Split Discussion: Pro-War or Anti-War?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No, resistance is invalid, if...

a) it continues although the aims of an armed conflict are already achieved

b) an armed conflict is not in the interests of the common people.

The Talibans war is invalid because their demand for full withdrawl is met AND it is not in the interests of the people they want to liberate to fight on.

It's clearly about taking the power in Kabul and for that they helped by anti-Iranian regimes (Gulf States) to containe Iran and by Pakistan to achieve their wider strategic aims.

But to understand these things, you need a moral sight on the current problem, you need national roots and a heart for the people you wanna see liberated.

The Taliban will be another imposed mercenary army on the common people and no one wants that except for some internet jihadists like Ghundal/Ashraf and others.

Sorry I think you are wrong and injecting opinion in the face of historical precedent and fact my friend and I will supply the reasoning for why.

So its a little assinine to say that the war is over simply because you want it to be.

At this point, building of bases and money being injected into US mercenary forces is increasing... not decreasing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-turse/450-bases-and-its-not-ove_b_1273018.html

Lets examine the terms that the two warring powers are fighting over. The super power and its Kabul government are demanding that the Taliban recognize the Afghan constitution, written wholecloth by emigres who fled the country in terror during the Russian onslaught. Support for the constitution and the educational curriculum that will influence the masses comes not from Afghans but the UN forces.

I hardly think you can make the case that the average villager in Helmand is worried about some paper writ with supposed rights he is extended when he has many more real life problems on his hands.

Here is a Wash Po article describing how the last 40 years will be purposefully omitted in Afghan history text books by fiat of the emigre government and its NATO aligned backers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...Q_story_1.html

At this juncture, NATO continues to have outposts located in multiple parts of the country. The film that Nokia posted of the war stretching into Kunar province and into the border of Nuristan is proof positive of that.

Your logic is also flawed in that there is a reason for a suggested 2014 draw down date in the first place. That reason comes from the escalation in violence over the recent years. In that interim Senator Graham has floated the idea, and Karzai in his Loya Jirga has attempted to gain acceptance for the notion, that permanent bases need to be present.

So lets review:

1) The Taliban refuse to accept the constitution because of theoretic constructs (ie secularism vs religiousism)
2) Permanent bases are a sticking point that remain unresolved (refer to article above and Karzai's rants about mystical Lions)

Your commentary about the best interests of the people, is once again an opinion. Its a valid opinion. One might say that Benedict Arnold also felt that he had the best interests of his people at heart. The question remains though, would an incomplete American revolution with concordant incomplete sovereingty have been in the "best interests" of the American people? For that matter, we have seen what utter lack of soveriegnty has done for other races where colonialization completed itself. Looking back on struggles across the world there are generally two philosophies that battled.

I believe Ghundal's question posed to you about Vietnam is actually dead on and something you need to answer. The reason is plain and simple. Dhiem was the Karzai equivalent of Vietnam. He had his subsequent followers who fled to the US in droves when the Vietcong stormed Saigon. Prior to his death Dhiem did his best to claim that ending the war trumped sovereignty in all ways. At the end of the day, a famous American General touted, to the lead General of the Vietcong, the fact that the Americans won every battle and killed many more Vietnemese than the Vietcong killed Americans. yet the Vietnemese General answered plainly: It didnt matter, we still won the war. The point was the insurgents understood that sovereignty for the future generations trumped the struggle and pains of the present. For that matter, the Vietcong also relied on a foreign philosopy and recieved guns, equipment, and training from China and Russia. The world however saw the moral imperitive resting on the side of a native force, whatever its ideology was, resisting against elites that bought in a super power from the occident to prop up its regime.

The other problem with your theory is that you truncate history at 1991. Its common history amongst Wazir tribal elders, especially of the Yargu Khel variety that Amanullah used Waziristan for strategic depth and hence the lands that Wazirs were given when they helped his cause. He appealed to their help while the Wazirs were in British Indian land at the time. Nadir Shah also found his heridatory Sardarship across the durand line and equipped his forces there and marched from there, once again with the help of FATA tribals. AbdurRahman Khan took refuge across the Oxus. Dost Muhammad was imprisoned and then sent back by the British themselves from Hindustan. Dost Muhammad would also fight the British proxy war on Persia later in his reign.

