NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060901.wxlayton01/BNStory/National/home

In Canada, the new Democratic party leader Jack Layton has been calling for a complete withdrawal of all Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

He also believes that Canada should open up a dialogue between themselves and the Afghans, in order to attain peace.

"Does that mean talking to the Taliban?" the press asked. "I think we need to bring all parties to the table," Layton replied.

Here's a good cartoon too:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060904.gif

NDP may have lost my support here.

Its a very unresponsible comment. Remember the last time the west pulled out of Afganistan? The Taliban came along. I know a few Afgani's who actually fought the soviets and fled to Canada when the Taliban came... they said themselves that if Canada gave up its mission in Afganistan, the Taliban would return, with vengence on their mind.

Well that sends a clear message to people doesn't it? We'll stand up for our 'principles' as long as we don't start dieing for them. Why even bother having an armed forces at all?

Withdrawing from Afghanistan now would mean that our troops anywhere in the world will face enemies who know they'll leave as soon as the body count starts climbing.

Our presence in Afghanistan is hotly debated. However, we're there, our commitment was ratified in Parliament, and the people who are actually doing the fighting actually believe in what they're doing. Anyone who signs up for the army knows the potential price tag. A complete withdrawal now would mean that what they died for was in vain.

NDP may have lost my support here.

Its a very unresponsible comment. Remember the last time the west pulled out of Afganistan? The Taliban came along. I know a few Afgani's who actually fought the soviets and fled to Canada when the Taliban came... they said themselves that if Canada gave up its mission in Afganistan, the Taliban would return, with vengence on their mind.
When did the west pull out of Afganistan? it was never there before...

The Taliban is an Afgan problem they should deal with it themselves, we can't teach a society to think like us, it's an evolutionary process that societies must go through on their own....if the current Afgan government can't keep control of the country after the Tliban now that they've been removed they don't deserve to be in power.

There is no foundation to build on.

What's the point in anyone being there? People are trying to put in place something that not only never existed, but runs contrary to a very hostile environment.

Very foolish to withdraw from Afghanistan, very foolish.

When the Afgani's fought the Soviet Union they had support from the United States. They had assumed that this support would continue to help build up their country afterwards. That never happened. Once the US used them for their proxy war, the support ended and the Taliban moved in on a weak country.

When did the west pull out of Afganistan? it was never there before...



1842 actually.

Well that sends a clear message to people doesn't it? We'll stand up for our 'principles' as long as we don't start dieing for them. Why even bother having an armed forces at all?

Withdrawing from Afghanistan now would mean that our troops anywhere in the world will face enemies who know they'll leave as soon as the body count starts climbing.

Our presence in Afghanistan is hotly debated. However, we're there, our commitment was ratified in Parliament, and the people who are actually doing the fighting actually believe in what they're doing. Anyone who signs up for the army knows the potential price tag. A complete withdrawal now would mean that what they died for was in vain. yup, they're dying in vain...when was the last time a convential armed force defeated a irregular resistance? The Taliban cannot be eliminated by force they will always come back...our troops will eventually have to come back and all those who have died there will have done so for nothing.

Can't withdraw now. Btw, I thank Canada for its commitment and alliedness(yes, I just made up a word)

yup, they're dying in vain...when was the last time a convential armed force defeated a irregular resistance? The Taliban cannot be eliminated by force they will always come back...our troops will eventually have to come back and all those who have died there will have done so for nothing.

Well, it's beginning to work in Colombia, even though Chavez is funding the Narcoterrorists.

1842 actually.you're being silly, the Brits went there to exploit the Afgans not to save them from the Taliban, and they didn't leave on their own accord...they had their butts handed to them and ran for their lives...

yup, they're dying in vain...when was the last time a convential armed force defeated a irregular resistance? The Taliban cannot be eliminated by force they will always come back...our troops will eventually have to come back and all those who have died there will have done so for nothing.

Err... read up on your history. Irregular and guerrilla insurgents can be beaten. The USMC did so on a regular basis in the 20s and 30s (The Philippines and the Banana Wars, for example). The Brits have done it repeatedly (the Mau Mau and Malaysia were outstanding examples).

The unbeatability of guerrillas is a total myth.

Well, it's beginning to work in Colombia, even though Chavez is funding the Narcoterrorists.

The Taliban is in Colombia! Ay,caramba!

Err... read up on your history. Irregular and guerrilla insurgents can be beaten. The USMC did so on a regular basis in the 20s and 30s (The Philippines and the Banana Wars, for example). The Brits have done it repeatedly (the Mau Mau and Malaysia were outstanding examples).

The unbeatability of guerrillas is a total myth.

I don't know if you call US involvement in the Philippines a "win"

Well, it's beginning to work in Colombia, even though Chavez is funding the Narcoterrorists.the only way to defeat the enemy through force is to commit genocide, Columbia cannot defeat the insurggent forces through force alone they have popular support with the people.

Viet Nam, China, Indonesia, IRA, if a politcal compromise is not reached with the enemy you can only win by exterminating them, if they have popular support that requires genocide.

First Afghan War 1838-1842 - Britain loses.

Second Afghan War 1878-1880 - Britain loses, but claims a draw.

Third Afghan War 1919-1929 - Britain finally stops trying after stalemate.

Fourth Afghan War 1979-1989 - Russia loses despite a 40-1 kill ratio, US leaves their religious fundamentalist proxies armed to the teeth.

Fifth Afghan War 2001 - Present. Uh, guys. We forgot to ask for our guns back.

Maybe I will live long enough to see a sixth. I just hope I won't have to pay for the next one through my taxes.

Err... read up on your history. Irregular and guerrilla insurgents can be beaten. The USMC did so on a regular basis in the 20s and 30s (The Philippines and the Banana Wars, for example). The Brits have done it repeatedly (the Mau Mau and Malaysia were outstanding examples).

The unbeatability of guerrillas is a total myth. read up on your history The Phillpines-the US resorted to Genocide...Banana wars, temporary they eventually won be it decades later, you cannot defeat an idea...Mau Mau and Maylasia-again you can only win if they do not have popular support, if they do not only then exterminating the insurgents will work.

I don't know if you call US involvement in the Philippines a "win"

I know I do. What would you call it? Looks like a solid win from here, no questions at all.

read up on your history The Phillpines-the US resorted to Genocide...Banana wars, temporary they eventually won be it decades later, you cannot defeat an idea...Mau Mau and Maylasia-again you can only win if they do not have popular support, if they do not only then exterminating the insurgents will work.

Pointing out how irregular forces were defeated does not support your earlier implicit argument that it is impossible.

unless the Afgans evolve as a society to apperciate what democracy and freedom means they will not keep it and this war is a waste of time and lives.

The Soviets also tried to liberalize the country, educating women and such things-the Afgans didn't understand it and didn't want it-and they still don't understand it or want it. They still have a religious bent to their government that will not go away. They have to evolve on their own we cannot force a secular democratic lifestyle on them they do not want or understand.

Pointing out how irregular forces were defeated does not support your earlier implicit argument that it is impossible. It is impossible because our society will no longer accept genocide as method to win the war.

First Afghan War 1838-1842 - Britain loses.

Second Afghan War 1878-1880 - Britain loses, but claims a draw.

Third Afghan War 1919-1929 - Britain finally stops trying after stalemate.

Fourth Afghan War 1979-1989 - Russia loses despite a 40-1 kill ratio, US leaves their religious fundamentalist proxies armed to the teeth.

Fifth Afghan War 2001 - Present. Uh, guys. We forgot to ask for our guns back.

Maybe I will live long enough to see a sixth. I just hope I won't have to pay for the next one through my taxes.

note though, that most of Afghan (Bactrian) history is a record of the Afghans annoy a neighbor, the neighbor sacks Afghan, there's no reason to keep it and the invaders depart. That Afghanistan has nevcer been conquored is as much a myth as "guerrillas are unbeatable".

Funny. I remember being told years ago that the war against the Taliban was won. But then, I also remember being told that the Iraq war was won, too.

I don't really see what the point is of them (being 'Coalition' troops) actually being there. Either we continue the occupation, and therefore by definition lend support to Islamist groups (defeating them emtirely being completely unattainable) or withdraw and risk Afghanistan falling to Islamists.

Plus, according to the BBC, we've got anti-Karzai rioting as well as anti-occupation rioting. Hardly the kind of place where we can install our artificial democracy without a significant change in policy.

It is impossible because our society will no longer accept genocide as method to win the war.

The examples I gave were modern and did not necessarily resort to genocide. Furthermore, it is possible to defeat guerrillas w/o resorting to genocide. Even resorting to concentration camps (NOT to be confused with genocidal camps) is really a last resort. Properly conducted COIN operations don't need to do that.

note though, that most of Afghan (Bactrian) history is a record of the Afghans annoy a neighbor, the neighbor sacks Afghan, there's no reason to keep it and the invaders depart. That Afghanistan has nevcer been conquored is as much a myth as "guerrillas are unbeatable".
The British installed garrisons as they did in every other territory where they claimed an interest, and in Afghanistan, had them wiped out in more embarrassingly complete fashion than anywhere else.

Guerrillas are beatable, yes, at the expense of killing a whole people.

The Russians killed a million Afghans and lost. This suggests that more than a million Afghans need to be killed for a victory to be achieved. I wish you luck supporting that.

yup, they're dying in vain...when was the last time a convential armed force defeated a irregular resistance? The Taliban cannot be eliminated by force they will always come back...our troops will eventually have to come back and all those who have died there will have done so for nothing.

Come on, let's be serious here. Jack Layton's taking the opportunity for some political grandstanding. Legally, and politically, we're committed to this. But if he stirs up animosity towards the government on the issue, he paints himself as the natural alternative to the Conservative party in an upcoming election while the Liberals are busy trying to figure out what they stand for.

No amount of criticism on the part of Jack Layton is going to change the fact that we're committed to fighting in Afghanistan. (You'll note that Jack Layton was all Hot and Heavy about sending troops to Darfur... ). The issue of whether or not conventional forces can defeat irregular forces is debatable, but it's not all of Afghanistan that is experiencing heavy fighting. The question is whether or not the Afgani people want us there. I haven't seen the Canadian Afghan community up in arms about the situation. (Actually, I've even tried 'looking' online for the Canadian Afghan community, but they must be relatively small.)

The bottom line, is that we've made a committment. Leaving before that comittment is through will spell trouble for any future military endeavours, because it tells our opponents that we will leave at the first sign of trouble.

note though, that most of Afghan (Bactrian) history is a record of the Afghans annoy a neighbor, the neighbor sacks Afghan, there's no reason to keep it and the invaders depart. That Afghanistan has nevcer been conquored is as much a myth as "guerrillas are unbeatable".invaders depart? you don't know much about British Imperialism-they never departed anywhere by choice, the only reason they ever left anywhere is because the cost was to high! I believe in one excursion to Afganistan came back with two survivors...

