Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOut-of-Afghanistan Rumblings on The Hill
When they won control of Congress in November, Democrats pressed their case to withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan, but some are growing impatient with U.S. operations in Afghanistan as well.
A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior defense authorizer, wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan immediately, calling operations there "futile" in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history.
Most other Democrats want to focus on Afghanistan, with the goal of withdrawing the military down the road after the country is stabilized and any new Taliban resurgence quashed.
With a few exceptions, congressional Democrats no longer show any hesitation about withdrawing the military from Iraq. But they are more circumspect about Afghanistan, saying that the Bush administration let the situation worsen by shifting attention onto a protracted conflict in Iraq.
"We should have never gone to Iraq, because we would have been out of Afghanistan [by now]," Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) said in a brief interview.
Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said that by September, when he takes up the fiscal 2008 war supplemental funding, he would have a better sense of how to handle Afghanistan.
Yet making the argument that the U.S. needs to get out of Iraq and stay in Afghanistan can be politically challenging. While Democrats regularly note that the war in Iraq has now gone on longer than World War II, the U.S. has been in Afghanistan longer than it has been in Iraq. And arguments that Iraqis need to take control of their own country can be applied to Afghanistan as well.
The Afghanistan effort enjoys much more support among the American public, and Democratic leaders have sought to burnish their homeland security credentials by presenting an unwavering backing of the war there.
Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have stressed over the past several months that the U.S. should refocus on stabilizing Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden, the architect of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
"The Taliban played a role in the 9/11 attacks by providing a safe haven for bin Laden," said Drew Hammill, Pelosi's spokesman. "Preventing a successful resurgence by the Taliban is a national security objective of the United States, and our troops will remain in Afghanistan until the objective is achieved."
In contrast to Iraq, Afghans are putting more effort into building up the government and security forces, Hammill added.
Democrats are adamant that they don't want a terrorist training ground in Afghanistan, though al Qaeda and other factions are battling the U.S. in Iraq. Democrats, along with independent military experts, point out that the war in Iraq drove al Qaeda operatives into Iraq, a presence that has intensified throughout the four-year war.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said, "A lot of the problems in Iraq are of our own making. In Afghanistan we still have the continued threat of al Qaeda having a base to operate. We have to continue to be there."
"[The American people] are prepared to take losses, if they make sense. You don't hear people saying, 'We need to get out of Afghanistan.' People know the difference," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).
Withdrawing now from Afghanistan would be a big mistake, said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "The country is in trouble, clearly we have not accomplished our mission there," she said.
War violence is common in Afghanistan. One of the deadliest insurgent attacks since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 killed 24 people occurred earlier this month when a bus exploded in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul. Out of the 24 victims, 22 were police academy instructors on their way to work. About 300 Afghan police officers have been killed in the past three months, making 2007 the worst year ever.
Insurgency-related violence has killed more than 2,400 people in Afghanistan this year, according to a count by the Associated Press based on official figures.
Meanwhile, the narcotics trade has been on the rise, with Afghanistan producing the vast majority of the world's opiates as more Afghans resort to growing poppy as a means of survival.
About 25,000 U.S. troops are deployed in Afghanistan. Between Oct. 1, 2001, and June 2, 2007, 394 members of the military died as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, according to Pentagon casualty data.
"We are finished there, militarily speaking," said Abercrombie, the chairman of the Air and Land Armed Services subcommittee.
"There is no useful purpose for our troops there," Abercrombie stated in a recent interview. "The military should withdraw now," he said, though he stressed that the U.S. could keep "isolated pockets" of special operators.
Instead of using the military to effect political change, the U.S. should have a complete diplomatic re-engagement in the region, "with an understanding that our role there should change," Abercrombie added.
Murtha stressed that NATO forces should take a bigger role in Afghanistan. So far, the U.S. military has been the leading presence.
"I have not made the recommendation yet on withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan," said Murtha. "Every commander I talk to still thinks that we have a chance."
But Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, said that it is time for the U.S. military to start leaving Afghanistan and the Middle East altogether.
"We are not securing America by being there," she pressed. "The longer we are there, the more plots start growing in our country."
Watson, who supported the war in Afghanistan, said that the military ought "to start leaving Afghanistan" and that the U.S. should allow Afghan officials to "formulate and run their own government."
The anti-war grassroots movement has generally been quiet about Afghanistan as it has committed most, if not all, of its attention on Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace spokeswoman Dana Balicki said that her organization would like to see soldiers withdraw from Afghanistan.
"The combat forces should be replaced by international peacekeeping forces," she said. "We should push for peace talks in the area with all groups that have power."
MoveOn.org did not respond to repeated attempts for comment on the issue.
Meanwhile, several anti-war members, including Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), stress that any troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the military's first leaving Iraq.
"I'd like to get out of Iraq first and look at Afghanistan and if it does not work ... we should be impatient," Woolsey said, adding that she is not prepared to give a timeline for withdrawal. "There was a reason [for being] there, but now we really need to reassess what we are accomplishing. It depends on what our mission is in Afghanistan; if our mission is to find Osama bin Laden, that is one thing."
Bin Laden is believed to be in Pakistan, hiding along the border with Afghanistan. A decision to leave Afghanistan before bid Laden is caught or killed would be seen by some as abandoning the U.S. effort to combat terrorism.
Yet Kucinich, a 2008 presidential candidate, said that withdrawal from Iraq would open a new policy direction in Afghanistan.
"Once we show that we can handle a successful resolution of withdrawing troops from Iraq, it will be easier to shift direction in Afghanistan," said Kucinich. "There is a sequence of events ... get out of Iraq and then we must focus on getting out of Afghanistan."
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is the only member of Congress who voted against the war in Afghanistan. Lee declined to comment for this article.
Elana Schor contributed to this article.
© 2007 The Hill
33 Comments so far
Show Allfondisblue
If the Taliban would only get 20% of the vote why were they completely banned from the elections?
Under the occupation the Taliban won't be allowed to win office ever, just like the Islamic religious party in Algeria or like Hamas. The U.S. and Europe won't allow anyone come to power or stay in power if they don't like them, regardless of what vote they get. So don't give us that old "democracy" crap.
Even in the old Vietnam War days President Dwight D. Eisenhower (in his memoirs) admitted the U.S. didn't allow the promised elections to happen because 80% of the South Vietamese would have voted for Ho Chi Mhin. Because of lack of support for democracy, they killed 3 million Vietnamese and some 50 000 Americans. American and Western rulers are a blood thirsty and greedy lot which the last few hundred years of history have shown us.
.
dcbeltway
Nothing you quoted in any way contradicts what I wrote. In fact, thanks for the report you quoted. If you go back one page in that report you will see the following:
"The Taliban are the product of the network of private, rural-based madrasas (religious schools) in Afghanistan and the neighboring areas of Pakistan."
Please everyone read the whole report and don't be bamboozled by dcbeltway's facts that don't pertain to my points at all.
As I said the Pashtun straddle the border with Pakistan. Sure the Pakis provided military help and so did others at various times, either through Pakistan or more directly. The issue was whether the Taliban were Afghans or not and it seems to me they are more the people of Afghanistan than any outsiders are. They are closer to the values of a majority of Afghani people than anyone coming from the West and seeking to turn them into a form of us.
The Taliban in government were once quite capable of working with the West in helping radically reduce the opium production just before 9/11 but are now united with other Afghanis who oppose a foreign occupation which is killing their people and bringing foreign ideology to corrupt them.
TO THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN THEIR NATION IS AS OCCUPIED AS IT WAS UNDER THE USSR.
WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?
.
Hey fondisblue, you forgot something....if the Taliban come back, no opium.
We know that will never happen...the US needs the drug trade to shore up it's terror policies in the US.
