Evidence Basis in Political Discussion

[BarakzaiAbdali]

A discussion of Afghan governmental setbacks are seen as "cherry picking" despite the clear evidence of both widespread and centralized abuse. Instead of folks seeing such criticisms as ways to improve governance, its called deflating moral and the time honored canard of supporting Pakistan is leveled.

I haven't seen much Afghan government supporters, why do you think this is a problem Doctor sahab?

I once posted an article, that stated when several Pukhtuns asked the MOHE for scholarships to Turkey, a MOHE official responded and said "Go ask Mullah Omar for a scholarship". Ouch, that has to hurt. The aforementioned is just one example of how corrupt the Afghan government is. Anybody who denies this needs to get their head examined. That's the exact reason why I constantly laugh and chew Pakistani supporters out. There is nothing to "support" in a Banana republic.

It was not in reference to most of the Afghans here. In fact, I find that Afghans are rather upfront about the problems of governance... surprisingly so in fact with the years that have gone by.

This was in reference to the Pirs accusation that I had to utilize knowledge to basically support what his view of a good outcome for Pashtuns would be.

So for instance, highlighting NDS successes, girls schools openings successes, trade agreement successes ... but then leave aside the widening disparity between written reality (more girls schools) and executed reality (most do not go on to higher level schooling).

His central accusation seemed to hover around my obstinate view of the drones as opposed to Taj Andersen's view. The reason being, he feels that bulking up support for such ops in FATA will achieve his stated goals. For this reason he simply glosses over Reprieve, Medea Benjamin, and others and views their evidence as "Pakistani support."

A two prong strategy is going on his mind: support the FATA bulwork and hiding places of insurgents + discredit the Afghan government ---> to strengthening Pakistan's hand.

My view is the opposite, simply said: Highlight the real aspirations and inclinations of the people vs Miss Taj Andersen's narrative + link via history the progression and evolution of Karzai's government as a reflection of Pakistani governance to give people the understanding that a new Pakistan is being constructed right next door to Pakistan with Pashtuns being the primary losers in the process.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai Jan. Should you log in and check out this thread again - I've highlighted the point that has roused my interest in the conversation here.

Broadly do I read your conjecture as 'action and reaction'? In which case, to a point, I follow what you are trying to say on this, which I think is that the Taliban are a response to the circumstances of the civil war and the presence of foreign troops, the US faces a backlash on its home soil because of its policy of interventionism etc.

But (taking note of the highlighted points) what you appear to be suggesting is that there is a greater instigator - particularly where you use the 'chess piece' analogy - this version somewhat exonerates the various protagonists in Afghanistan and opens up the debate about another party - here unnamed.

Would that the unnamed be political and therefore more tangible in terms of working out a solution for Afghanistan and the Pashtuns in general or are we speaking in theological terms in which case we cannot expect any different because all is predestined anyway?

Tor Khan I was talking about in the context of history without any general theological bent.

For instance, I am saying that it is easy to either lionize Che Geuvara for
1) Leaving behind wealth and prestige
2) As depicted in Motorcycle Diaries when he swims across the river to the Leper colony - fighting against imperialism that deprived the down trodden of their rights in Latin America.

But his dectractors would say that he was vicious because
- He shot the Cuban college students that were trying to support the Batista regime

For Che this was a war maneuver and in some ways he turned out to be right when Kennedy's subsequent attempt to utilize funding for Cuban exiles (basically Cuban Karzais, Ghanis, Haqs, etc) to overthrow Castro.

I personally abhor the philosophy of communism, but I see Che's approaches as that of a predictable insurgent leader doing predictable things to rebalance against very assymetric odds. Eventually, this would catch up to him.

But with respect to theologically, yes, for the last few years I have sort of stepped back and tried to take a panoramic view of the conflict in light of history. The Quran is very poignant when it says that God sets the balance and gives power in cycles to set the balance. It also warns man to consider the fact that powerful nations have existed before and will exist subsequently and that its all by God's leave.

So in a sense, just as folks in Tecumseh's era or the men with Che saw their struggle as quintessential folks today who are emotionally invested in this conflict view it as the be all end all... but I think thats a bit arrogant as only God knows when and how the tapestry of history will terminate.

In Sikander's time and in Genghis's time and in the British era if you look at the writings of the historians that describe the events from that era, they sound very similar to how our own historians and intellectuals are talking right now.

