What accounts for "US loosing" in Afghanistan.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Maybe so, but one can't oversimplify things. In doing so we do a disservice to our people and are being insincere...wouldn't you say?

1) There is an element of truth on both sides...an insurgency and Pakistan trying to be overly clever. Bare in mind when I mention ISI, it doesn't mean they pull every string, since it is not possible, but they do want to maintain some of their leverage. That doesn't mean they won't suffer blowback or be entirely successful. We just have to acknowledge the certain dynamics in that region. It is only fair.

2) Well that is obvious, they both are fighting from fundamentally different positions with different goals in mind.
3) Karzai's fault are pretty clear, I don't think we need to go over that. However, he isn't the only one, nor should be made as such. I feel like sometimes people fixate on him entirely, when their are other entities as well.

I suggest you check out the youtube clips of Chalmers Johnson for more on the subject...very interesting and tragic things. It reminds me of what Washington said about standing armies.

Will do, good discussion.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Well, they were forced to pack their bags and leave Vietnam and I dont think the world collapsed in Vietnam when that happened. In fact, as Paul points out, the subsequent stability has actually created a viable trade partner for the US. Unfortunately, a similar mistake was made in the pre Gulf war 90s. Jim Baker and others were completely against UBL and any Islamic ascendency in the Arabian peninsula when he latter offered to deal with the Iraq situation via an intra Arab manner. The response of Baker and Co created the mess we find ourselves in today when we stationed troops there. Paul once noted that UBL himself, when he heard Jim Baker felt him an unpalatable choice because he might make oil rocket up to over 100 dollars/barrall, said "what will we do? we have to sell it, we cannot drink it." His point was a smart one: they needed to sell the oil, they new the US/West was THE market, but they simply wanted a fair and not inflated price for it... and this hundred dollar a barrell contention was absurd. Now, the iron is that oil has gone over that price multiple times.

Vietnam was a different situation. This time around, many events have compounded to a likely event that maybe US is no longer the sole super power. Again just maybe. Vietnam also had a government ready to move in to the South, with legitimacy. Can the same be honestly said about Taliban or any sole political actor in the country. Vietnam was also not a multi-ethnic country, which had went through 30 years of war prior to that. I don't think it is fair to use Vietnam as an example.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Vietnam was a different situation. This time around, many events have compounded to a likely event that maybe US is no longer the sole super power. Again just maybe. Vietnam also had a government ready to move in to the South, with legitimacy. Can the same be honestly said about Taliban or any sole political actor in the country. Vietnam was also not a multi-ethnic country, which had went through 30 years of war prior to that. I don't think it is fair to use Vietnam as an example.

I meant it as a general answer to what occurs across larger regions recognized as islamic regions occupied by the US or its backed tyrannies.

Regarding Afghanistan, a region game will ensue. The ultimate question has always been, for me, at least: what emerges ought to resemble what the rural Afghan non secular elite feels comfortable with as they are the masses. The equivalent scenario in Iran is the debate over whether the masses support Ahmedinijad or not (despite US propaganda to the contrary, the Washington Post eventually conceded that Ahmedinijad won big in the rural communities of Iran, i.e. most of Iran).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061401757.html

Here in the US the Iranian effeminate urban elite that fled the fall of the Shah rail against Ahmedinijad and claim that all Iranians are chafing under his rule. Yet the data does not support this.

In Afghanistan the same paradigm is set up... you have the urban effeminate elite that fled the Russo-Afghan conflict and now suffer from "abandoned my nation guilt" and then you have the Rural folks that fought the war.

I think this is where folks misunderstand me. In a debate about Najib, Shayesta cited a paper unwittingly, hoping it would support her contentions. Instead the paper had the following to say (mind you its written by one that does not support Taliban ascendency):

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

In my opinion that is what matters... I think the imposition of a secular democratic government is ridiculous if the rural masses are not in line for it. This is where Scheuer is astute in his history... American democracy took nearly 800s years to come to this point... not the typically false number of three centuries.

In this same way, if the Taliban resume their leadership role, in my opinion, as Dr. kakar points out above, the will of the people is manifested. It will then take time, but just as the American Puritans of Massachussets Bay evolved and found their middle balance.. so too shall the Taliban.

The issue will be how do the taliban play their cards. If they decide to intervene in Central Asian republics and support Uighar causes then the regional powers may take a more drastic step against them. If however, they secure their borders, then they can progress as even Iran hesitated to deal directly with them except on one near military confrontation in the late 90s due to some brash Taliban incursions.

