"Nato-led alliance is "getting pretty close" to losing control of Afghanistan"

[littlebabyjesus]

Erm it quite clearly does have the power to do that

But I notice you dodged my question...

Pressure through the UN. International police cooperation. Diplomatic pressure. Working for a wider justice in the Middle East so that neighbouring 'moderate' Muslim countries start isolating Afghanistan. Supporting democracy in Pakistan. Giving aid to Pakistan so that the north can be developed. Providing teachers and doctors to poor areas in the Middle East.

Thus starving Al Qaida of support, reducing their legitimacy and the chance that they will persuade others to die in their cause.

All non-military solutions.

No dodge.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that's just not true is it? The Taliban formed in opposition to the Mujahadeen...

It was more of a splinter group. The term Mujahadeen is a general term for all those who fought the Soviets. There were many factions, including those who went on to become the Taliban and Al Qaida. The point stands.

 

[CyberRose]

Pressure through the UN. International police cooperation. Diplomatic pressure. Working for a wider justice in the Middle East so that neighbouring 'moderate' Muslim countries start isolating Afghanistan. Supporting democracy in Pakistan. Giving aid to Pakistan so that the north can be developed. Providing teachers and doctors to poor areas in the Middle East.

Thus starving Al Qaida of support, reducing their legitimacy and the chance that they will persuade others to die in their cause.

All non-military solutions.

No dodge.

Yea done wonders for Israel all those resolutions they ignore innit?

But you're dodging the question again - you said:

The 9/11 attacks could have been treated as criminal acts, not acts of war, and dealt with by international civil authorities.

You don't "deal" with criminal acts by sending teachers or doctors to a country do you? You arrest the suspects and try them for the crime. So tell me, who's gonna do that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You don't "deal" with criminal acts by sending teachers or doctors to a country do you? You arrest the suspects and try them for the crime. So tell me, who's gonna do that?

You seem to think that there is an easy solution here.

You find out who was responsible and put out an international order for their arrest. If the Taliban refuse to hand them over, then you put pressure on and try to build that pressure throughout the region by demonstrating the justice of your request to others. By making friends in the region.

Maybe you get them, maybe you don't. Ultimately, the injustice of the guilty possibly remaining unpunished is a price worth paying to avoid war.

How many Al Qaida leaders have NATO captured? Of those captured, how many have been tried for any crime?

 

[CyberRose]

You seem to think that there is an easy solution here.

Not "easy" but "obvious"

You find out who was responsible and put out an international order for their arrest. If the Taliban refuse to hand them over, then you put pressure on and try to build that pressure throughout the region by demonstrating the justice of your request to others. By making friends in the region.

And that's gonna work is it? A whole government regime will hand themselves over without a fight? Plus a whole terrorist group? Just gonna give themselves up and go to jail? I think you're the one guilty of thinking there's an "easy solution"

Maybe you get them, maybe you don't

Great! That's me convinced!

Ultimately, the injustice of the guilty possibly remaining unpunished is a price worth paying to avoid war.

Not when the "guilty" carry on planning and carrying out attacks against other countries resulting in 1000s of deaths, what a rediculous thing to say

How many Al Qaida leaders have NATO captured? Of those captured, how many have been tried for any crime?

No idea. And it's not relevant to my point. You're the one saying they should be treated as criminals. I said the situation warrented a military invasion. That the Taliban/al-Qaida did not just give themselves up as you would like them to detracts from your opinion that a criminal case might succeed - it probably wouldn't have...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not when the "guilty" carry on planning and carrying out attacks against other countries resulting in 1000s of deaths, what a rediculous thing to say

See what I said about isolating Al Qaida and winning over Arab populations who would support them.

Do you know something I don't about them carrying out attacks against other countries resulting in 1000s of deaths. Would there have been more or fewer attacks around the world if NATO had not invaded Afghanistan? The answer isn't obvious.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Cyber Rose - its unwinnable. It doesn;t matter wether you think its justified or not. Its a mountainous region where large numbers of well armed natives are very very willinng to fight foreign troops coming into their country. The USSR poured thousands and thousands of troops and lots and lots of heavy duty hardware into afghansitan in order to 'pacify' it and failed. NATO looks like its going the same way.