The U.S. has no vital interests in Afghanistan. The whole "pipeline" deal is a non-issue. A pipeline can easily be run elsewhere. The military is there for two reasons only, fight the taliban and restore the country. The taliban is an outside force that seized power through terrorizing the population. If an election were ever held, the taliban would not attract 20% of the vote. Once in power, they became one of the most represive governments ever seen. No rights for women, no music, no free press, destruction of all religious or cultural objects, mass executions, ect. If we leave the country, they will come back.
@dcbeltway said ..pull out of Afghanistan we leave the Afghan people at the mercy of the Pakistani Islamists and the pro-Pakistan Taliban...
(BTW, thanks for the correction Afghanis vs Afghans).
What the hell do I know, but as I understand things, indigenous Afghans want all foreigners out and to be allowed to manage their sovereign state their way. I'd say the Afghans can deal with Pakistan and ISI when they want to (as they have in the past).
DC,
I think we already abandoned them when our interest seems to be in pipelines and opium. Our technique is to bomb any suspected hideouts killing innocent people. It's going to take diplomacy and empowerment of the people of Afghanistan to stop Taliban/Pakistan influence.
Opium might be the main motivator for Pakistan's Taliban venture into Afghanistan even though it was banned under their rule pre-2001. I'm only guessing here.
For those who wish to pull out of Afghanistan we leave the Afghan people at the mercy of the Pakistani Islamists and the pro-Pakistan Taliban. Let's not abandon them to the criminals.
Jan see my second post about the composition of the Taliban.
same report:
Recruitment and Training of Volunteers
Following the Taliban's capture of Kabul in September 1996, the first direct military contacts between the ISI's Afghan Bureau and the Taliban were reportedly established with the dispatch of a small team of Pakistani military advisers to the former Afghan Army base of Rishikor, southwest of Kabul.114 The garrison at Rishikor, like a number of long-established military training camps, had fallen into Taliban hands and were now turned over to the control of Pakistani political parties eager to become active in Afghanistan.115 This policy had a number of advantages for the Taliban. Not least among these was that it provided the Taliban with a supply of self-financing, self-supporting fighting units. However, these units were also difficult for the Taliban to control; commanders were appointed by the Pakistani party leadership rather than by the Taliban and they were prone to following their own judgments.116 A retired senior Pakistani military officer claimed in an interview with Human Rights Watch that up to 30 percent of Taliban fighting strength is made up of Pakistanis serving in units organized by political parties.117 Another 8-15,000 troops, according to another source, are foreigners, principally Arabs from Gulf states and North Africa.118
The garrison at Rishikor was mentioned frequently during Human Rights Watch's research in the region. A United Front official described it as the main training center for Pakistani volunteers brought to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban (see the sketch in Appendix II, Figure A).119 Several Pakistani volunteer fighters captured by the United Front between 1996 and 1999 who consented to be interviewed by Human Rights Watch while in United Front custody in June 1999 also described receiving training there.120 They said that, as late as 1999, a special compound existed at Rishikor for the training of Pakistani volunteers for the Taliban and that a guarded area within the camp held the living quarters for Pakistani military and intelligence personnel.121 The camp was large and very active, with twenty to thirty trainers, of whom four or five were Arabs and the balance Pakistani. Recruits went through eight or nine classes a day, with up to 150 students per class. They estimated the total number of students in the facility to exceed 1,000 at any given time. The language of instruction was Pashtu, and the subjects covered included physical training, weapons maintenance, weapons training (including on Kalashnikov automatic rifles, RPK light machine guns, ZU antiaircraft cannon, 82mm and 120mm mortars, and rockets122), and religious instruction.
A typical training cycle would last for forty days, following which selected recruits would be sent for further training at specialized camps for armored vehicle crews (at Qandahar) and for commandos, while the bulk would be sent to a front-line area. Volunteers were not obligated to fight following their training but were encouraged to do so as an Islamic duty. In combat, the volunteers were organized into groups of twenty to thirty men, each led by an older man.