Your central premise appears to be, and correct me if Im wrong, that its not truly a representative insurgent voice or force if it requires its own ironically, strategic depth. Well, then you may have to address Dr. Geuvaras utilization of multiple Latin American countries as backward operating bases, or FARCs sometimes use of Venezuala, or the Vietcong's use of Camobodia. Thats not a weakness, thats just smart.

Your problem is that you want to impose what you view as being a "fair fight" on to people you simly dont like, as opposed to stepping back and simply labeling people Team A and Team B and then critically analyzing what you are saying.

If we were to stretch your logic ad infinatum it would mean that you are asking the average Talib foot soldier to run at drones and fight a superbly armed force with everything from X ray, Night Ray infrared, Night Vision standard, Satellite monitoring head to head.

Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

Its like saying
Child A is 9 years old and emaciated and about 4 feet tall.
Child-Man B is 17 years old, works out at the gym, is a football player, knows the martial arts and has a pair of brass knuckles on. Hes about 6 foot 5.

And you are watching this fight and Child A kicks Child-Man B in the balls. Child Man B goes down to the ground, face blue and purple. Child A drives the point home and stabs Child-Man B with his pen while he is down and then runs as fast as his tiny legs can take him.

Its idiotic to assume that Child A should risk getting the most severe beat down simply because you decided that a kick to the balls was dishonorable.

If your answer is that Child A had some annoying Arabic speaking friends that brought on the rage of Child-Man B, I would venture to say that you would then invite a discussion of why they invited the rage???

The moral issue there is that children (or in this case superpowers), if being judged by a moral standard of fighting fair, have to then be judged fairly by the person that invites on such a ludicrous situation as attempting to judge the setup.

By that same token, why not use the reverse logic? Why not ask the NATO powers to make things fair. Everyone takes a time out for the next 5 years and they give the Taliban equal arms and training on how to use those arms and in about, oh 5 years from now, the rematch starts???

If on the one hand you criticize the Taliban for using Northern Pakistan as a backward operating base because its "unfair" or because you believe (without evidence at hand) that the average Afghan doesnt want them or any other force for that matter to fight Karzai, why not also level criticism a the degree of assymmetry?

You also conveniently skip over the main reason that northern Pakistan, with FATA being the prime place, is the refuge.

Lets take a look at the cross over between Baloch pakistan and Baloch Iran... lets refer to Kurdish seperatist regions in 3 different states (Iraq, Iran, and Turkey). Lets also have you quiz Dost Muhammad, Amanullah, and Nadir regarding their utilization of the tribes.

Remember, Mostafa, an honest analysis has nothing to do with being a jihadi or a keyboard warrior. If Ghundal were to extend his logic and say that the Taliban were fighting because America has its own role in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or Saudi, then I would be right there withyou saying his logic doesnt make sense. But your analysis of proxyism is not detailed enough nor is it sensical enough. Aligned goals between two groups of people does not mean 100% overlap of every goal. That is exactly why the English coined the saying: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And to summarize you forget why 2014 is such an important date in the first place. It was not picked willy nilly and the American halls of power are talking about an extension beyond that to 2024. So how pray tell is the war over?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

When you have to defend yourself against a foreigner which attacking you, it's legitimate to defend yourself in my opinion ( Kargil, 1999 )

Absolutely. Its an issue of logic as well. I think if you discuss things reasonably with me, you will find reasonable responses. I am not one of those people that is going to be dumb enough to say that every Muslim incursion ever was either A) the greatest thing that ever happened or B) At least a step tolerable above other aggressors. Many fellow Muslims are raised under the belief that Hindu Indians ought to reexamine history and simply accept that the Mughals for the most part (averaging them out between Akbar and Aurangzeb as extremes) were a peachy keen group of people. As I grew up and examined human behavior, I found that such a request was absurd. Blow back goes both ways. Its not simply empires like the American Empire of the present that has to deal with blowback from its actions in Iran or in Saudi etc. The simple fact that an armed Muslim invasion force entered the subcontinent at any time and erected a kingdom in India was enough to forge a sort of identity amongst the disparate Hindu groups and other non Muslim entities there. The Muslims of the subcontinent are now facing their own blow back. For Muslim in India to be confused about their current status is to ignore how history marches forward while looking backwards. Had the Muslim powers of Timur, Ghaznavi, and even our own approached the situation with a little more thought and a lot less occupation, the current situation might have been entirely different. That doesnt make any prejudice or mistreatment right, but it at least explains that human behavior is predictable on so many levels.