Its not a national state and never has been- its a collection of tribal fiefdoms some of whom are happy to work with the Kabul government at the moment and some (including the taliban) are not. Democracy and universal respect for human rights and basic healthcare and education would be very nice but it is not going to happen anytime soon and cant be imposed by american air strikes and prince harry's armoured car.

Like Iraq - there is no 'solution' only damage limitation.

 

[CyberRose]

See what I said about isolating Al Qaida and winning over Arab populations who would support them.

That's not a solution tho is it? I doubt you seriously believe yourself that would actually work. Besides, I'm pretty sure that al-Qaida was fairly isolated in the first place, as was the Taliban. And they managed to plan and carry out 9/11 just fine. The problem was we knew what they were capable of and we knew they were prepared to carry out their plans. They needed to be stopped instantly and fannying about trying to win over Arab populations (Afghanistan isn't even in Arabia for a start) so that people stop joining them isn't going to end that immediate threat

Do you know something I don't about them carrying out attacks against other countries resulting in 1000s of deaths. Would there have been more or fewer attacks around the world if NATO had not invaded Afghanistan? The answer isn't obvious.

I know they were capable of pulling off one of the worst terrorist attacks in history, whether they were responsible for any of the subsequent attacks "linked to al-Qaida" I have serious doubts over. Al-Qaida internationally is an ideology rather than a network of terrorist cells, all following a single command. However, I am NOT talking about "affiliates" I am talking about the actual group that planned and carried out 9/11 - they were in Afghanistan and were being sheltered by the Taliban, it is perfectly reasonable to assume they are willing and capable of carrying out further similar attacks and it is also perfectly reasonable for those that fear they are targets to act to eliminate that threat

 

[CyberRose]

Cyber Rose - its unwinnable. It doesn;t matter wether you think its justified or not. Its a mountainous region where large numbers of well armed natives are very very willinng to fight foreign troops coming into their country. The USSR poured thousands and thousands of troops and lots and lots of heavy duty hardware into afghansitan in order to 'pacify' it and failed. NATO looks like its going the same way.

Its not a national state and never has been- its a collection of tribal fiefdoms some of whom are happy to work with the Kabul government at the moment and some (including the taliban) are not. Democracy and universal respect for human rights and basic healthcare and education would be very nice but it is not going to happen anytime soon and cant be imposed by american air strikes and prince harry's armoured car.

Like Iraq - there is no 'solution' only damage limitation.

My point throughout this thread has been about addressing the immediate threat posed by whoever carried out 9/11. That threat needed eliminating first and foremost. And the action taken by NATO had international support (unlike Iraq) and imo it wasn't seen in the Muslim world as an attack on Islam but a natual reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Of course they need to have a plan for post-Taliban Afghanistan but are the problems in Afghanistan due to ordinary Afghans or the remnants of the Taliban that keep coming back? If ordinary Afghans we have a problem, but I'm not sure that is the case for the most part in Afghanistan. We know for a fact that the reemergence of the Taliban is a problem and part of the reason there is no peace there, and the reason they keep coming back is because there are not enough NATO forces there...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My point throughout this thread has been about addressing the immediate threat posed by whoever carried out 9/11. That threat needed eliminating first and foremost. And the action taken by NATO had international support (unlike Iraq) and imo it wasn't seen in the Muslim world as an attack on Islam but a natual reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Of course they need to have a plan for post-Taliban Afghanistan but are the problems in Afghanistan due to ordinary Afghans or the remnants of the Taliban that keep coming back? If ordinary Afghans we have a problem, but I'm not sure that is the case for the most part in Afghanistan. We know for a fact that the reemergence of the Taliban is a problem and part of the reason there is no peace there, and the reason they keep coming back is because there are not enough NATO forces there...

More troops. Like Iraq, you mean. Yep that'll work.

The harder you attack, the harder will be the response.