[ghundal]

Ghundal for the love of God stop repeating the post. Do you know how irritating you sound? BTW your post is fallacious...since none of us ever said we are against Sheur. I may agree with some of his points and disagree with others. I don't know why are you splitting hairs on the initial post of Comrades. Since he has presented a viewpoint in regards to a certain time frame. How do you want him to prove that 90s were different than today, when fundamentally there were completely different political actors and scenarios? Shall he provide you with a time machine back then?

Now I will read this article and send a reply. In the meantime, ask this Sheur for sources since he has made claims as well.

Now Comrade, refrain from bad language. As irritating and redundant he is, there is no reason to use such words. Manana.

I am redundant because Comrade failed to provide evidence for his claims. All claims, but lets specifically look at his claims about the Taliban and the Kabul government. He mentions that the rest of Afghanistan is against the Taliban, and behind the Kabul government. This was one of his claims among many which he did not back up. I am still expecting the evidence for it.

Again, I want to see the evidence for all his claims. You can call me irritating, and use a condescending attitude to me (which has no effect if you are trying to ridicule me). Again, I responded to Comrade's request to have a professional discourse. I posted a solid article. He responded to it without any evidence, and then resorted to his usual rants.

For your own sake, please, Lets leave this "oh he is irritating attitude" out of discourse. It has no impact on what you are saying at all.

Now onto this

[ghundal]

I meant it as a general answer to what occurs across larger regions recognized as islamic regions occupied by the US or its backed tyrannies.

Regarding Afghanistan, a region game will ensue. The ultimate question has always been, for me, at least: what emerges ought to resemble what the rural Afghan non secular elite feels comfortable with as they are the masses. The equivalent scenario in Iran is the debate over whether the masses support Ahmedinijad or not (despite US propaganda to the contrary, the Washington Post eventually conceded that Ahmedinijad won big in the rural communities of Iran, i.e. most of Iran).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html

Here in the US the Iranian effeminate urban elite that fled the fall of the Shah rail against Ahmedinijad and claim that all Iranians are chafing under his rule. Yet the data does not support this.

In Afghanistan the same paradigm is set up... you have the urban effeminate elite that fled the Russo-Afghan conflict and now suffer from "abandoned my nation guilt" and then you have the Rural folks that fought the war.

I think this is where folks misunderstand me. In a debate about Najib, Shayesta cited a paper unwittingly, hoping it would support her contentions. Instead the paper had the following to say (mind you its written by one that does not support Taliban ascendency):

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

In my opinion that is what matters... I think the imposition of a secular democratic government is ridiculous if the rural masses are not in line for it. This is where Scheuer is astute in his history... American democracy took nearly 800s years to come to this point... not the typically false number of three centuries.

In this same way, if the Taliban resume their leadership role, in my opinion, as Dr. kakar points out above, the will of the people is manifested. It will then take time, but just as the American Puritans of Massachussets Bay evolved and found their middle balance.. so too shall the Taliban.

The issue will be how do the taliban play their cards. If they decide to intervene in Central Asian republics and support Uighar causes then the regional powers may take a more drastic step against them. If however, they secure their borders, then they can progress as even Iran hesitated to deal directly with them except on one near military confrontation in the late 90s due to some brash Taliban incursions.

Barakzai you are more mature than me, and can discuss in a better manner. This is along the lines of what I was trying to say. Just got caught up defending myself against irrelevant accusations.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I meant it as a general answer to what occurs across larger regions recognized as islamic regions occupied by the US or its backed tyrannies.

Regarding Afghanistan, a region game will ensue. The ultimate question has always been, for me, at least: what emerges ought to resemble what the rural Afghan non secular elite feels comfortable with as they are the masses. The equivalent scenario in Iran is the debate over whether the masses support Ahmedinijad or not (despite US propaganda to the contrary, the Washington Post eventually conceded that Ahmedinijad won big in the rural communities of Iran, i.e. most of Iran).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061401757.html

Here in the US the Iranian effeminate urban elite that fled the fall of the Shah rail against Ahmedinijad and claim that all Iranians are chafing under his rule. Yet the data does not support this.

In Afghanistan the same paradigm is set up... you have the urban effeminate elite that fled the Russo-Afghan conflict and now suffer from "abandoned my nation guilt" and then you have the Rural folks that fought the war.

I think this is where folks misunderstand me. In a debate about Najib, Shayesta cited a paper unwittingly, hoping it would support her contentions. Instead the paper had the following to say (mind you its written by one that does not support Taliban ascendency):

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

In my opinion that is what matters... I think the imposition of a secular democratic government is ridiculous if the rural masses are not in line for it. This is where Scheuer is astute in his history... American democracy took nearly 800s years to come to this point... not the typically false number of three centuries.