Come on, let's be serious here. Jack Layton's taking the opportunity for some political grandstanding. Legally, and politically, we're committed to this. But if he stirs up animosity towards the government on the issue, he paints himself as the natural alternative to the Conservative party in an upcoming election while the Liberals are busy trying to figure out what they stand for.

No amount of criticism on the part of Jack Layton is going to change the fact that we're committed to fighting in Afghanistan. (You'll note that Jack Layton was all Hot and Heavy about sending troops to Darfur... ). The issue of whether or not conventional forces can defeat irregular forces is debatable, but it's not all of Afghanistan that is experiencing heavy fighting. The question is whether or not the Afgani people want us there. I haven't seen the Canadian Afghan community up in arms about the situation. (Actually, I've even tried 'looking' online for the Canadian Afghan community, but they must be relatively small.)

The bottom line, is that we've made a committment. Leaving before that comittment is through will spell trouble for any future military endeavours, because it tells our opponents that we will leave at the first sign of trouble.
geez in our system of democratic government I thought it was the responsibilty of the oppositon parties to critize the party in power.

Darfur and Afganistan are very different situations, Afganistan is about types of government religious vs secular it crosses all levels of Afgan society there is no clearly defined enemy, Darfur is about ethnic cleansing, Ethnic Group A vs Ethnic Group B...

Considering there are Taliban in the Democratically elected Afghani Parlaiment, I'd say ....

Well ... the vote's public ... you all know.

We also know who wants to wipe out all Taliban and, thus, go right to war with the government the US and other forces helped set up.

Damn war mongerers.

Considering there are Taliban in the Democratically elected Afghani Parlaiment, I'd say ....

Well ... the vote's public ... you all know.

We also know who wants to wipe out all Taliban and, thus, go right to war with the government the US and other forces helped set up.

Damn war mongerers.
Considering that those Taliban in the government had to give up arms and give up their struggle against the government and are not considered to be Taliban by the Taliban themselves...

And who, other than the US and NATO, wants to wipe out all the Taliban?

Considering that those Taliban in the government had to give up arms and give up their struggle against the government and are not considered to be Taliban by the Taliban themselves...


*shrug*

Vast majority of Muslims don't consider Islamic Extremists to be Muslim, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to sterilize them all.

Can't have it both ways, you know.

*shrug*

Vast majority of Muslims don't consider Islamic Extremists to be Muslim, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to sterilize them all.

Can't have it both ways, you know.

Let's see - the Shias want to bring back the Hidden Imam and destroy the West (according to the imams in Iran). The more radical Sunnis want to wage jihad and turn the world into Dar al-Islam.

It's no coincidence that the place where Mein Kampf is the most popular book in print (short of the Koran) is in the Middle East. Where its title translates as "Jihadi" or "My Jihad".

You can't have it both ways, you know.

everyone forgets too that the battle is against the Taliban now, even if victory is possible (it's not), the Warlords are still armed and will be back the moment the troops leave... some of these Warlords just happened to switch sides, they were Taliban before....try to disarm the Warlords and remove their power and they'll join the opposition and we'll face an hostile Afganistan just like the Soviets did...

*shrug*

Vast majority of Muslims don't consider Islamic Extremists to be Muslim, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to sterilize them all.

Can't have it both ways, you know.

Well? It's easy to simply say "Well they aren't really Muslims" just as it's easy to say "Well; they aren't really Christians"

I have heard the "They're not Muslim" comment from Muslim coworkers and many of them will later justify their actions.

Kind of a mixed message which doesn't help in relations. Especially with ignorant types.

The British installed garrisons as they did in every other territory where they claimed an interest, and in Afghanistan, had them wiped out in more embarrassingly complete fashion than anywhere else.

invaders depart? you don't know much about British Imperialism-they never departed anywhere by choice, the only reason they ever left anywhere is because the cost was to high! I believe in one excursion to Afganistan came back with two survivors...

Aherm. When I mention the myth of the idefeatable Afghans and the various peoples who've come in, conquered them, and left, I'm not talking about the English. That's a very modern phenom. When I say look at history, I don't mean current events.

Several things leap to mind.

One. Layton can only solidify his support by coming out strongly against the war. Canadian leftists, like me!, are essentially pacifists. Also, he's smart enough to know that he has no chance at all of setting defense policy, but he can influence it, which brings us to point...

Two. While he can't bring them home, he can change the nature of the assignment. Canadians like to believe that when we send our men and women abroad, it is to fight for justice and democracy. We think of them as peacekeepers more than soldiers. This may have nothing to do with reality, but that is what we like to believe. So Layton emphasises the peace keeping role.

Three. He has an alternate plan: bring the Taliban to the table. This may offend the purists calling for genocide, but some realists consider it viable. Notably, the Liberal Defense critic. Layton has planted the idea in his head. We shall see if it bears fruit.

I think Canada should look very carefully at our role in Afghanistan right now. We have to think about what is best for Canada and Afghanistan in the long term, and I am glad that Layton is keeping the debate alive in Ottawa.

Well that sends a clear message to people doesn't it? We'll stand up for our 'principles' as long as we don't start dieing for them. Why even bother having an armed forces at all?

Withdrawing from Afghanistan now would mean that our troops anywhere in the world will face enemies who know they'll leave as soon as the body count starts climbing.

Our presence in Afghanistan is hotly debated. However, we're there, our commitment was ratified in Parliament, and the people who are actually doing the fighting actually believe in what they're doing. Anyone who signs up for the army knows the potential price tag. A complete withdrawal now would mean that what they died for was in vain.
Initially I supported Canadian troops going to Afghanistan as a result of 9/11. When the US pulled most of their troops out of their to go fight an illegal war in Iraq, my opinion changed drastically. All Canadian troops should return home as soon as possible.

This BS about the troops "dying in vain" is utter BS. They died for a cause that most Canadians supported. The cause has changed.

Bush the Flip Flopper (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263):

Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
If the Bush-kebab doesn't care, why the hell should we?

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

All this talk about hunt him down and smoking him out is pure unadulterated crap!!

Why should Canada get left holding the bag. Bring the troops home now. Better now than in body bags!!

I support the troops of Canada, by wanting them to live.

More (http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney02022006.html).....

After overthrowing the Taliban Bush made this commitment to the people of Afghanistan:

"We know that true peace will only be achieved when we give the Afghan people the means to achieve their own aspirationsWe're working hard in Afghanistan. We're clearing minefields. We're rebuilding roads. We're improving medical care. And we will work to help Afghanistan to develop an economy that can feed its people without feeding the world's demand for drugsBy helping to build an Afghanistan that is free from this evil and is a better place in which to live, we are working in the best traditions of George Marshall. Marshall knew that our military victory against enemies in World War II had to be followed by a moral victory that resulted in better lives for individual human beings."

"Marshall Plan?" "Building roads?" "Improving medical care?" "Developing the economy?"

Bush's penchant for hyperbole has not been lost on the Afghani people.

"The new Afghan government promised us new schools, clinics, water pumps, but it has done nothing at all. People are so disappointed. At least the Taliban would grade the roads, build madras's, while this government has done nothing," said Nyamatullah, Zabul tribal leader.

"This government has done nothing" is a fitting summary of the Afghanistan failure. The Bush administration had no intention of rebuilding or democratizing the country, rather the full thrust of the American effort has been to paper-over the obvious deficiencies of the policy with glowing media reports. The western media has done an impressive job in convincing the American people that progress is being made in Afghanistan when, in fact, the country continues to languish in destitution and chaos.
Yup, bring 'em home NOW!!

you're being silly, the Brits went there to exploit the Afgans not to save them from the Taliban, and they didn't leave on their own accord...they had their butts handed to them and ran for their lives...

Of course I'm being silly. It was just too good a joke to pass up. :P

geez in our system of democratic government I thought it was the responsibilty of the oppositon parties to critize the party in power.

I think you're mistaking my statement of Layton's political aims as a criticism, which is not what I'm doing. I'm saying that no matter how much Layton calls for a complete pull-out of troops, it's not going to change things in Afghanistan. It's a political move, as is his right.

Also, the opposition party should be debating the topic while the issue is being decided. To their credit, they showed a solid front during the vote when no-one else seemed to want to show up. But the issue has been voted on, and the commitment made.

What I'm saying is, he's setting himself up for the next election. The more he emphasizes body bags, the more people might vote for him in the coming election. That's the ugly business of politics, yes. But body bags coming out of Afghanistan isnt' any worse than body bags coming out of Darfur. We should probably stick to the comitments that we have already made.

Darfur and Afganistan are very different situations, Afganistan is about types of government religious vs secular it crosses all levels of Afgan society there is no clearly defined enemy, Darfur is about ethnic cleansing, Ethnic Group A vs Ethnic Group B...

Layton's key problem with Afghanistan is that it's in 'lockstep' with the US. Darfur would't be. He's exploiting anti-americanism for political gain. Again, that's politics for you. But I don't believe there's an overwhelming majority of Canadians who feel particularly against the issue.

And you don't fight wars based on opinion polls.

Aherm. When I mention the myth of the idefeatable Afghans and the various peoples who've come in, conquered them, and left, I'm not talking about the English. That's a very modern phenom. When I say look at history, I don't mean current events.

modern phenom? that 150-200yrs ago hardly modern

quit trying to squirm out of it,anciet history has nothing to do with present day-people in Afganistan may not even be the same people who are there now, so it's irrelevant-

and just for historical trivia Ghengis Khan conqured Afganistan but he did so by genocide which was a typical method in those times...

snipped

Well there's the rub, eh?

I think most of us agree with the idea of helping to maintain law and order in a country that desperately needs it. I think most people who have a gripe with it, is because it's 'America's mess', and we're left to clean it up.

I'm saying we agreed to help. Pulling out after we've made that commitment, is bad politics any way you look at it.

As to your source for that article, all I can say is that is seems to come from a very left-of-centre source, and it's an opinion piece. I'm hoping that we're doing some good there, but it's hard to do some good when you're being attacked with rockets on a regular basis.

modern phenom? that 150-200yrs ago hardly modern

quit trying to squirm out of it,anciet history has nothing to do with present day-people in Afganistan may not even be the same people who are there now, so it's irrelevant-

and just for historical trivia Ghengis Khan conqured Afganistan but he did so by genocide which was a typical method in those times...

So according to your statement in bold, the people of Afganistan may have changed since the British Occupation, or Soviet Invasion, or Mongolian Invasion, or whatever you choose to bring up.

The fact of the matter is, we are in Afganistan now, we are partly responsible for them having a lower standard of life than they did before, and we must remedy that problem. Our troops must stay there, and they must stay there to construct schools, roads, markets, whatever is needed to help the Afgani people.

"The new Afghan government promised us new schools, clinics, water pumps, but it has done nothing at all. People are so disappointed. At least the Taliban would grade the roads, build madras's, while this government has done nothing," said Nyamatullah, Zabul tribal leader
How can you defeat the Taliban when you are misleading people and destroying their lives? All you are doing is increasing their support.

