NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone asked what is happening in Afghanistan these days. It appears that there is a re-emergence of hostiliries the past few days:

Afghanistan progress in danger of unraveling

Barrages of violence, downing of U.S. helicopter stall nation-building (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8434701/)

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghanistan was held up as an example of U.S.-led nation-building just three months ago. But that optimism has succumbed to near-daily ambushes, bombings, execution-style killings and this week's downing of a U.S. military helicopter.

From U.S. and U.N. officials to Afghan villagers, fear is growing that this country may be at a seminal moment — with the barrage of violence in danger of overwhelming three years of state-building.

"After the presidential elections last year, everyone was optimistic that we were heading toward a stable, peaceful democracy. But it no longer seems that way," said Malalai Juya, a female candidate in September's upcoming elections. "Everyone is scared now. Security has been getting worse and worse by the day."

U.S. bombs Afghan hideout near missing GIs

Airstrike targets suspected Taliban as rescuers scour area for elite unit (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8391112/)

KABUL, Afghanistan - American warplanes bombed a suspected Taliban compound in an area where an elite U.S. military team has been missing for five days in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, a U.S. military spokesman said Saturday.

It was not clear if there were any casualties from the airstrike, which took place Friday evening. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O’Hara declined to say if the strike was directly related to the missing American team.

Meanwhile, a transport plane flew home the bodies of 16 U.S. troops killed when their special forces helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday.

From the linked video source, it appears insurgents are gearing up to disrupt elections scheduled for September.

Concerns, comments?

this is where the Afghan Governement is tested. will they be strong or will they collapse and be dependant on the US. so it's a wait and see now.

If we want to ensure the stability of Afghanistan we need to build roads, electric generating stations, and a communications infrastructure so they can lure business to their country instead of relying on opium for cash. The Afghan government needs more funds to hire more soldiers and police. Unless we start putting more money into that country it will always be on the brink of chaos.

"Afghanistan" and "progress" in the same sentence???

If we want to ensure the stability of Afghanistan we need to build roads, electric generating stations, and a communications infrastructure so they can lure business to their country instead of relying on opium for cash. The Afghan government needs more funds to hire more soldiers and police. Unless we start putting more money into that country it will always be on the brink of chaos.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The opium business has grown (forgive the pun), since the US scaled back operations.

Regarding funding, I found this interesting:

Afghanistan's Slow Progress (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/06/afghanistans_sl.html)

When asked if she would call today's Afghanistan a democracy or an occupied country, she said: "Well, there is going to be a big conference in Stockholm in November 2005 to debate this question. But I can tell you one thing: SCA does not accept funding from the United States government because many of our members think that Afghanistan is under U.S. occupation."

She herself thinks that the reconstruction of the country will "take a long time, because this is a totally devastated country and there is no real law-making government in Afghanistan. This is what causes a lot of frustration among the Afghan people."

I guess that Afghanistan has truly been forgotten? I wonder if it is related to the fact that Bin Laden is still at large and there are only 18,000 US troops there.

For all of those Iraq war supporters who were proudly proclaiming Iraqi "democracy" have kinda distanced themselves from what is going on in Afghanistan? Will that be the same attitude with Iraq in the next few years?

I guess that Afghanistan has truly been forgotten? I wonder if it is related to the fact that Bin Laden is still at large and there are only 18,000 US troops there.

For all of those Iraq war supporters who were proudly proclaiming Iraqi "democracy" have kinda distanced themselves from what is going on in Afghanistan? Will that be the same attitude with Iraq in the next few years?I think that it's because, Afghanistan is at the point now where its Government has to take over. how it deals with this threat and if it needs help (money), it has to ask. To have the US step in again shakes confidence in the US as well as the new Government. So in my case, I'm waiting to see what the Afghan Government will do.

The opium business has grown since the US has taken over...

maybe just a coincidence.

Ooh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

If anyone had been paying attention, they would have heard that an upswing in violence was expected before the upcoming national elections.

"Unravelling" is AFGHANISTAN'S middle name. Raise your hand if you think the Afghans were happier under those liberal, progressive Taliban.

Ya'll need to get a grip.

Raise your hand if you think the Afghans were happier under those liberal, progressive Taliban.
*raises hand twice*

I say the Afghans and Iraquies were happier before the War...

If Samir (random citizen) ever hears that the US is coming to "liberate" his country...Its bad news for Samir and his Family...very bad news

Ooh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

If anyone had been paying attention, they would have heard that an upswing in violence was expected before the upcoming national elections.

"Unravelling" is AFGHANISTAN'S middle name. Raise your hand if you think the Afghans were happier under those liberal, progressive Taliban.

Ya'll need to get a grip.

And I suppose a dose of US brand liberation has done it any good? From a results oriented approach, its not any different now. You're just as likely to get killed, only it may be from either a warlords camp or the Taliban remnants.

Take your pick, if anything, its gotten worst.

Besides, the US was responsible for the Taliban gaining power after all. Or did those stinger missiles suddenly materialize out of nowhere to appear in their hands when the Soviet Union was in charge?

US brand liberation. When you need more chaos in a country. :rolls:

If this is "in danger of unraveling" then Kosovo has "completely and utterly fucking unraveled"

If this is "in danger of unraveling" then Kosovo has "completely and utterly fucking unraveled"

Straw Man.

Kosovo was never declared to be about bringing democracy and waging war on Terror.

My mom got mad when I unraveled the Afghan she made for the couch..

Straw Man.

Kosovo was never declared to be about bringing democracy and waging war on Terror.
*blinks* Don't I have to be making some sort of argument for it to be a strawman? I'm just saying that in terms of the amount of chaos and depravity found in Afghanistan is dwarfed by that in Kosovo. I didn't mention anyhting about democracy once. Of course, it doesn't help that the UN is contributing to the chaos in both countries with it's resource-hogging and the various atrocities commited by the blues(this in Kosovo specifically, not sure if there have been any in Afghanistan yet).

...From the linked video source, it appears insurgents are gearing up to disrupt elections scheduled for September.

Concerns, comments?

They probably are. And your point is...?? :confused:

I guess that Afghanistan has truly been forgotten? I wonder if it is related to the fact that Bin Laden is still at large and there are only 18,000 US troops there.

And you got the statistics on the number of American troops from...? Oh, and there are ??? NATO troops there, including ??? troops from Canada?

They probably are. And your point is...?? :confused:
He apparently thinks if the system put in place was so much better than the old than obviously the small minority still fighting would just suddenly stop. And that they wouldn't attack at the most opportune time designed to let them back into power.

And I suppose a dose of US brand liberation has done it any good? From a results oriented approach, its not any different now. You're just as likely to get killed, only it may be from either a warlords camp or the Taliban remnants.

Take your pick, if anything, its gotten worst.

Besides, the US was responsible for the Taliban gaining power after all. Or did those stinger missiles suddenly materialize out of nowhere to appear in their hands when the Soviet Union was in charge?

US brand liberation. When you need more chaos in a country. :rolls:


Wait a sec. Stinger missiles gave the Taliban power?

*raises hand twice*

I say the Afghans and Iraquies were happier before the War...

If Samir (random citizen) ever hears that the US is coming to "liberate" his country...Its bad news for Samir and his Family...very bad news

Yep, they like to kill women in the soccer stadium in Afghanistan. Great sport for an otherwise dull Saturday afternoon. Oh, and let us not forget to not educate the women, after all they should be barefoot and in the kitchen.

The mass graves in Iraqi were wonderful. After all, they were only filled with those who opposed Saddam. Yes, the people of Iraq really love him and wish he was back in power.

Hmm, now, I know that the US helped arm the Taliban, but from what I've seen, pretty much the only thing the terrorists are ever carrying around are Russian-made RPGs, AKs, etc, etc.

Hmm, now, I know that the US helped arm the Taliban, but from what I've seen, pretty much the only thing the terrorists are ever carrying around are Russian-made RPGs, AKs, etc, etc.


Correct a moonga!!

Yeah all of those taliban fights shooting stingers at our convoys and whatnaut.

BTW what is the shelf life on a stinger?

Would you please show me what a Russian-made stinger missile looks like?

EDIT: By the way, you do know that a stinger missile is a fairly advanced piece of technology designed for locking on to and removing helicopters from the sky, right?

In theory the shelf-life is between 10-12 years, however the ones we've tested that we got from the buy-back program have still worked.

Hmm, now, I know that the US helped arm the Taliban, but from what I've seen, pretty much the only thing the terrorists are ever carrying around are Russian-made RPGs, AKs, etc, etc.

Small wonder from whence their weapons appear. :(

They probably are. And your point is...?? :confused:
There are many points but I do believe the obvious one relates to the US pulling too many troops out of Afghanistan too soon, to go fight a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Wait a sec. Stinger missiles gave the Taliban power?

If memory serves, until the Taliban and other insurgents gained significant AA ability, the Soviet close air support forces were literally wiping the floor with them. They didn't have anything to counter the Hinds and fighter bombers in use. Without US arms in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, it would have stayed a Soviet principality until the SU itself fell.

Additionally, as far as I can tell, the standard of living and equality was better under the SU than the Taliban.

Hmm, now, I know that the US helped arm the Taliban, but from what I've seen, pretty much the only thing the terrorists are ever carrying around are Russian-made RPGs, AKs, etc, etc.

After the SU withdrew from Afghanistan, I doubt they saw much point in supplying even more arms to them. It would probably be unsurprising to find out that the stockpile of Stinger missiles that were shipped there were mostly depleted. As for AKs, you can practically find them anywhere where the black market for arms exist. I mean, how many countries manufacture them for export? Their rugged, reliable and easy to use. It shouldn't come as a surprise that they would be easy to find if you have the money for it.

Besides, IIRC the US doesn't sell advanced weapons to any particular group or country. It only gives them to insurgent groups when they want a regime change. Post SU Russia just sold whatever people wanted so long as they could pay. Except for ICBMs and nuclear warheads of course, they had to draw the line somewhere.

Oh, and since when did Russia ever make Stinger missiles? I thought they had their own version of shoulder mounted AA missiles and not Stinger knockoffs.

*raises hand twice*

I say the Afghans and Iraquies were happier before the War...

If Samir (random citizen) ever hears that the US is coming to "liberate" his country...Its bad news for Samir and his Family...very bad news

The Afghanis were glad to see the Taliban go. Perhaps no one more happy than the drug growers.