In the end, Hamid Karzai will go to his God as will Mullah Omar and each will have to justify their own roles they played and the decisions they made. Will have it all been for vanity? The Greater Good? A Shrouding of the former in the latter?

I have no emotional instability nor do I have much angst as I believe God will do what he wills.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Sarwar Danish is the (MOHE)Minister of Higher Education. he is a hazara and his nomination has not been approved by the wolesi jirga but has been in that position since 2010. Almost all scholarships and benifits go to the hazara people. when they are telling pashtuns to go to mullah omar, well thats exactly what they are doing.

Very good point... and this is what I mean. We need Pashtuns versed in history like yourself to be there and be ready to answer these claims and give the outsiders a context. Up to now, Pashtuns are demonized as the constant aggressor.

How a people whose homeland has been invaded constantly even in modern memory since the 1600s time after time are called aggressors baffles me.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Very good point... and this is what I mean. We need Pashtuns versed in history like yourself to be there and be ready to answer these claims and give the outsiders a context. Up to now, Pashtuns are demonized as the constant aggressor.

How a people whose homeland has been invaded constantly even in modern memory since the 1600s time after time are called aggressors baffles me.

You are very right to have earlier pointed out the "mission" some have in distorting facts and presenting a narrative almost not backed up by facts at all.

On one hand, they speak of "Pakistani interference" and link it to the Afghan insurgency, but on the other hand are perfectly OK with Pakistan supplying NATO/Karzai with lethal supply routes. This indicates that they prefer a certain kind of approved Pakistani interference, and then impose a false label on an Afghan insurgency that was expected from the start.

In doing so, they refuse to accept that they are being dishonest, and then when confronted about it, just remain silent.

Gone is the lie about "Pakistan interference."

Why do these same people oppose Imran Khan and make up all stories about him? Precisely, because he intends to end Pakistan support for the NATO war, and they know very well that when that happens, their war is over.


So they are OK with Pakistani supply routes supplying bullets and such to NATO/Karzai regime. This is why they say Imran is an evil man.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

That's also what you appear to be doing; youre selecting certain pieces of information to promote a narrative.

the difference is .....we know NATO are invaders so what else can be said? The Taliban claim to be our liberators so why are they accepting Pakistani interference when they know Pakistan assists NATO?

The argument that people are ok with Karzai taking NATO supplies via Pakistan but not the Taliban is also a narrative; it's what's called a "Meta-Narrative" ; It's well established most people oppose NATO and believe NATO is invading Afghanistan; but this narrative has to assume that people support the NATO inncentive to be correct. It is only by creating this false narrative that this argument can stand; which only shows it's internal fallacy.

[Admin Khan]

That's also what you appear to be doing; youre selecting certain pieces of information to promote a narrative.

the difference is .....we know NATO are invaders so what else can be said? The Taliban claim to be our liberators so why are they accepting Pakistani interference when they know Pakistan assists NATO?

The argument that people are ok with Karzai taking NATO supplies via Pakistan but not the Taliban is also a narrative; it's what's called a "Meta-Narrative" ; It's well established most people oppose NATO and believe NATO is invading Afghanistan; but this narrative has to assume that people support the NATO inncentive to be correct. It is only by creating this false narrative that this argument can stand; which only shows it's internal fallacy.

Most of the Taliban leadership has been wiped. Most of the people fighting NATO right now, are relatives of those who have lost loved ones. Those relatives, parents, or brothers, will even take funds from Israel, provided that their badal is accomplished. Pakistan, being an international headache, has been taking advantage of this fact and so it covertly funds all sort of people for it's 'strategic depth' purposes. LSOE had a pretty good report that exposed the hypocrisy of the Pakistani government, not that it was surprising or alarming anyways. Expect Iran to also step up it's false-flag operations. Iran can also be an annoying little brat, if need be.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Most of the Taliban leadership has been wiped. Most of the people fighting NATO right now, are relatives of those who have lost loved ones. Those relatives, parents, or brothers, will even take funds from Israel, provided that their badal is accomplished. Pakistan, being an international headache, has been taking advantage of this fact and so it covertly funds all sort of people for it's 'strategic depth' purposes. LSOE had a pretty good report that exposed the hypocrisy of the Pakistani government, not that it was surprising or alarming anyways. Expect Iran to also step up it's false-flag operations. Iran can also be an annoying little brat, if need be.

