Split Discussion: Pro-War or Anti-War?

[Ghundal]

Again,

Mustafa

1953 can be considered the reference point for all this.

in 1953, the US (and West) backed a coup which removed Mossadeq from power in Iran (he had nationalized OIL). You can actually tie every recent event within the Muslim world from that point. The empowerment of the Saudis as an oil family, and one which is corrupt. The rise of dictators throughout (Saddam, Hosni, Qaddafi, Assad (his dad), etc)

and so on and so on.

You are trying to tell me the moral imperative belongs to the West- that they are right, and the rest is wrong. Well, thats just not true at all.


Blame that and the subsequent interference by the West for all the problems.

No one is telling the West to steal OIL, and create problems


Oil will always be expensive and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Regardless of how slave like the Saudis and Qataris appear, they can diminish the petrodollar in a heartbeat just as Iran is doing.


Again, perspective and the bigger picture ties into this all.

For peace in that region, foreign intervention is the barrier.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

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.

;-)

Point 1: ANA troops? You mean those same inept troops Davis discusses in his report who have been caught on video numerous times either abusing narcotis or abusing Afghans for gain? If Abdul Razzaq Khan dons the ANP uniform and Sherzai's brother wears the ANA uniform, I hardly think you make the case that the bases you mention are simply "a few special forces soldiers but Afghan centric." How can this be so when the US itself is now downgrading its expectations of the ANA? My point with the mercenary comment was that a war is not ending when the super power is injecting money to augment its mercenary force.

Point 2: The constitution of Afghanistan as written by the US differs in a dramatic way in how the executive (formerly the King) can affect the execution and interpretation of the law and appointment of the supreme court equivalent. The language sounds fine at the outset with the reference to a mechanism that simply defers to hanafi Islamic jurisprudence should no OTHER constitutional law be available to judge by. That key section alone makes it a document that allows foreign powers to intervene against the court's decisions as well. Although it was apparent that the King was simply the King and it was made clear to the Afghans of bygone eras that they were in a parliamentary monarchial system, the current constitution supposedly represents a democratic alternative. The key instances when the potential rights of the "democratized" Afghan people were subverted were instances where the government caved in to NATO and public pressure of human "rights" organizations. Another blatant example is the reference given to the ability of shiites being given the right to be judged by their own law. Such clauses did not exist previously. Yet despite the existence of such laws the case in which Karzai overturned a set of laws that the shiite community preferred were blatant examples of either an executive gone rogue or an executive SUBVERTING the supposedly democratic aspirations enshrined in the current constitution.

Point 3: Thats a rather open ended commentary on your part right? When do you deem that Afghanistan will be ready to stand on its feet? Moreover, can you provide a precedent of when the American Super Power has ever left a set of bases? Refer to Okinawa where the Japanese are restless locally after the rape of a female in recent years... yet even then the US refused to leave the base. You are writing as if the US is simply some sorority girl that you can kick out the next morning. Remember, the US is not Pakistan, the penultimate sorority girl.

You also forget history again and make it seem as if the monarchy and daud and the subsequent set of b-astards like Karmal and Najib were trying for the Switzerland model of neutrality. Afghanistan may be a key piece of real estate, but the inept attitude of its leaders and elite towards thinking they are somehow smart enough to ride the super power "ho" trains and play them off against each other played no small part in these groups that you mention wanting to play chess.

Why does Najib for instance get off the hook when he stuck his big nose into Pakistan's internal politics by hosting Zul Fikaar? Heck that be namoos and beh nang man even gave two Afghan girls over to those two Bhutto brothers?

Point 4: Fake naked pictures? They didnt need fakes. Can you please provide a single reference to back up the claim that fake naked pictures were used? All you need to do is see the set of pictures where she is sitting hip to hip with the German leadership to understand how a villager would react to such an image. Have you traveled to the villages just outside of Jalalabad or Kandahar? Have you been to the villages just near Angoor Ada in the Pashtun badlands?

This is not to caste aspersions on Soraya or to judge her character but, if you have traveled outside the confines of Kabul you do not need a lecture from me to understand how easily clergy and rural masses like the Shinwaris of the era rallied against Amanullah if the pictures were used for propaganda.

Also, I could care less about elevating Amanullah to the level of sacred. History has every right to wonder what was going on in his head when he decided to cite Ataturk as his model and then promulgate a series of laws that neither took into account the ground level reality of the Pashtun rural mores.

And please do not answer with some bogus claim about how this is a British manufactured Panjabified Arabistic view. For a simple reference to the ground level realites take a walk through a village near Kandahar. If you cannot, I refer you to Afghanistan's recent surge in dramas that are generated in Kandahar (or at least enacted by Kandaharis). I can send you the DVD and links. In these videos men play the role of women and if a woman is depicted she has has her back turned to the camera.

kandahar pashto drama (HARAMA GHATA) part 1 - YouTube

Go to minute 3.34

Now are you going to tell me that this sort of camera work was done to placate the Pakistanis and the secret Saudis hiding in the hills around Kandahar???

Amanullah did not have his finger on the pulse of the rural masses, but the clergy and unfortunately the British did.