In this same way, if the Taliban resume their leadership role, in my opinion, as Dr. kakar points out above, the will of the people is manifested. It will then take time, but just as the American Puritans of Massachussets Bay evolved and found their middle balance.. so too shall the Taliban.

The issue will be how do the taliban play their cards. If they decide to intervene in Central Asian republics and support Uighar causes then the regional powers may take a more drastic step against them. If however, they secure their borders, then they can progress as even Iran hesitated to deal directly with them except on one near military confrontation in the late 90s due to some brash Taliban incursions.

Well lets be fair, the idea of democracy and government building is mostly rhetoric...at least this is how I see it. To me their motivations are different and they are using these terms as popular slogans. They work well with the domestic audience (at least they did once).

We have to be careful about their will being manifested. As this is doing the same thing that the other side is being blamed for...that is over-generalization. We can't assume that the entrance of talibs will automatically bring some rural massive revolution or change. I will in this instance agree with Comrade, that they are an important political force but not the political force, and should be seen as such. They have to be reconciled with the rest of the population.

Again Iran is very different. I don't think we should bring it up. They have very very different demographics than Afghanistan.

[ghundal]

Vietnam was a different situation. This time around, many events have compounded to a likely event that maybe US is no longer the sole super power. Again just maybe. Vietnam also had a government ready to move in to the South, with legitimacy. Can the same be honestly said about Taliban or any sole political actor in the country. Vietnam was also not a multi-ethnic country, which had went through 30 years of war prior to that. I don't think it is fair to use Vietnam as an example.

Southern Afghanistan is very similar to Vietnam, and as always, the Pashtun masses have ruled Afghanistan, or what was Afghanistan before these wars. You can call that sensationalism, but history backs it up.

Please read this article. Note this is a US report. They cleverly do not attribute the rise in Taliban support to themselves, but to Karzai. Keep that in mind when reading.

US report shows Taliban support in Afghanistan, blames Karzai | America-Canada | World Bulletin


The report concludes that Afghan people support or are sympathetic to the insurgency in 92 of 121 districts identified by the U.S. military as key terrain. Popular support for Karzai's government is strong in only 29 of those districts, it concludes.

Here are a few good reads on growing Taliban support in Afghanistan.

Virginia M. Moncrieff: Taliban Support Increasing, Holds 72 % Of Afghanistan: Report

Why the Taliban Is Gaining Ground in Afghanistan - TIME

And even this puppet Zardari chimes in with his addition this past August

Zardari: Taliban winning war, Afghan support - Washington Times

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I am redundant because Comrade failed to provide evidence for his claims. All claims, but lets specifically look at his claims about the Taliban and the Kabul government. He mentions that the rest of Afghanistan is against the Taliban, and behind the Kabul government. This was one of his claims among many which he did not back up. I am still expecting the evidence for it.

Again, I want to see the evidence for all his claims. You can call me irritating, and use a condescending attitude to me (which has no effect if you are trying to ridicule me). Again, I responded to Comrade's request to have a professional discourse. I posted a solid article. He responded to it without any evidence, and then resorted to his usual rants.

For your own sake, please, Lets leave this "oh he is irritating attitude" out of discourse. It has no impact on what you are saying at all.

Now onto this

Khaana learn how to be fair a bit, and call a spade a spade. I read what Comrade wrote...you decided to overlook it entirely and decided to opt for the "blah blah blah **ears closed** I can't hear you" routine. What else was I going to say? Great job Ghundal, chalk that as your only W? Come on. I don't really ridicule you, because I don't need to. You basically do that on our own.

BTW he was warned for his abusive language,.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Southern Afghanistan is very similar to Vietnam, and as always, the Pashtun masses have ruled Afghanistan, or what was Afghanistan before these wars. You can call that sensationalism, but history backs it up.

Please read this article. Note this is a US report. They cleverly do not attribute the rise in Taliban support to themselves, but to Karzai. Keep that in mind when reading.

US report shows Taliban support in Afghanistan, blames Karzai | America-Canada | World Bulletin


The report concludes that Afghan people support or are sympathetic to the insurgency in 92 of 121 districts identified by the U.S. military as key terrain. Popular support for Karzai's government is strong in only 29 of those districts, it concludes.