[randolph85]

lets not forget that public declarations mean nothing when it comes to negotiations. america demanded the taliban recognize the afg constitution before negotiations, the taliban said there would be no negotiations until complete withdrawal. the taliban and america both denied there were talks taking place before the official announcement of the qatar office by both sides.

2014 means nothing as its only symbolic. taking 10,000 remaining troops and changing their name to "trainers" or "support" means nothing. though, i don't think the taliban are naive enough to think by entering into negotiations that they could persuade the americans to completely withdraw their thousands of remaining troops and cia agents after 2014. there is more than meets the eye when it comes to these negotiations.

[MostafaM]

Abdali,

I will quote you and answer to your points one by one.

1. "....So its a little assinine to say that the war is over simply because you want it to be.

At this point, building of bases and money being injected into US mercenary forces is increasing... not decreasing...."

We can argue reasonably or start with polemics. I prefer a factual based discussion.

The bases will be in Kandahar, Shindand and Bagram. Special Forces will be stationed there. Combat troops will be (Army Ground Forces) and ALL places that are occupied by American troops so far will be filled wit ANA troops.

So, I don't understand your point.

If we go by the mere definition of mercenaries, more than 50% of the Taliban foot soldiers are mercenaries fighting for 150$ per month. What's the point in this?

2."...Lets examine the terms that the two warring powers are fighting over. The super power and its Kabul government are demanding that the Taliban recognize the Afghan constitution, written wholecloth by emigres who fled the country in terror during the Russian onslaught. Support for the constitution and the educational curriculum that will influence the masses comes not from Afghans but the UN forces.

I hardly think you can make the case that the average villager in Helmand is worried about some paper writ with supposed rights he is extended when he has many more real life problems on his hands...."

The constitution is 95% repeating the constitutions of the pre-USSR invasions. And those were definitly welcomed by the people in various Loya Jirgas. I don't think that a polemic remark towards expats is a solid arguement here.
I would rather stick to the outcome of many Loya Jirgas thant the outcome of some Quetta or Miransha Shurahs decision on how to define a strategic goal for the Afghans and build upon that a constitution.

3. "...Your commentary about the best interests of the people, is once again an opinion. Its a valid opinion. One might say that Benedict Arnold also felt that he had the best interests of his people at heart. The question remains though, would an incomplete American revolution with concordant incomplete sovereingty have been in the "best interests" of the American people? For that matter, we have seen what utter lack of soveriegnty has done for other races where colonialization completed itself. Looking back on struggles across the world there are generally two philosophies that battled...."

Permanent bases of the US would containe direct interference of regional powers. I am not a fan of American bases in Afghanistan. But untill Afghanistan can defend itself, it needs this presence to counter direct military and intelligence interference of Russia, Iran and Pakistan.
If you think that by evacuating these bases today, Afghanistan will be independent, your are wrong. Itś a fact that Taliban forces will engage in another bloody civil war and the outcome this time will be a full-scale ethnic civil war.

The colonization of Afghanistan is a myth to gather momentum and to heat up the emotions of the common people. We have seen that with British agents who provided Ulemma and Clan chiefs faked naked pictures of Queen Soraya and it ended up in a full scale revolt against Amanullah Khan.

The best interests is a reconciliation between all factions, for that certain rules have to be accepted. Afghanistan never was a Khilafa-like emirate and never will be. The Taliban's view on a political level are not achievable and not acceptable, specially among the Pashtun tribes.

