WHy is Pakistan supporting war against Afghans?

[ghundal]

They are skeptical about the operations. Mahmoud Khan Achakzai has stated his opinion in detail, go read it or check his interviews. And people do take them seriously. In Pashtunkhwa the major parties are ANP, PPPP, JI and PKMAP.

Well, you make a pretty political statement in your avatar. Imran Khan also has motives, whats new? Question it all you want, but he is against drone attacks, and for most moral people, that is a just cause


lol, Achakzai, the same guy who held hands with Najib. Thats all I need to know about such a character.

They are not taken seriously, and GHQ probably doesn't even look in their direction.

BTW, they support drone attacks, and you know this.

Anyways ,

this is stretching out.

My point is Pakistan is a friend of US-nato, and is allied against the Pashtuns on both sides of the zero line. They receive military aid in return for their continued support for US-nato.

Pakistan has no control over the nature of Afghan resistance to foreign presence. This is irrefutable as resistance is as natural as eating food.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Well, you make a pretty political statement in your avatar. Imran Khan also has motives, whats new? Question it all you want, but he is against drone attacks, and for most moral people, that is a just cause


lol, Achakzai, the same guy who held hands with Najib. Thats all I need to know about such a character.

They are not taken seriously, and GHQ probably doesn't even look in their direction.

BTW, they support drone attacks, and you know this.

Anyways ,

this is stretching out.

My point is Pakistan is a friend of US-nato, and is allied against the Pashtuns on both sides of the zero line. They receive military aid in return for their continued support for US-nato.

Pakistan has no control over the nature of Afghan resistance to foreign presence. This is irrefutable as resistance is as natural as eating food.

So what? If I make a political statement....that has nothing to do with you being wrong. Just be humble and admit your mistakes.

Oh it is amazing, one picture helped you decide on his political positions, as well as the reality of who and what GHQ support. Or so many delusions so many loss thoughts.

I have already talked about Pakistan and their policies. I can't repeat myself 1,000 times.

How is irrefutable? So how did you come up with this ingenious idea? Your argument is fool-proof...please show us.

[ghundal]

So what? If I make a political statement....that has nothing to do with you being wrong. Just be humble and admit your mistakes.

Oh it is amazing, one picture helped you decide on his political positions, as well as the reality of who and what GHQ support. Or so many delusions so many loss thoughts.

The same applies to you on your opinions on Imran Khan?

You too can admit your flawed logic here. Are you more sincere than Imran Khan, a better human than Imran khan? Are you so determined on Imran Khan? You can't then expect not be subjected to the same stupid thought process of judging someones mettle.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

The same applies to you on your opinions on Imran Khan?

You too can admit your flawed logic here. Are you more sincere than Imran Khan, a better human than Imran khan? Are you so determined on Imran Khan? You can't then expect not be subjected to the same stupid thought process of judging someones mettle.

How so? I have actually read his party's material. I didn't just jump on disliking the individual. I went to his PTI site, have talked to his party supporters, etc. Have you? So once again, you fail.

Buddy I used to be in awe of Imran Khan. I was a huge fan. I still love him for his sports and charity but thats it. It wasn't easy for a kid who grew up admiring him to be against him. Then again what do you really know?

[ghundal]

How so? I have actually read his party's material. I didn't just jump on disliking the individual. I went to his PTI site, have talked to his party supporters, etc. Have you? So once again, you fail.

Buddy I used to be in awe of Imran Khan. I was a huge fan. I still love him for his sports and charity but thats it. It wasn't easy for a kid who grew up admiring him to be against him. Then again what do you really know?

Your usual ridiculing of me has no effect, maybe for your cheerleader Comrade, but not on me or my points. This is failed way of speaking. You are part of the Flat Earth Society that Barakzai mentions in regards to those who deny the Afghan resistance.

I have spoken to him face to face as a matter of fact, and took a liking ever since. He was frustrated with the way things were. Unlike ANP, PMAP, and those others, he and his party are concerned with the whole state of Pakistan. I guess that is where you draw the line?

I don't think he is only for Pashtuns, but he has a lot of concern for what they are facing in terms of Pakistani army operations and drone attacks.

He is in a tough situation.


Bottom line: he is against drone attacks and Pakistan role as a US-client state. Thats all anyone with moral clarity needs to know. Any other position (taken by ANP) is one of treachery and disloyalty to their own people. Afghans are killed in these drone attacks, and every single one is innocent.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Good for you. My concern are my people...if I saw him as in their interests, then I would side with him. Kindly, keep your moral high ground to yourself. Lets not go to that route.

[ghundal]

I haven't change a thing I said. Look at my posts. I just clarified it to you, and you still don't understand. Are you trying to discuss or go after people? It looks like you are doing the latter.