Point 5:

The adoption of the Northern Vietnemese of a manifesto that called for the liberation of the south could very well have been viewed as an instigatory tactic. I dont view it as such, but Dhiem and his cronies very well could assert that their manifesto and nearly open declaration of state sponsership, a trigger happy US that viewed itself as the champion of democracy would not take this sort of nounage and verbage directed at their Karzai equivalent (Dhiem) very lightly. You just choose to ignore the history there.

"On February 11, 1961, Hanoi devoted a second broadcast to the N.L.F.'s manifesto and program, blandly changing the language of both to tone down the more blatant Communist terminology of the initial version. However, even the milder second version (which became the "official" text) borrowed extensively from Le Duan's September speech [at the Third National Congress of the Lao Dong Party in Hanoi] and left little doubt about the Front's true sponsors or objectives."

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...gon/pent14.htm

Point 6:

You appear to have missed out on Vietcong on South Vietnemese violence. The Hue Massacre is just such an example. It had its purpose and Dr. Porter, in this critical paper does not discuss its ahistoricity... he acknowledges the deaths took place... he just makes it clear that it was not done the way the West and the US narrate. He also points out that Americans utilized propaganda surrounding this event (and mitigated their own role in the event) to turn the population against the Cong.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/englis...terhueic74.pdf

The key thing to note is that Porter also writes that it was not official Vietcong policy to promote such events but that individuals fomented such action.

This is not at all different than the central shura's inability to at times control foot soldiers, especially in this even more advanced era where communications are even more limited. Watch Refsdah's documentary on a single Taliban contingent. There is the Old Commander Dauran that saw the Soviet era and then there is the young brigand Omar who can barely be controlled.

Point 7: Guevara was a medical doctor as I recall. I may be wrong. Therefore he gets the Dr. as well right?

Point 8: Taliban doctrine being found in the madrassa's of Pakistan is merely a sham explanation. Ask any Kandahari who Muhammad Pasanai was. He was passing fatwas when Omar was in diapers. The Central Shura's connection (i.e. the fact that a number of the Kandahari Taliban from Zaeef to Omar) trained as "clerks" in his sharia court dont support your Pakistani centric proposal.

Your proposed ahistoricity also ignores the past history that Winston Churchill himself encountered amongst the Pashtuns prior to the existence of a single Saudi or even Pakistan.

"Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of a numerous priesthood – “Mullahs,” “Sahibzadas,”

“Akhundzadas,” Fakirs,” – and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with the theological students in
Turkey, and live free at the expense of the people.”

Winston Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War, 1897"

At most, all Pakistan and the Saudis did was take a native sentiment and put it on steroids.

Point 8: I still think the strategic depth comment stands. Simply because you forget that the fighters find refuge amongst their brethren doesnt mean that they forget that The idea that the Vietcong had North Vietnam as their base not being comprable is farsical since both lands were Vietnemese ethnic lands. The majority of these Pashtun fighters do cross border raids out of Pashtun areas. Also, nearly the whole of the central shura is Pashtun.

For that matter, your race horse Karzai was also based for decades in Pakistan and was interfacing for a few of those years with the Taliban. His father Abdul Ahad attempted to coopt them as well. Sherzai only fell out of favor with them because of his hard handed tactics in Kandahar. He acknowledges that full well. So the question reverberates and boomerangs back to you... if Karzai, for years had his base of operations in Pakistan... and if Omar and Karzai have lost men to Pakistan when they mozied out of the "lines" their host established, what makes the Kabul government more Afghan centric?

Once again being anti Panjabi or anti Paki centric or whatever it is that you guys call it these days does make one ipso facto an Afghan patriot.

Point 8: The Art of War does not ignore the moral imperitive as you do though.

You also ignore the fact that the mass movement occurred previously and the despite the rate of refugee return, a whole human mass remains abroad and as diaspora. The two situations are not comprable.

The US tactics also vary from the direct brutality of the Russians. The Russians threw their own in lakes to drown. All the Afghan villager has to do currently to support the movement is simply look the other way when Commander Dauran fires a rocket from his village (i.e. thats his participation).

For instance, you harp on the direction the Taliban would take Afghanistan. Why not harp on the direction that the corrupt government is currently taking it? For every 1 or 2 girls schools there is 1 or 2 Dubai houses on an artificial island. Look how positions and favors alongside nepotism is doled out. Moreover, look what happens when Mr. President disagrees with Night Raids and even day raids... he puts up a fuss and then strategically quiets down. Hardly a direction I would think that any independent minded freedom loving person would want for our people.

[khushal]

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.

Your the one who said the talibans demands have been met with the withdrawal date, now you say why should there be a full withdrawal date.
Make up your mind.

So if China wants to have permenent bases in the Americas, it should be fine with the US becasue the Chinese wants to ensure America isnt used as a base by organized groups to keep China away from Tiawan.

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?

Didnt the Afghan royals always go north of the Oxus to regroup and organize campaigns agaisnt the Brits.

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!

Like it or not, the Taliban are the most organized pashtun group in the nation. If NATO leaves tommorrow, Pashtuns have no choice but to put their support behind them if they want to protect themselves from the NA.
Up until 2003 the people gave NATO a chance to see what NATO can do for them, when they found out it was nothing but hot air, they then they decided the Taliban were much better than foreigners who have no regard for them.
I dont even know why they even gave them a chance since they should have learned their lesson from when they left them for the wolves back in 92 and in 2001 they brought those same wolves back.