4. ".....I believe Ghundal's question posed to you about Vietnam is actually dead on and something you need to answer. The reason is plain and simple. Dhiem was the Karzai equivalent of Vietnam. He had his subsequent followers who fled to the US in droves when the Vietcong stormed Saigon. Prior to his death Dhiem did his best to claim that ending the war trumped sovereignty in all ways. At the end of the day, a famous American General touted, to the lead General of the Vietcong, the fact that the Americans won every battle and killed many more Vietnemese than the Vietcong killed Americans. yet the Vietnemese General answered plainly: It didnt matter, we still won the war. The point was the insurgents understood that sovereignty for the future generations trumped the struggle and pains of the present. For that matter, the Vietcong also relied on a foreign philosopy and recieved guns, equipment, and training from China and Russia. The world however saw the moral imperitive resting on the side of a native force, whatever its ideology was, resisting against elites that bought in a super power from the occident to prop up its regime..."

You outshine one major point here:
the Vietcong was national movement with a socialist root. It cared about it's people. The Vietcong engaged military units of the US Army and that of South Vietnam, it didn't alienate people with an ideology that was alien to them. The nationalistic approach of Hu Chie Minh is not something you can compare with the Internationalistic approach of Communism.
The Vietcong fought this war for it's people. Yes, the received alot of help from the Warsaw Block but they didn't sell out national interests for that help. To this day Vientam is ruled by a patriotic and pragmatic movement of people who work for the people. They don't impose wars on them by provoking superpowers and they don't harbour foreign fighters and terrorists and go against their vital national interests like the Taliban did and do.

5. "....The other problem with your theory is that you truncate history at 1991. Its common history amongst Wazir tribal elders, especially of the Yargu Khel variety that Amanullah used Waziristan for strategic depth and hence the lands that Wazirs were given when they helped his cause. He appealed to their help while the Wazirs were in British Indian land at the time. Nadir Shah also found his heridatory Sardarship across the durand line and equipped his forces there and marched from there, once again with the help of FATA tribals. AbdurRahman Khan took refuge across the Oxus. Dost Muhammad was imprisoned and then sent back by the British themselves from Hindustan. Dost Muhammad would also fight the British proxy war on Persia later in his reign.

Your central premise appears to be, and correct me if Im wrong, that its not truly a representative insurgent voice or force if it requires its own ironically, strategic depth. Well, then you may have to address Dr. Geuvaras utilization of multiple Latin American countries as backward operating bases, or FARCs sometimes use of Venezuala, or the Vietcong's use of Camobodia. Thats not a weakness, thats just smart...."

a) Strategic depth is only appliable if you have a strategy and that strategy is built upon an independent idea.
How can a Taliban Movement which roots back it's main doctrine to the madrassas of Pakistani Islamic Movements have a strategy that is built upon a homegrown idea of independence?

It's dependence by any means what the Taliban are presenting ideologically, tactically and strategically.

b) Ernesto Guevara didn't have a PhD, so the "Dr." is not correct.

c) The Vietcong used North Vietnam. The country was split and it's power bases was in North Vietnam. They used Cambodia for their transfer roots for men, equipment and weaponary.

d) Of course it's smart to use international borders to evade a direct fight or to built safe havens.The question remains of how to interprete the OK of your host country towards your presence! :-)
We know why FARC has safe havens in Venezuela. Raul Reyes was killed there during a bombing raid.

6. "...Your problem is that you want to impose what you view as being a "fair fight" on to people you simly dont like, as opposed to stepping back and simply labeling people Team A and Team B and then critically analyzing what you are saying.

If we were to stretch your logic ad infinatum it would mean that you are asking the average Talib foot soldier to run at drones and fight a superbly armed force with everything from X ray, Night Ray infrared, Night Vision standard, Satellite monitoring head to head. ..."

That's not what I am asking for.
The Talibans field tactics are understandable from a military point of view. I would do the same if I was in their position. I question their motivation for this war. I questions their strategy and their aims for tomorrowa and in what direction Afghanistan will head with them.