The Taliban volunteer fighters interviewed by Human Rights Watch described their Pakistani trainers as being in their forties, military in appearance and speech, and frequently multi-lingual, speaking English in addition to Pashtu and in many cases Arabic and/or Urdu. Leaders of the fighting groups were younger, usually in their thirties, who identified themselves as former Pakistani military. In some instances, self-described former Pakistani military officers provided specialized forms of assistance, particularly with respect to the maintenance and use of artillery. One ex-Taliban fighter described meeting a former Pakistani artillery colonel who claimed to have volunteered to work with the Taliban artillery forces to increase their efficiency and effectiveness.123
Recruitment of volunteer fighters is organized by several Pakistani political parties that use the madrasas they operate as natural recruiting centers. Boys under eighteen are among the recruits. The parties organize speaking tours of rural and urban mosques by veteran fighters who seek to persuade listeners of a holy duty to fight against the United Front.124 The best known of the parties involved is the Jamiat-i Ulema-i Islam (JUI), a religious (Deobandi) party that has operated madrasas and provided various social services in Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier Province.125 The JUI was among the earliest patrons of the Taliban; party head Maulana Fazlur Rahman was made chairman of the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1994 during the Bhutto government and used this position to lobby on behalf of the Taliban both within Pakistan and in the Middle East.126 Human Rights Watch also interviewed several Taliban fighters who were recruited by Harakat-ul Ansar (now Harakat-ul Mujahidin) and Lashkar-i-Taiba, two well-known religious parties that are active in the fighting against Indian forces in Kashmir.127
Taliban and Pakistan http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm
Direct Military Support
Observers interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan and Pakistan have reported that Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations.103 The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support.104 The U.S. government was sufficiently concerned about the possibility of Pakistani involvement in the capture of the town of Taloqan by the Taliban in September 2000 that it issued a démarche to the Pakistani government in late 2000, asking for assurances that Pakistan had not been involved.105 The démarche listed features of the assault on Taloqan that suggested the Taliban had received outside assistance in planning and carrying out the attack. These features were uncharacteristic of the Taliban's known capabilities, including the length of the preparatory artillery fire, the fact that much of the fighting took place at night, the Taliban's willingness to sustain heavy casualties, and the disciplined halting of the offensive after the city fell.106
This would not be the first time that the Taliban suddenly showed new military prowess and innovation. On several occasions between 1995 and 1999, the Taliban's military skills improved abruptly on the eve of particularly pivotal battles, and in one case, declined just as abruptly after a credible threat of intervention was made by an outside power. During its offensives in 1995 against Herat and in 1996 against Kabul, for example, the Taliban suffered heavy losses after mounting attacks against veteran government forces. Initial defeats were followed by a period of quiet; then Taliban troops mounted new attacks, displaying capabilities that had been conspicuously lacking before. At Herat in April 1995, a 6,000-man Taliban army was defeated by government troops after it ran short of ammunition and other logistical support; the rout was such that some analysts predicted that the Taliban phenomenon had run its course.107 Instead, after retraining and refitting, in August 1995 Taliban troops retreating in the face of an offensive by government troops suddenly counterattacked, ambushing the government's spearhead forces while mobile units mounted in 4x4 pickup trucks outflanked the government army and cut the roads connecting it with its rear-area supply depots. Retreating government units tried and failed to establish a defensive line as Taliban units in pickup trucks-many armed with antiaircraft cannon and rocket launchers-repeatedly outflanked the new positions and attacked from the rear, leaving the paved roads at will and driving their vehicles across open ground and rugged, hilly terrain. The pickup trucks, whose delivery was facilitated by Pakistan, introduced a kind of mobile warfare that had not been seen in the fighting before.108
Similarly, after Taliban offensives aimed at Kabul were thoroughly defeated during the autumn of 1995, with significant losses of men and equipment, a period of quiet ensued, but Taliban troops then renewed their attacks and displayed a notable increase in technical capability. Taking Jalalabad on September 11, 1996 and striking north toward the town of Sarobi, a district capital east of Kabul and the linchpin of the government defensive system around the capital, the Taliban troops suddenly displayed the same flair for speed and flank attacks as at Herat in August 1995. Again, retreating government troops were caught off-guard by the speed of the attacks by Taliban forces and their penchant for crossing rough ground in 4x4 pickup trucks and attacking on the government's flanks.109
Rumblings are fine. Now how about some action?