The Shia and Kurds were happy to see Saddam go. You may not know this from the drivel you read, but he was a really bad person.

If memory serves, until the Taliban and other insurgents gained significant AA ability, the Soviet close air support forces were literally wiping the floor with them. They didn't have anything to counter the Hinds and fighter bombers in use. Without US arms in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, it would have stayed a Soviet principality until the SU itself fell.

Additionally, as far as I can tell, the standard of living and equality was better under the SU than the Taliban.

After the SU withdrew from Afghanistan, I doubt they saw much point in supplying even more arms to them. It would probably be unsurprising to find out that the stockpile of Stinger missiles that were shipped there were mostly depleted.

Oh, and since when did Russia ever make Stinger missiles? I thought they had their own version of shoulder mounted AA missiles and not Stinger knockoffs.

The batteries used on the Stinger missles had a very short shelf life. The Stingers were useless by the time the U.S. got there.

The Afghanis were glad to see the Taliban go.
This is debatable?

During the nearly ten-year Soviet military occupation that ended in 1989, nearly one-third of the Afghan population fled the country, and more than six million refugees went to Pakistan and Iran. In early 2000, there were still about 2 million refugees in Pakistan and 1.4 million in Iran.

By my math, it would appear the 2.6 million Afghans returned to their country once the Taliban had taken control?

This is also interesting when considering the "people" of Afghanistan:

Afghanistan’s population is young. More than 42 percent of the population is younger than age 15, 55 percent is between ages 15 and 64, and only about three percent are 65 years and older.

Perhaps no one more happy than the drug growers.
This is a positive development under US occupation?

The Shia and Kurds were happy to see Saddam go.
More than likely, but were they happy to see occupation forces in their country as a result, and the answer would be no.

You may not know this from the drivel you read, but he was a really bad person.
Yes he was a "really bad person", and it makes one wonder why the US supported before, during, and after committing the atrocities that earned him his "really bad person" tag.

However, this thread is about Afghanistan. The question is whether or not the US is doing enough to make Afghanistan a better country?

I guess that Afghanistan has truly been forgotten? I wonder if it is related to the fact that Bin Laden is still at large and there are only 18,000 US troops there.

For all of those Iraq war supporters who were proudly proclaiming Iraqi "democracy" have kinda distanced themselves from what is going on in Afghanistan? Will that be the same attitude with Iraq in the next few years?

Hey Canuck, Yeah, Zeppistan and I have been talking about this very thing in recent weeks. While everyone is so focused on Iraq, it seems the Taliban have crept back into Afghanistan and looks like things are heating up there again. We noted that more soldiers were killed in Afghanistan this past month then in a long while. The real war on terrorism was being waged in Afghanistan, not Iraq, but we all know they took their eye off the ball March 19, 2003 and it seems that they've never looked back.

Peace,
Stephanie.

This is debatable?

During the nearly ten-year Soviet military occupation that ended in 1989, nearly one-third of the Afghan population fled the country, and more than six million refugees went to Pakistan and Iran. In early 2000, there were still about 2 million refugees in Pakistan and 1.4 million in Iran.

By my math, it would appear the 2.6 million Afghans returned to their country once the Taliban had taken control?

Originally, they fled the fighting. They returned to the relative "peace" of Taliban rule. I don't think that's an endorsement of the Taliban, just people who would rather take their chances living in their homeland rather than a foreign country.

The question is whether or not the US is doing enough to make Afghanistan a better country?

I think making Afghanistan a better country is up to the Afghans, not the U.S. The U.S. cannot reverse a few thousand years of history and culture in a few years, nor should they try. The Afghans had no chance to be better as long as the Taliban (many of whom were Pakistani) and al-Quaeda ruled the country.

On one hand, you criticise the U.S. for being occupiers. On the other, you want them to create some liberal democracy. It ain't gonna happen.

The batteries used on the Stinger missles had a very short shelf life. The Stingers were useless by the time the U.S. got there.

There we go then. The answer why the local insurgents couldn't use the Stinger missiles they had left against US forces. No more battery power.

Doesn't change the fact that they were originally shipped to the Taliban and local insurgents during the SU occupation which turned the tables.

If they didn't ship the missiles, things might have turned out very differently. How differently? No idea. But it would seem almost a certainty that the Taliban wouldn't have been in power as they were.

Here's some info that might settle the stinger missile debate:

There are several reasons why terrorists are attracted to shoulder-launched missiles. The U.S. Raytheon FIM-92A, or "Stinger," can hit targets traveling at altitudes of 3,000--26,000 feet. The Russian SA-7 can hit targets traveling at 1,600--16,000 feet. And the missiles can be fired some distance from the prying eyes of airport security staff. The attack in Kenya was launched a thousand yards from the airport. Although the "best used before" dates on these missile systems are sometimes short (Stingers are thought to have a shelf life of 10 years due to the degradation of their propellant), technically gifted terrorist organizations may be able to replace worn-out components with homemade parts.

The most famous system, the Stinger, was supplied to the Afghan Mujahideen by the CIA in the 1980s, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

It is difficult to know how many missiles and launchers were supplied to the guerrillas. Estimates range between 400--900 missiles. When the CIA launched a scheme to buy back unused missiles after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the Mujahideen were reluctant sellers. Although the agency offered $30,000 apiece, only about 70 were returned. It is thought that today around 100 Stingers remain in Afghanistan.

In December 2002, troops from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were offered some Stinger missiles by local arms dealers for $250,000 each. And it is not just Stingers that have turned up. A year ago, U.S. troops seized HN-5 missiles (a Chinese version of the SA-7). Osama bin Laden's bodyguards are thought to surround him with a phalanx of such weapons, protecting their boss from air attack. In March 2002, Abu Zubaydah, an alleged high-ranking Al Qaeda operative, reportedly admitted that his organization has such missiles. Questioning of bin Laden's alleged chief of operations, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, following his arrest in Pakistan in March, may yield more information on the organization's inventory.

The SA-7 or some variant is being made under license in countries like China, Egypt, North Korea, and Yugoslavia. SA-7s can be bought for $5,000 per unit. The December 4, 2002 Jane's Defence Weekly estimated that "several thousand" are in circulation. SA-7s can be found all over the world. Hizbollah is believed to have acquired some, and on May 8, 2001, Israeli authorities confiscated four SA-7s being smuggled on the Lebanese-flagged ship Santorini. Hizbollah is also thought to have acquired Stingers from the Mujahideen, as well as some Chinese Qianwei/QW-1 Advanced Guard missiles, the origins of which are unknown.

Shipments to terrorist groups take place in a murky underworld that is difficult to penetrate, where transfers fall below the usual international accounting methods for state-to-state military sales. For instance, Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers are thought to have SA-7s, SA-14s, and Chinese HN-5/SA-7s. They may also have acquired Stingers from the Greek November 17 guerrilla movement and the Kurdish Worker's Party.

Some attacks are falsely attributed to shoulder-launched missiles. Rocket-propelled grenades, with a range of 984 feet (300 meters) can do just as much damage to low-flying aircraft--witness the destruction of a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter in Somalia in October 1993. But incidents involving those weapons are often reported as Manpads attacks, making it difficult to verify exactly how often the latter are used.

And the proliferation of shoulder-launched missiles may not be as dire as it appears. It's not easy to use one of these missiles to down a civilian airliner. Although they are often called "fire and forget" weapons--one points at the target, pulls the trigger, and the missile does the rest--the reality is more complex. Chris Bishop, a military expert and writer, points out that with the British "Blowpipe," the operator must continue to track the target while directing the rocket.

Although more modern weapons have infrared "seekers" to track the aircraft, Bishop argues that they are also "difficult to use, and few terrorists have sufficient training." The CIA is thought to have experienced considerable problems in teaching the Afghan Mujahideen--many of whom were illiterate--to use the Stinger. Moreover, the operator must take ground clutter into account. "You mustn't fire too close to the ground, in case the missile gets seduced away by the sun or ground heat," says Bishop. During the war in Afghanistan, heat-seeking SA-7s, also covertly supplied to the Mujahideen by the United States via Egypt, had a habit of flying toward the sun rather than toward the target's exhaust.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:bL9dViYaeWsJ:www.thebulletin.org/article.php%3Fart_ofn%3Dmj03withington+%22shelf+life%22+stinger+missiles+afghanistan&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:pQCO5_f8lRUJ:www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011002-attack03.htm+%22shelf+life%22+stinger+missiles+afghanistan&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I don't see that our supplying stingers to the taliban constitutes support of their regime, just that we had a mutual enemy, the Soviets. The stingers were instrumental in the soviet defeat by neutralizing their airpower. But they didn't win the war.

There we go then. The answer why the local insurgents couldn't use the Stinger missiles they had left against US forces. No more battery power.

Doesn't change the fact that they were originally shipped to the Taliban and local insurgents during the SU occupation which turned the tables.

If they didn't ship the missiles, things might have turned out very differently. How differently? No idea. But it would seem almost a certainty that the Taliban wouldn't have been in power as they were.

The missles weren't shipped to the Taliban, who weren't even a major force until after the Soviets left. The missles were given to the mujahadeen.

The Taliban wouldn't ever have been in power if the Soviets had not invaded. The Soviets broke up the balance of power in Afghanistan between the tribes. When they left, the tribes began a civil war which the Taliban, with the help of Pakistan, were able to dominate the others.

The missles got rid of the Soviets. They didn't insure a Taliban victory in the resulting civil war.

The point of my post is to highlight the fact that without significant AA capability supplied by the US, would the Afghanistan insurgency have been able to remove the SU?

The US may not have directly put the Taliban in power, but they did give the insurgency the power to pose a serious threat to the SU's most important assets in that land, air support. Thus when the SU was forced to withdraw, a power vacuum was created, one which was then filled up by the Taliban eventually. It is extremely short sighted not to have come to the realization that somebody would have filled the shoes of rulership once the SU withdrew.

If there had been no Stinger missiles that made their way to the mujahadeen hands, do you think the SU would have withdrawn then? It does not seem likely. Not if they could effectively project close air support with impunity.

The point of my post is to highlight the fact that without significant AA capability supplied by the US, would the Afghanistan insurgency have been able to remove the SU?

The US may not have directly put the Taliban in power, but they did give the insurgency the power to pose a serious threat to the SU's most important assets in that land, air support. Thus when the SU was forced to withdraw, a power vacuum was created, one which was then filled up by the Taliban eventually. It is extremely short sighted not to have come to the realization that somebody would have filled the shoes of rulership once the SU withdrew.