The Lt. Davis report, one of the most classified reports details a different picture then the one say the usual media is fed

"I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base. "

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

"I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.
From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency."

"Credibility Gap
I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.
A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”




This addresses most of what you said regarding the conflict between NATO and the Afghan insurgency.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Most of the Taliban leadership has been wiped. Most of the people fighting NATO right now, are relatives of those who have lost loved ones. Those relatives, parents, or brothers, will even take funds from Israel, provided that their badal is accomplished. Pakistan, being an international headache, has been taking advantage of this fact and so it covertly funds all sort of people for it's 'strategic depth' purposes. LSOE had a pretty good report that exposed the hypocrisy of the Pakistani government, not that it was surprising or alarming anyways. Expect Iran to also step up it's false-flag operations. Iran can also be an annoying little brat, if need be.

Do Pakistan supply lines to NATO/ANA and Iran's propping up of the Kabul regime as an example of their interference in the affairs of Afghanistan?

Pakistan is the only nation that provides lethal supplies to NATO/ANA.

Russia and Uzbekistan, the Northern Distribution Network, only provide non-lethal supplies.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Most of the Taliban leadership has been wiped. Most of the people fighting NATO right now, are relatives of those who have lost loved ones. Those relatives, parents, or brothers, will even take funds from Israel, provided that their badal is accomplished. Pakistan, being an international headache, has been taking advantage of this fact and so it covertly funds all sort of people for it's 'strategic depth' purposes. LSOE had a pretty good report that exposed the hypocrisy of the Pakistani government, not that it was surprising or alarming anyways. Expect Iran to also step up it's false-flag operations. Iran can also be an annoying little brat, if need be.

where do you get this information about the Quetta shura from?

[Shah-i-Kot]

It is certainly the case that the Afghan insurgency is no monolithic group- there are two main groups which would be Taliban and the HIG, but most of the people are just regular villagers- this has always been the case. No insurgency would exist if it was not- villagers who would as readily have joined some group called the Afghan Communist Resistance with Soldat type philosophy minus the supporting of occupation.


However, to assume that the only people fighting are villagers who have lost their loved ones makes no sense at all and ignores the historical relevance that Afghans do not tolerate foreign occupation, whether they lost relatives or not.

In general, the Afghan insurgency on a whole is made up of regular people who do not want occupation.

History books will again say how Pashtun villagers brought about the collapse of the West.

No one in the world tolerates occupation, and therefore the barrier to peace is the occupation, not whether some regional powers try to see the Afghan insurgency for their own interests WHICH by the way is an unproven claim.

It is a fact that Pakistan supplies NATO/Karzai with lethal supplies, the only nation to do so- an undisputed fact.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Most of the Taliban leadership has been wiped. Most of the people fighting NATO right now, are relatives of those who have lost loved ones. Those relatives, parents, or brothers, will even take funds from Israel, provided that their badal is accomplished. Pakistan, being an international headache, has been taking advantage of this fact and so it covertly funds all sort of people for it's 'strategic depth' purposes. LSOE had a pretty good report that exposed the hypocrisy of the Pakistani government, not that it was surprising or alarming anyways. Expect Iran to also step up it's false-flag operations. Iran can also be an annoying little brat, if need be.

Admin Khan,

I would not disregard the current Afghan insurgency as belonging to some disgruntled people who lost their loved ones only.

While it may be the case and would be reasons for a person to join the Afghan insurgency, the overall principle is general opposition to the NATO occupation.

Pakistan has been supporting the NATO war/Karzai regime- it is the only country that permits the supplies of lethal weapons to NATO. Russia and Uzbekistan do not permit lethal supplies- they only supply non-lethal aid.

Why not say that Pakistan is interfering in Afghanistan by supplying NATO with lethal aid?

This is undisputed whereas the other claim is not only not verified- it also is irrelevant since an Afghan insurgency exists whether or not it serves outside interests. Simply put, outside interests do not make the Afghan insurgency any less outside of Afghanistan.

Outside interests are simply irrelevant for any insurgency. Pakistan supports NATO/Karzai, and this is a fact.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

hahhaa I like how UnknownPrince is trying to tell Admin Khan HOW to think and how to see the situation. as if Admin Khan doesn't have a mind of his own and needs to be repetitiously indoctrinated by UnknownPrince's narrative