The US military has used uranium weapons (aka "DU") and poisoned Afghanistan's water and soil with radioactive toxins. America therefore needs to stop using weaponized uranium (WU) munitions in Afghanistan to prevent further contamination, withdraw US troops, and pay reparations earmarked for the construction of hospitals, long-term health care and schools for those poisoned by radiation or heavy metals.
In my opinion, reparations should be paid out of the Pentagon budget and should be at least equivalent to what it has cost, to date, to bomb Afghanistan and occupy it with 25,000 troops for 6 years. The cost of Blackwater & other corporate mercenaries -- as well as NGOs who have been diverting millions of dollars from Afghanistan and into their organizations -- needs to be included in the reparation payments.
Go to the site of Afghani-American Mohammed Daud Miraki, PhD -- www.AfghanistanAfterDemocracy.org-- for his opinions on what "democracy" has done to his homeland and on the tragedy of uranium & radiation poisoning.
Only when the true cost of war is revealed to the American people and its political and military leaders will it become taboo.
dcbeltway said:
"the Taliban were not defending their country as it wasn't their country to begin with. The Taliban are not an Afghan indigenous movement"
Originally the Taliban was approved by the USA. It became dominant over a large part of Afghanistan with apparent acceptance by large numbers in the community who were sick of the waring warlords. Pashtun tribal people were its main popular base of supporters and as the Pashtun straddle Afghanistan and Pakistan, this Taliban movement could correctly be seen as being from both Afghanistan AND Palistan. Many religious oriented Pashtun had left a wartorn Afghanistan and some became the "Students" - ie the Taliban in religious colleges - ie Madrasas - in Pakistan. Culturally and Religiously they were close to the values of the rural Pashtun which was why they were accepted throughout most of southern and eastern Afghanistan with very little fighting against them there. Afghanistan was infinitely MORE Taliban country than it is the country of the occupation troops from Europe and America.
The current occupation is being viewed by ever more Afghans as being no better than being occupied by the Russians. It is a foreign occupation with foreign values whatever you think of the resistance or the occupiers. Most of the resistance is a united front of nationalists, tribespeople, Taliban and people who love their own ways and religion rather than whatever the West is trying to impose.
I agree with the comment by NMBill June 27 above:
"National Geographic just published a video and their opinion is we are not going to change people in Afghanistan any more than we can change. He also mentioned that many occupiers have tried!
OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!"
.
Meanwhile, until to leave or not is decided, I've seen in a couple articles that there is a considerable shortage in the world supply of MEDICAL opium. The warlords are involved in a lucrative drug trade which, as I understand it, ends up lining the pockets of the Taliban sufficiently to keep them well stocked in arms.
If this is indeed the case, it would make sense to build up global investment in a national medical opium industry that could provide jobs and eventually develop from growing and harvesting the poppies to refining and processing the opium to medical standards. It would create jobs and benefit a much larger proportion of the population.
As long as the poppy economy continues to function as it does now, enriching the warlords and arming the Taliban, I don't see how any military intervention can bring peace and put the Taliban out of business of all kinds including "producing" terrorists.