So according to your statement in bold, the people of Afganistan may have changed since the British Occupation, or Soviet Invasion, or Mongolian Invasion, or whatever you choose to bring up.

The fact of the matter is, we are in Afganistan now, we are partly responsible for them having a lower standard of life than they did before, and we must remedy that problem. Our troops must stay there, and they must stay there to construct schools, roads, markets, whatever is needed to help the Afgani people.


How can you defeat the Taliban when you are misleading people and destroying their lives? All you are doing is increasing their support.

The people of afganistan have not changed since the British incursions of the 1800's-so quit picking at details that have nothing to do with the issue....


"The fact of the matter is, we are in Afganistan now, we are partly responsible for them having a lower standard of life than they did before, and we must remedy that problem. Our troops must stay there, and they must stay there to construct schools, roads, markets, whatever is needed to help the Afgani people." ---that's what the soviets were doing and where did it get them, you can't give democracy and freedom and all those other cool words to people who don't want them or even know what they are.

The NDP is in its death throes.

that's what the soviets were doing and where did it get them, you can't give democracy and freedom and all those other cool words to people who don't want them or even know what they are.

Im sorry, did you just say that the Soviet Union was trying to bring freedom and democracy to Afganistan? Or did you perhaps mean invade Afganistan to exploit its resources in its struggle to oppose American Hegemony?

Theres a big god'amn difference between The Soviet Invasion and the Western Liberation. Besides the symantics of course. Ever talked to an Afgani? Ever asked one how life was in Afganistan during the Taliban years, and if they would like to go back?

The NDP is in its death throes.

Hmm? I wouldn't say that at all. They're performing the strongest federally since the Broadbent days, and if the Liberals can't get their act together, they stand to gain a lot of left-of-centre votes.

The way I see it, the NDP can gain significantly if;

a) They keep pegging on hot-button issues (which they're good at.)
b) Harper doesn't convince enough moderates that he's worth re-electing
c) Come election time, the NDP put up an economic plan that convinces 'centrist' Canada.

There's no realistic belief that there will be a unite-the-left campaign, because the Liberals are even more proud than the Progressive Conservatives were. The NDP isn't going to disapear either. So it's up to Layton to make his presence felt, and come across as a serious alternative to the conservatives whilst the Liberals re-organize.

The war in Afghanistan is a perfect vehicle for the NDP's political ambitions, just as it is for the Conservatives. If Operation Archer is a relative 'success', Harper comes across looking like he's a man who can get the job done and will carry that into a possible majority. If Jack Layton can harness enough animosity towards the conservative administration on the issue, he can possibly put himself in a minority government position, or at least official opposition.

The NDP are far from dieing.

In Canada, the new Democratic party leader Jack Layton has been calling for a complete withdrawal of all Canadian troops from Afghanistan.


Canadian defence minister says a completely different thing

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060902.wxpakistan-nukes02/BNStory/International/home
O'Connor wants Canadian troops in Pakistan



GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — Canadian soldiers should join local forces fighting Taliban insurgents inside Pakistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says, making a tentative first attempt at raising the explosive issue of foreign troops trespassing on Pakistani territory.

Mr. O'Connor held meetings with several military and intelligence officials in Islamabad yesterday in which he urged his counterparts to step up their actions against the insurgents who emerge from hideouts in Pakistan to attack Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan.

“Among other things, I suggested that some Pakistan officers be stationed with our troops in Kandahar and Canadian troops be stationed on the Pakistan side,” Mr. O'Connor said afterward, in an interview with Associated Press of Pakistan. “This will assist in information gathering and intelligence sharing on both sides of the border.”

Such a proposal would likely anger Islamic political parties in Pakistan that have vocally resisted the presence of U.S. troops on Pakistani soil. Public outrage followed a December, 2002, incident in which a U.S. plane dropped a 225-kilogram bomb on a Pakistani border outpost after American troops came under fire from a Pakistani patrol.

Since then, Islamabad has officially denied that U.S. forces are allowed on its territory. But a 2003 congressional report said that Pakistan has quietly allowed the United States to conduct “limited, low-profile pursuits” of al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects.

Even the unmanned Predator drones that sweep over the Pakistani tribal areas require lengthy approvals from the Pakistani military, according to The New York Times.

A NATO source confirmed last night that a U.S.-Pakistan bilateral agreement allows cross-border pursuits, and expressed hope that Canada might win similar permission.

Mr. O'Connor gave no indication about the Pakistani reaction to his request.

A Pakistani source indicated earlier in the week that Mr. O'Connor would face questions from his hosts about whether Canada might help Pakistan obtain civilian nuclear co-operation. Questioned repeatedly about the issue by local media yesterday, Mr. O'Connor declined to comment.

“I am the Defence Minister and I'll answer questions on defence,” he said. “The nuclear issue is a political one and should be directed to the Foreign Minister.”

Some NATO countries have recently criticized Pakistan for allowing Taliban insurgents safe harbour within its borders, while others — most prominently the United States — have defended Pakistan as an ally in the fight against terrorism.

In Islamabad yesterday, Mr. O'Connor offered a mixed view of Pakistan's role. “I really appreciate what Pakistan is doing and they are doing a fantastic job,” he said. “But in my ideal world, they could do even better because that way our troops will be safe.”

He added: “The two governments have to co-operate as much as possible; they have to exchange information. The more the governments co-operate, it makes the situation better.”

Canada already has an exchange program between Canadian and Pakistani military colleges, Mr. O'Connor said. He suggested more frequent meetings between military officials from the two countries.

The minister's meetings yesterday included talks with Habibullah Warraich, Pakistan's Minister for Defence Production. He suggested that Canada might be able to assist Mr. Warraich's department, although he did not specify how.

Mr. O'Connor's program also included a sightseeing visit to Daman-e-Koh, a park on a hill overlooking Pakistan's capital city.

Meanwhile yesterday, an insurgent attack killed one British soldier and seriously wounded another in the latest fighting in southern Afghanistan, while suspected Taliban gunmen ambushed and shot dead a district chief, officials said.

With a report from Associated Press

Canadian defence minister says a completely different thing

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060902.wxpakistan-nukes02/BNStory/International/home

Ugh. Canada will have a hard time swallowing that one, regardless of the fact that Pakistan harbors many of the Taliban fighters Canada is fighting.

And who, other than the US and NATO, wants to wipe out all the Taliban?

Considering the Kunduz airlift of talibs and Pak-talibs allowed by the US, the unnecessary delaying of Tora bora operation, the free pass/blind eye that Pakistan gets for allowing taliban to regroup, recruit and launch operations from Pak - the claim that the US wants to wipe out all of the taliban is questionable at best.

Come on, let's be serious here. Jack Layton's taking the opportunity for some political grandstanding. Legally, and politically, we're committed to this. But if he stirs up animosity towards the government on the issue, he paints himself as the natural alternative to the Conservative party in an upcoming election while the Liberals are busy trying to figure out what they stand for.

No amount of criticism on the part of Jack Layton is going to change the fact that we're committed to fighting in Afghanistan. (You'll note that Jack Layton was all Hot and Heavy about sending troops to Darfur... ). The issue of whether or not conventional forces can defeat irregular forces is debatable, but it's not all of Afghanistan that is experiencing heavy fighting. The question is whether or not the Afgani people want us there. I haven't seen the Canadian Afghan community up in arms about the situation. (Actually, I've even tried 'looking' online for the Canadian Afghan community, but they must be relatively small.)

The bottom line, is that we've made a committment. Leaving before that comittment is through will spell trouble for any future military endeavours, because it tells our opponents that we will leave at the first sign of trouble.

theres a big afghan canadian community in downtown hamilton

We don't necessarily need to find a peaceful solution with them to pull our troops out. Maybe they are unreasonable, maybe the Canadian government is unreasonable as well. Therefore our chances of meeting an agreement are scarce. But our troops need to be pulled out.

Dunno about Canadian withdrawal....but here's Pakistani withdrawal...from Pakistan...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_throws.html
Pakistan Throws in the Towel

September 05, 2006 1:04 PM

Gretchen Peters and Habibullah Khan Report:

The Pakistani military will no longer operate in the area where Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda operatives are believed to be hiding, according to terms of what the Pakistan government calls a "peace deal," signed today with militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda.

It is a stunning setback for U.S. efforts to root out al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds.

The agreement, signed in the North Waziristan district of Pakistan's volatile tribal belt, calls for the military to return to its barracks and for the insurgents to stop launching attacks on Pakistani troops.

"The army will pull back to its camps," spokesman Major General Shaukut Sultan told ABC News. "They will not undertake any terrorist activity. There will be no parallel government, and foreigners will leave the area."

Extremist tribal leaders in North and South Waziristan had virtually taken over in recent months. They imposed Taliban-style law in their districts, held public executions and were openly recruiting fighters for 'jihad' against U.S. troops across the border in Afghanistan.

Though the military will not release exact figures, they also killed and injured hundreds of Pakistani soldiers in roadside bombs and suicide attacks. The ongoing military operations in the tribal belt were so unpopular here -- many accuse President Pervez Musharraf of fighting America's War on Terror with Pakistani blood -- analysts say the general had to stop the bloodshed, even if just for the meantime.

An earlier deal in 2003 dissolved after tribal militants failed to hold up their end of the bargain. Few expect this deal to hold either.

"This is just a temporary solution," says ABC News Consultant Rahimullah Yusufzai. "They want to push things under the carpet for the time being."

Witnesses in North Waziristan said tribal leaders hugged each other and fired guns to celebrate the deal, which is widely being viewed as a victory for their camp and a humiliating retreat for the Pakistan military.

Under the agreement, the Pakistan military will stop monitoring the activity of the militants, who will pledge to "live like good citizens," General Sultan said. More than 30 militant prisoners have been released, and the military will pay compensation for property destroyed during the fighting.

Analysts here are concerned the militants will step up cross border activity and see no reason they will put an end to attacks on this side of the border either.

"Is this the birth of Talibanistan?" asked an Islamabad diplomat.

Ugh. Canada will have a hard time swallowing that one, regardless of the fact that Pakistan harbors many of the Taliban fighters Canada is fighting.

I agree with that, though my perception may be coloured by my immediate environment. Also, the current government has to be careful to avoid comparisons between the US role in Iraq and the Canadian role in Afghanistan. That could also cost them dearly in the polls.

The current death toll of Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan is 32 (since early 2002). Obviously those are 32 people who deserve our utmost respect. But they're soldiers right? More people were murdered in Saskatchewan in just 2004.

The media is just as guilty, on both sides of the political spectrum of making every death front page news. How is it possible to conduct any sort of war under such scrutiny? Why wasn't Jack Layton screaming to pull people out of the city of Toronto when the gun craze was so big in 2005? I'm sure just as many people were shot in Toronto as they were in Afghanistan that year.

