy is both stupid and evil.

Don't romantacize Afghans to the point of making a cartoon out of us!

You can't fight protracted wars in a vaccum. Some state or another is sponsoring you. Who the hell is providing the logistics for the Taliban? Who did prior to the US invasion? This is actually well documented. By the same logic, the Taliban government in Kabul was supported heavily by Pakistan and Saudi largese would be equally unpalatable by whoever this prototype pain in the ass "Afghani" seems to be (who I as an Afghan, who was part of the anti-Soviet resistance and was incidentally also labelled as an enemy by the US supported Mujahideen and later the Taliban, should do well to learn to recognize).

Afghans operate with the same pragmatism as anyone else. Abdur Rahman Khan (the founder of Afghanistan as the country is drawn today) rode into Afghanistan in a Russain military uniform and received stipends from the British Raj. And he died of old age, secure in his throne. More history, less horribly written novels and travelogues, please!

By the way, Bob, the operational word here is "ethnic groups" not "war lords" (all major warlords are associated with specific ethnic groups: Fahim is a Tajik, Mohaqiq is Hazara and Dostum is Uzbek). If you sell opium and can't do much with your income then the whole enterprise is rather pointless. Also, support for the Taliban doesn't necessarily mean you will continue to reap the benefits of your poppy fields. The Taliban were shrewed enough not to let warlords operate within their own areas where they could cook mischief. Instead they were transplanted to the front lines or sent to other regions where they were contained. Also, make note of Mazari, the Hazara warlord who tried to bargain with the Taliban. He was immediately captured, tortured and killed. Afghans may not know Machiavelli by name, but we are sharp enough to understand the basics of the political board game.

Linus, you are forgetting about Pakistan and the implication that Pushtonistan will have for Pakistan. Have the Taliban espoused any nationalist inspirations as a whole? No. Instead it's only some elements (including the rag tag remnants of pro-Soviet nationalists) who are conveniently riding the gravy train.

I'm not sure anyone who doesn't know "Afghan" is the term for the people and "Afghani" for the currency should be commenting at all, but Glen Tomkins' remark, above, still intrigues me.

By the latest figures, the Pashtun population is 42% of Afghanistan. Not all of that is anti-U.S. either, obviously, given that the president is Pashtun himself.

How small an ethnic minority is entitled to hold an entire nation hostage to their will by force, exactly?

Who's holding whom hostage?

BruceR,
If the Pashtun comprise roughly 42% of the population of Afghanistan, they should get roughly a 42% say on matters that the whole country has agreed should be subject to majority rule. But the underlying basics, whether the Pashtun, or any other group, agrees to even be part of Afghanistan, is indeed a matter in which all of these groups have an absolute veto. That's how our republic was organized, with each of the 13 colonies free to join the Union or not. No, perhaps the Afghans have not had a moment in which the underlying reality was as clearly reflected in parliamentary politics as the events of 1789 reflected the underlying reality that the Confederation govt did not have the power that flows from the barrels of guns sufficient to force even the weakest former colony to join the Union. But the underlying reality is there all the same. None of the ethnic groups or regions has the power to force any of the others to participate in Afghanistan if they choose otherwise. NATO and the US don't have the power either, we just have the dangerous illusion of such power.

No, 42% of the population of Afghanistan should not have the power to decide for the entire country. But you and I, and every American alive, even if 100% of us were unanimously agreed on one policy toward Afghanistan, would comprise about 0% of the population of Afghanistan. We get 0% of the say in how Afghanistan runs itself. Any percentage above 0% that we claim, and enforce such claims by violence, is the true hostage-taking here.

Glen,

I don't think the 1789 analogy as you've construed it stands up. Your argument is that rejectionists who flee the country and refuse to take part in the post-civil war settlement (in your analogy, that would be us pesky Canadians) should have had a veto over the postwar political settlement. Hey, works for me: if you'd scratch that Second Amendment nonsense and finally pay up on all those reparations to dispossessed Tories, we might even let you keep the rest of the Bill of Rights :-)

Look, in Afghanistan you have a government, duly elected in a UN-certified election by a 55% majority, who then entered into a treaty with NATO under UN auspices (the Afghanistan Compact, which went into effect in January 06) and under which now NATO is providing military assistance at the request of a national government, in support of a UNSC-defined mandate. The Karzai government is free to renegotiate the terms of the Afghanistan Compact at any time, or to enter into negotiations with any of its citizens it pleases. Indeed, Karzai just recently announced a new jirga with any Pashtun leaders who wish to renounce violence and sit down with him. Just because the comparable Iraqi process was phony from day one does not mean that the Bonn and London Conference processes were, as well. It simply doesn't get any more legitimate than this: to reject supporting the Afghan government is effectively saying there should never be an international military intervention, anywhere.

Abandoning millions of people who opted for a different future, all because the combined Western militaries have all of 100 combat deaths in the last eight months of combat, would be premature. There's no doubt it's still going to be difficult (maybe even futile in the long run), and the Iraq intervention made it much more difficult than it should have been, but that doesn't mean it's illegitimate, either. But I'm happy to debate the possible futility, if we can first agree on the legitimacy.

Glen, I'm saying that international obligations, democratic choice and the rule of law are worth supporting. You, on the other hand, sound like you're saying only might makes right.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

perde

temizlik

stor perde

ip perde

jaluzi perde

dikey perde

ofis temizliği

ilaçlama

açılış organizasyon

perdeci

perde modelleri

organizasyon

http://www.ekmekmusafcarpsin.com/

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

penis büyütücü

tskler saolun abiler