If there had been no Stinger missiles that made their way to the mujahadeen hands, do you think the SU would have withdrawn then? It does not seem likely. Not if they could effectively project close air support with impunity.

Granted the USSR wouldn't have withdrawn without US furnishing air defense to the mujahadeen. So, hooray for the US! Helping an occupied people fight off their oppressors!

It was shortsighted of the Soviets to believe they could invade a neighbor with impunity. It was not up to the US to fix what was broken, as it was the Russians who broke it. I don't recall any calls for them to pay reparations. BTW, where was the UN after the Soviets withdrew? Couln't they have furnished peacekeepers and nation builders?

On the other hand, the US removed the Taliban as the rulers, then proceeded , along with NATO, to stabilize the situation long enough for the Afghans to figure it out themselves. That is, to fix what was broken. The US is not about to become an occupying force there, and meet the same fate as the Soviets and British. Taking a low key approach is the best way for both our goals and the Afghans.

Your point is to criticise the US, leaving the rest of the world blameless.

*raises hand twice*

I say the Afghans and Iraquies were happier before the War...

If Samir (random citizen) ever hears that the US is coming to "liberate" his country...Its bad news for Samir and his Family...very bad news

Yeah, thats pretty much it. I would rather live in a corrupt dictatorship than a democracy with weekly carbombings and over 100,000 dead to achieve the democracy.

The stingers imposed huge cost of engagement for the Soviets, but they would have withdrawn eventually, stingers or no stingers.

What I particularly find disturbing is the gradual reduction in the "determination" of the US.

First there was all bravado about cleaning up the taliban.

But many Taliban retreated to Pakistan and they regrouped there and are now carrying out attacks from there with impunity, because the US troops have orders not to cross the Pak-Afghan border.

The Pakis don't take action on them, due to sympathies or political compulsions or whatever.

Then the US itself agreed that it was engaging with "moderate Taliban" :confused:

WTH is a moderate taliban...there's an oxymoron if there was ever one.

Now it seems that southern Afghanistan is out of any govt authority due to taliban presence and Karzai's writ does not run there.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-4-2005_pg1_5
Afghanistan hits back at Pakistan over militants

KABUL: Militants are using bases in Pakistan to stage attacks in Afghanistan, an Afghan general said on Saturday, intensifying a row between the two nations over operations in a border area where Osama Bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

“All terrorists come from that side of the border. They fight in Afghanistan and when they face problems, they go back, get reinforced and equipped and come back for fighting,” Afghan army General Sher Muhammad Karimi told reporters. “This issue is as clear as sun for all the world to see that fighting is in Afghanistan and armed terrorists and weapons come from other places here and are being used against Afghans.” His comments came days after Pakistan protested to the US military over a recent spike in militants sneaking across the frontier.

“In theory (Pakistani forces) show 100 percent commitment that they are fighting terrorism, but in actions it is clear that they do not have the control to abolish these hideouts totally. Possibly it is their policy that they don’t want to do it or possibly they are afraid that their tribal people may rise up against them,” he added. afp


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-5-2005_pg7_44
Afghan militants attack from Pakistan: US officer

KABUL: Afghan guerrillas are still launching attacks from the safety of Pakistan despite the Pakistani military’s battle against Islamic militants, a US army officer said on Monday. Afghan government and US military accusations that Taliban and other Islamic militants are able to operate from Pakistan have angered Pakistan, which has been trying to clear militants from its western border region. “My base, where I live, is in Khost province, and I will say, absolutely, there are insurgents coming across the border from Pakistan attacking into Khost, then returning back into Pakistan,” Colonel Gary Cheek told a news conference. Cheek is commander of about 4,000 US-led troops in 16 eastern Afghan provinces, including Khost. He commended the Pakistani military for operations, launched more than a year ago, to clear militants from the rugged Waziristan region bordering Afghanistan, fighting in which hundreds of Pakistani servicemen have been killed and wounded. reuters

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/04/international/asia/04taliban.html?ex=1120536000&en=5ed496341207b1a2&ei=5070&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=login
Despite Years of U.S. Pressure, Taliban Fight On in Jagged Hills
By CARLOTTA GALL
GAZEK KULA, Afghanistan - For weeks, sightings of Taliban fighters were being reported all over the rugged mountains here. But when Staff Sgt. Patrick Brannan and his team of scouts drove into a nearby village to investigate a complaint of a beating, they had no idea that they were stumbling into the biggest battle of their lives.

On May 3, joined by 10 local policemen and an interpreter, the scouts turned up at a kind of Taliban convention - of some 60 to 80 fighters - and were greeted by rockets and gunfire. The sergeant called for reinforcements and was told to keep the Taliban engaged until they arrived. "I've only got six men," he remembers saying.

For the next two and a half hours, he and his small squad, who had a year of experience in Iraq, cut off a Taliban escape. Nearly 40 Taliban and one Afghan policeman were killed. "It's not supposed to be like that here," said Capt. Mike Adamski, a battalion intelligence officer. "It's the hardest fight I saw, even after Iraq."

During the last six months, American and Afghan officials have predicted the collapse of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamists thrown out of power by American forces in 2001, citing their failure to disrupt the presidential election last October and a lack of activity last winter.

But the intensity of the fighting here in Zabul Province, and in parts of adjoining Kandahar and Uruzgan Provinces - roughly 100 square miles of mountain valleys in all - reveals the Taliban to be still a vibrant fighting force supplied with money, men and weapons.

The May 3 battle was part of an almost forgotten war in the most remote corners of Afghanistan, a strange and dangerous campaign that is part cat-and-mouse game against Taliban forces and part public relations blitz to win over wary villagers still largely sympathetic to the Taliban.

An Afghan informer, who did not want his name used for fear of retribution, has told American forces that the Taliban ranks have been rapidly replenished by recruits who slipped in from Pakistan. For every one of the Taliban killed on May 3, judging by his account, another has arrived to take his place.

With a ready source of men, and apparently plentiful weapons, the Taliban may not be able to hold ground, but they can continue their insurgency indefinitely, attacking the fledgling Afghan government, scaring away aid groups and leaving the province ungovernable, some Afghan and American officials say.

Still, the former commander of United States forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David Barno, described the insurgency as in decline in an interview on April 26 and predicted that a government amnesty offer would fatally split the Taliban in coming months.

In April and May, in a new push to flush out and end the insurgency, American forces began probing the final bastions of Taliban control in this unforgiving landscape. They have succeeded in provoking some of the heaviest combat in Afghanistan in the last three years, killing more than 60 Taliban fighters in April and May, by one United States military estimate.

After a winter lull, the Second Battalion, 503rd Airborne Infantry, which arrived at the Lagman base in Zabul from its base in Vicenza, Italy, found its new post hopping with activity, Capt. Jonathan Hopkins, the battalion adjutant, and others said.

Suspected Taliban fighters burned the district headquarters in Khak-e-Iran in mid-March. An American platoon was ambushed in the Deychopan district on April 15. United States Special Forces were in a sizable fight in the Argandab district on April 18, killing eight men suspected of being Taliban and capturing a mid-level commander. Two Taliban commanders led attacks on the police station at Saigaz, the seat of the Argandab district, on April 21 and 22.

"There are three to four healthy cells, with 30 to 60 fighters in each; that's 120 to 240 people altogether," said Captain Adamski, estimating the total Taliban strength in the area, though accounts from local people indicated higher numbers.

In the battle on May 3, the 60 to 80 Taliban fighters encountered by Sergeant Brannan and his scouts were well armed and well prepared, with weapons caches and foxholes dotting an orchard where the heaviest fighting took place. The Taliban fought to within 150 yards of American positions and later hit one of two armored Humvees with a volley of rocket-propelled grenades that set it on fire, Sergeant Brannan said. Specialist Joseph Leatham, in the turret, kept firing as the vehicle burned, allowing his comrades to get out alive.

When the first American helicopter arrived as reinforcement, it came under fire and was forced to veer away. "I had one magazine left," Sergeant Brannan said. "I had enough for another 15 to 20 minutes."

In all, the battle lasted seven hours. Ten Taliban fighters were captured, and five Afghan policemen and six American soldiers were wounded. The Afghan informer, who walked for three hours to see the American troops when he heard in late May that they were in Gazek Kula, said a local Taliban commander, Mullah Abdullah, had led the Taliban in the fight. The mullah escaped with his deputy, Sangaryar, by jumping in the river and floating downstream, the informer said.

After the battle, he said, the Taliban sent out word that local men should help bury the dead. Mullah Abdullah and his deputy were there as they buried 19 bodies, 14 of them representing the commander's entire fighting unit.

But news of the fight traveled fast, and dozens more fighters crossed from Pakistan to shore up the Taliban ranks, the informer said. Mullah Abdullah now had a new force of 40 men. Three other leading Taliban commanders in the province - Mullah Muhammad Alam, Mullah Ahmadullah and Mullah Hedayatullah - had more than 200 fighters between them, with more reserves in Pakistan, he said.

The informer said that he knew Mullah Abdullah well and that the mullah had been a guest in his house. But in late April the mullah and his men detained him, accusing him of spying for the Americans. They seized his satellite phone and rifle and threatened to kill him, but let him go because of shared tribal links.

Sgt. First Class Kyle Shuttlesworth, 45, a veteran soldier who is counting the days to retirement, said that the American forces here had tracked many men infiltrating from Pakistan, but that since they crossed unarmed, the Americans had no cause to detain them. "We are trying to work out where they get their weapons," he said.

Some in the area accused Pakistan of fueling the insurgency. Though ostensibly an American ally, Pakistan is viewed with suspicion here by some American military and Afghan officials for its failure to stem the flow of Taliban recruits.

"The Taliban will be finished when there is no foreign interference," said Mullah Zafar Khan, the Deychopan district chief. He blamed mullahs and others in Pakistan for inveigling young people into join the fight. "Pakistan is giving them the wrong information and telling them to go and do jihad," he said. The governor of the province, Delbar Jan Arman, said the answer was to unite the local tribes and strengthen the government, since the Taliban were profiting from a power vacuum. "The reason is not that the Taliban are strong," he said. "The government is not so strong in these areas."

Sergeant Shuttlesworth said part of the American strategy was to engage the local people. Distributing aid and providing jobs in reconstruction projects were paying dividends in the next district, he said, with many people coming forward to offer intelligence on the Taliban.