In essence I have said I needed to say and I don't want to repeat myself. It is all there. What is it that you would exactly want me to do? DDAZ DDDOZZ BAD BAD PEERANGYAAN ZINDABADDDDD!! Is that much better?

Khaana, don't make this KP v Afghanistan issue, as they are one and the same to me. I just told you I don't support NATO's military action. I can't write a song for you so you can can understand in an anymore clear tone.

Supposed withdrawal, because they have little intention of fully withdrawing and if and when they do, they are more likely to pull an Iraq style withdrawal. The only way a proper and full withdrawal can happen is if the American centric global order is no longer present. For that to occur they will have to collapse internally. This again depends on their economic situation, whether or not they can maintain their reserve dollar status, and push their domestic agenda on the backs of the rest of the world. This will dictate the real change. Don't for one second think it is going to happen in Pashtun lands. We may be a black hole for their almost worthless fiat currency (then again this is the case with all fiat), but will be an issue that is a catalyst, not the reason. Seriously, do they teach you anything in your university/school?

Withdrawal will obviously happen. However, will it be on the terms that benefit your people or on terms that could potentially put your lot in a rotten place. These are two distinct things. You can't just perpetuate another crisis in your land only for another America (before that Soviets, prior to that British, prior Mughals, before that God knows who else) to come in. That is another lost generation, another dead people. These costs add up and end up accumulating till you are part of an almost dead nation. Do you think about these things as well? Or do you jump up and down?

I didn't say NATO brought stability, but they didn't just jump into Afghanistan ass backwards, there are multiple interests there and many corporations profiteering on the back of Afghanistan. Don't worry, they don't do hawaeee ddaz ddoz like you.


P.S. ok now grandmother, before sister, etc etc etc. Do you ever say anything consistent? Did you hear this from someone else and are "regurgitating" that info?

BLS,

Please address this article point by point, and back your claims up with evidence. Thank you in advance.

Why West Lost Afghan War

by Michael Scheuer

The former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit says the US-led coalition has already lost the war in Afghanistan. A shake-up in military leadership won't change that.

Recent events surrounding Afghanistan shouldn’t confuse anyone, as the reality of the situation still lies in one simple statement: The US-NATO coalition has lost a war its political leaders never meant, or knew how, to win.

‘Winning’ in Afghanistan was never anything more than killing Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, as many of their fighters and civilian supporters as possible and then getting out immediately with the full knowledge that—as Mao said long ago—insurgencies always rebuild and the process might need to be repeated.

The best and most appropriate response to al-Qaeda’s September 11 raid, then, would have been a unilateral US punitive expedition that inflicted massive death and destruction on the enemy and delivered a clear warning to Islamists not to pick fights with the United States. Indeed, many Islamists expected this response, which is why they poured vitriol on bin Laden and expected the US military to set back their movement a decade, if it did not destroy it completely.

Faced with this criticism, bin Laden simply said ‘wait,’ adding (in paraphrase) that the Americans and their allies can’t stomach casualties, that they won’t use their full military power and will unite Afghans by trying to Westernize them via popular elections, installing women’s rights, dismantling tribalism, introducing secularism and establishing NGO-backed bars and *****houses in Kabul. Bin Laden was right; it seems he is, among other things, a keen student of the West’s past nation-building operations.

Since June 1, the parade of incompetents crossing the Afghan stage is stunning: Gen. Stanley McChrystal, US President Barack Obama, Gen. David Petraeus, Afghan President Hamid Karzai—the list is long. McChrystal, saddled with a dead-end strategy devised by David Kilcullen, John Nagl and other counterinsurgency ‘experts,’ gave access to himself and his staff to Rolling Stone, long among the most anti-military US journals.

For his trouble and indiscreet words, McChrystal was fired by Obama—who, with his senior advisers, merit all the negative things said about them—and replaced by that purveyor of military snake oil, Gen. Petraeus. Even as the transitory success of the Iraq ‘surge’ is unravelling, Petraeus takes the Afghan command saying everything is okay (within a week the Pentagon’s media machine was telling Congress and Western publics that the ‘Afghan war is on track.’)

While this has played out, Hamid Karzai reportedly met with Sirajuddin Haqqani—a major Afghan insurgent leader—and prepared to surrender under the guise of creating a coalition regime. For all his failures and fabulously corrupt relatives, Karzai can easily solve the dilemma the West can’t even frame accurately: Question: What does the Taliban and its allies want? Answer: Power. So Karzai is talking to Haqqani, and probably Taliban leaders, to see if there’s a governing arrangement that will give him a role in post-NATO Afghanistan and doesn’t lead to his execution after the last NATO trooper leaves. The chance of this is near nil, however, and so Karzai and his family will have to step up the pace of their alleged thievery and get ready for an early exit that leaves the West holding the bag.