South Vietnam is not the same as Afghanistan or the Pashtuns. The issue isn't about Pashtuns ruling the entire country. If this is the rhetoric, it will backfire in the face of Pashtuns and will force the other ethnic groups into a defensive and reactionary posture. That will lead to a war of attrition, civil war, conflict, etc. Is this the future you envision for our land? Do you think this benefits us?

BTW Pashtuns did not rule that state in entirety, an elite of our society did, and half-assed at that (though not all).

Sympathy does not always translate into governance. People can sympathize with something but not necessarily see that as their future.

[ghundal]

Khaana learn how to be fair a bit, and call a spade a spade. I read what Comrade wrote...you decided to overlook it entirely and decided to opt for the "blah blah blah **ears closed** I can't hear you" routine. What else was I going to say? Great job Ghundal, chalk that as your only W? Come on. I don't really ridicule you, because I don't need to. You basically do that on our own.

BTW he was warned for his abusive language,.

and the same to you. The more you keep at it, the more it helps my points. One just has to see Comrades response and yours compared together and goes along the same process.

I may be a weaker target because I get involved in your nonsense accusations of either "playing with words" or "ridiculing myself." The fact remains, and you can look back at your comrades posts, that when you guys are cornered, you change the topic, or start doing other things on the side, like having a conversation that you know very well I could not understand (very un-Pashtun BTW).


Now suddenly, when the tables turn, and Comrade makes a fool out of himself, I am being irritating LOL

nice try by the way (using your tactic)


Enough of this. I would hope that we stick to facts, and none of this (your playing with words, your being redundant, your ridiculing yourself accusations ) because when someone see it for what it is, the only clown in the room is you

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Well lets be fair, the idea of democracy and government building is mostly rhetoric...at least this is how I see it. To me their motivations are different and they are using these terms as popular slogans. They work well with the domestic audience (at least they did once).

We have to be careful about their will being manifested. As this is doing the same thing that the other side is being blamed for...that is over-generalization. We can't assume that the entrance of talibs will automatically bring some rural massive revolution or change. I will in this instance agree with Comrade, that they are an important political force but not the political force, and should be seen as such. They have to be reconciled with the rest of the population.

Again Iran is very different. I don't think we should bring it up. They have very very different demographics than Afghanistan.

I would say that it is a fair assessment. Yet the same question can be asked of the legitimacy of the Karzai regime. If we call each group a player... we have to examine where each group derives its power from. The issue for me is that when I see Omar Hotak and that Commander Duran fellow profiled by Refsdahl, those individuals are the kalaay; they embody its spirit per my travels and stays in various areas. The reason why the focus falls again and again on Mr. Karzai is that he represents this opportunist element in the secular urban elite. If you look at his history, for example, he goes from claiming he supported the mujahideen factions to supporting the rising Taliban to claiming he saw the ISI dominance of them and backed away to being propped up by an outside power. The Iranian similarity stands in the same way as this then: Look at Mr. Tarzai's descendents who are close friends of Mr. Karzai... they are primarily farsi speaking and refer to the Talibs in represehensible terms regarding the buddha issue and otherwise. Yet neither Tarzai nor his daughter could survive a day outside of Kabul except in the company of security forces that allowed them to dig in multiple spots on a treasure hunt for a supposed laying buddha. This is because these same folks, like Mr Karzai, clamored at Congressional hearings demanding US intervention in Afghanistan even pre 9/11. Mr Ghani falls into this same opportunistic and parasitic class of people. These folks are like the Chalabis and Malikis of Afghanistan and really no different morally. Then there is the glaring contradiction... how is that Mr. Karzai, a supposed democratic and secular president, is sitting in the Arg now for nearly a decade? How many election cycles must one go through? Is he consistently the more popular choice? The issues I have with him is that a failure here in the US (which is what he was) is hardly going to be the savior of Afghanistan. Even amongst his peers like Professor Zarjon and others, he is the least amongst them and the most failed amongst them.

[ghundal]

South Vietnam is not the same as Afghanistan or the Pashtuns. The issue isn't about Pashtuns ruling the entire country. If this is the rhetoric, it will backfire in the face of Pashtuns and will force the other ethnic groups into a defensive and reactionary posture. That will lead to a war of attrition, civil war, conflict, etc. Is this the future you envision for our land? Do you think this benefits us?

BTW Pashtuns did not rule that state in entirety, an elite of our society did, and half-assed at that (though not all).

Sympathy does not always translate into governance. People can sympathize with something but not necessarily see that as their future.

Again, you are talking about what we want, I am telling you about how it is. It is already a civil war, and the US picked a side- the Northern Alliance.

Obviously, I wish the all sides could join together as in the past, but that may have to wait. I wish, really.