The soldiers have to learn to switch from aggression to friendliness, he said, "like turning off and on a light switch." It is a slow and tricky job. At Gazek Kula, the American forces at first encountered a wary, silent population that shut itself indoors and turned out the lights.

After bunking in a deserted farmhouse, Sergeant Shuttlesworth and the unit's commander, First Lt. Joshua Hyland, still pale from his recent desk job, chatted with villagers for hours the next day in the small bazaar, joking with children, who at first would not accept even a cookie.

"The Taliban are not here, so there will be no fighting," Sergeant Shuttlesworth told the villagers. "We are here to talk to the people, see if you have enough food, if the children are healthy. We are here for a few days, not to harass the people."

The villagers said the Taliban passed through every so often and demanded food. "The Taliban come only for one night," Wali Muhammad, 33, a wheat trader, said. "They are not a security problem."

Others complained that the Taliban had gathered them in the bazaar and warned them not to run a school, support the government or accept foreign aid. The children said the Taliban had warned them that school would turn them into infidels.

"Twenty days ago there were 10 Taliban in this room," a former policeman, Abdul Matin, 40, told the Americans sitting on the floor over a glass of tea in his home.

They came in a group of 100, he said, and spread out around the village. They had satellite phones and plenty of money, offering one man $2,000 to work as an informer. They were gone before dawn and have not been back since, Mr. Matin said.

"The people support the Taliban because they don't loot and they respect the women," he said. But he added, "The whole district wants to help the Americans, because our country is destroyed."

Lieutenant Hyland urged the villagers to vote in the parliamentary elections scheduled for Sept. 18 and elect someone honest. "Power for the people comes through democracy," he said. "It has to start with the strength of the people, even if it is dangerous for you."

American units have encountered Taliban every few days since the May 3 battle, Sergeant Shuttlesworth said. The battalion suffered its first fatality on May 21, when Pfc. Steven C. Tucker, 19, of Grapevine, Tex., was killed by a roadside explosion in the south. It is there that insurgents cross on their way from Pakistan to join up with the Taliban in the mountains.

[On Friday, Two United States soldiers were killed and one was wounded in a bomb blast in southeast Afghanistan, the American military said Saturday, Reuters reported. They were in a convoy in Paktika province, near the Pakistani border, when their vehicle was hit.]

The American forces keep probing, hoping to lure the Taliban out of the craggy mountain passes. On a recent five-hour trek, Sergeant Shuttlesworth took his men, along with 10 local police officers, down the narrow river valley near here, trying once again to tempt the Taliban into revealing themselves.

"We are the bait," he told the local police chief. "Are you ready to fight?"

I think making Afghanistan a better country is up to the Afghans, not the U.S.
Actually, after all the damage inflicted by the coalition forces, I do believe that they have a moral responsibility to help Afghanistan be a better country and improve the damaged infastructure.

The U.S. cannot reverse a few thousand years of history and culture in a few years, nor should they try.
Yet, that is exactly what the US is trying to do in Iraq?

The Afghans had no chance to be better as long as the Taliban (many of whom were Pakistani) and al-Quaeda ruled the country.
I agree but with the Taliban reeling, the US opted to remove most of the troops to fight an ill conceived war in Iraq. This did not help Afghanistan in the slightest.

On one hand, you criticise the U.S. for being occupiers.
Nowhere in this thread have I criticized the US occupation of Afghanistan.

On the other, you want them to create some liberal democracy. It ain't gonna happen.
Point to where I have stated that I "want them to create some liberal democracy". I have never supported that cause. Why? The answer is obvious and you already supplied it by stating, "It ain't gonna happen."

Just like it ain't gonna happen in Iraq.

Granted the USSR wouldn't have withdrawn without US furnishing air defense to the mujahadeen. So, hooray for the US! Helping an occupied people fight off their oppressors!

And look what happened after their 'oppressors' left. Yes, there was significant loss of life when the occupation occured. Yes, war did happen. But at the same time, I do recall that there were those who said the quality of life and equality among genders were better before the withdrawal of SU forces.

After they left, there was civil war, tyranny and what have you.


It was shortsighted of the Soviets to believe they could invade a neighbor with impunity.

Parrarels between US and Iraq come to mind, although technically they are not neighbors. The one difference is that there are no major countries furnishing the insurgents with state of the art weaponry and training.


It was not up to the US to fix what was broken, as it was the Russians who broke it. I don't recall any calls for them to pay reparations.

The Soviet Union withdrew as losses grew unacceptable. If the US was forced to leave Iraq on the grounds of excessive violence against its troops, would it pay reperations? Come to think of it, did they give reperations to North Korea and Vietnam after they withdrew their forces?

War reperations are usually paid by the loser when their territory is occupied as was the case of Germany prior to WWII. Afghanistani insurgents lacked the objective and capability to invade and occupy the SU, so your point was moot.


BTW, where was the UN after the Soviets withdrew? Couln't they have furnished peacekeepers and nation builders?


They might have. Had the SC been bothered to do so. Did America even call for peacekeepers or offer their own after the SU withdrew? If they did not, your point is also moot. Nobody was interested in stabilizing Afghanistan. America was only interested in seeing to it that the SU was foiled at every approach.


On the other hand, the US removed the Taliban as the rulers, then proceeded , along with NATO, to stabilize the situation long enough for the Afghans to figure it out themselves. That is, to fix what was broken. The US is not about to become an occupying force there, and meet the same fate as the Soviets and British. Taking a low key approach is the best way for both our goals and the Afghans.

A low key approach that involved the toppling of an existing government via direct military intervention? Your idea of low key is somewhat dubious.

But if current reports are true, it would appear that the Taliban has returned and in some strength. And that local warlords control much of the country. So why is it that the US has talked so much about building 'enduring' bases in Iraq as well as encouraging other nations to join in, while ignoring Afghanista as far as greater efforts to stabilize it goes?

Was it because they had elections? If so, why does Iraq continue to hold a sizeable portion of US forces far in excess of the remaining garrison in Afghanistan?

Is it because of insurgency? Reports on the scale of combat differ, but it does seem that the Afghanistan insurgency is doing more damage material wise to the US than in Iraq.

Or is it simpler? That there is little tactical and strategic purpose to investing a significant force to stabilize Afghanistan. Iraq on the other hand, would make an excellent place to create a US friendly nation thus giving it a foothold to threaten the surrounding nations.


Your point is to criticise the US, leaving the rest of the world blameless.

Incorrect, my point is to prove that the US is not some kind of pure nation of righteousness that some people believe. No other nation uses as much rhetoric as they do to convince the world that they are.

I would even be so bold as to suggest that the US is not as outwardly aggressive or oppressive as some other nations. But it does not change that the basic fact that it has clean hands. No nation has clean hands.

I do not care that the US has dirty hands. But hiding the hands behind you and proclaiming that they are clean, that is just plain bad manners. I will acknowledge the good, so long as America can acknowledge its bad.

And look what happened after their 'oppressors' left. Yes, there was significant loss of life when the occupation occured. Yes, war did happen. But at the same time, I do recall that there were those who said the quality of life and equality among genders were better before the withdrawal of SU forces.

Oh please. You can't be serious? You're suggesting that life was better for Afghans under the Soviets? "Significant loss of life" was 1.3 million dead. I'm sure their quality of life was improved. As usual in a communist dictatorship, the only people whose quality of life improved was the ruling class.

After they left, there was civil war, tyranny and what have you.

While they were there, there was war, tyranny, and what have you.

Parrarels between US and Iraq come to mind, although technically they are not neighbors. The one difference is that there are no major countries furnishing the insurgents with state of the art weaponry and training.

Iraq is different from Afghanistan on many levels.

The Soviet Union withdrew as losses grew unacceptable. If the US was forced to leave Iraq on the grounds of excessive violence against its troops, would it pay reperations? Come to think of it, did they give reperations to North Korea and Vietnam after they withdrew their forces?

Your contention is that the US should have paid reparations to North Korea? Do I understand that you are comparing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the US's UN sponsored defense of the South? Apples and oranges. Hell, apples and spinach!


War reperations are usually paid by the loser when their territory is occupied as was the case of Germany prior to WWII. Afghanistani insurgents lacked the objective and capability to invade and occupy the SU, so your point was moot.

My point was that the wrong nation is being held responsible for the anarchy that followed the Soviet invasion. The Russians caused the anarchy, not the US.

Nobody was interested in stabilizing Afghanistan. America was only interested in seeing to it that the SU was foiled at every approach.

That's true. The USSR and the US did a lot of tit for tat over the 45 years of the Cold War. Notice who won.

A low key approach that involved the toppling of an existing government via direct military intervention? Your idea of low key is somewhat dubious.

Low key in the manner of the invasion and not flooding the countryside with foreign troops.

But if current reports are true, it would appear that the Taliban has returned and in some strength.

The Taliban never left. They have been hanging back attempting to strengthen their forces for a push before the elections. Their failure to disrupt the previous election was quite a blow to their reputation with the Afghans.

And that local warlords control much of the country.

Local warlords have always controlled much of the country.

So why is it that the US has talked so much about building 'enduring' bases in Iraq as well as encouraging other nations to join in, while ignoring Afghanista as far as greater efforts to stabilize it goes?

You do realize that NATO troops are a large part of the stabilizing force in Afghanistan? There are 8000 NATO troops which comprise a third of the total force. The three largest contingents are from Germany, France, and Canada.

Was it because they had elections? If so, why does Iraq continue to hold a sizeable portion of US forces far in excess of the remaining garrison in Afghanistan?

The Sunni's are a larger share of the population in Iraq than the Taliban is in Afghanistan. The Taliban are very unpopular and don't get much in the way of support.

Is it because of insurgency? Reports on the scale of combat differ, but it does seem that the Afghanistan insurgency is doing more damage material wise to the US than in Iraq.

Huh? Percentage wise, casulties are the same.

Or is it simpler? That there is little tactical and strategic purpose to investing a significant force to stabilize Afghanistan. Iraq on the other hand, would make an excellent place to create a US friendly nation thus giving it a foothold to threaten the surrounding nations.

There is just little need for a large force in Afghanistan and it would be counterproductive.

Incorrect, my point is to prove that the US is not some kind of pure nation of righteousness that some people believe. No other nation uses as much rhetoric as they do to convince the world that they are.

I would even be so bold as to suggest that the US is not as outwardly aggressive or oppressive as some other nations. But it does not change that the basic fact that it has clean hands. No nation has clean hands.