From a military point of view, a general should know when he has won and when the fight is over. He is not fighting for himself or a political establishment but for the survival of system he grew up in: his sociaty.
The Talibans aims are clear: retake power in Kabul.
It's about establishing the Emirate of Afghanistan, nothing else. It's not about a people being sandwiched between regional and international powers. If this was an independence war, the sheer numbers of volunteers would be overwhelming, the displacement of people would be as high as it was during the Soviet invasion (5 Millions) but itś clearly not.

Independence is not an issue Afghans have to worry about because from the five points Sunzi highlighted in his book, atleast 4 will always be in Afghans favour:


(1)The Moral Law (a defending army can hold a pass with 50 men
against an invadinv army of 100.000; fighting in your own soil
always favours the defender)

(2) Heaven (the Afghan weather, the dust, the dry and cold air
favours those who have known it since childhood; invading armies
and their weaponary, specially their modern tanks etc. are absolutly
vulnerable by the conditions of the Afghanistan weather)

(3) Earth (Afghanistan is rugged and mountainous region; impossible
for invaders to controle, take and/or hold)
(4) The Commander ( the warrior spirit of Afghans always generates
capable commanders and warriors)

(5) Method and discipline (that's what Afghans lack because a national
moral only comes with the understanding of common interests and
with accepting to serve under a command; Afghans are fragmented
and for that reason they will loose all battles, many men and exhaust
their enemies to leave. )

But Sunzi said that winning a war with your sword still in
the sheath is the best way to win.

;-)

[Ghundal]

There will be no peace if there is no full withdrawal. The US occupation is the reason there is so much instability, and since it is the barrier to peace, the end of it is the objective of any talks.



That is the only eventual outcome of these talks, preliminary as they are.

Afghans are not going to come to terms with something they have fought against. That would defeat the purpose completely,

Plus, the losers of a conflict can never have their objectives met. So Davis reports points is to some clarity in this regard.


and with the Davis report out revealing that the Taliban virtually control all lands in an "earshot" of outposts and bases, there virtually is no talk of permanent bases.


Karzai made the most colossal mistake when he spat that crap out at his fake Jirga


Aside from the Afghan resentment to the US occupation which is the cause of the instability, the regional nations are opposed to the US occupation, and will do everything within their means to end it, diplomatically speaking.

Pakistan along with Iran and China are fully opposed to any US presence at all in any manner. Exclude Pakistan servile attitude, but even they have conflicting interests that they will not forget.

This is also the reason Pakistan refused to have a North Waziristan operation. Call it a double game, but Pakistan's external interests, just like any other nations, will always conflict with US interests, and there is no convergence . Remember the threats of action if Pakistan did not have an operation in North Waziristan. Well, what happened then?

Was Salala the punishment? Pakistan Army does not care one wit about even its own soldiers dying. They were not suddenly going to have a North Waziristan operation due to that?


You guys also forget that the Taliban would not participate in talks if US does not completely withdraw from Afghanistan.

Hence, the fact that they are participating in talks indicates that there is only one way this war ends, and like all others, and as it happened to the Soviets, it will be a full withdrawal.

[khushal]

That arguement doesn't sound proper.

With a formal date for the withdrawl of all NATO troops given (2014), whatś the reason to fight?

Why are the Taliban fighting if their demand has been fulfilled?

It's about tactical wins and the aim to be in a better strategic position when it comes to fight for the capital Kabul.

The Taliban movement are alien in a strategic way because a movement that fights for independence and territorial integrity shouldn't have it's strategic, economical, military and moral bases in places that are known to be "enemy territory".

Pakistan as a safe-haven and the Gulf States as the funding places aren't Afghanistan's friends. Their protege, the Taliban, too.

First, NATO has not announced full withdrawal. They are also lobbying heavily for permenent bases in the country. So what are you talking about that demands are being met.

Second, its considered enemy terroritory according to who. Was it not the afghan resistance who fought the Brits based north of the Oxus, so by your logic the afghan resistance who fought the Brits were also alien. So your rational implies lying down like sheep is the way to go. That is against human nature especially the humans in afghanistan. So you must first change human nature, then change the afghan culture and only then will your logic work. Let me know when you do that.

