 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:44 AM I may not have the newspaper figures quite right, but I think it is being reported that the mayor of Kabul (with the US and UK armies on his side) controls about 40% of the country, the Taliban about 10%, and the rest is controlled by various tribal warlords, so creating what is being termed a "failed state". Is this true, was it a likely outcome, can it be reversed and if so how? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Mar 08 - 07:36 AM There has never been a successful invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. There is no reason to think the present one will fare any better. The most that could be hoped was to get rid of a particular regime, and win some space for a new one to get established, which would hopefully be an improvement. The Taliban regime was the consequence of outside interference. Continued outside military involvement, and attempts to shape events, is only too likely to ensure a similar regime in the future. One practical thing that could be done, alongside withdrawal, would be to set up arrangements to buy the entire opium crop on a regular basis, and dispose of it in away that ensured it didn't end up with drug traffickers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: GUEST,albert Date: 01 Mar 08 - 07:50 AM The US intends to stay in Iraq and has built several huge bases in the desert to secure its presence. The defacto dismemberment of the country will be part of the price the Iraqis will have to pay to submit to the continued American occupation. The cost of the invasion/occupation has been immense and certainly the US wants to see its casualties and costs reduced but the conflict will almost certainly continue as long as there is an American military presence in Iraq. Britain,the junior subaltern in all of this, has also spent billions of pounds and seen hundreds of troops brain damaged in Iraq and clearly wants to get out but has difficulty doing so without the sayso of Washington. Afghanistan is if anything a bleaker prospect.... On the 15th March there is going to be a major anti war and anti occupation march in London.Do come along! albert albert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: artbrooks Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:30 AM I'm not sure if anyone, including the Taliban, ever controlled more than 40% of the country (Kipling seems to always be timely about Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan), so the present situation may actually be an improvement. It does seem that, like Iraq, the various allies went there with a fairly firm concept on their initial objectives, but with no real disengagement plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Mar 08 - 12:09 PM "One practical thing that could be done, alongside withdrawal, would be to set up arrangements to buy the entire opium crop on a regular basis, and dispose of it in away that ensured it didn't end up with drug traffickers." McGrath - That's a promising idea. All you would have to do is make it leagal to buy it, process it, sell it in drug stores whith the appropriate taxes, and you would eliminate any need for the "street drug traffickers" to even be out there. At least as far as opiates go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 01 Mar 08 - 12:12 PM There is no such thing as a disengagement plan, when militarism has overtaken the governments of the world's two main empire builders in history. There is simply too much money to be made off chasing 'conflict'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 01 Mar 08 - 12:16 PM And 'terrorism'. That's the real money maker. Fighting commies didn't hold a candle, money wise, to the profits that are being pulled in fighting 'terrorists'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:11 PM ISAF contributing nations (as of 21 February 2005) NATO Nations Belgium 616 Bulgaria 37 Canada 992 Czech Republic 17 Denmark 122 Estonia 10 France 742 Germany 1816 Greece 171 Hungary 159 Iceland 20 Italy 506 Latvia 9 Lithuania 9 Luxemburg 10 Netherlands 311 Norway 313 Poland 5 Portugal 21 Romania 72 Slovakia 16 Slovenia 27 Spain 551 Turkey 825 United Kingdom 461 United States 89 Partner Nations Albania 22 Austria 3 Azerbaijan 22 Croatia 45 Finland 61 former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1) 20 Ireland 10 Sweden 85 Switzerland 4 Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations New Zealand 5 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:26 PM Canada, a country of about 32 million people, sustained 79 deaths in Afghanistan. That is exactly 10% of the total NATO deaths sustained in the war--that number being 790 as of today. I mean no offense, but it is NOT a war that 'belongs' to the USA and UK. Our kids are getting it in the teeth, too, and it would be somewhat refreshing if people tried to remember that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:34 PM "As of February 18, 2008, there have been 770 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)): 483 American, 89 British, 78 Canadian, 25 German, 23 Spanish, 14 Dutch, 12 French, 12 Italian, 10 Danish, 5 Romanian, 4 Australian, 3 Norwegian, 2 Estonian, 2 Portuguese, 2 Swedish, 1 Czech, 1 Finnish, 3 Polish, 1 South Korean. source [1]. In this total, the American figure is for deaths "In and Around Afghanistan" which, as defined by the U.S. Department of Defense, includes some deaths in Pakistan and Uzbekistan[2], the death of a DoD civilian employee, and the deaths of four CIA operatives; the German figure includes the deaths of 3 policemen; and the Italian figure includes the death of an intelligence agent. In addition to these deaths in Afghanistan, 62 Spanish soldiers returning from Afghanistan were killed in Turkey on May 26, 2003 when their plane crashed." The above is from a Wikipedia article and the figures seem pretty accurate. As I said, I mean no offense to anyone, but US and UK kids aren't the only NATO personnel getting killed in that war. FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Rapparee Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM It would also be refreshing if folks even remembered that there was fighting in Afghanistan. The news is full of Iraq, rarely Afghanistan. Part of the trouble is that the President of the US has an attention span that lasts about as long as a candle flame in a hurricane. He wanted to hurry up and invade Iraq so that he could tell Daddy he'd finished the job. If he'd been serious he would have finished the job in Afghanistan (with the help of other nations), taken the accolades of history, and retired at the end of his term with laurels. Instead.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:37 PM It's another effort by foreign powers to control Afghanistan through a client government which they have installed there. All such efforts have eventually failed, so I suspect this one will too. In time. In the meanwhile it will continue to supply lucrative contracts to military suppliers and various corporate contractors and mercenaries. The War on Terror is perfect for big business because there is no foreseeable way of either winning it or ending it, and it can be moved to any desired location, since it has no borders. It's also perfect for governments who wish to increase domestic surveillance of their own populace and reduce civil liberties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:37 PM I haven't run all the figures, nor will I, but a fast assessment--read pretty good guess--is that Canada is taking more casualties per capita than any other country in volved there as part of the NATO operation (read CF). It pisses me off when all we hear about is the US and UK. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:00 PM All you would have to do is make it legal to buy it, process it, sell it in drug stores whith the appropriate taxes, and you would eliminate any need for the "street drug traffickers" to even be out there. At least as far as opiates go Well, there's a case for that - but if it's a case too far for our givernments, the stuff could just be bought up and what wasn't needed for medical purposes could just be burnt. (Best not stand down-wind...) It'd mean an income for the farmers in a place where not much else will grow, it'd cut out the drug barons - and it'd be a lot cheaper and less harmful than trying to run a war to stop it, with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire and blasted from the sky, so they and their families build up hate against the westerners, and set out to kill them in revenge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:06 PM Sorry, Peace, I was not up on the casualty figures. But at least I was not blaming Canada for the debacle! Certainly the UK and teh USSR failed to invade and conquer Afghanistan in the past (and of course during the USSR's attempts the US and teh UK (don't know about Canada) were actively arming the Taliban as fighters against the USSR). So, after the Taliban had taken the country, what should we have done? IMHO, bombing the country back into the stone age led directly to the fact that the only profitable occupation was dope farming, hence the present tribal warlords. Options? Well, if we did not get happily bombing, our choice would have been to subvert the Taliban (Hmm, CIA anyone?) or wait with the patience of a vulture. Has any fortress state ever held off cultural colonialism for more than 75 years? But now? I don't see any viable exit plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:10 PM Thanks, Richard. I'm sorry too if my post implied it was addressed to you. I have great regard for you and your thoughts on Mudcat, so such was not my intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Bee Date: 01 Mar 08 - 09:36 PM Thank you, Peace. And, sorry, Richard, I too felt a twinge of annoyance at the thread title. It just seems sometimes forgetting about dead or active Canadian troops is something that comes naturally to the US and UK. We in the Maritimes have had too many die in Afghanistan in the past few years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Rapparee Date: 01 Mar 08 - 10:42 PM ...When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains And the women come out to cut up your remains.... Been thinking Kipling since the US went into Afghanistan.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 08 - 05:18 AM Kipling is dangerous. Why is it worse if it is women? But, back on track, has anyone a sensible plan to get all allied forces out of there with minimal risk and without condemning the indigenes to decades of suffering? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: skarpi Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:11 AM why cant the armys win ?? how did they win the world war 2 ? what are they not now what they did then , is there a part from the history that we can use there today ?? sure its a mountains , its cold and hot , there is a woman and children and also it was in world war two , so thay should look at the map once again and take some action . ATB skarpi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:22 AM Pullout ! Stop the war ? Hell no. We need something to watch on TV between the footie and the cricket. Maybe some entreprenarial cove could package all the current wars and give us an hours content. There's certainly enough wars at present to obtain plenty of footage. Maybe call it "World Series Wars" with episodes called the "Biggest Loser" and similar. Rather than Oprah & Letterman we could have Generals and Admirals with their own shows. Instead of soap powder sponsors we would get really interesting shit from General Dynamics & Raytheon. And contestant prizes would step up from shitty little CD's to the latest in kevlar bullet proof vests, napalm - to wipe out your neighbour's overgrown lawn, and maybe even a stinger missile or. FME / JG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Sorcha Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:26 AM Did anyone with a Brain Cell ever think that 'win' was possible in Afghanistan?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:26 AM In WWII, there were major parts of the population in those areas in Asia and Europe that were dominated by Japan and Germany who wanted to be freed from what they perceived as being the oppressors. In this case, I suspect much of the native population sees the UK and the US as representative of oppression, and will happily work with the other side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: skarpi Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:58 AM and will happily work with the other side. so make the plan from there ? right if they want that its their loss so blow the horn if you are gonna win this but remember the russian army did try and they lost . so there are mountains so go to the tops and attack from there . I guess its good to sit down by the computer and say things like that thats a one thing , other thing is being there . ATB skarpi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: artbrooks Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:58 AM My read on it would be that, in WW2, the opposing sides had central governments that controlled (one way or another) their nations' people. The Allied forces forced those governments to surrender and the people did as well. One of many errors made in Afghanistan (and Iraq) was to assume that the same would be true there. However, in Afghanistan it turned out that the Taliban had many heads, and chopping one off just leads to two more appearing. In Iraq, the defeat of Saddam had the immediate result of letting loose the bucket of snakes that he had kept suppressed for years. The subsequent addition of outside forces (Al Quaida and its ilk) has helped keep things going, but the basic lack of understanding of the situation on the ground is what precluded a "victory" in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:26 AM Two basic rules of war are "Don't invade Russia"; and "Don't try to occupy Afghanistan." It never works out well. Outside interference in Afghanistan over the past thirty to forty years has been disastrous. Up to then it was a pretty good country - imperfect in its own ways, as all countries are imperfect in their own ways, but things were moving in the right direction. Women getting educated and able to work, a measure of prosperity, lots of great music, and a more relaxed attitude towards religion and so forth than across the border in Iran. Read Dervla Murphy's Full Tilt for a flavour of what it was like. What with the Russians and their friends, and teh Americans and their friends, and the Pakistanis and their friends (notably the Taliban) things have been drastically screwed up. I think the idea that the outside forces can put things back together is unrealistic. Their presence in the long run is destabilising rather than anything. I'm sure there are practical things that can be done which could help - such as the kind of arrangement about the poppy crop I mentioned. There are no doubt also many projects where practical help cold be provided which could make a real difference. So far as military activity is concerned there might be a role in support of the Pakistan government in border areas of that country, if requested. But the basic work of finding ways of putting the place back together is something that only the peoples of Afghanistan can do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:06 AM Plan for Victory 1) Pull ot everybody prince harry, the Ghurkas, the 7th Cavalry, the Mounties, The Enniskillens, the coldstream guards 2) nuke the place, agent orange everywhere , piss in the rivers 3) cultural enrichment - send them folksingers singing The Ballad of tam Linn, Mime Artists and a couple of performance poets |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Folkiedave Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:15 AM Pull out. Spend the money saved on buying up the poppy crop. Less hassle, less cost and no lives lost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: artbrooks Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:32 AM WLD, I heard that they had considered sending a Morris side to Afghanistan, but the Russians protested that uncalled for escalation at the UN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM The best way to "win" is just to leave Aghanistan. Pull out and let the Afghans go back to fighting with each other and sorting out their own domestic matters as best they can. And that is exactly what WILL eventually happen. I can't say when, though. ;-) It depends on how stubborn Nato is about the matter. Just as, previously, it depended on how stubborn the Russians were about the matter. Or the British. Or the Greeks (under Alexander). Or whoever... Same basic thing applies to Iraq. Just leave. The Iraqis will then sort it out in their own fashion (and that might not be too nice...but what's happening now isn't too nice either, and it was totally unnecessary). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: irishenglish Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:09 PM They haven't "lost" but a serious refocus has to be given to the entire matter. We have to remind people why Afghanistan was invaded in the first place. We cannot allow the Taliban and its stone age mentality to have a position in that country again. Because of Afghanistan's history, we need to support this government, by whatever means necessary. Improve conditions on the ground in Afghanistan, and a return to the Taliban might be unpalatable to rank and file Afghans. You cannot simply leave either country though, any attempt to do so in a quick manner will lead to disaster not only for the Afghans and Iraqi's , but all coalition members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:47 PM One of the effects of supporting the government militarily is to brand it as a foreign puppet in the eyes of many, and to strengthen the people engaged in fighting against it. Which largely means people who can be termed Taliban, since they have reasonably safe bases in Pakistan across the border. "We have to remind people why Afghanistan was invaded in the first place." That isn't as straightforward as it gets made out. There doesn't seem much evidence that the Al Qaeda training camps and propaganda activities actually had that much to do with 911, in terms of organising and directing, or that destroying those has had much adverse impact on the activities of Al Qaeda since. The decision to invade Iraq was essentially a political gesture, necessary for Bush in the aftermath of 911. It also provided a stepping stone in getting support for the invasion of Iraq (which had nothing whatever to do with 911), which had been an ambition of the Bush regime from Day One. The Taliban was a very unpleasant regime, but that wasn't the reason they were invaded. They were just as unpleasant when they were fighting the Russians with American backing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Peace Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:17 PM "Did anyone with a Brain Cell ever think that 'win' was possible in Afghanistan??????" That same question was posed back in 1964 and Barry Goldwater answered it by saying words to the effect, "Of course we could win in Vietnam. We have nuclear weapons." The problem in Afghanistan is that--and this same thing has been remarked about Iraq--is that when ya have no damned plan in the first place, it's difficult to know when you're finished doing whatever it is you're doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:52 PM If the real plan was to establish a permanent and powerful USA military presence in the central Middle East and to secure a controlling influence over the oil in the region (and over how it is marketed, meaning in which currency), then the plan has succeeded brilliantly thus far. The next step in the plan would be to invade and take over Iran...admittedly, a very difficult and hazardous notion, to say nothing of expensive and politically disastrous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: artbrooks Date: 04 Mar 08 - 08:02 PM Is that sarcasm or irony, LH?...I always have trouble telling them apart. You surely don't think that the US has a controlling influence over either Middle Eastern oil or how it is marketed, do you? And if you do, can I interest you in a valuable antique bridge in Brooklyn? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:05 PM No, I'm being quite serious, artbrooks. No sarcasm or irony intended. Not long before the USA invaded Iraq, Saddam had moved to sell Iraqi oil pegged in Euros, not dollars. This the USA could not allow, so they had to cause regime change in Iraq. The present Iraqi government is a somewhat cantakerous and reluctant client of the USA, and various maneuvers are being made to extend the USA's control over how the nation of Iraq markets its oil. You can look up a ton of stuff on the net about it, but I doubt you would do so if you're not inclined to (meaning if you don't agree). Furthermore, I think the USA had very serious intentions even before 2001 of establishing permanent military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, with an eye toward further possible moves on both Iran and Syria, whenever it seemed favorable to do so. Iraq and Afghanistan were both pieces in a larger chess game that involves political and economic control of the entire region...through client regimes...after deposing existing regimes. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were responsible for the 911 attacks, and neither one was attacked really because of 911, but 911 was used as a very effective way to get the American public onside to support both those wars. That's why I'm saying that the plan has not failed. It has succeeded...at a tremendous cost in money and in lives. There have been no signs that those who set all this in motion have any intention of pulling out. If the next American administration (regardless who wins the coming election) pulls out of either Iraq or Afghanistan, I will be surprised...but I'll be pleased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:11 PM Oh, I already have an antique bridge. It's in Coldwater, and it's way better than that one you have in Brooklyn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:10 AM Afghanistan is not the middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: freda underhill Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:08 AM Right from the start of the allied invasion, Kabul was split into three sections, only one of which was controlled by UN forces. And various provinces have been under the control of their own warlords, some of whom are allied to the Taliban. I supported the invasion, because prior to that, Taliban forces were massacring the Hazaras and other minorities. But it's a strange equation. Taliban funded by Pakistan. Pakistan receives aid from US. US fights Taliban... another case of where have all the flowers gone? freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: ard mhacha Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:41 AM Bring Harry back the boy had the Tailban frightened to death. Afghanistan is unconquerable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: artbrooks Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:42 PM Perhaps that's so, LH, and I won't disagree that the Bush administration is interested in a semi-permanent military presence in the Middle East or Afghanistan...but it often seems that people outside of the US think that the arm of the American (sic) government is a lot longer than any of us do. Looking at the 13 members of OPEC, Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Venezuela, and Ecuador, I see at least three or four outright enemies of the US and several more that are, at best, indifferent friends. Only Iraq and (maybe) Kuwait could be called American (sic) client states. While Mexico's economy is closely linked to ours, the other big oil producer, Russia, is hardly our good buddy. No, I'm afraid that selling oil for dollars rather than euros isn't something that the US can claim any credit for...and it is far down the list of excuses, lame-brained or otherwise, for invading Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: skipy Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:12 PM Bring them all home & turn the waste of space to obsidian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:37 PM You don't have to look far to find enemies of the USA, art. And that is a direct result of American military and corporate and political policies since the 1950s. It's a result of invasions, coups, assassinations, and corporate pillaging of the Third World. All the USA's present enemies in the world are people who feel they've already been hurt...and very badly hurt...by American policies. It's not because you have "liberty and freedom" or a high standard of living or any other kind of things like that. It's because your military and business people go into other countries and affect the lives of millions of ordinary people there in an extremely adverse fashion. What you would have to look pretty hard for now on the world scene is...friends. Real ones, I mean. There are a few fellow partners in crime, yes, and a few semi-willing ones who unenthusiastically go along with the game, but real friends? As rare as hens teeth right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Folkiedave Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:59 PM Bring Harry back the boy had the Tailban frightened to death I thought it was interesting how - when "his men" were there with him it was considered that they were a special target for the Taliban. Errr........and now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Mar 08 - 07:53 PM What they really should do is produce a bunch of Prince Harry androids and issue one to every frontline unit so they can all receive "special" attention from the Taliban and no one need feel overlooked or left out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Mar 08 - 05:29 PM Sort of like Hitler's doubles and CHurchill's doubles? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Have US & UK lost in Afghanistan? From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Mar 08 - 05:53 PM Yeah, sort of like that. What a fun job to have, eh? |