I do not care that the US has dirty hands. But hiding the hands behind you and proclaiming that they are clean, that is just plain bad manners. I will acknowledge the good, so long as America can acknowledge its bad.

Americans are not good at self-criticism. What can I say? However, to say that our actions in Afghanistan are "bad" and that the mess there is the fault of the US, is pure BS.

Yeah, thats pretty much it. I would rather live in a corrupt dictatorship than a democracy with weekly car bombings and over 100,000 dead to achieve the democracy.
exactamente...

Yes democracy is good...Yes Saddam was a brutal Dictator...

but sometimes the price is to high...

If you tell me that we are going to achieve Democracy in Iraq by killing Saddam and 100 of his secret service police...I would say its worthed...

If you ad that we have to kill 1000 presidential palace guards...I say ok...

but...If you tell me that the price tag is also some 100000 men,women and Children...plus years of misery...

then i would say No way!!!

...let Blix finish his Job for now...lets take a longer look at the whole thing...a deeper look.

Oh please. You can't be serious? You're suggesting that life was better for Afghans under the Soviets? "Significant loss of life" was 1.3 million dead. I'm sure their quality of life was improved. As usual in a communist dictatorship, the only people whose quality of life improved was the ruling class.

And I suppose that what happened after they left was better? It comes as no surprise that there were abuses when the Soviet Union arrived (what invading force has no abuses?), but they provided a lot more order than stability than was the case of the civil war.

I do not say the Soviet Union was a paragon, indeed the opposite. But I will say that it was better than what came after they left. Or are you saying that what happened after they left was better?


While they were there, there was war, tyranny, and what have you.


Mmmmm, and I suppose that a civil war produced less casualties? As in the above paragraph, I have stated that the Soviet Union was a harsh master. But anarchy is usually harsher, no less so than extremism. Afghanistan was no exception.


Iraq is different from Afghanistan on many levels.


Yes, it is different on many levels. But would the case be similar if the insurgents were equipped with state of the art equipment and training that gave their soldiers equal fighting chances with the occupation troops?


Your contention is that the US should have paid reparations to North Korea? Do I understand that you are comparing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the US's UN sponsored defense of the South? Apples and oranges. Hell, apples and spinach!

Tell me. Did American forces cross through NK border areas? Did they not conduct strikes into North Korean territories?

War reparations are given to either aid the defeated in rebuilding their country or given by the defeated as a penalty for having begun hostilities are they not?

The Soviet Union was forced to leave Afghanistan, true, but they were not beholden to give reparations once they left, and since Afghanistan could not feasibly hope to strike directly at the Soviet Union in its own borders, they could not force the SU to give reparations

The case of North Korea and Afghanistan are similar in this case. Both cases resulted in the larger causing significant damage to the other side, but unable or unwilling to completely control the land, and eventually withdrew (in the case of the US, back to the agreed DMZ). Neither side could be threatened or forced into giving reparations, and as such, no reparations were given.


My point was that the wrong nation is being held responsible for the anarchy that followed the Soviet invasion. The Russians caused the anarchy, not the US.

Incorrect. I hold that both nations were responsible. Without American aid to the insurgency, the Soviet Union would have very well held onto Afghanistan for a very long time. Long enough that the insurgency would have died away.

The Soviet Union destroyed the power structure, filling it with their own. But the US aided in the removal of the power structure, resulting in a power vacuum. Civil war is the only logical conclusion when a power vacuum is caused by inserruction by disparate groups.


That's true. The USSR and the US did a lot of tit for tat over the 45 years of the Cold War. Notice who won.

In truth? Both lost. The Soviet Union is no more, but the US mentality of the Cold War remains.

There are no winners in any war. Only the one who lost less. And sometimes, that is not even clear when only one remains.


Low key in the manner of the invasion and not flooding the countryside with foreign troops.

A low key invasion. That is quite the paradox.


The Taliban never left. They have been hanging back attempting to strengthen their forces for a push before the elections. Their failure to disrupt the previous election was quite a blow to their reputation with the Afghans.


And still they remain. I find it unlikely they will go away anytime soon. And that unless they accomplish something truly astounding (such as retaking Kabul), Afghanistan will remain on the backburner of things to do.


Local warlords have always controlled much of the country.


Which means that you admit that the current administration put in place as well as the US forces there lack the ability or will to expand the authority of the installed government beyond the major cities.


You do realize that NATO troops are a large part of the stabilizing force in Afghanistan? There are 8000 NATO troops which comprise a third of the total force. The three largest contingents are from Germany, France, and Canada.


Two simple questions. How many US soldiers went into Afghanistan. How many were reassigned to Iraq? Germany, France and Canada (i might be wrong on the last), sent no armed forces to Iraq. I find it likely that the forces of the three mentioned have maintained their troop levels at the same level that they went in with.




Huh? Percentage wise, casulties are the same.


Wasn't there an article not too long ago where a CH-47 was brought down and its entire crew lost due to RPG fire? So far as I know, material loss on that scale has not yet happened due to Iraqi insurgency.


There is just little need for a large force in Afghanistan and it would be counterproductive.

And at the same time, it would appear that the force in Afghanistan is incapable of stabilizing the area. Aside from committing mass genocide, what do you think can be done to stabilize it?


Americans are not good at self-criticism. What can I say? However, to say that our actions in Afghanistan are "bad" and that the mess there is the fault of the US, is pure BS.

Hypocrisy invites the highest level of criticism. You should know that. America need not criticise itself. However, it should not promote itself as the best example of governance and world policemanship the way it does when it acts the way it has.

Taken on a personal level, it would be akin to having to listen to a colleague brag all day for years on end on how much better he is than you while belittling your own efforts.

It would be erroneous to say that the fault lies entirely with the US for the current situation in Afghanistan. But I cannot say that they are entirely faultless either.

It takes two hands to clap.

And I suppose that what happened after they left was better? It comes as no surprise that there were abuses when the Soviet Union arrived (what invading force has no abuses?), but they provided a lot more order than stability than was the case of the civil war.

The idea that the Soviets provided stability while they slaughtered over a million Afghans is disturbiing and taints your whole argument. I hope it is simply bait and not heartfelt. You really need to just drop this argument.

I do not say the Soviet Union was a paragon, indeed the opposite. But I will say that it was better than what came after they left. Or are you saying that what happened after they left was better?

No, I'm saying that if the Soviets had not invaded, what came after would not have happened.

Mmmmm, and I suppose that a civil war produced less casualties?

A lot less. Estimates range up to 200,000. Not insignificant, but yes, a lot less than the Soviets killed.

Tell me. Did American forces cross through NK border areas? Did they not conduct strikes into North Korean territories?

War reparations are given to either aid the defeated in rebuilding their country or given by the defeated as a penalty for having begun hostilities are they not?

The Soviet Union was forced to leave Afghanistan, true, but they were not beholden to give reparations once they left, and since Afghanistan could not feasibly hope to strike directly at the Soviet Union in its own borders, they could not force the SU to give reparations

The case of North Korea and Afghanistan are similar in this case. Both cases resulted in the larger causing significant damage to the other side, but unable or unwilling to completely control the land, and eventually withdrew (in the case of the US, back to the agreed DMZ). Neither side could be threatened or forced into giving reparations, and as such, no reparations were given.

Your understanding of the Korean conflict is unreal. I don't even know where you're going here. My point was that if anyone should have been held responsible for casualties and damages to Afghanistan, it was the USSR. Wasn't likely to happen.

Incorrect. I hold that both nations were responsible. Without American aid to the insurgency, the Soviet Union would have very well held onto Afghanistan for a very long time. Long enough that the insurgency would have died away.

The Soviet Union destroyed the power structure, filling it with their own. But the US aided in the removal of the power structure, resulting in a power vacuum. Civil war is the only logical conclusion when a power vacuum is caused by inserruction by disparate groups.

See 1st comments above. I fail to see how the SU is being held to the same standard. It would have been all right and everyone would have been happier if the Soviets stayed forever? Man, what planet are you from?

Which means that you admit that the current administration put in place as well as the US forces there lack the ability or will to expand the authority of the installed government beyond the major cities.

Not only do I admit it, I say it is not the US's responsibility.

Wasn't there an article not too long ago where a CH-47 was brought down and its entire crew lost due to RPG fire? So far as I know, material loss on that scale has not yet happened due to Iraqi insurgency.

I guess if you are going to count one lucky shot against 2 years of operations. There have been similar incidents and bad days in Iraq.

And at the same time, it would appear that the force in Afghanistan is incapable of stabilizing the area. Aside from committing mass genocide, what do you think can be done to stabilize it?

See comments above. It's not the responsibility of the US.

Hypocrisy invites the highest level of criticism. You should know that. America need not criticise itself. However, it should not promote itself as the best example of governance and world policemanship the way it does when it acts the way it has.

Taken on a personal level, it would be akin to having to listen to a colleague brag all day for years on end on how much better he is than you while belittling your own efforts.

It would be erroneous to say that the fault lies entirely with the US for the current situation in Afghanistan. But I cannot say that they are entirely faultless either.

It takes two hands to clap.

Most of the hypocrisy I see is that the US does nothing right while those who criticise have dictators, murderers, and reactionaries on their side. Anyone who apparently believes that Afghanistan would have been a peaceful, stable nation under the bootheels of the Soviets probably should not be pointing fingers reagrding hypocrisy.

The idea that the Soviets provided stability while they slaughtered over a million Afghans is disturbiing and taints your whole argument. I hope it is simply bait and not heartfelt. You really need to just drop this argument.

Do I? I do not think so. Let us review the facts. Fact: The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Fact: The invasion and subsequent occupation caused massive loss of life. Fact: The local insurgency was incapable of forcing the Soviet Union to leave. Fact: The US began supplying the insurgency with an equalizing weapon against the USSRs strongest weapon. Air support. Fact: SU losses grew to untenable amounts as a result. Fact: The Soviet Union was forced from the region after this change in insurgency force capability. Fact: In the power vacuum, civil war occured, resulting in (according to you), 200,000 casualties, less so than the Soviet Occupation. Fact: The Taliban rose to the top of the heap, establishing a tyranny that would not be removed for many years to come.

All correct so far?

Now, I will confess to a lack of knowledge on just exactly how many casualties produced by non-fighting events during the Soviet occupation, but I find it highly unlikely that what they did was worst than the next set of rulers to arrive.