[Ghundal]

[QUOTE]

I believe Ghundal's question posed to you about Vietnam is actually dead on and something you need to answer. The reason is plain and simple. Dhiem was the Karzai equivalent of Vietnam. He had his subsequent followers who fled to the US in droves when the Vietcong stormed Saigon. Prior to his death Dhiem did his best to claim that ending the war trumped sovereignty in all ways. At the end of the day, a famous American General touted, to the lead General of the Vietcong, the fact that the Americans won every battle and killed many more Vietnemese than the Vietcong killed Americans. yet the Vietnemese General answered plainly: It didnt matter, we still won the war. The point was the insurgents understood that sovereignty for the future generations trumped the struggle and pains of the present. For that matter, the Vietcong also relied on a foreign philosopy and recieved guns, equipment, and training from China and Russia. The world however saw the moral imperitive resting on the side of a native force, whatever its ideology was, resisting against elites that bought in a super power from the occident to prop up its regime.

The other problem with your theory is that you truncate history at 1991. Its common history amongst Wazir tribal elders, especially of the Yargu Khel variety that Amanullah used Waziristan for strategic depth and hence the lands that Wazirs were given when they helped his cause. He appealed to their help while the Wazirs were in British Indian land at the time. Nadir Shah also found his heridatory Sardarship across the durand line and equipped his forces there and marched from there, once again with the help of FATA tribals. AbdurRahman Khan took refuge across the Oxus. Dost Muhammad was imprisoned and then sent back by the British themselves from Hindustan. Dost Muhammad would also fight the British proxy war on Persia later in his reign.

Mostafa refers to Pashtun areas of Pakistan as "enemy territory."

I dont understand that one at all.


Unless, he thinks that FATA is Punjab territory?

In some ways, the British must be kicking themselves because the Durrand line (zero line) is the Achilles heel of this war.

Years from now, history articles will be published on the irony of how the Durrand line (which was meant to weaken Afghanistan), in fact backfired completely

[MostafaM]

Why should NATO declare full withdrawal IF those circles who dragged them into "another Vietnam" are still holding out in Pakistani cities like Abbotabad and are just waiting to retake Afghanistan and shape it into the state it was prior to 2001....a training ground for every islamic terrorist organisation that we know?

The permanent bases are not directed towards the Taliban IF the Taliban decide to be part of a political settlement. It's to encounter those powers who wanna make Afghanistan to their field of proxy wars.

I didn't get this part:
"...Was it not the afghan resistance who fought the Brits based north of the Oxus, so by your logic the afghan resistance who fought the Brits were also alien...."
What historical annecdote are you bringing here?

Resistance is absolutly fine if it comes from within.
The Taliban movement aren't a force from within the people. It's not a national independence movement but ideologically an alien movement. I wrote a lenghty comment on that towards Abdali.

Up untill the end of 2003, there was no insurgency because they had absolutly no room amongst the people. Corruption and a failed governance by installing warlords and criminals in important positions of the state apparatus made the people losing their hope and the Taliban filled that vacuum partially.

If there is a reasonable alternative to the Taliban, people choose it.

We shouldn't deny that!

[MostafaM]

[QUOTE=Ghundal;582550]

Mostafa refers to Pashtun areas of Pakistan as "enemy territory."

I dont understand that one at all.

Enemy territory is the place where Pakistani Intelligence builds and runs training facilities for militants and where there are safe havens.

Right now there are safe havens in Haqqani-held territory in Northern Waziristan and those Haqqanis OPENLY claim their alliance to the Pakistani state and Army.

If that's not enemy territory then let me hear your definition of that terminology.

[Ghundal]

This is your opinion though.

Did you know that Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact?

Have you read about that?

Had Hitler not attacked Stalin, he very well would have ruled the rest of Europe till this day.

Why did Hitler sign a non-aggression pact initially with Stalin, even though he hated Communists?

Have any idea?

[khushal]

Thank you Khushal. I guess this deserves a response. You raise some issues in your points at the end which point to specific 'wrongs' in terms of the US intervention. I think it is valid to have a dialogue about these too. Here however, I've highlighted the salient areas that I think are worthy of consideration.

To some extent we agree. The issues in the region are much deeper than Pakistan itself and there is a legitimate grievance stemming from the US/NATO presence. To that end resistance in the form of the Taliban is not surprising.