Fbel the Taliban were not defending their country as it wasn't their country to begin with. The Taliban are not an Afghan indigenous movement but a Pakistani ISI backed frankenstein monster. Most of the Taliban are Pakistanis and some are even Arabs. Afghans blame Pakistan for the Taliban and the current Taliban insurgency is being launched and bankrolled by Islamabad, Pakistan. You are correct though about Al Qaeda. Just google Taliban and Pakistan and start reading the links.
FedUp is correct about the UNOCAL deals with the Taliban. Big oil will make deals with the devil everytime.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a pre-emptive strike which is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration made the Taliban its enemy and issued a most-wanted list of Taliban officials whose major offense was defending their country. Afghanistan did not bomb the Twin Towers. Oh, it housed al-Quida which did? Al-Quida did not represent the Afghanistan government. If the Klu Klux Klan bombed Parliament in Great Britain, does that give Great Britain the right to invade the United States, destroy its government and armed forces, and set up its own temporary government? If the US wanted Osama bin-Laden, it had the legal recourse to ask for extradition as it did in Libya for the downing of the American plane. The United States knew its people wanted revenge and Afghanistan was a convenient excuse.
OBL, just another fantisy name (like El-Quaida) to lay blame on and keep fear in the sheeple.
The Mossad is very good at this sort of thing. Remember their motto is "By Deception, Thou Shalt Make War"
Bush's surge (actually Israels surge, because that's where Bush's orders come from)is just getting more Americans killed and setting the stage to invade Iran to kill more Muslims for Israel.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062707C.shtml
The distaste for the Taliban did not stop Big Oil from negotiating pipeline deals with them--and in the summer before 9-11, giving their negotiators a choice of a shower of gold or a shower of bombs if they didn't accept 'our' terms. The Taliban actually provided a warning to the US that a massive attack was coming prior to 9-11--as did a baker's dozen of other security services around the world. One would think that with an organization that porous, OBL couldn't whiz without the tinkling being heard at Langley, much less carry out the alleged activities of 9-11...unless, of course, al CIAda was being "painted" to be the patsy and provide the public relations basis for the invasion of Afghanistan which was planned and reported as immanent in the press prior to 9-11.
The FBI's own website does not list the terror attacks of among the reasons for wanting Osama bin Laden and their spokesman, when questioned, stated that they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with the crime.
When you think about this and then realize that the US and the UK went to war when the premier investigative agency in the US lacked sufficient evidence to charge OBL with a crime, you begin to realize the enormity of the fraud perpetrated by the Bush and Blair regimes.
When you realize the consequences of the fact that the "Fat Bin Laden" tape, in which Fatso 'admits' to 9-11 is a proven fraud, you realize the enormity of the crime that has led to the death of thousands of Afghanis and brave lads like this Marine, Gary Wright.
What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? We have allowed the recovery of opium production so as to provide bumper crops and brought more misery and death to a land that already had more than enough. Bring the troops home now! That is how you support them!
BTW where in theeee blue fvk is OBL???
Thank you Tomb Thumb!
I am married to an Afghan. Majority of Afghans we know want Americans to stay the course in Afghanistan.
Clearly, we should get out of Afghanistan now if for no other reason than our recent activity in Iraq has completely destroyed our credibility worldwide as an honest peacekeeping force and promoter of democracy.
At this point, ANY action our government takes is viewed so suspiciously that it is likely to be counterproductive. Thanks to Bu$h the inferior and Shotgun Dick.
That is great. So now our troops become the DEA!
"The Taliban played a role in the 9/11 attacks by providing a safe haven for bin Laden,..." Yes, but who made it possible for the Taliban to gain control and actively courted them in Texas? The Clinton Administration. Who declined Sudan's offer to deliver bin Laden before he went to Afghanistan? The Clinton Administration. And then of course we had Mullah Omar, Taliban chief, offer to hand over bin-laden to USA provided USA present evidence of bin-Laden's guilt regarding 9/11, an offer refused by Bush.
Why all these refusals? Qui Bono? The National Security State and its corporate minions must have an enemy to justify its existence. International Communism was simply renamed International Terrorism and provided with a mythical axis of evil.