It's a war folks. Unfortunately, casualties happen in war. I'm sure all of the politicians knew that when they voted to extend our commitment to it. I'm sure most Canadians were aware of that too. But the constant daily polls to gauge the public's reaction to it is insane. Actually, it's not even the polls I object to, it's the politicians on both sides who constantly grab the latest figures to prop up their side of the issue.

We made a choice. Let's get the job done.

When the Afgani's fought the Soviet Union they had support from the United States. They had assumed that this support would continue to help build up their country afterwards. That never happened. Once the US used them for their proxy war, the support ended and the Taliban moved in on a weak country.
And here I thought that it was the US who armed the Taliban in the first place to fight the soviets for them.

And here I thought that it was the US who armed the Taliban in the first place to fight the soviets for them.

There's also a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, SHIT HAPPENS.

It is impossible to get past the fact that significant portions of Afghan society supported and still support the Taliban. That part of the world works by different rules than what we in the West are used to. Maintaining peace and order there requires a much greater amount of pragmatism than most politicians are willing to answer to the people for.
I’m glad Mr. Layton seems to be among the ones that will.

Why even bother having an armed forces at all?

See, this is what I like about Mikesburg - he inadvertently asks the very same questions that weigh upon me like a lead apron.

And honestly, Mike - I haven't a clue.

Im sorry, did you just say that the Soviet Union was trying to bring freedom and democracy to Afganistan? Or did you perhaps mean invade Afganistan to exploit its resources in its struggle to oppose American Hegemony?

Theres a big god'amn difference between The Soviet Invasion and the Western Liberation. Besides the symantics of course. Ever talked to an Afgani? Ever asked one how life was in Afganistan during the Taliban years, and if they would like to go back?I never said any such thing-but soviets opening schools for girls and employing women is a step in freedoms over what they had, soviets had no toleration for religious exploitation/control of the masses---did soviets exploit the afgans? yeah, how evil-unlike western exploition of third world countries which is so benevolent

That's stupid. It really is.

If we want the people in Afghanistan to finally escape from this cycle of war and counter-war, the invaders must stick to their guns and finish this. We owe them that much.

The current death toll of Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan is 32 (since early 2002). Obviously those are 32 people who deserve our utmost respect. But they're soldiers right? More people were murdered in Saskatchewan in just 2004.

The media is just as guilty, on both sides of the political spectrum of making every death front page news. How is it possible to conduct any sort of war under such scrutiny? Why wasn't Jack Layton screaming to pull people out of the city of Toronto when the gun craze was so big in 2005? I'm sure just as many people were shot in Toronto as they were in Afghanistan that year.

It's a war folks. Unfortunately, casualties happen in war. I'm sure all of the politicians knew that when they voted to extend our commitment to it. I'm sure most Canadians were aware of that too. But the constant daily polls to gauge the public's reaction to it is insane. Actually, it's not even the polls I object to, it's the politicians on both sides who constantly grab the latest figures to prop up their side of the issue.

We made a choice. Let's get the job done. disagree Mike, international politics is rarely mentioned at election time, I'm sure it will be next election.----polls nothing wrong with them-if the people have a change of heart and no longer think we can justify being at war then politicians are obligated to listen...it's the people who pay the price with loss of family members... war should ultimately be the decision of those paying the price, not some fat middle aged politician sitting in the safety of his office....

and sure more people are murdered every year but there is little we could do about that, these 32 lives lost could have been avoided

That's stupid. It really is.

If we want the people in Afghanistan to finally escape from this cycle of war and counter-war, the invaders must stick to their guns and finish this. We owe them that much.

Owe? Who? Who owes what? Canada owes fuck-all to Afghanistan.

Owe? Who? Who owes what? Canada owes fuck-all to Afghanistan.

Oh God... you've surfaced...

Owe? Who? Who owes what? Canada owes fuck-all to Afghanistan.
Well, you decided it would be a good idea to go along and bomb the place, or at least help those who did.

When you made that decision, you made yourself a part of Afghanistan's politics and history. You're a party in that conflict, whether you like it or not.

The question is whether or not you want to now leave, having achieved nothing other than being involved with the death of thousands of innocent people. Or whether you want to stay and help stabilise the country enough to allow some sort of future for those who survived.

Afghanistan is not like Iraq. It wasn't a lie, it wasn't an unnecessary war, it wasn't a crime. This needs to work.

Oh God... you've surfaced...

Been reading and posting for the last hour - twice on this very thread. So hardly "surfacing". Why, am I supposed to know you?

Well, you decided it would be a good idea to go along and bomb the place, or at least help those who did.

When you made that decision, you made yourself a part of Afghanistan's politics and history. You're a party in that conflict, whether you like it or not.

The question is whether or not you want to now leave, having achieved nothing other than being involved with the death of thousands of innocent people. Or whether you want to stay and help stabilise the country enough to allow some sort of future for those who survived.

Afghanistan is not like Iraq. It wasn't a lie, it wasn't an unnecessary war, it wasn't a crime. This needs to work.

Not a decision I made - and trust me, it has zilch - nada, nothing to do with helping Afghans and everything to do with attempting to curry favour with the Yanks, who in this instance, can honestly go fuck themselves right up their star-spangled flagpoles. Just like our current and former PMs. Fuck them, too. This was a bad idea from the get-go.

Let America work it out for themselves.

Afghanistan is not like Iraq. It wasn't a lie, it wasn't an unnecessary war, it wasn't a crime. This needs to work.
Why? Based on everything we've seen so far, it can't.
See, this is what I like about Mikesburg - he inadvertently asks the very same questions that weigh upon me like a lead apron.

And honestly, Mike - I haven't a clue.
Same thing I thought when I read it.

Let America work it out for themselves.
And afterwards you complain about the way they do it?

You know, disagreeing with the US is all fine and dandy. I do it all the time. But at some point you have to be able to look at these things more independently than that. You can go "everything that is against the US is good" alá OceanDrive, or you can keep some personal sense of what is right and what should be done.

Fact is that the Afghans have it bad. Their country sucks, and has sucked for decades. Now NATO and friends (and that includes pretty much all of us) has gotten involved, and actually has the chance to fix the place, and allow these people a future. I believe that this is a good goal to have. It's a good fight, precisely because it is not necessarily in Canada's interest (at least not directly). It's in Afghanistan's interest.

Fuck the Yanks. Leave them be, and think about what you personally think about what can and should be done for the Afghans.

Why? Based on everything we've seen so far, it can't.
How come?

The drugs trade needs to be managed better, someone needs to bash the living shit out of Musharraf (the person, not his country) until he actually helps. And a few more Western troops couldn't hurt. And that would be all that is really needed.

It's not nearly as complicated as Iraq. There is not nearly as much of a feeling of anti-Western hatred with the general population and the factions are generally united under a warlord you can actually contact and talk to.

And afterwards you complain about the way they do it?

You know, disagreeing with the US is all fine and dandy. I do it all the time. But at some point you have to be able to look at these things more independently than that. You can go "everything that is against the US is good" alá OceanDrive, or you can keep some personal sense of what is right and what should be done.

Fact is that the Afghans have it bad. Their country sucks, and has sucked for decades. Now NATO and friends (and that includes pretty much all of us) has gotten involved, and actually has the chance to fix the place, and allow these people a future. I believe that this is a good goal to have. It's a good fight, precisely because it is not necessarily in Canada's interest (at least not directly). It's in Afghanistan's interest.

Fuck the Yanks. Leave them be, and think about what you personally think about what can and should be done for the Afghans.

Well fuck you too. :p

That's stupid. It really is.

If we want the people in Afghanistan to finally escape from this cycle of war and counter-war, the invaders must stick to their guns and finish this. We owe them that much.

NL, look at this

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/bin_laden_gets_.html

:D

Fuck the Yanks. Leave them be, and think about what you personally think about what can and should be done for the Afghans.

*

It looks a very dry place. How about engineering a large-scale irrigation project to relieve the people of their conditions? How about finding markets for Afghani produce so as to dissuade growers from producing new crops of opium poppies - perhaps a Free Trade agreement or somesuch. Schools - infrastructure - student exchange programs - what else? I don't know. I honestly don't.

What can be done for the Afghans? I don't think there's a limit on what could be done for them. Just about everything, I suppose. What should be done for the Afghans? Whatever seems reasonable, really. But I don't think we should be there first and foremost to fight an American war on Osama Bin Laden. If we absolutely must be should be there, let it be as a force for constructive purpose, for the betterment of all Afghans. Let the fighting be defensive in nature and only as necessary to protect Afghan civilians. Win their hearts through lasting good works. That's what makes sense to me.

Ever since the US handed over responsiblity of Afghanistan to NATO, and Britain, things have been going downhill, and the Taleban chose this transition period to begin a resurgence. NATO is mainly a peacekeeping force and is not aggresive enough, what we need is for the US to take control again, and then when the Taleban are finally beaten, then we can hand it over to NATO.

NL, look at this

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/bin_laden_gets_.html

:D
I enjoyed reading the comments after that article. They were extremely hilarious and so totally out of touch with reality. :p

The drugs trade needs to be managed better, someone needs to bash the living shit out of Musharraf (the person, not his country) until he actually helps.
I have no problem with either of those things.
And a few more Western troops couldn't hurt. And that would be all that is really needed.
It could certainly hurt the Western troops and it could certainly be used as propaganda by fanatics.
There is not nearly as much of a feeling of anti-Western hatred with the general population and the factions are generally united under a warlord you can actually contact and talk to.
Yes, and we need to recognize that within some of those faction there is still sympathy towards the Taliban.

*

It looks a very dry place. How about engineering a large-scale irrigation project to relieve the people of their conditions? How about finding markets for Afghani produce so as to dissuade growers from producing new crops of opium poppies - perhaps a Free Trade agreement or somesuch. Schools - infrastructure - student exchange programs - what else? I don't know. I honestly don't.

What can be done for the Afghans? I don't think there's a limit on what could be done for them. Just about everything, I suppose. What should be done for the Afghans? Whatever seems reasonable, really. But I don't think we should be there first and foremost to fight an American war on Osama Bin Laden. If we absolutely must be should be there, let it be as a force for constructive purpose, for the betterment of all Afghans. Let the fighting be defensive in nature and only as necessary to protect Afghan civilians. Win their hearts through lasting good works. That's what makes sense to me.

I thought that's what the majority of the Canadians are doing in Iraq, restoring order and handing out supplies.

I thought that's what the majority of the Canadians are doing in Iraq, restoring order and handing out supplies.

No, they're fighting, dying and killing this time out. Five of them shot in the last few days. Lots of Taliban dead. It's distasteful, if nothing else.

And it fills me with no pride for my nation and makes me disinclined to wish the troops well in their endeavours, as I am wholly opposed to the nature of their mission.

NL, look at this...
I'm not even surprised anymore...