But every movement needs a lifeline and it is also important to acknowledge that there are wider players in the region - no one is totally exonerated as a result. There are specific reasons that Pakistan has backed particular groups going back to the 70s.

If Pakistan joined up with the US to back the anti-Soviet resistance, for Pakistan it started off for reasons other than outright fear of communism. Having an authoritarian communist regime on your doorstep has never really interfered in Pakistan's relationship with China for example. With foreign policies, it is often a very selective affair.

The 'problem' for Pakistan has always been the fear of being surrounded by India and India-friendly regimes. At the heart of it, partition was messy and
Pashtuns are caught up in the war on either side because of many power struggles, including the long-standing one that blights the subcontinent.

The problem is that Historically, the pashtun are the buffer between powers that surround them. PAshtuns are situated on a geographic location were it is impossible to avoid wars and world powers have been unable to ignore this piece of land no matter how hard they have tried. Victims of circumstance.

Alliances are made when convenient, and this one is no different. If the pashtuns did not have grievence against the Afghan governmnet and NATO on their land, there would be no war and pakistan would have been powerless to create one. If the communists in afghanistan werent forcing a foreign ideology whom the afghans wanted nothing to do with, those groups that Pakistan was supporting would have been just nuisances, and nothing more.
The root of the problems in the past 40 years have been the incompetence of the afghan government which created grievences from the population. An insurgency is nothing if they cant leverage grievence from the population and they can only do that if the grievence exists in the first place.

[Ghundal]

Why should NATO declare full withdrawal IF those circles who dragged them into "another Vietnam" are still holding out in Pakistani cities like Abbotabad and are just waiting to retake Afghanistan and shape it into the state it was prior to 2001....a training ground for every islamic terrorist organisation that we know?

The permanent bases are not directed towards the Taliban IF the Taliban decide to be part of a political settlement. It's to encounter those powers who wanna make Afghanistan to their field of proxy wars.

I didn't get this part:
"...Was it not the afghan resistance who fought the Brits based north of the Oxus, so by your logic the afghan resistance who fought the Brits were also alien...."
What historical annecdote are you bringing here?

Resistance is absolutly fine if it comes from within.
The Taliban movement aren't a force from within the people. It's not a national independence movement but ideologically an alien movement. I wrote a lenghty comment on that towards Abdali.

Up untill the end of 2003, there was no insurgency because they had absolutly no room amongst the people. Corruption and a failed governance by installing warlords and criminals in important positions of the state apparatus made the people losing their hope and the Taliban filled that vacuum partially.

If there is a reasonable alternative to the Taliban, people choose it.

We shouldn't deny that!

sorry buddy,

but yet again, you attempt to assign the moral imperative to NATO, and that just fails.

US/NATO/West has been intervening in that part of the world for a long time, and primarily ever since 1953 when they planned and backed the coup of the Mossadeq of Iran (since he nationalized oil). This is point ZERO buddy.


Now, back to this. It is logical to realize there will be no peace if there is no withdrawal. Its that simple. You cant convince me that Afghans have any incentive to accept occupation, especially, when they have not for the last decade. Your trying to flip the situation around as if the Afghans requested to start talks with the US. Thats not the case buddy. You can read all the news articles available on this LOL


Nothing more to it.

I doubt the Taliban are going to become a part of a political settlement with karzai/Spanta/Saleh/and Co.

Buddy, come on, these above people (along with the ANP) have been requesting that the Taliban be crushed. In fact, Karzai in the initial stages used to gloat about how many Taliban were being killed openly to the media.


Times change, right?


Davis report is eye opening, and his admission of US failure puts this talk of US deciding conditions for peace as an utterly ridiculous one.

[MostafaM]

This is your opinion though.

Did you know that Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact?

Have you read about that?

Had Hitler not attacked Stalin, he very well would have ruled the rest of Europe till this day.

Why did Hitler sign a non-aggression pact initially with Stalin, even though he hated Communists?

Have any idea?