Granted, neither of us could possibly project with any accuracy how things would have turned out had the Soviet occupation been successful, so it could have been easily worst than better.


No, I'm saying that if the Soviets had not invaded, what came after would not have happened.

Yes, and if Hitler never bothered to move beyond Germany's borders, there might not have been a WWII on their scale. I will limit my arguments to facts hereon.


Your understanding of the Korean conflict is unreal. I don't even know where you're going here. My point was that if anyone should have been held responsible for casualties and damages to Afghanistan, it was the USSR. Wasn't likely to happen.


Which was the point of my comment. Being held responsible for any act requires an enforcement of that responsibility. Particularly when we talk about things like war reparations and the such. Just as in the Korean, and later the Vietnam war, there was no-one to hold America responsible save for America. Just as the USSR was incapable of being held responsible save for their own internal machinery.

My point stands.


See 1st comments above. I fail to see how the SU is being held to the same standard. It would have been all right and everyone would have been happier if the Soviets stayed forever? Man, what planet are you from?


To put it simply, it may or may not have been the lesser of two evils. I do not think you believe that the eventual masters of Afghanistan were kind stewards to the land and its people.


Not only do I admit it, I say it is not the US's responsibility.


Much like how if I break a crystal bowl, it is not my responsibility to replace it and only provide partial reparations?


I guess if you are going to count one lucky shot against 2 years of operations. There have been similar incidents and bad days in Iraq.


So in material losses, which one has the higher count? Or is it equal?


See comments above. It's not the responsibility of the US.


Actually, it is. That is, if they wish to actually deserve the title of "Defenders of Liberty". If however, the description is more akin to "bull in china shop", then by all means, it is not their responsibility to do so.

Incidently, who writes these lines anyway? They sound like something out of a comic.


Most of the hypocrisy I see is that the US does nothing right while those who criticise have dictators, murderers, and reactionaries on their side. Anyone who apparently believes that Afghanistan would have been a peaceful, stable nation under the bootheels of the Soviets probably should not be pointing fingers reagrding hypocrisy.

Afghanistan has had three masters in as many decades. Four if you count the current US installed government as a seperate entity. None of which have actually provided a peaceful, stable nation. As it stands, they have all failed to meet this criteria.

Did I not mention before? I do not like hypocrisy. I have never claimed any one of these entities to be good, or even acceptable.

Yes, had the Soviet Union not invaded Afghanistan, there would be no Taliban as it stands today. At the same time, had America not provided the Stinger missiles, there is a high likelyhood that the results would be the same in that there would be no Taliban in its current form.

The US may have had a lesser hand, having the dirty work done by remote control rather than the Soviet Union's manual operation, but it is still a hand in the affairs.

Or do you really believe that what happened in the end had absolutely no ties to the then administration of the time?

It is always cool when the doomsayers come out whenever one bad thing happens.


an air strike and a helicopter crash (in super remote areas) does not equal total national revolution.

Yes, had the Soviet Union not invaded Afghanistan, there would be no Taliban as it stands today. At the same time, had America not provided the Stinger missiles, there is a high likelyhood that the results would be the same in that there would be no Taliban in its current form.

I don't see how the US supplying the missles leads to the Taliban.

The USSR invaded the Republic of Afghanistan. They destabilized the country by invading.

Now, you can try to make the US an accomplice is the resulting anarchy, but when you do, you make out the the USSR to be a "stabilizing force", which is ridiculous, of course.

Making the US responsible for "breaking" Afghanistan by supplying Stingers to the resistance is equally absurd.

By that logic, anti-American partisans should blame France for the creation of the United States. After all, without French help, the British would have crushed the American Revolution. Instead, the Americans were able to establish their capitalist empire and came to dominate the world. Those GD French need to fix what is broken because they shouldn't have meddled in someone's internal affairs.

I'll be the first to admit that Americans may not always act to its high standards, but it always seems that those who insist on these higher standards end up defending the actions of the worst murderers and despots in history.

I don't see how the US supplying the missles leads to the Taliban.

It works in this logic. The US did not want to see the Soviet Union occupying the country correct? They were not willing to expend their own troops in a confrontation that could very well lead to an escalation to MAD either correct? So to accomplish this objective, they operated via proxy. The system of insurgency was already in place. They only needed to ensure the insurgency was capable of hurting Soviet forces to a level which would force them to withdraw.

Consider this example. I do not like a particular banking institute. It utilizes unfair practices which allows it to get away with mismanagement of customer accounts. But I cannot confront it directly, nor can I take issue with the authorities. I also happen to know a career bank robber who wishes to conduct an illegal transaction on that bank. But the bank robber lacks the armament to subdue the guards. If I provide him with the armament, am I not an accessory to a crime regardless of my motivations?

Undoubtedly you would probably say that the example is not fitting to the case. However, if you do so, I would like you to explain your rationale behind it.


The USSR invaded the Republic of Afghanistan. They destabilized the country by invading.

A point that was not disputed. Insurgency and a stable country do not mix. Civil war even less so.


Now, you can try to make the US an accomplice is the resulting anarchy, but when you do, you make out the the USSR to be a "stabilizing force", which is ridiculous, of course.

Incorrect. The arrival of the Soviet Union did result in instability. But the resulting anarchy that occured once they withdrew made their instability look stable by comparison.


Making the US responsible for "breaking" Afghanistan by supplying Stingers to the resistance is equally absurd.

Breaking Afghanistan? A term I did not use. In either case, America did not "break" the country. It was a mess to begin with. They just helped it break itself some more.


By that logic, anti-American partisans should blame France for the creation of the United States. After all, without French help, the British would have crushed the American Revolution. Instead, the Americans were able to establish their capitalist empire and came to dominate the world. Those GD French need to fix what is broken because they shouldn't have meddled in someone's internal affairs.

And the point of this is? As you pointed out, French involvement helped make the 1st American Revolution a success. As such, they are partially responsible for its existence. The other part being the participation of the revolutionaries of course.

And GD French? Would you care to explain what GD in your term means?

As to the fixing of what is broken, can you really point out a case of that happening on an international scale on sheer benevolence? Besides, I think there would be enough screaming from America as it is without having a foreign entity suggest that they somehow fix the country.


I'll be the first to admit that Americans may not always act to its high standards, but it always seems that those who insist on these higher standards end up defending the actions of the worst murderers and despots in history.

I haven't defended anybody to date. In this particular topic of discussion, I have not claimed anyone to be entirely faultess for problems which they are implicated in.

...
Incorrect. The arrival of the Soviet Union did result in instability. But the resulting anarchy that occured once they withdrew made their instability look stable by comparison.


...
Actually, the invasion didn't result in instability - Afghanistan in 1978-1979 was a country of insurgency, massacres, and purges. Two rivalling Party factions were at each other's throats, and the Party on the whole was implementing collectivization, de-Islamization and a lot of other 'ations'.

And our dear old leaders in their infinite wisdom dived head first into the Afghan chaos.

Actually, the invasion didn't result in instability - Afghanistan in 1978-1979 was a country of insurgency, massacres, and purges. Two rivalling Party factions were at each other's throats, and the Party on the whole was implementing collectivization, de-Islamization and a lot of other 'ations'.

And our dear old leaders in their infinite wisdom dived head first into the Afghan chaos.

All of that laid over top of a 16th century culture that feels nostalgic about the 11th Century.

And there have been repeated attempts by various nations to drag them into modern times.

I am of the firm belief that some people in this world want to be backwards, and crude, and uncivilized, and live as our remote forebears once did, making the best of the day using stone knives and bearskins.

Kipling seems to have the tone of Afghanistan correct:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

All of that laid over top of a 16th century culture that feels nostalgic about the 11th Century.

And there have been repeated attempts by various nations to drag them into modern times.


Afghanistan was on its way to modernity under Zahir Shah. It was infact better than the neighboring CAR states of that time.

IMO, there is a need for a truth and reconciliation committee in Afghanistan, as outlined in this piece,.

http://www.afgha.com/?af=rc&pa=showpage&pid=213

Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan

The long and bloody Afghan conflict from 1975-2001 is regularly cited as a glorious victory for jihadi Islamism in many countries including Pakistan. Such claims are also repeatedly made by jihadi Islamists such as Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Afghan War was in reality a horrific conflict which over 25 years killed 2 million Afghans, created 8 million refugees and caused the Afghan nation to suffer near-total destruction from which it is only now attempting a precarious recovery. A severe information deficit exists about all aspects of the Afghan War among the public, especially in Muslim countries, a deficit which is fostered by a policy of deniability exercised by the U.S, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan about their roles in the Afghan War.

The world community is currently facing the urgent necessity of containing the consequences of the Afghan War. First, the necessity of quashing the global jihadi myth built up around the Afghan War, by exposing the dirty antecedents in the name of Jihad. Second, there is the necessity of providing a stable basis of truth rather than the uncertain basis of expedience for the reconciliation and reconstruction of the Afghan nation. In order to achieve these two important goals, the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan by the United States and Russia with the participation of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and other countries is the only way.

Brief history of the Afghan War

The Afghan war had its roots in a series of overthrows starting in 1973 when Mohammad Daoud overthrew King Zahir Shah. In 1975, resistance to the Afghan Communist regime began as uprisings. The Afghan Islamist factions of the resistance were favored by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the US over Afghan traditionalist and royalist factions. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan selected seven Afghan Islamist groups [1], trained thousands of their members and supplied them with billions of dollars of weapons, aid and support to fight the Soviets and the Afghan Communist regime in Afghanistan. The CIA and Pakistan’s ISI in association with Saudi intelligence set up an arms and aid pipeline to keep the mujaheddin supplied from Pakistan. They also collaborated closely with each other in planning military and political strategy for their mujaheddin clients.

In the period 1979-1989 the Soviets fought militarily to quell the Afghan resistance by repeated assaults and a scorched earth policy such as aerial bombing of villages that resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties and displacements. The mujaheddin practiced guerilla warfare and fought for control over various regions with Pakistan-supplied arms and training. Beginning in 1986, the US supplied Stinger missiles to the mujaheddin to further increase the Soviet cost of involvement in Afghanistan. The mujaheddin did not always fight cleanly; for instance many commanders were paid by the ISI and CIA for launching missile attacks on Kabul city resulting in large civilian casualties. [2] The initial Afghan nationalist resistance with Islamic flavor to defeat the Soviet Army and topple its proxy Communist regime in Kabul, was co-opted by Pakistani and Saudi authorities through sustained political, military and material support of the most radical of Afghan Islamists Hikmatyar and Sayyaf.