By the way, I was at a talk with one of Australia's two Gitmo inmates (he was released without charge after two years a few months ago) at my uni. He was Egyptian, but he was essentially saying the same thing you were saying: The Egyptian officer (he was renditioned after being captured in Pakistan) told him: "Look, the Americans are giving us $10 million for every terrorist we put in jail. All you have to do is admit that you did something. Anything. And we'll split with you - you get a million, and we'll change your identity and put you somewhere else."

But I don't think we should be there first and foremost to fight an American war on Osama Bin Laden.
Well, you know as well as I do that Bin Laden is not the type to discriminate between one country and another. Fact is that this guy killed thousands of people, has declared a war on the West as a whole, US or no US.
And the Taliban refused to hand him over. Back then the UN decided that it was okay to destroy that government and try to build a better Afghanistan. That's why NATO is there.

If we absolutely must be should be there, let it be as a force for constructive purpose, for the betterment of all Afghans. Let the fighting be defensive in nature and only as necessary to protect Afghan civilians.
And leave the South of the country and the North of Pakistan as a base for these factions? How can you expect the government in Kabul to be stable and bring prosperity for the people if there is a hostile army within its borders?
No, the Taliban can't be allowed to remain an intact force in that region.

Ever since the US handed over responsiblity of Afghanistan to NATO, and Britain, things have been going downhill, and the Taleban chose this transition period to begin a resurgence.
Which one? The ISAF transition in 2003, or the military transition in the South in July this year?
You can't pinpoint any single time for this.

NATO is mainly a peacekeeping force and is not aggresive enough, what we need is for the US to take control again, and then when the Taleban are finally beaten, then we can hand it over to NATO.
It's not like US Forces are not there anymore. And besides, NATO is not a peacekeeping force, it's the most powerful military alliance on the planet. And considering the headlines of the past few weeks about pretty damn big battles in that region, it doesn't look like the British (who are the NATO nation in command at the moment) are just sitting on their hands.

I think you might get getting ISAF and the combat operations mixed up.

No, they're fighting, dying and killing this time out. Five of them shot in the last few days. Lots of Taliban dead. It's distasteful, if nothing else.

And it fills me with no pride for my nation and makes me disinclined to wish the troops well in their endeavours, as I am wholly opposed to the nature of their mission.

I'm just curious, are you completley anti-war regardless of what it's being fought for?

I'm just curious, are you completley anti-war regardless of what it's being fought for?

I think of war as an admission of failure, and incompetence of the highest order. I rail against the casual promulgation of violence as a reasonable means to resolve conflict. And I honestly believe there is no dispute which cannot be mediated to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Yes, I am completely anti-war, as well as being completely pro-good things for all humanity. Curiousity satisfied?

It could certainly hurt the Western troops and it could certainly be used as propaganda by fanatics.
It's a question of whether you think it is worth it to have a few of your soldiers die.
But ultimately, they could greatly improve the security situation of those people who currently live too far away from any ISAF bases and need to arrange themselves with local warlords and all their crazy rules.

As for the propaganda...who will they tell it to? Those guys who are already thinking about going to join the Taliban? Or the people who suddenly have a capable police patrol watching the streets? It's not like foreign troop presence has to be perceived negatively. I hear that most of the ISAF peacekeepers were quite well received.

Yes, and we need to recognize that within some of those faction there is still sympathy towards the Taliban.
But how does that change anything? Ultimately, the Taliban's existence as an organisation and their goals are incompatable with the sort of Afghanistan we would want to see.
And since it's not like the Taliban are the negotiating type (and even if they were...who would you make to live under their jurisdiction?), the NATO combat operations are ultimately just doing what needs to be done anyways. And if NATO doesn't do it, Afghans will have to...and they have much less chance of succeeding.

I think of war as an admission of failure, and incompetence of the highest order. I rail against the casual promulgation of violence as a reasonable means to resolve conflict. And I honestly believe there is no dispute which cannot be mediated to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Well that's certainly a naive attitude. Not about war being a fundamental failure, but about all disputes being successfully mediated.

Example: Two gay men want to get married, a bunch of religious nuts think that God will smite the whole country if they do. Sometimes you just have to tell some groups to shut the fuck up and back it up with force. Your country did on this particular issue, and that was a very good thing.

I think of war as an admission of failure, and incompetence of the highest order. I rail against the casual promulgation of violence as a reasonable means to resolve conflict. And I honestly believe there is no dispute which cannot be mediated to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Yes, I am completely anti-war, as well as being completely pro-good things for all humanity. Curiousity satisfied?

I don't happen to agree, but I respect your opinion on the matter.

Yes, my curiosity is satisfied.

Well that's certainly a naive attitude. Not about war being a fundamental failure, but about all disputes being successfully mediated.

Example: Two gay men want to get married, a bunch of religious nuts think that God will smite the whole country if they do. Sometimes you just have to tell some groups to shut the fuck up and back it up with force. Your country did on this particular issue, and that was a very good thing.

But the religious nuts are still free to exclude whoever they want from their churches' marriage practices. Homosexuals can legally marry nonetheless - they simply have to find religious groups that will marry them (and there's no shortage there). So, a solution was found that satisfies all concerned. There was no telling anybody to stfu, there was no backing it up with force.

So keep telling me how naive I am.

As for the propaganda...who will they tell it to? Those guys who are already thinking about going to join the Taliban? Or the people who suddenly have a capable police patrol watching the streets? It's not like foreign troop presence has to be perceived negatively. I hear that most of the ISAF peacekeepers were quite well received.

Most of them hate us. Our very presence among them is an affront to their world-view. The best way to fight terrorism is to make ourselves as scarce to the average muslim as possible while propping up locales to do humanitarian work.
But how does that change anything? Ultimately, the Taliban's existence as an organisation and their goals are incompatable with the sort of Afghanistan we would want to see.
Maybe what you would want to see.
And since it's not like the Taliban are the negotiating type
(and even if they were...who would you make to live under their jurisdiction?),
I’m sure in exchange for power they'd be more than happy to make a few concessions in the Westernization department. If not, there are others. The current system isn't working. Democracy or anything resembling it is ill-suited to the conditions of Afghanistan.

But the religious nuts are still free to exclude whoever they want from their churches' marriage practices. Homosexuals can legally marry nonetheless - they simply have to find religious groups that will marry them (and there's no shortage there). So, a solution was found that satisfies all concerned. There was no telling anybody to stfu, there was no backing it up with force.
First of all, the government is force.
Second, the ultra-religious are still unhappy. They don't want legal homosexual marriage, period. You just can't satisfy fanatics.
So keep telling me how naive I am.
I shall.

Most of them hate us. Our very presence among them is an affront to their world-view.
That's not what I hear from the German military in the North of the country. It's a question of PR, no more, no less.

Maybe what you would want to see.
True.

Democracy or anything resembling it is ill-suited to the conditions of Afghanistan.
I don't think that's possible. It can certainly take a while, and the neocons were naive in thinking that it is a default state - but many countries in the past have adopted democracy despite having had nothing resembling it in the past.
And even if it does take 30 years until Afghanistan is a proper democracy...for the time being there is still a case to be made to keep fundie maniacs away from people who just want to live their lives in peace.

I don't think that's possible. It can certainly take a while, and the neocons were naive in thinking that it is a default state - but many countries in the past have adopted democracy despite having had nothing resembling it in the past.
And even if it does take 30 years until Afghanistan is a proper democracy...for the time being there is still a case to be made to keep fundie maniacs away from people who just want to live their lives in peace.
It has nothing to do with their past and everything to do with their present. A modern democracy takes a serious amount of capital. I doubt Afghanistan could even generate the taxes necessary to control its elites. The West is not rich because of democracy; we have democracy because we are rich.

modern phenom? that 150-200yrs ago hardly modern

Incorrect. Considering that Afghanistan has an approximately 4000 year history, 200-150 years is most certainly modern. Furthermore, historians consider the modern age to have started with the end of the Middle Ages, around 1450.

quit trying to squirm out of it,anciet history has nothing to do with present day-people in Afganistan may not even be the same people who are there now, so it's irrelevant-

1) Quit trying to squirm your way out yourself. This point of contention came about because I pointed out that Afghanistan/Bactria has been invaded and conquered. You and TG pointed to the Anglo-Afghan wars, and I pointed to the rest of history. The whole point is that the British experience in Afghanistan is anomalous, so citing it as evidence that the Afghanis are indefeatable is a weak argument.

2) I'm not talking about ancient history, but the Middle and Modern Ages.

3) The argument that these are not the same people defeated repeatedly prior to the British attempts, can also be applied to the current situation.

and just for historical trivia Ghengis Khan conqured Afganistan but he did so by genocide which was a typical method in those times...

Yes, and?

No, they're fighting, dying and killing this time out. Five of them shot in the last few days. Lots of Taliban dead. It's distasteful, if nothing else.

And it fills me with no pride for my nation and makes me disinclined to wish the troops well in their endeavours, as I am wholly opposed to the nature of their mission.


That's one of the things I think Layton is trying to do. By taking an extreme position, he forces a compromise. He won't get the soldiers home, but he will try to change the parameters of the mission. Ideally, I'd like to see our troops guarding Afghanis while they rebuild their infrastructure. At the same time, they could be clearing minefields and performing other tasks that only a military could handle. Once the infrastructure and a working plan for peace and social order are in place, though, we should get out.

What the hell, we should also build a network of schools for women.

First of all, the government is force.
Second, the ultra-religious are still unhappy. They don't want legal homosexual marriage, period. You just can't satisfy fanatics.

I shall.

I sense that you and I have a fundamentally different outlook on government. Government is there, amongst other things, to fine-tune the Constitution periodically in order to expand upon or refine what being Canadian is all about. Recognizing the right to same-sex marriage is precisely the sort of thing that government is there for in the first place. Force doesn't enter into it. Not even implied force. And it never did.

And yes, the ultra-religious might be unhappy to not be able to think of themselves as calling the shots over the rest of us, but they'll just have to satisfy themselves with a) still retaining their ability to comport themselves in a discriminatory fashion within their own organizations, b) being members of the choir, not soloists - and c) realizing they never really called the shots over the rest of us, anyway. They'll have to learn to be satisfied with what they've got, because the rest of us are fine with it; and they are neither numerous nor persuasive enough to turn back the hands of time on what amounts to natural social evolution.

I'm not surprised that we see things differently. I seem to be... dissimilar where Americans are concerned. But let's not hijack this thread, eh?