Well, about sympathy, that is your interpretation. A resistance movement thrives on support otherwise it would not exist. Taliban is already handing out justice in many districts. There are several articles on this. They even levy taxes.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

and the same to you. The more you keep at it, the more it helps my points. One just has to see Comrades response and yours compared together and goes along the same process.

I may be a weaker target because I get involved in your nonsense accusations of either "playing with words" or "ridiculing myself." The fact remains, and you can look back at your comrades posts, that when you guys are cornered, you change the topic, or start doing other things on the side, like having a conversation that you know very well I could not understand (very un-Pashtun BTW).


Now suddenly, when the tables turn, and Comrade makes a fool out of himself. I am being irritating LOL

nice try by the way (using your tactic)


Enough of this. I would hope that we stick to facts, and none of this (your playing with words, your being redundant, your ridiculing yourself accusations ) because when someone see it for what it is, the only clown in the room is you

Uhmm when have I changed the topic? I answered all your so-called questions, discussed in detail with you and BA. Don't whine because I called you out, not once but multiple times...which you deserved.

You posted the same article multiple times, in more than one thread, then vmed me twice about it. What else does that suggest? Like I said learn to call a spade a spade.

[ghundal]

Uhmm when have I changed the topic? I answered all your so-called questions, discussed in detail with you and BA. Don't whine because I called you out, not once but multiple times...which you deserved.

You posted the same article multiple times, in more than one thread, then vmed me twice about it. What else does that suggest? Like I said learn to call a spade a spade.

lets not derail here, but in regards to posting several times, Comrade was not providing evidence for his points which I requested. He was instead resorting to his usual abusive retorts. It seems it is a pattern with the Flat Earth Society. Even Toramana chimed in LOL

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I would say that it is a fair assessment. Yet the same question can be asked of the legitimacy of the Karzai regime. If we call each group a player... we have to examine where each group derives its power from. The issue for me is that when I see Omar Hotak and that Commander Duran fellow profiled by Refsdahl, those individuals are the kalaay; they embody its spirit per my travels and stays in various areas. The reason why the focus falls again and again on Mr. Karzai is that he represents this opportunist element in the secular urban elite. If you look at his history, for example, he goes from claiming he supported the mujahideen factions to supporting the rising Taliban to claiming he saw the ISI dominance of them and backed away to being propped up by an outside power. The Iranian similarity stands in the same way as this then: Look at Mr. Tarzai's descendents who are close friends of Mr. Karzai... they are primarily farsi speaking and refer to the Talibs in represehensible terms regarding the buddha issue and otherwise. Yet neither Tarzai nor his daughter could survive a day outside of Kabul except in the company of security forces that allowed them to dig in multiple spots on a treasure hunt for a supposed laying buddha. This is because these same folks, like Mr Karzai, clamored at Congressional hearings demanding US intervention in Afghanistan even pre 9/11. Mr Ghani falls into this same opportunistic and parasitic class of people. These folks are like the Chalabis and Malikis of Afghanistan and really no different morally. Then there is the glaring contradiction... how is that Mr. Karzai, a supposed democratic and secular president, is sitting in the Arg now for nearly a decade? How many election cycles must one go through? Is he consistently the more popular choice? The issues I have with him is that a failure here in the US (which is what he was) is hardly going to be the savior of Afghanistan. Even amongst his peers like Professor Zarjon and others, he is the least amongst them and the most failed amongst them.

Well first off wrora, if we entertain that Taliban speak the language of the rurals, then we have to be specific. I.e. which rural areas of Afghanistan, how much influence do they sway? Would they have swayed it if not for the damage of the operations of NATO? Can you cross-section Afghanistan and maintain their legitimacy? I don't think so. I think they have political influence now and they need to be brought to the table, but they are not the sole voice of the masses. That doesn't mean Karzai is. The inclusion of one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, and vice versa. Especially when we look at the rural level, there are short term concerns, and long term ones.

There is an issue of legitimacy in Afghanistan, but again time will tell what the future holds. We can't supply the same route for it, since the situation is complex...which is why I support reconciliation in Afghanistan. That is the only way the chips can fall (imo) in the interests of our people...rather than they being ripped apart for another decade of war, only for the next regional or super power to take advantage.

Again Iran is not the same. The opposition that gained momentum were within the constraints of the country and the system. It did not fall outside of it. And the population of Iran is far more urbanized and educated than Afghanistans. Their concerns are very different and so is the history of political upheaval in that country. We shouldn't make the similarities where they are barely there.