The Afghan mujaheddin supported by the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia made repeated attempts to engineer total military victory and political dominance for their particular Salafi clients Hikmatyar and Sayyaf. As a result, multiple attempts to bring about sustainable military or political culminations with cooperation of other Afghan mujaheddin and exile groups, but which did not grant Hikmatyar such total military or political dominance, were rendered unsuccessful due to Saudi and Pakistani influence.[3][4][5]

Jihadis from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries participated in the Afghan War notably among these were Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. Numerous organizations flourished by receiving their share of aid and/or weapons for the jihad and subsequently gained in power and prestige. Some of these groups later coalesced into Al Qaeda. Under President Zia Ul Haq and his Islamisation program (which ran in tandem with the Afghan jihad) religious parties in Pakistan gained influence thru the burgeoning number of madrassas funded by Arab donors aimed at indoctrinating young people for the jihad.

Under pressure of military conflict in Afghanistan and political compulsions in Moscow, the Soviet Army finally withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. The US and Soviets reached an agreement and completely disengaged from the Afghan conflict in 1991, though no stable settlement for restoring peace in Afghanistan could be reached between the superpowers or various Afghan factions. In the post-1991 period Pakistan and Saudi Arabia continued to pursue their previous policies of fueling the conflict by avoiding compromise with other mujaheddin groups and attempting to engineer a total military victory for Hikmatyar and Sayyaf.[6][7]

Many Afghan commanders and exile groups considered the Afghan Jihad to have ended after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. However, the prerogative for ending the conflict was out of their control due to Pakistani and Saudi obduracy. The Pakistani commitment to engineering victory for the radical Islamist Hikmatyar can also be seen in the fact that two civilian governments of Pakistan, that of Prime Minister Junejo in 1988 and Benazir Bhutto in 1990 were dismissed, in order to enable the Pakistani Army and the ISI to continue their Afghan policy.

In the years 1989-2001, it is estimated that approximately one million Afghans were killed. Specifically, the period of 1989-1995 was marked by large scale civic disorder and destruction, lawlessness and conflict. Notable was the fighting in Kabul in 1992-1994 in which 20,000 Afghans civilians are estimated to have been killed.

In 1994, Hikmatyar was abandoned by Pakistan and the newly supported Taliban militia gradually won over large tracts of war-weary Afghanistan. Pakistani jihadis fought alongside the Taliban with the Pakistani Army and ISI providing military planning and support. The Taliban's military victories came after not only driving back its chief opponents in the Northern Alliance and Hizb-e-Wahadat but also after carrying out massacres of Afghan civilians in which the Pakistanis also reportedly participated.[8] [9][10][11]

At the time of the US invasion in 2001, the Taliban were presiding over an oppressive regime not recognized by any country except Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and entrenched in a civil war against the Northern Alliance. The Afghan economy was in ruins with no prospects for reconstruction; Afghan women were forced out of work and Afghan girls forced out of schools by state decree. Under Taliban patronage, Osama Bin Laden and his allied organizations were operating camps in Afghanistan to train jihadis for guerilla warfare and terrorist attacks on a global scale.

Clearly, the power and prestige which jihadi Islam gained in the Afghan conflict derived from the billions of dollars of weapons, aid, and training and state patronage which US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supplied to their clients during that period. It is also clear that any jihadi victories were of the pyrrhic kind which may be ascribed to jihadi Islamists and their ISI and Saudi sponsors preferring to preside over the most horrific destruction rather than seek compromise. However, unfortunately such a destructive conflict is now mythologized and eulogized as a landmark victory for jihadi ideology by radical Islamist propaganda through out the Islamic world. This is facilitated by the continued maintenance of official deniability by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan about their roles in the Afghan War.

Scope of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan

Ideally, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be established by the United States and Russia with the participation of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and other countries.

Under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, each nation, including the US and Russia would put on public record its cumulative role and its share of the horrors of Afghan conflict in the period 1975-2001. The purpose would be solely to put the truth on the public record for the purpose of reconciliation and ending the cycle of violence. The number of victims including refugees in Afghanistan numbers in tens of millions; hence it would be primarily representative groups, organizations, member of militaries and former and present government functionaries who would testify before the Commission.

Primarily the governments of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States would testify about support to the war effort such as alliances, clients in the war, military aid, arms pipeline, and training of combatants. Other aspects of testimony would involve particular military offensives, Afghan civilian causalities, destruction of infrastructure, glorification of the jihad and religious extremism through propaganda and indoctrination.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in other countries

Truth and Reconciliation commissions have been used in a number of other countries to document and reach reconciliation after extended periods of political violence.

South Africa

South Africa established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission when the rule of apartheid ended in 1994. The aim of the Commission was to put on record the violence and human rights abuses committed in the period 1960-1994 in order to facilitate reconciliation among South Africans and put an end to cycles of violence.

Human rights abuses had been committed by all sides in South Africa, by the domestic governments in imposing the official apartheid policy and by South Africans fighting the government. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not aim to award punishment to those who committed human rights abuses on either side. Rather it encouraged offenders to put the truth on official record, the Commission offered amnesty to those who confessed to their crimes. The Commission also aimed to record incidents of human rights abuses, identify victims and offer relief and reparation to the deserving.

East Timor

East Timor established a Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation to look into human rights violations committed by all sides in East Timor between April 1974 and October 1999.

The Commission, which is currently in operation, has a mandate to seek the truth, record victim testimonies and perpetuator acknowledgements of human rights abuses, to facilitate community reconciliation by dealing with minor offences such as looting, burning and minor assault, and to make recommendations to prevent further abuses and help past victims. The Commission does not have the power to offer amnesties. Serious crimes such as crime, rape and torture have to be brought to trial in the state’s justice system outside the Commission.

A number of other countries have established Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to look into human rights abuses in the past, including Chile, Argentina, Peru, Sri Lanka and South Korea.[12]

Benefits of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan

Benefits to Afghanistan

By revealing the past actions of Afghan and foreign players in the Afghan War, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would help Afghans reconcile with their past and provide a sound foundation for the peaceful reconstruction of the Afghan nation and society.

A Truth and Reconciliation would, first lay out the truths regarding the Afghan War. The truth would grant Afghan civilians their due position as key sufferers of the 25 years of the Afghan conflict and as those who have the most at stake in peace and progress in the future. It would also help foster trust and reconciliation between the numerous Afghan factions whose current relationship is precariously based on military peace imposed by the presence of international military forces. It would put an end to the cycle of violence which can otherwise be triggered by revenge killings by warlords or the assassinations of major government leaders.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission would also provide a basis of truth for Afghanistan’s reconciliation with other countries including Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The world may owe Afghanistan monetary or material aid, but much more so the world owes Afghanistan the truth about the Afghan War.

Benefits in the Global War on Terror

The establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan is consistent with the goals of the global war on terror. The realities about the near-total destruction of Afghanistan, what led to it and who contributed to it, when laid before the public record would serve to destroy jihadi Islamist myths being propagated around this war and reveal the true costs of jihadi Islamism.

A number of blatant falsehoods being propagated to credulous populations by jihadi Islamism’s proponents would also be conclusively quashed.

Myth #1: The Afghan Jihad which did not target noncombatants, women and children.

The Afghan War was, in fact, characterized by indiscriminate killing of civilians by all sides. Civilians were killed in all phases, including in missile attacks by mujaheddin during the Soviet phase as well as ethnic and sectarian massacres. The women of Kabul suffered atrocities committed by former mujaheddin commanders in the early nineties. The Taliban regime committed atrocities on women on the frontlines of its civil war with Northern Alliance.

Myth #2: The Afghan Jihad was a noble struggle for Muslims’ just rights.

The Afghan Jihad was fought in defense of Afghan nationalism against the Soviet occupation. It is also factual that the jihad got co-opted by the Pakistani Army/ISI and Saudi Arabia's religio-political agenda in association with the US’s strategic agenda of defeating the Soviet Union.

Myth #3: The armed jihad purifies Islamic societies and rids them of corruption.

In fact, in Afghanistan, there were brutal mutual betrayals by mujaheddin commanders who killed each others men in the battlefield and refused all compromise on the political front. The jihad reduced Afghan society to a dangerous private army-dominated brutalized society with every civic and social institution destroyed, cities reduced to rubble. Afghan women were reduced to illiteracy and some forced into prostitution, opium was freely traded by Pakistani-Afghan drug lords and the economy destroyed.

Myth #4: Jihadis who fought in Afghanistan and elsewhere are martyrs who will gain entry to paradise for themselves and their relatives.

When the shifting alliances, betrayals and foreign agendas in the Afghan War are laid on public record, the question of martyrdom in the Afghan War would be seen to be a difficult one. It will become clear that it was usually the current jihadi allies of the Pakistani ISI / Pakistani Army who were conferred the status of martyrs.

The establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan by the United States and Russia with participation of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other nations will go a long way to stem the mythology surrounding the Afghan Jihad.

Benefits beyond Afghanistan

The aims of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are consistent with Pakistan’s official policy of enlightened moderation, namely to quell religious extremism in Pakistan.

In Pakistan, the Afghan jihad is an ongoing process that began in 1975. Pakistanis participated in the Afghan jihad in large numbers [13]. However, all discourse on jihad including in state textbooks for school children propagates jihad as an abstract Quranic concept, with no mention of the human toll in neighboring Afghanistan. The Truth and Reconciliation would bring the facts about Afghan War into the discourse on jihadi Islamism in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The establishment of the Commission would also have a positive impact in other countries vulnerable to the propaganda of jihadi Islamism such as Bangladesh and Indonesia. Additionally, for the United States and Russia the Commission would clearly display the long term consequences of Cold War policies.

Obstacles to the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan as suggested in this article is different from previous such Commissions because it requires extensive cooperation between several governments. Such a Commission would hence be unprecedented. In addition it requires political will on the part of the United States and Russia to voluntarily put their Cold War choices in Afghanistan under public scrutiny.

In countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not only are participants in the Afghan Jihad policy still in position of power, there is also no existing tradition of public debate on internal conflicts much less on matters considered key to the state’s ideology and security. It may be recalled that Hamidur Rehman Commission reports on the secession of East Pakistan were not released in Pakistan for more than two decades. The participation of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in an international body such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Afghanistan would be an unprecedented opening up or glasnost in these societies.