I sense that you and I have a fundamentally different outlook on government. Government is there, amongst other things, to fine-tune the Constitution periodically in order to expand upon or refine what being Canadian is all about. Recognizing the right to same-sex marriage is precisely the sort of thing that government is there for in the first place. Force doesn't enter into it. Not even implied force. And it never did.
So, what, are the police just there for decoration? The government has a monopoly on force, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What keeps those homosexuals safe from fanatics is, after all, force. When used against the right people, who usually happen to be religious and/or conservatives of some variety, it is very effective at preserving liberty.
And yes, the ultra-religious might be unhappy to not be able to think of themselves as calling the shots over the rest of us, but they'll just have to satisfy themselves with a) still retaining their ability to comport themselves in a discriminatory fashion within their own organizations, b) being members of the choir, not soloists - and c) realizing they never really called the shots over the rest of us, anyway. They'll have to learn to be satisfied with what they've got, because the rest of us are fine with it; and they are neither numerous nor persuasive enough to turn back the hands of time on what amounts to natural social evolution.
But the point is, they aren't satisfied, nor do they have a right to be.

So, what, are the police just there for decoration? The government has a monopoly on force, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What keeps those homosexuals safe from fanatics is, after all, force. When used against the right people, who usually happen to be religious and/or conservatives of some variety, it is very effective at preserving liberty.
No, what keeps those homosexuals safe is the Constitution. That same Constitution keeps the fanatics safe from performing marriages for homosexual couples. As I said previously, you and I apparently have some significantly disparate points-of-view. I suspect this is due to our both taking our cues from the traditional outlooks of our respective cultures, which certainly seem divergent at this point in time.
But the point is, they aren't satisfied, nor do they have a right to be.
They don't have a right to satisfaction in this context, no. As I've already said, they'll have to make do with relegating the furtherance of gender-preference prejudice to within their own congregations. No biggie.




But c'mon now - let's put the boxcutters down, now shall we? This thread's been hijacked enough for one night.

But c'mon now - let's put the boxcutters down, now shall we? This thread's been hijacked enough for one night.
I would have ended it if you hadn’t suggested that our difference in opinion is on account of me being American. Most of the people I know would be spouting the same garbage about a piece of paper protecting them as you do. I’m a bit more pragmatic.

The West is not rich because of democracy; we have democracy because we are rich.
Neither Germany nor Japan was rich when they adopted it. Nor was India, Brazil, Turkey or any given number of any countries.
Then there were places like Iran under Mossadeq, or Lebanon now after the Syrians moved out.

I mean, international help will certainly be necessary, but great wealth is not necessary to form a democracy.

I'd heard that after this announcement, a frustrated Afghanistan could not be reached for comment.

I say stay in there and get the job done, guys.

I'd heard that after this announcement, a frustrated Afghanistan could not be reached for comment.

I say stay in there and get the job done, guys.

Wich job was that?

Searching every cave in the country for Taliban remnants?

Monitoring the Paki/Afghan border, that allows hundreds of people through it unchecked every day?

Or that guy that we were searching for.....whats his name again....

Osama....yah thats him.

Or was it supporting the Kharzai government, by allowing the growing of opium poppies, by local warlords, in exchange for allowing the Kharzai government to remain in power?

Or do you still think we are actually fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan?

See, this is what I like about Mikesburg - he inadvertently asks the very same questions that weigh upon me like a lead apron.

And honestly, Mike - I haven't a clue.

Well, that's what bugs me more than anything else. If Canada had decided to be completely neutral in world affairs and kept to ourselves, than probably the only military we would need would be DART.

But we continue to decide to be a part of the world community and helping to maintain (and in the case of Afghanistan, enforce) peace through the use of our military. And when we decide to use that military, we grossly underfund them and second guess our comitments. It's an impossible situation for the men and women who sign up for the armed forces.

The average Canuck seems to be more than happy to take pride in the image of a mythical Canadian soldier who solves problems by getting combatants to hug and drink Tim Horton's coffee. But the moment soldiers begin to do what soldiers are meant to do, kill or be killed, the hand-wringing begins in earnest.

I respect your pacifistic stance, really. But the rest of Canada doesn't seem to share the same viewpoint, and we're sending our men and women into harm's way without the resolve to see them through the mission we gave them.

Whether we should have made that commitment is definitely debatable. I generally believe it was the right decision.

Wich job was that?

Searching every cave in the country for Taliban remnants?

Monitoring the Paki/Afghan border, that allows hundreds of people through it unchecked every day?

Or that guy that we were searching for.....whats his name again....

Osama....yah thats him.

Or was it supporting the Kharzai government, by allowing the growing of opium poppies, by local warlords, in exchange for allowing the Kharzai government to remain in power?

Or do you still think we are actually fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan?

Anybody who believes that the Pashtun tribes fighting our troops are 'terrorists' needs to clarify their definitions.

But there's most definitely a job to do, one which would have been infinitely easier if the US had spent a fraction of what they have in the War on Iraq on developing Afghanistan's infrastructure, or put pressure on Pakistan to co-operate on dealing with Taliban groups within their borders.

The job is to create conditions for a peaceful, or at least less violent country within which to build a framework for future stability; one which won't harbor and aid groups which attack our people and its institutions. Granted, these groups can relocate to other 'failed states', but letting Afghanistan continue in the state it is in is comparable to having a ghetto in your city where you don't bother sending police.

The average Canuck seems to be more than happy to take pride in the image of a mythical Canadian soldier who solves problems by getting combatants to hug and drink Tim Horton's coffee. But the moment soldiers begin to do what soldiers are meant to do, kill or be killed, the hand-wringing begins in earnest.

I respect your pacifistic stance, really. But the rest of Canada doesn't seem to share the same viewpoint, and we're sending our men and women into harm's way without the resolve to see them through the mission we gave them.

Whether we should have made that commitment is definitely debatable. I generally believe it was the right decision.

The trouble is that the war in Afghanistan is looking like a conventional army against a guerilla group supported by locals. I don't think we can win that kind of war. Not because of the soldiers themselves, but because they are too few, underfunded, and not receiving the support they need. And even if we could support them, they would have to go into Pakistan. That would complicate things tremendously. It's almost as if they are forced to bring everyone together over a box of Timbits.

If we knew there was a viable exit strategy...

Well there's the rub, eh?

I think most of us agree with the idea of helping to maintain law and order in a country that desperately needs it.
Are we "helping to maintain law and order", or are things actually getting worse? From what I can see, things are getting worse? Why?

I think most people who have a gripe with it, is because it's 'America's mess', and we're left to clean it up.
That is certainly a valid argument? Bush wanted to make an example of Afghanistan as a showpiece on the War on Terror, quickly subdued the populace and then left for Iraq. You know Iraq, that hotbed of terrorist activities that were a "threat" to the US. :D

I'm saying we agreed to help. Pulling out after we've made that commitment, is bad politics any way you look at it.
The US, for the most part, pulled out long before we accelerated our commitment. The bad politics emantes from Washington.

As to your source for that article, all I can say is that is seems to come from a very left-of-centre source, and it's an opinion piece.
Does it really matter what the source is if the article is for the most part factual?

Here is another interesting article by the same writer:

Afghanistan's Second Intifada (http://www.dailymuslims.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2126&Itemid=343)

Again, it is another questionable source but can the "facts" be repudiated? Canada should re-evaluate the presence of our troops in Afghanistan and re-evaluate our role there. Let's also keep in mind the resistance against the Soviets from 1979 to 1989?

Soviet operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Soviet_operations)

Following the deployment, the Soviet troops were unable to establish authority outside Kabul. As much as 80% of the countryside still escaped effective government control. The initial mission, to guard cities and installations, was expanded to combat the anti-communist Mujahideen forces, primarily using Soviet reservists.

Early military reports revealed the difficulty which the Soviet forces encountered in fighting in mountainous terrain. The Soviet Army was unfamiliar with such fighting, had no anti-guerrilla training, and their weaponry and military equipment, particularly armored cars and tanks, was sometimes ineffective or vulnerable in the mountainous environment. Heavy artillery was extensively used when fighting rebel forces.

The Soviets used helicopters (including Mil Mi-24 Hind gunships) as their primary air attack force, supported with fighter-bombers and bombers, ground troops and special forces. In some areas they conducted a scorched earth campaign destroying villages, houses, crops, livestock etc.

International condemnation arose due to the alleged killings of civilians in any areas where Mujahideen were suspected of operating. Operations to capture rebel formations were often unsuccessful and had to be repeated in the same area because the rebels fled to the mountains and their home villages until the Soviets returned to their bases.
Sound familiar? What is the sense in all of this?

I'm hoping that we're doing some good there, but it's hard to do some good when you're being attacked with rockets on a regular basis.
I think that we are just keeping the lid on the pressure cooker, waiting for it to explode. Five years later and our forces are still being "attacked with rockets on a regular basis". That speaks volumes? World War 2 only lasted 6 years.......

Bush doesn't care about Afghanistan, just like he is no longer concerned about Bin Laden. Let's wrap it up and move them out!!

Are we "helping to maintain law and order", or are things actually getting worse? From what I can see, things are getting worse? Why?

It's getting 'worse' because we are actively moving into previously uncontrolled territory in an attempt to remove the folks who keep attacking us with rockets. What bugs me more than anything is that they'll just move over to Pakistan at the end of the day and thumb their noses at us. (And who likes a thumbed nose, really?)

But you make a very convincing argument for removing our troops. If the soviets couldn't pacify the place, how will Canada? Then again, who's funding the 'resistance' this time around, as the US was when the Soviets were in Afghanistan?

I believe the US clearly dropped the ball on a vision of security and prosperity for Afghanistan. But I'm not so sure that means we should drop the ball after we picked it up.

The trouble is that the war in Afghanistan is looking like a conventional army against a guerilla group supported by locals.

The trouble is, are the locals supporting them out of sympathy for their goals, our out of the desire not to be shot?

Afghanistan is a democracy (LOL, okay, not exactly), and our troop presence has legitimacy. I'm not so sure about the guerilla forces. Leaving a large group of guerilla fighters to harass your development efforts doesn't strike me as a solid plan.

So the question is, should we have development efforts? I think these people deserve what help we can give them.

It's getting 'worse' because we are actively moving into previously uncontrolled territory in an attempt to remove the folks who keep attacking us with rockets. What bugs me more than anything is that they'll just move over to Pakistan at the end of the day and thumb their noses at us. (And who likes a thumbed nose, really?)

But you make a very convincing argument for removing our troops. If the soviets couldn't pacify the place, how will Canada? Then again, who's funding the 'resistance' this time around, as the US was when the Soviets were in Afghanistan?

I believe the US clearly dropped the ball on a vision of security and prosperity for Afghanistan. But I'm not so sure that means we should drop the ball after we picked it up.
The US has a licence to print money. Canada does not. The game has changed and there is no longer a "ball" in play.....it is more like a hot patato.

Militants enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan and I don't see that changing. I would imagine that militants are getting fresh arms and recruits from Pakistan as well and also possibly from Iran, and perhaps Saudi Arabia?

The US failed to secure Afghanistan and the nightmare continues. I think our presence there is only creating more terrorists. Extremely counter productive to say the least.

Another point to consider is that the US appears not to want us there anymore?