 

[CyberRose]

More troops. Like Iraq, you mean. Yep that'll work.

The harder you attack, the harder will be the response.

Yea well NATO launched an attack on Serbia in 1999 and they're on their way to joining the EU now so what does that tell you?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yea well NATO launched an attack on Serbia in 1999 and they're on their way to joining the EU now so what does that tell you?

France and Germany would veto any application from Afghanistan to join the EU, so unfortunately it's a non-starter.

 

[CyberRose]

France and Germany would veto any application from Afghanistan to join the EU, so unfortunately it's a non-starter.

It's a non-starter because it's a bloody stupid and irrelevant point! Just as you trying to say the situation in Iraq is exactly the same as the situation in Afghanistan is completely irrelevant...

 

[Spion]

Yea well NATO launched an attack on Serbia in 1999 and they're on their way to joining the EU now so what does that tell you?

different countries. Saddam existed for a reason, which is also pretty much the same one as why Afgh was so fractured - a weakly developed capitalism which simply wasn't able to provide the support for a political and civil society such as we are used to, so power is cemented through family, tribe etc

I've no idea of the socio-economic structure of Serbia but you can guarantee it'll be a little different to Afghanistan

 

[CyberRose]

different countries. Saddam existed for a reason, which is also pretty much the same one as why Afgh was so fractured - a weakly developed capitalism which simply wasn't able to provide the support for a political and civil society such as we are used to, so power is cemented through family, tribe etc

I've no idea of the socio-economic structure of Serbia but you can guarantee it'll be a little different to Afghanistan

Sorry. I'll have to explain. My comments above were to highlight the futility of comparing Iraq to Afghanistan. They are two countries and just as you would consider a comparison between Serbia and Afghanistan irrelevant, so would I consider comparisons between the situation in Afghanistan with the situation in Iraq...

 

[Spion]

just as you would consider a comparison between Serbia and Afghanistan irrelevant, so would I consider comparisons between the situation in Afghanistan with the situation in Iraq...

I wouldn't. I'd want to know what was similar and what was different in all cases.

Afghanistan is like Iraq without oil, IMO. Both have fundamentally weak economies and tribal social strutures, but Iraq is buoyed to some extent by oil wealth. Iraq combatted its weak socio-economic make-up with oil wealth and a strongman which lived off oil revenues and which won support using those revenues (plus a bit of terror). Afghanistan doesn't have this economic crutch, and has historically had a very weak state unless supported from outside. Therefore I think you'll be pouring troops and/or money in for a long time.

I don't know enough about Serbia however

 

[Fruitloop]

I saw an Afghan man interviewed, I parapharase but he basicallly said 'My great-great(etc) grandfather beat you in 1838–1842, my great grandfather beat you in 1880, my grandfather beat you in 1919, and I will beat you now.

I wonder how many Brits even know about the previous three? There's a quote that's relevant, something about not learning from the mistakes of history....

 

[CyberRose]

I wouldn't. I'd want to know what was similar and what was different in all cases.

Afghanistan is like Iraq without oil, IMO. Both have fundamentally weak economies and tribal social strutures, but Iraq is buoyed to some extent by oil wealth. Iraq combatted its weak socio-economic make-up with oil wealth and a strongman which lived off oil revenues and which won support using those revenues (plus a bit of terror). Afghanistan doesn't have this economic crutch, and has historically had a very weak state unless supported from outside. Therefore I think you'll be pouring troops and/or money in for a long time.

I don't know enough about Serbia however

My comments were in response to the claim that Afghans would react in exactly the same way to an increase in NATO troops as Iraqis would to an increase in Coalition troops. Do you think that's a fair assessment, if yes, why? Or, like me, do you think that the situation on the ground, and the different groups in Afghanistan are very different to the situation and group rivalaries in Iraq?

Isn't the Afghan "resistance" made up mainly of the Taliban?

 

[Fruitloop]

Who are 'the Taliban'? They are at least as amorphous as Al Quaeda'. Interesting to note that both are words not names the former meaning 'students' and the latter 'the base'.