A more general impediment to the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the desire of world powers and governments to continue the Great Game in Central Asia. Competition for access to Central Asian energy resources might see the revival of the use of jihadi and proxies in the region, an option which world powers would not wish to lose by laying out their past policies to international scrutiny. In summary, it all comes down to whether the commitment to reconstruction of Afghanistan and tackling radical Islamist ideology is a matter of expedience or conviction in the United States, Russia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Notes [1]The seven Afghan Islamist parties were (1)Nationalist Islamic Front of Afghanistan(NIFA) led by Sayyid Ahmad Gailani, (2) Afghan National Liberation Front(ANLF), led by Hazrat Sibghatullah Mujaddidi,(3) Harkat-i Inquilab-i Islami (HAR) of Mawlawi Muhammad Nabi Muhammadi (4) Hizb-i-Islami, Hikmatyar group(HIH) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (5) Hizb-i-Islami, Khalis group(HIK) of Mawlawi Yunus Khalis(6) Jamiat-I Islami-yi Aghanistan(JIA) lead by Burhanuddin Rabbani (7) Ittihad-i Islami bara-yi Azad-I Afghanistan(ITT ) led by Professer Abd al_rabb al-Rasul Sayyaf
[2] Page 114 [Barnett Rubin]
[3](1)Failed attempt to establish interim government in February-March 1988, page 88, Barnett Rubin (2) During Afghan shura in February 1989 CIA and ISI estimated that compromise or negotiations with PDPA were unnecessary as its military downfall was imminent. (3) Manipulation by ISI and Saudi intelligence of the February 1989 Afghan shura held to decide interim government, the Interim Islamic Government of Afghanistan (IIGA) page 103-104 [Barnett Rubin]
[4] March 1990, ISI and Saudi intelligence tried unsuccessfully to engineer a coup by Afghan Defence Minister Tanai and Hikmatyar to depose President Najibullah. page 108
[5] March 1991 The CIA and ISI engineer a mujahidin assault on Paktia in Khost province. Though Jalaluddin Haqqani’s forces succeed in capturing the town, Hikmatyar’s forces capture the garrison and victory is short-lived as ISI prevents Haqqani from recovering the heavy arms seized by Hikmatyar and factional fighting breaks out. Page 110 [Barnett Rubin]
[6] March 1993 Under Saudi sponsorship, Islamabad Accord was signed making Burhanuddin Rabbani the President and Hikmatyar the Prime Minister. Himatyar immediately dismissed the Defence Minister Massoud and the internecine fighting continued.
[7] January 1994 With fresh military aid from Pakistan, Hikmatyar and Dostum launch combined assault on Kabul to displace Rabbani. Hikmatyar fails to capture Kabul.
[8]”Pakistan’s military assistance to the Taliban has run the gamut, from direct involvement to the training of Taliban soldiers in Pakistan. Reportedly, Pakistani military personnel have maintained and operated Taliban aircraft and tanks and Pakistani officers have played combat advisory roles for the Taliban…Iran, Russia, Tajikstan and Uzbekistan, along with the Afghan opposition government, all have alleged that the Taliban victories in northern Afghanistan in 1998 were due in part to direct Pakistani military involvement, including more than fifteen hundred troops and numerous combat sorties by the Pakistan Air Force. Similar allegations were made during the summer offensives of 1999 and 2000” Page 112, [Larry Goodson]
[9] 25 percent or more of the Taliban forces were Pakistani in 1999 p 118, [Larry Goodson]
[10]More than eight thousand minority residents were reportedly killed by the Taliban in and around Mazar-i-Sharif and Bamiyan p 120, [Larry Goodson]
[11]Human Rights Watch, The Massacre in Mazar-i-Sharif, November 1998 http://www.hrw.org/reports98/afghan/
[12] http://www.usip.org/library/truth.html
[13] Ahmed Rashid estimated that eighty thousand to one hundred thousand Pakistanis fought and trained in Afghanistan during the 1990s in “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism.” page 107, [Larry Goodson] [Barnett Rubin] The Search for Peace in Afghanistan – From Buffer State to Failed State, Barnett R. Rubin, Yale University Press, 1995 [Larry Goodson] Afghanistan’s Endless War, State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban, Larry P. Goodson, University of Washington Press, 2001

The soldier on the ground says it like it is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4657645.stm
Stung in an Afghan 'hornets' nest'
A routine mission for a small unit of US troops based here turned into a fight for their lives when they came up against a group of suspected Taleban militants along the border with Pakistan.

It did not make any headlines. It was just another incident among many in this volatile region.

But it gives an insight into why the US-led coalition is having such difficulty defeating the insurgency that has affected much of eastern and southern Afghanistan for the past two years.

It was 25 June. Second Lt Louis Fernandez had led seven members of his platoon to the top of Peak 2911.

A distinctive, bulging mountain straddling the frontier, it gets its name from its height in metres.

The night before, a US artillery battery had shelled the peak after lights had been seen there.

The suspicion was that insurgents might be using it as a launch site to fire rockets on American and Afghan troops - an almost daily occurrence for units based along the border.

'Taking fire'

Lt Fernandez and his men from the 2/504 Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 82nd Airborne Division, had been ordered to do a "battle damage assessment", to see if anything had been hit.

An Afghan officer, Capt Mohammed Islamuddin, and two interpreters were with them.

They found nothing except a well-travelled trail. They decided to follow it. As they moved down the path, Capt Islamuddin says he spotted a man in local clothes about 200-300 metres away, carrying a Kalashnikov.

Staff Sgt McKenna Miller says he saw another man near some trees raising his Kalashnikov.

Sgt Miller raised his weapon. "I asked for permission to fire."

"I told Sgt Miller to shoot," says 22-year-old Lt Fernandez. "He pulled the trigger and hit the guy right in the head and put him down.

"Immediately after, we started taking fire from another direction," he says.

"That's when pretty much everything unravelled," says Sgt Miller, a veteran of Iraq and the Balkans.

They realised they were up against "not two, but approximately 15 to 20 individuals", with a barrage of fire coming down on the US and Afghan troops.

Where they were though, there was almost no cover. The only escape was to move back towards the summit, the soldiers taking it in turns to provide covering fire while others scrambled up the slope, fighting for breath in the thin air at this altitude.

"I was starting to pray as I was running back," says Sgt Juan Carlos Coca, the unit's radio operator. "There were rounds flying everywhere."

"We were definitely fighting for our lives," says Sgt Miller.

Pursuers' advantage

For Sgt Coca, this is his second time in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne.

In between, he was also in Iraq, in southern Baghdad.

"I expected this to be the easiest deployment of the three," he admits. "But so far it's been the hardest. We've basically come to a hornets' nest, here on the border with Pakistan."

The paratroopers say they were firing constantly to try to keep their assailants back.

But "we were getting surrounded", says Sgt Coca. "And we had no comms at all. The mountain was blocking radio signals, so they couldn't call for back-up.

In this terrain, their pursuers had the advantage.

"They move a lot faster on these mountains than we do," says Lt Fernandez.

"They know all the routes. And they're just in better shape when it comes to this. They're carrying no weight. We're carrying about 60 or 70 pounds (27kg-31kg) of equipment, so we're a lot slower."

Their lightly loaded attackers came closer and closer.

"They got within 20 or 30 metres," says Lt Fernandez. "You could see those little tan hats they wear.

"We were hugging the dirt, most of the time just praying to God that He was there for us. And He was definitely there for us, to just have one guy take a ricochet round, with the amount of fire they were putting down on us."

That one guy was Pte Ted Smith. A round hit him in the face, but went straight through his cheek. "Blood was just pouring out of him," says Sgt Miller, "but he just kept on firing."

Fortress

Pte Smith is expected to return to duty here soon at Camp Tillman - named after Pat Tillman, the American footballer who famously turned down millions of dollars to join the US military after 11 September but who died in a "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan in April last year.

It's easy for the enemy to shoot at us here in Afghanistan and then they just run a couple of hundred metres into Pakistan and we can't do anything
Sgt Juan Carlos Coca

When you visit this small, heavily defended redoubt, it conjures up images of old French Foreign Legion fortresses deep in hostile North African rebel territory.

Based on intelligence received afterwards, the soldiers believe they killed eight of their attackers. But talking about the fire fight to the BBC a few days later, all of them say they were lucky not to have lost anyone.

When they finally reached higher ground and safety "we were totally out of breath, we could barely speak. We had almost no ammunition left," says Lt Fernandez, who was also inspired by 9/11 to join the forces. He signed up on 14 September 2001.

Up here, Sgt Coca could get through on the radio, to call for air support.

A-10 aircraft arrived. But the soldiers say the pilots were not permitted to open fire with their machine gun, or drop any ordnance because the militants were in Pakistani territory.

"That just totally frustrates all of us," says Sgt Coca. "It's easy for the enemy to shoot at us here in Afghanistan and then they just run a couple of hundred metres into Pakistan and we can't do anything. They're untouchable.

"We have that problem all the time," he says.

Sgt Miller agrees: "That's their safe haven, because they know that we can't go over the border and they try to use that to their advantage."

The exact rules of engagement for US forces based along the border are secret.

But it is clear from reports of different American operations that they do have some leeway.

And at times during the battle at Peak 2911, this US unit did end up in Pakistani territory.

But American troops are not allowed to chase attackers across the border.

Lt Fernandez says if they are "in pursuit of an enemy" they sometimes call Pakistani government forces on the other side.

But asked if US forces here feel they get help from the Pakistanis, he says: "I can't say that we do. No, not really."

Madrassas

Capt Islamuddin is more blunt. "Pakistan is interfering in Afghanistan. They are sending the bad guys here. They say there are cooperating, but they are not."

Capt Islamuddin has been based on the border with his 3rd Battalion for the past five months and says he has seen many clashes. "Many of them are foreigners," he says, "not Afghans."

It is a claim Afghan government officials often make about those behind the attacks across the south and east.

But the evidence is often hard to find. Asked to give more detail, Capt Islamuddin says he has seen the bodies of many militants close up after battles he has been involved in.

"There are some stupid Afghans among them," he says. "But most of them are Waziris [from Pakistan's Waziristan tribal agency], Chechens and Arabs. They are all coming from the madrassas [religious schools] in Pakistan."

Officially, the US military says Pakistan is cooperating closely with its efforts to defeat the insurgency and US generals frequently praise their counterparts across the border.

That is not how it appears to those on the frontline, to the young US and Afghan troops actually doing the fighting.