Injured Canadian soldiers to return home Friday (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060905%2fafghanistan_sendoff_060906&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True)

Pte. Mark Anthony Graham was killed and dozens of soldiers were wounded Monday when two U.S. fighter jets that were called in for air support mistakenly strafed the Canadians with cannon fire. It was the largest number of Canadian casualties suffered in one day thus far in Afghanistan.

Once the infrastructure and a working plan for peace and social order are in place, though, we should get out.

What the hell, we should also build a network of schools for women.

That is part of the problem ... no-one is putting in the kind of financial resources needed to build any kind of infrastructure. Which makes me question what we can possibly accomplish by being there.

You would think that the US or Russia or Britain might feel some responsibility to help re-build the country after all of the work they did to deconstruct it, but apparently not.

It's an impossible situation for the men and women who sign up for the armed forces.

we're sending our men and women into harm's way without the resolve to see them through the mission we gave them.



What is impossible for our men and women in the armed forces is being sent into a shit show like Afghanistan with no commitment from our allies to provide the financial resources required to actually rebuild the country or do anything other than maintain a cautious balance of power between the warlords, the Taliban, and the Karzai government.

The reason we don't have the resolve to see them through is because the Canadian people were not told about the real nature of the mission in the first place. There was no national debate or discussion on our change of role from peacekeeping to war-making. There has been no real national debate or discussion on the purpose of this mission. That is why people are now wringing their hands ... because troops are dying and they don't understand why or for what. "We" didn't give them a mission at all.

But there's most definitely a job to do, one which would have been infinitely easier if the US had spent a fraction of what they have in the War on Iraq on developing Afghanistan's infrastructure, or put pressure on Pakistan to co-operate on dealing with Taliban groups within their borders.


Exactly ... and we never should have extended the mission without that commitment from the US.

That is part of the problem ... no-one is putting in the kind of financial resources needed to build any kind of infrastructure. Which makes me question what we can possibly accomplish by being there.

Too right. It's a catch-21 - to improve infrastructure you need a good secure environment for your workers and engineers and suppliers, but to improve security you need infrastrucutre to provide stability.

Without money it is really a lost cause.


You would think that the US or Russia or Britain might feel some responsibility to help re-build the country after all of the work they did to deconstruct it, but apparently not.

Why would the Russian Federation feel the need to aid Afghans? How does that relate to the war with the Soviets?

The Taliban is an Afgan problem they should deal with it themselves, we can't teach a society to think like us, it's an evolutionary process that societies must go through on their own....if the current Afgan government can't keep control of the country after the Tliban now that they've been removed they don't deserve to be in power.
The Afghans need our help to get rid of the Taliban. Maybe they can't do it alone.

The new government would be fine if the Americans hadn't gone to fucking Iraq. But that's another story.

If Pakistan has come to some sort of agreement with the Taliban and the frontier tribes, then the war is unwinnable as the Taliban will always have a safe haven accross the border where they are untouchable. Time to negotiate a withdrawal and get out. Casualty rates are now equal to Iraq and the Taliban are getting stronger according to the military, we can't win and only more will die.

Canada originally went in to fulfill it's Nato obligation to the USA, if a member nation is attacked Canada would come to it's aid. Canada did that but should now leave as the USA took advantage of the allies aid in Afganistan to carry out an illegal war against Iraq.

Jack seems to have forgotten why we're in Afghanistan.

We're in Afghanistan because Afghan-supported terrorists attacked our closest ally. In response, NATO universally approved retaliatory action. NATO's a huge defensive alliance, so that's really what it's for. Every NATO member supported the invasion of Afghanistan, so NATO invaded Afghanistan.

It was a response to a first-strike.

If NATO doesn't stay there until the job is done, that defeats the whole purpose of having a defensive alliance.

For completeness, the NATO members are:

Belgium
Bulgaria *
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia *
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia *
Lithuania *
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania *
Slovakia *
Slovenia *
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

* joined NATO after the invasion of Afghanistan

We're in Afghanistan because Afghan-supported terrorists attacked our closest ally. In response, NATO universally approved retaliatory action. NATO's a huge defensive alliance, so that's really what it's for. Every NATO member supported the invasion of Afghanistan, so NATO invaded Afghanistan.



How did Afghanistan support the terrorists? By "allowing" them to train in the country? I am at a loss to determine how they would have prevented them from doing so, given that the Taliban's control over much of the country was tenuous anyway. Further, lots of other arab countries provided material support which was far more important to the terrorists (Saudi Arabia for example). We certainly haven't invaded them. Afghanistan was merely a convenient scape goat and offered the US an easy victory in the short term. They probably never even thought about the long term ...

Again, we are also not getting the requisite financial support from our American "allies" to accomplish the job of stabilizing the country. So what purpose does our being there serve?

Considering there are Taliban in the Democratically elected Afghani Parlaiment, I'd say
It's the armed Taliban that are the problem, not the elected Taliban.

See, this is what I like about Mikesburg - he inadvertently asks the very same questions that weigh upon me like a lead apron.

And honestly, Mike - I haven't a clue.
The purpose of armed forces is for peacekeeping.

Idealy, all foreign policy should aim to improve global human rights and advance the cause of peace and prosperity.

Owe? Who? Who owes what? Canada owes fuck-all to Afghanistan.
Come on be considerate of other people.

What should be done for the Afghans? Whatever seems reasonable, really. But I don't think we should be there first and foremost to fight an American war on Osama Bin Laden. If we absolutely must be should be there, let it be as a force for constructive purpose, for the betterment of all Afghans. Let the fighting be defensive in nature and only as necessary to protect Afghan civilians. Win their hearts through lasting good works. That's what makes sense to me.
Didn't you just contradict your previous post of "fuck 'em we don't owe the Afghans anything"? So are you for a NATO presence there or not?

I think of war as an admission of failure, and incompetence of the highest order. I rail against the casual promulgation of violence as a reasonable means to resolve conflict. And I honestly believe there is no dispute which cannot be mediated to the satisfaction of all concerned.
What about WWII? Supporting that is not the same as "casual promulgation of violence" *cough* Iran war 2007 *cough*

But the religious nuts are still free to exclude whoever they want from their churches' marriage practices. Homosexuals can legally marry nonetheless - they simply have to find religious groups that will marry them (and there's no shortage there). So, a solution was found that satisfies all concerned. There was no telling anybody to stfu, there was no backing it up with force.
The zealots aren't happy with that, they want their way done throughout the land. And all law involves force, so of course it was backed up.

I sense that you and I have a fundamentally different outlook on government. Government is there, amongst other things, to fine-tune the Constitution periodically in order to expand upon or refine what being Canadian is all about. Recognizing the right to same-sex marriage is precisely the sort of thing that government is there for in the first place. Force doesn't enter into it. Not even implied force. And it never did.
So how do you think the government ensures that laws get followed?

No, what keeps those homosexuals safe is the Constitution. That same Constitution keeps the fanatics safe from performing marriages for homosexual couples.
The Constitution (a piece of paper) enforces itself?

But c'mon now - let's put the boxcutters down, now shall we? This thread's been hijacked enough for one night.
You're making an illogical and facetious "point", and you know it.

So how do you think the government ensures that laws get followed?


Dobbs does not understand that the exercise of political power (say, through a ballot box, or a jury decision, or a judge's ruling is force.

Raw, naked force. The power of the rods and the axe.

Backed by the implicit threat of deprivation of property, liberty, or life, by state organs dedicated to the use of force against those who would defy the government.

I as posted earlier in the thread, we cannot win a war with the Taliban, we need to negotiate and get out. Our soldiers are getting killed needlessly, negotiating should not be seen as quiting, it should always be seen as preferable to war.

****The Conservative Governments Minster of Defense has today admitted we cannot hope to eliminate the Taliban. *****

The Taliban has safe haven in Pakistan, and popular support among their people, a combination that assures a guerilla force an eventual victory. Military reports that the Taliban is growing in strength and spreading out over an increasingly larger area of Afganistan and they aren't running away, they're standing and fighting and fighting well. Sure they being killed at a 10 to 1 ratio but it dosen't matter they will replace those killed over and over again. Viet Nam lost 3 million the USA 50,000, and who won that war?

Simple uneducated Afgan fighters took on the Soviets and drove them out they will do the same to NATO forces. They will win not because they are superior force but because it's their country and they will never quit, invading always armies eventually tire of endless warfare(Alexander the Great-the World, France-Viet Nam,France-Algeria, USA-Viet Nam). The military leaders of Viet Nam relied on the same principles, they never defeated the USA in open battle but knew they would win the war by wearing down US morale. Soldiers will begin to question why they are fighting for people who want to kill them. The Taliban Guerilla's have a stronger commitment to fight and die than NATO troops.

Simple uneducated Afgan fighters took on the Soviets and drove them out they will do the same to NATO forces. They will win not because they are superior force but because it's their country and they will never quit, invading always armies eventually tire of endless warfare(Alexander the Great-the World, France-Viet Nam,France-Algeria, USA-Viet Nam). The military leaders of Viet Nam relied on the same principles, they never defeated the USA in open battle but knew they would win the war by wearing down US morale. Soldiers will begin to question why they are fighting for people who want to kill them. The Taliban Guerilla's have a stronger commitment to fight and die than NATO troops.

Actually the Soviets chased the Taliban back into Pakistan when they changed to comandos and helicopters. That changed when somebody started supplying them with Stingers :rolleyes:

Pakistan is a problem as you have pointed out.

Alexander died young by the way. The world didn't throw him out. ;)

These people are not invincible. Alexander actually pacified them when he basically started wiping any village or town that caused any problems.

blah blah blah. Time for bed.

Actually the Soviets chased the Taliban back into Pakistan when they changed to comandos and helicopters. That changed when somebody started supplying them with Stingers :rolleyes:

Pakistan is a problem as you have pointed out.

Alexander died young by the way. The world didn't throw him out. ;)

These people are not invincible. Alexander actually pacified them when he basically started wiping any village or town that caused any problems.

blah blah blah. Time for bed.

some errors here-Taliban were never chased into Pakistan by the Soviets they didn't yet exist. Taliban came into being after the Soviets were defeated. The Taliban were born in the Islamic schools of Pakistan and pushed out the mujihadin who defeated the Soviets.

Alexander the Great stopped his warfare because his army mutinied, they refused to go on and would fight no more. 8-10? yrs constant fighting was more than the his army could stomach, Alexander was forced to give up his campaign and return home. Alexander died shortly after the mutiny. Alexanders method of conquest by genocide isn't acceptable anymore. The Taliban are invincible, they will lose every battle but will win the war.

some errors here-Taliban were never chased into Pakistan by the Soviets they didn't yet exist. Taliban came into being after the Soviets were defeated. The Taliban were born in the Islamic schools of Pakistan and pushed out the mujihadin who defeated the Soviets.

Alexander the Great stopped his warfare because his army mutinied, they refused to go on and would fight no more. 8-10? yrs constant fighting was more than the his army could stomach, Alexander was forced to give up his campaign and return home. Alexander died shortly after the mutiny. Alexanders method of conquest by genocide isn't acceptable anymore. The Taliban are invincible, they will lose every battle but will win the war.