The US government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,[5] who Pakistani officials believed was "their man".[6] Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK). Alarmed by his behavior Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar that "It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave".[7] According to a Newsweek article, in the late 1980s, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned of the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein"

 

[CyberRose]

Who are 'the Taliban'? They are at least as amorphous as Al Quaeda'. Interesting to note that both are words not names the former meaning 'students' and the latter 'the base'.

The Taliban are those who made up the Afghan regime prior to the 2001 war...

 

[Kaka Tim]

My point throughout this thread has been about addressing the immediate threat posed by whoever carried out 9/11. That threat needed eliminating first and foremost

.

Except that it was carried out by saudi nationals who had never actually been in afganistan. Bin Laden was in afghanistan - and it probably wasn't him who planned the attack. However the west made him into the evil bogeyman behind it all and he was more than happy to live up to his billing - using his enhanced media profile to spread his fundie propoganda. The taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 itself. Bin laden is still at large in pakistan and the US seems less than bohtered about catching him. meanwhile the threat from radical islamist groups is now much greater than prior to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistn.

And the action taken by NATO had international support (unlike Iraq) and imo it wasn't seen in the Muslim world as an attack on Islam but a natual reaction to the 9/11 attacks.

A significent number of muslims saw it as exactly that. And the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the torture techniques at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghrib and the continued support for Israels occupation of palastine has only streghtnened the asrgument of the 'Islam vs the west' posse.

Of course they need to have a plan for post-Taliban Afghanistan but are the problems in Afghanistan due to ordinary Afghans or the remnants of the Taliban that keep coming back? If ordinary Afghans we have a problem, but I'm not sure that is the case for the most part in Afghanistan. We know for a fact that the reemergence of the Taliban is a problem and part of the reason there is no peace there, and the reason they keep coming back is because there are not enough NATO forces there

The Taliban are afghans. And not everyone fighting NATO are taliban . you've got various tribal groups some with varying degress of hostility to NATO and the Kabul regime. The reason the taliban keep coming back is that they are a powerful group amongst the pushton tribes - they never went away in the first place.

More troops? The USSR tried that one.

FFS - look a little bit beyond the self serving bullshit the USuk governments are peddling.

 

[Spion]

My comments were in response to the claim that Afghans would react in exactly the same way to an increase in NATO troops as Iraqis would to an increase in Coalition troops. Do you think that's a fair assessment, if yes, why? Or, like me, do you think that the situation on the ground, and the different groups in Afghanistan are very different to the situation and group rivalaries in Iraq?

Isn't the Afghan "resistance" made up mainly of the Taliban?

I do declare no detailed knowledge of Afgh, but what I think is similar in I and A is that there is a weak indigenous govt/state and this is propped up by outside forces. At the same time, being riven by tribal loyalties, this state has to constantly forge alliances throughout the country to be able to rule. It can't always do this, and at the same time all the players know the foreigners won't stay forever so while there may be calm at times there is a also constant jockeying for position.

Karzai only rules in Kabul, and there are far more forces than just the Taliban outside Kabul so i suspect the Taliban are a minority and only present in certain parts of the country

 

[CyberRose]

Except that it was carried out by saudi nationals who had never actually been in afganistan. Bin Laden was in afghanistan - and it probably wasn't him who planned the attack.

OBL did not plan the attack himself but he assisted and the man who did organise the attack was a close associate of bin Laden in Afghanistan. Altho I probably haven't done so, I tend to steer away from using "al-Qaida" or "bin Laden" in my arguments because as you rightly point out, it's perhaps not exactly accurate to do so. Instead, I tend to use phrases like "groups operating in Afghanistan" and by doing so, I don't leave myself open to counter arguments like the one you are making now. Those that planned 9/11 did so from Afghanistan, that is true. It's also untrue for you to say that all the hijackers had never been to Afghanistan - a lot of them had been in Afghanistan at training camps. So whoever you wanna blame for 9/11, I don't care, all I care is that whoever you find to blame will have had serious links to the country and that needed dealing with immediately

However the west made him into the evil bogeyman behind it all and he was more than happy to live up to his billing - using his enhanced media profile to spread his fundie propoganda. The taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 itself. Bin laden is still at large in pakistan and the US seems less than bohtered about catching him. meanwhile the threat from radical islamist groups is now much greater than prior to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistn.