Comparing a tactical pact between two different ideologies (Nationalsocialism and Internationalism) to give the German Wehrmacht the opportunity to contentrate on one war theater on the Western Front with an ideologically trained and educated movement with it's roots in the same madrassas that the Pakistani Islamic Movements run and who's heads are sitting in Pakistani parliament is not a valid comparison because it lacks the historical comparability.

[MostafaM]

sorry buddy,

but yet again, you attempt to assign the moral imperative to NATO, and that just fails.

US/NATO/West has been intervening in that part of the world for a long time, and primarily ever since 1953 when they planned and backed the coup of the Mossadeq of Iran (since he nationalized oil). This is point ZERO buddy.


Now, back to this. It is logical to realize there will be no peace if there is no withdrawal. Its that simple. You cant convince me that Afghans have any incentive to accept occupation, especially, when they have not for the last decade. Your trying to flip the situation around as if the Afghans requested to start talks with the US. Thats not the case buddy. You can read all the news articles available on this LOL


Nothing more to it.

I doubt the Taliban are going to become a part of a political settlement with karzai/Spanta/Saleh/and Co.

Buddy, come on, these above people (along with the ANP) have been requesting that the Taliban be crushed. In fact, Karzai in the initial stages used to gloat about how many Taliban were being killed openly to the media.


Times change, right?


Davis report is eye opening, and his admission of US failure puts this talk of US deciding conditions for peace as an utterly ridiculous one.

With the Americans making the situation harder for Pakistan by openly talking about Baluch independence, I guess Pakistan surely did his job and brought the Taliban to the negotiation table.

Otherwise a learjet leaving Pakistan towards Qatar, where the Taliban opened an embassy wouldn't have been possible. ;-)

There is no question that the current situation is an occupation.
But there is no question that those Taliban that we talk about gave refuge to islamic radical movements from the start to settle in Afghanistan and train there for their missions like 9/11.

From my point of view, this goes against the interests of the people to harbour groups who attack superpowers and drag them into a conflict in Afghanistan on our expenses.

If they wanna fight for their freedom, let them do it in Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

It's not acceptable for any mentally stable Afghan to get dragged into proxy wars of others.
If you are OK with, fine. I am not and I am sure the overwhelming majority of the people aren't either.

[Ghundal]

Afghan exit must look like a victory

[QUOTE]

With the Americans making the situation harder for Pakistan by openly talking about Baluch independence, I guess Pakistan surely did his job and brought the Taliban to the negotiation table.

Otherwise a learjet leaving Pakistan towards Qatar, where the Taliban opened an embassy wouldn't have been possible. ;-)

Here is your response in this article from the Chicago Sun Times (today) titled "Afghan exit must look like a victory"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/10615913-452/afghan-exit-must-look-like-a-victory.html

There is no question that the current situation is an occupation.
But there is no question that those Taliban that we talk about gave refuge to islamic radical movements from the start to settle in Afghanistan and train there for their missions like 9/11

.

And yet another lie and distortion in which you have been refuted multiple times, but choose to parrot this fable over and over. Masood and Rabbani invited AQ to Afghanistan- the Northern Alliance invited AQ to Afghanistan. Got that. Underline that, and understand it is a plain FACT.

In the bigger picture, the US/West interference in the Middle East/Muslim world created the response of radicalism reactionism, or whatever else PRO WAR people such as yourself call. OIL Its OIL. And your meaning to tell us, that you expect people within that region to sit back on their asss like you and say take my oil!!!!!

From my point of view, this goes against the interests of the people to harbour groups who attack superpowers and drag them into a conflict in Afghanistan on our expenses.

The Northern Alliance is too blame again. Hahaha

But, no Afghan will ever tolerate occupation.

Ever Ever!

If they wanna fight for their freedom, let them do it in Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

It's not acceptable for any mentally stable Afghan to get dragged into proxy wars of others.
If you are OK with, fine. I am not and I am sure the overwhelming majority of the people aren't either.[

Exactly, those Militant Communist terrorists should not have murdered Daud Khan and his entire family, had their communist revolutions, and try to impose an ALIEN and UNWANTED ideology upon Afghans.

Yes, these terrorists should have been executed for their treasonous crimes in creating instability

The Afghan Resistance was a response to this.