Some have said bin-Laden is the ultimate Black Op. Deduction seems to lead to the validity of such a claim, as does the current Pentagon propaganda calling every attack in Iraq the work of Al-Qaida.
and only ONE of our national reps voted against the war in afghanistan? only ONE? i'd like to know why, but my gut reaction is to say dump hilary and put barbara lee on the prez ticket. to stand up against the tide of insane jingoism and warmongering post 9/11 says something....
love this line:
"Insurgency-related violence has killed more than 2,400 people in Afghanistan this year" how much more vague can you get? doublespeak for US/NATO forces killing "insurgents," most of whom are those evil "human shields" (formerly known as collateral damage, formerly known as innocent civilians) that always seem to know right where we are about to bomb....
anyway, it's possible that turning afghanistan into a narco state has been the goal all along. or now that it's happening, our forces are just getting jiggy w/it. why? cuz there's billions and billions to be made, all off the books. you know, no more congressional "oversight" of secret black ops budgets....
Why not ask the Afghanis what they think? Visit a REAL website before you come to any hasty conclusions. Go to Arthur Kent's website: www.skyreporter.com - check out the stories and then see what you think.
Afghanistan has been swallowing armies since the time of Alexander. Ask the British, the Russians, and now the US and probably the UN.
Shane just to clarify Afghanis are the currency and Afghans are the people. Thanks.
John said: If the US had really invaded Afghanistan to just get rid of Al Qaeda and oust the Taliban they would have worked closely with the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) from the start.
Please note: the ISI are the ones backing the Taliban so that would not have worked. The Taliban are supported and funded by Pakistan and many are Pakistani. http://www.afsa.org/fsj/Dec01/schiff.cfm
The Afghanis are some of the toughest people on the planet. Many nations and one super-power have had imperialist intent on Afghanistan and have been quickly and ignominiously booted. The US is already drawing away from Afghanistan when it requested NATO into the field. Smart move, as this avoids the humiliation of being beaten by one of the poorest nations on the planet. Don't ever mess with a people that play recreational polo using a person's head for the ball!
If the US had really invaded Afghanistan to just get rid of Al Qaeda and oust the Taliban they would have worked closely with the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) from the start. The ISI was, and still is, very close to the Taliban, and a coordinated strategy would have nailed Al Qaeda and politically weakened the Taliban. A temporary gov't could have been formed in the meantime, and the US should have got out as quick as possible. No people will ever tolerate an occupying army for more than a short while. Now I read that the US wants to put an anti-missile base in Afghanistan, so it seems like another "enduring" occupation. In a few more years all the country will be up in arms against the occupiers.
The Afghanistan effort enjoys much more support among the American public, and Democratic leaders have sought to burnish their homeland security credentials by presenting an unwavering backing of the war there. This statement has MSM all over it.
National Geographic just published a video and their opinion is we are not going to change people in Afghanistan any more than we can change. He also mentioned that many occupiers have tried!
OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!
I think that was part of the shtick...
Ron..... Afghans are not Arabs.
A Chinese newspaper story a couple of years ago said: "To date, the Tibetans have failed to express sufficient gratitude to the People's Liberation Army for liberating them from their superstitions." Imagine that! Only a million or two Tibetans were killed in the liberation and they still haven't expressed sufficient gratitude!
Seems that the Iraqis and Afghans are just as rude as the Tibetans; to date, they have failed to express sufficient gratitude to the Americans for their respective liberations.
So let's just leave both countries. Then they will be sorry they were so rude to us. Six days, six weeks tops, they'll be begging us to come back. We brought them the gift of democracy, but they made a mess of things. At least our cause was noble; these Arab types just don't appreciate all the nice things we have done for them (nor does the America-hating liberal media allow the public to learn about all the good things that have happened since March 2003). Ungrateful slobs! Acting like a bunch of Tibetans!