And as these parties circle the Afghan drain, Lindsay Graham, a much but inexplicably respected Republican senator from South Carolina, said: ‘This is a chance to start over completely [in Afghanistan].’ At the start of the US Civil War it was said South Carolina’s fatal flaw was that it’s too small to be a nation and too big to be an insane asylum. Sen. Graham has reconfirmed this truism

After nine years, it is utterly impossible to restart Western policy in Afghanistan. Too many Afghans are dead; too many Afghans and non-Afghan Muslims have joined the Taliban-led insurgency; too much pro-Taliban money is pouring into Afghanistan from wealthy donors on the Arabian Peninsula and across the Muslim world; too much Western funding has been stolen and sent abroad by Karzai’s cronies; too much popular support for the war in the West has been squandered; too many U.S.-NATO troops are dead or maimed; too much has been done by the West to push Pakistan toward the abyss by demanding its military do Western dirty work; and too much time has been wasted on counterinsurgency theories and policies that avoid killing the enemy and his civilian supporters. The one thing the West ‘can start over completely’ is a revision of the plans for withdrawal that moves up the departure date.

The bottom line is that the United States and NATO stand defeated in Afghanistan. Under McChrystal, Petraeus, or Obama himself the counterinsurgency strategy now being flogged has been intellectually bankrupt from its inception. No better proof of this can be found than the fact that the part of the policy meant to address the Afghans’ ‘quality of life’ has been a substantial success.

There are 3 million-plus more Afghan children in school today than in 2001; more electricity and potable water are available; many roads and irrigation systems have been rebuilt; and more primary health care is being delivered. Kilcullen, Nagl and their colleagues argued that such success would prompt the Afghans to turn away from the Taliban’s religiosity and nationalism and isolate that purportedly small force from a population swelling with delight and loyalty to Karzai because of material improvements. In short, a social science-powered, mini-New Deal in Afghanistan would win with minimal use of US-NATO military power because Afghans would joyfully jettison God and country for better teeth and smoother roads.

Well, no such thing occurred. As the trend line for these accomplishments rose, the positive trend line for the Taliban-led insurgency rose faster. The once southern-Afghanistan-based insurgency spread across the nation; the Taliban and its allies struck in Kabul at their pleasure; and the large military/social-work operation to clear insurgents from Marjah District in Helmand Province—framed as the test case to validate US-NATO strategy—became, in McChrystal’s words, an endless, ‘bleeding ulcer’ as the Taliban has gradually reasserted control there.

The enraging and unifying impact on Afghans of the US-NATO occupation of the country; Western support for the unrepresentative and corrupt Kabul regime; and the secularizing campaign by Western governmental agencies and NGOs has not and will never be negated by purer water and more refrigeration. The Afghans will appreciate and pocket the material improvements even as more of them take up arms to drive out occupiers they perceive as the enemies of God and Afghanistan. Western leaders should have recalled they’re not fighting Westerners, for whom more ice cubes and tetanus shots might have been enough to give up their faith.

A year after Obama outlined this new strategy at West Point it lay in shreds and tatters: the Taliban, et. al are more powerful and geographically dispersed, and the Afghan people are no less Islamic or nationalistic. The ever-present avenging angel of history ignored is exacting its pound of flesh and is still hungry. And the bin Laden-inspired Islamists are nearing victory over the world’s last superpower, a win that will have a galvanizing anti-US impact in the Islamic world by showing Muslims the impossible is possible.

The tragedy of this reality is that it would have taken no highly classified intelligence data or deeply penetrating brain power to predict its occurrence. A week’s reading at the local library about the occupations of Afghanistan by Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviet Union shows each empire was sooner or later defeated and evicted—Alexander lasted longest because he built Greek colonies—by the most basic Afghan trait which has been transparently and overwhelmingly dominant since the 4th century B.C.: Afghans refuse to tolerate foreign occupation and rule.

Reading history’s lessons also would have shown that the one foreigner who had the most successful strategy for Afghanistan was Genghis Khan. He killed all the Afghan fighters and their families he encountered, built mountains of their skulls to remind Afghans that Mongols are not to be trifled with and then got his army out of the country to India as quickly as possible. George W. Bush had the chance to play Genghis for about a year but didn’t. Instead, he and his clone Obama defied history to try to win the love of Afghans and international applause. In the end, both men earned and richly merited what we see today—abject Western defeat.

Michael Scheuer is the author of ‘Imperial Hubris’ and former chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station