Granted the error for naming the Taliban but there was a point the Soviets did have them on the run until the stingers arrived.

As to Alexander, yes they mutined and Alexander killed the leaders. He did pacify the area. Of course his methods aren't acceptable anymore. That wasn't the point.

Time will tell. But the fact remains. Nobody is invincible.

Time will tell. But the fact remains. Nobody is invincible.

Historically, no outsider could ever hold on to Afghan territory for long.

Also, the taliban is invincible because of the nature of the Pakistani state and its ideological foundations. Pakistan army cannot let go of the taliban because it cannot let go of the Kashmir jihad which it cannot let go without serious questions being asked about the ideology and formation of Pakistani state.

The taliban is safe inside Pakistan, has probably MILLIONS of recruiting base (Pak population is 160 million and exploding), has the money to sustain itself (arms and drug trafficking + money from salafi Arab sheikhs), has the ideology that appeals to its base AND has the patience to see this through. Until there is a change in the way US perceives the utility or lack thereof of its Pakistan army ally, I don't think things would improve.

Right now, they have signed a truce and effectively handed over the territory to taliban. I dunno how you are perceiving this, but the taliban would portray it as a great victory and its PR value just went up.

Historically, no outsider could ever hold on to Afghan territory for long.

Close. The real answer is nobody really had good reason to do more than invade, put down the bothersome and restive raiders, do a bit of looting and then leave. That's why few ever really tried to hold Afghanistan.

Also, the taliban is invincible because of the nature of the Pakistani state and its ideological foundations.

Wrong, completely wrong. The Original US strategy was working. The Taliban is only resurgant because we got distracted by W's adventure in Iraq.

Close. The real answer is nobody really had good reason to do more than invade, put down the bothersome and restive raiders, do a bit of looting and then leave. That's why few ever really tried to hold Afghanistan.



Wrong, completely wrong. The Original US strategy was working. The Taliban is only resurgant because we got distracted by W's adventure in Iraq.

How has the strategy changed? Instead of Americans dying it's Canadains. It's more like after the intial onslaught the Taliban has regrouped, recruited, rearmed and is now on the offensive.

How has the strategy changed? Instead of Americans dying it's Canadains. It's more like after the intial onslaught the Taliban has regrouped, recruited, rearmed and is now on the offensive.

Err.. you've basically pointed out what's changed. Instead of foucusing on the war on AQ, the US went off on W and Rummie's misadventure in Iraq. Had we stayed the course, the Taliban would not be resurgent, regrouped, rearmed, and on the offensive again. And the shades of 2,973 people would not be asking "why?"

Wrong, completely wrong. The Original US strategy was working. The Taliban is only resurgant because we got distracted by W's adventure in Iraq.

Which original strategy?

Do you even know about the Kunduz airlift? That was before Iraq. It was written at that time itself that the taliban would resurface.

Err.. you've basically pointed out what's changed. Instead of foucusing on the war on AQ, the US went off on W and Rummie's misadventure in Iraq. Had we stayed the course, the Taliban would not be resurgent, regrouped, rearmed, and on the offensive again. And the shades of 2,973 people would not be asking "why?"-AQ and Taliban aren't the same organization and most of the AQ and Osama are likely in Pakistan. How in the world would things be any different if the US had stayed in Afganistan? they still wouldn't be allowed to persue the Taliban into Pakistan or stopped it from rearming regrouping or returning to Aganistan. The US troops aren't ubersoldiers better than the other NATO forces, they would have the same problems as the Canadians are having now.

Which original strategy?

Do you even know about the Kunduz airlift? That was before Iraq. It was written at that time itself that the taliban would resurface.

Sorry to gravedig this, I'd forgotten about it due to my schedule and a couple of other things making for funky posting around the time, and was just reminded of it by the thread on the Taliban funeral.

Yes, I've heard the unsubstantiated claims. But any way you cut it, Bush and Co were disregarding the Taliban in order to focus on the spurious Iraq war.

Yes, I've heard the unsubstantiated claims. But any way you cut it, Bush and Co were disregarding the Taliban in order to focus on the spurious Iraq war.

They are pretty much substantiated. Known members of taliban (Pakistani intel people and irregulars and "volunteers" actually) were allowed to escape from Kunduz by US authorities because Pakistan requested.

Bush and Co were disregarding the taliban even before Iraq war. All that blutering talk of "dead or alive"..."smoking them out" were just that...bluster.

We protested against the airlift at that time itself

http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/jan/24ny2.htm
India protests airlift of Pakistanis
from Kunduz

India has protested to the United States and Britain over Pakistan's airlifting of its nationals and Taliban fighters after they were cornered in Kunduz during American action in Afghanistan, National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra was quoted as saying.

Diplomatic notes protesting the airlift were sent to the US and Britain. Neither responded, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh quoted Mishra as saying in an article in New Yorker magazine.

Mishra said 5,000 Pakistanis and Taliban fighters were airlifted by Pakistan after the fall of Kunduz.
..
The Indian officials repeatedly declared that the airlift had rescued not only members of the Pakistani military, but Al Qaeda fighters as well.

The article quoted RAW's senior analyst for Pakistani and Afghan issues as saying the most extensive rescue efforts took place on three nights at the time of the fall of Kunduz.

Indian agents had concluded that 8,000 or more men were trapped inside the city in the last days of the siege, roughly half of whom were Pakistanis, with Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, and various Arab mercenaries making up the rest.

At least five flights were specifically "confirmed" by India's informants, the RAW analyst said, and many more were believed to have taken place.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/020128fa_FACT
THE GETAWAY
Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2002-01-28
Posted 2002-01-21

In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban's staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.) Many of the fighters had fled earlier defeats at Mazar-i-Sharif, to the west; Taloqan, to the east; and Pul-i-Khumri, to the south. The road to Kabul, a potential point of retreat, was blocked and was targeted by American bombers. Kunduz offered safety from the bombs and a chance to negotiate painless surrender terms, as Afghan tribes often do.

Surrender negotiations began immediately, but the Bush Administration heatedly—and successfully—opposed them. On November 25th, the Northern Alliance took Kunduz, capturing some four thousand of the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. The next day, President Bush said, "We're smoking them out. They're running, and now we're going to bring them to justice."

Even before the siege ended, however, a puzzling series of reports appeared in the Times and in other publications, quoting Northern Alliance officials who claimed that Pakistani airplanes had flown into Kunduz to evacuate the Pakistanis there. American and Pakistani officials refused to confirm the reports. On November 16th, when journalists asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the reports of rescue aircraft, he was dismissive. "Well, if we see them, we shoot them down," he said. Five days later, Rumsfeld declared, "Any idea that those people should be let loose on any basis at all to leave that country and to go bring terror to other countries and destabilize other countries is unacceptable." At a Pentagon news conference on Monday, November 26th, the day after Kunduz fell, General Richard B. Myers, of the Air Force, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the reports. The General did not directly answer the question but stated, "The runway there is not usable. I mean, there are segments of it that are usable. They're too short for your standard transport aircraft. So we're not sure where the reports are coming from."

Pakistani officials also debunked the rescue reports, and continued to insist, as they had throughout the Afghanistan war, that no Pakistani military personnel were in the country. Anwar Mehmood, the government spokesman, told newsmen at the time that reports of a Pakistani airlift were "total rubbish. Hogwash."

In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus. "Dirt got through the screen," a senior intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for comment.

Analysis dated 2003 December
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-3/bahroo.html
In Northern Afghanistan Pakistani military personnel and associated Taliban frontlines retreated to the city of Kunduz. The now infamous but clandestine airlift evacuated Pakistani military personnel, Taliban and Al Qaeda to Pakistan.[xiii] It was speculated that plans were afoot to wage an insurgent campaign against allied forces.

MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165
NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 - The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States.

..
SEE NO EVIL

Western reporters actually in Kunduz in the days after it fell this week found much to dispel that doubt. Reports first appeared in the Indian press, quoting intelligence sources who cited unusual radar contacts and an airlift of Pakistani troops out of the city. Their presence among the “enemy” may shock some readers, but not those who have paid attention to Afghanistan. Pakistan had hundreds of military advisers in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 helping the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance. Hundreds more former soldiers actively joined Taliban regiments, and many Pakistani volunteers were among the non-Afghan legions of al-Qaida.

Last Saturday, The New York Times picked up the scent, quoting Northern Alliance soldiers in a Page 1 story describing a two-day airlift by Pakistani aircraft, complete with witnesses describing groups of armed men awaiting evacuation at the airfield, then still in Taliban hands.

Another report, this in the Times of London, quotes an alliance soldier angrily denouncing the flights, which he reasonably assumed were conducted with America’s blessing.

“We had decided to kill all of them, and we are not happy with America for letting the planes come,” said the soldier, Mahmud Shah.

IN DENIAL

The credibility gap between these reports from the field and the “no comments” from the U.S. administration are large enough to drive a Marine Expeditionary Unit through. Calls by MSNBC.com and NBC News to U.S. military and intelligence officials shed no light on the evacuation reports, though they clearly were a hot topic of conversation. “Oh, you mean ‘Operation Evil Airlift’?” one military source joked. “Look, I can’t confirm anything about those reports. As far as I know, they just aren’t happening.” Three other military and defense sources simply denied any knowledge.

Something is up. It certainly appears to any reasonable observer that aircraft of some kind or another were taking off and landing in Kunduz’s final hours in Taliban hands. Among the many questions that grow out of this reality:

Was the passenger manifest on these aircraft limited to Pakistani military and intelligence men, or did it include some of the more prominent zealots Pakistan contributed to the ranks of the Taliban and al-Qaida?

What kind of deal was struck between the United States and Pakistan to allow this?

What safeguards did the United States demand to ensure the evacuated Pakistanis did not include men who will come back to haunt us?

What was done with the civilian volunteers once they arrived home in Pakistan? Where they arrested? Debriefed? Taken to safe houses? Or a state banquet?

Well, they sure did come back and they sure are haunting the coalition in Afg.

here's the beeb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1677157.stm
Northern Alliance troops entered the city at eight o'clock on Monday morning and took control after a short skirmish in the city centre.

In a statement just hours after the fall of the city, General Daoud Khan claimed that planes from Pakistan had evacuated hundreds of foreign Taleban fighters.

"Some of the foreign Taleban were taken away by the Pakistani aircraft and we were not able to prevent the planes landing.
..
But there was little fighting. Many heard the planes arriving throughout the night to shuttle groups of foreign fighters to safety.

"I saw planes coming for the last three nights," said Zaher, a mechanic from Kunduz.

"Last night they came six times."

Bush and Co were disregarding the taliban even before Iraq war. All that blutering talk of "dead or alive"..."smoking them out" were just that...bluster.

Yes indeed. As I said, they were focused on Iraq - as in getting ready.