Agree

A significent number of muslims saw it as exactly that

But nowhere near as much as did after Iraq...

And the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the torture techniques at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghrib and the continued support for Israels occupation of palastine has only streghtnened the asrgument of the 'Islam vs the west' posse

Other than Israel, the rest came after the initial invasion and as such, should be considered mutually exclusive when considering attitudes to an event that took place before that time

The Taliban are afghans. And not everyone fighting NATO are taliban . you've got various tribal groups some with varying degress of hostility to NATO and the Kabul regime. The reason the taliban keep coming back is that they are a powerful group amongst the pushton tribes - they never went away in the first place.

But my question is how much popular support do the Taliban enjoy in Afghanistan? Do they enjoy a large amount of support amongst the general population? Do they have allies elsewhere that join in their attacks on NATO forces, or are they limited to those loyal to the old regime?

More troops? The USSR tried that one.

Is this the same situation as the USSR tho?

FFS - look a little bit beyond the self serving bullshit the USuk governments are peddling.

Well on that note, maybe you could develop some of your own opinions instead of parroting the "bullshit" fed to you by the anti-war coalition?

 

[CyberRose]

I do declare no detailed knowledge of Afgh, but what I think is similar in I and A is that there is a weak indigenous govt/state and this is propped up by outside forces. At the same time, being riven by tribal loyalties, this state has to constantly forge alliances throughout the country to be able to rule. It can't always do this, and at the same time all the players know the foreigners won't stay forever so while there may be calm at times there is a also constant jockeying for position.

Don't get me wrong, you'll be able to find similarities between any two sets of countries, especially two where there are apparantly more obvious similarities such as being occupied by America. However, my problem with what has been said is the assertion that the Afghan people will react exactly the same as Iraqi people - I don't think this is true because as far as I'm aware, there aren't the same amount of various groups all opposed to Coalition forces in Afghanistan as there are in Iraq. So I don't think you can say that more troops in Afghanistan will have the same effect on the population as sending more troops to Iraq

Karzai only rules in Kabul, and there are far more forces than just the Taliban outside Kabul so i suspect the Taliban are a minority and only present in certain parts of the country

Of course there are "more forces", but are these forces opposed to NATO and actively fighting against them? Or are you referring to the various Northern Alliance tribes or the drug barrons who are happy as long as NATO leaves them alone? Also, I hear about the Taliban reemerging and winning territory, not other groups, so if you're right about their size, geography, then that would, imo, add weight to the argument to bolster the NATO forces

 

[Spion]

that would, imo, add weight to the argument to bolster the NATO forces

I don't understand your keenness to make Afghanistan a long-term military protectorate

 

[CyberRose]

I don't understand your keenness to make Afghanistan a long-term military protectorate

If you want me to respond sensibly, I suggest you stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I've said right now...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you want me to respond sensibly, I suggest you stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I've said right now...

Have you ever considered that the Afghans might, long-term, be best served by being left alone to sort out their own affairs?

 

[CyberRose]

Have you ever considered that the Afghans might, long-term, be best served by being left alone to sort out their own affairs?

But that's not my argument at all is it? I've not said we should've invaded Afghanistan so we can liberate the population from a tyranical regime, I said we should've invaded Afghanistan for our own security concerns. so your question is irrelevant...

 

[Dhimmi]

Iraq isn't Afghanistan though is it? The operations on both sides are very different. CyberRose is spot on as I see it.

 

[Spion]

If you want me to respond sensibly, I suggest you stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I've said right now...

Don't be so touchy. I don't see the problem with those words. OK - Why do you want to put more troops into a state that has little economic or political cohesiveness and which therefore would require western military stiffening for quite some time to come?