Obama sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan but has not yet spoken to Karzai

[_float_]

What do the Afghan people think?

"ANA needs the support of foreign troops and cannot operate by itself"

Strongly agree 32%
Agree somewhat 37%
Disagree somewhat 18%
Strongly disagree 9%

Source: Afghanistan in 2008: A Survey of the Afghan People

This doesn't back up fantasy claims about the Taliban being plucky independence fighters conducting a popular people's war against evil imperialists.

There are tons of other figures in that report, if anyone wants to base their views on what *Afghans* want rather than some fantasy geo-political ideology wankfest.

 

[Detroit City]

If it were that simple then there should be more anti-Taliban recruits than pro-Taliban recruits, since the Taliban et al are killing more civilians:

better to be killed by your own people then some clowns driving hummers who live on the other side of the world, innit??

 

[_float_]

There is no good way of being killed.

 

[Detroit City]

There is no good way of being killed.

indeed, but some methods of death are more "palatable" than others...

 

[_float_]

In that case:

I'd rather be killed accidentally by forces fighting for my freedom than deliberately by neo-fascists fighting against my freedom, regardless of which side was more "local".

Go and have a quick look at that "Afghanistan in 2008: A Survey of the Afghan People"...

...The Afghan National Army have a high level of support amongst the people. The insurgents do not.

Your "clowns driving hummers who live on the other side of the world" are supporting the ANA, and the Afghan population agress that this is currently necessary (figures quoted above).

Maybe you fetishise nationalism and xenophobia so much that you'd rather live enslaved by your 'own' locals than liberated by foreigners, but this isn't about you (or me) - its about Afghanistan and the people there.

 

[Detroit City]

Maybe you fetishise nationalism and xenophobia so much that you'd rather live enslaved by your 'own' locals than liberated by foreigners, but this isn't about you (or me) - its about Afghanistan and the people there.

those "coalition" forces in Afghanistan (most of which are American, mind you) are not there to "liberate" the Afghani people. They are there to protect teh interests of their own nations, not Afghanistan.

Wake up and smell teh coffee man.

 

[dylanredefined]

By making Afganistian a proper country and not a failed state able to host terrorist trainng camps.

 

[camouflage]

And the Russians and us Brits couldn't even do it the second time round either. This war is already this American generations Vietnam, a conflict against an irregular guerilla force using conventional military tactics in inhospitable terrain with all the supply and logistical problems that goes with it. Not to mention rapidly decreasing support from the surrounding Central Asian nations and an increasingly unstable Pakistan on the border made worse by American UAV air strikes. Couldn't be any much more of a perfect storm.

Indeed, with Pakistan bearing elements of this wars Laos/Cambodia.

in my opinion to understand Americas behaviour in the region, you have to bear in mind that it is a supremacist/imperialist state with a ruling culture that feeds on military conflict.

Anyone elected President of the place will be a Killer President. I know I sound like an ideological America-hater, but if you think Obama will be interested in making peace in Afganistan you really have misunderstood not just him but his country. Peace is not the point.

 

[butchersapron]

What do the Afghan people think?

"ANA needs the support of foreign troops and cannot operate by itself"

Strongly agree 32%
Agree somewhat 37%
Disagree somewhat 18%
Strongly disagree 9%

Source: Afghanistan in 2008: A Survey of the Afghan People

This doesn't back up fantasy claims about the Taliban being plucky independence fighters conducting a popular people's war against evil imperialists.

There are tons of other figures in that report, if anyone wants to base their views on what *Afghans* want rather than some fantasy geo-political ideology wankfest.

Not sure who you're aiming that rant at as i don't recall anyone trying to depict the taliban in the manner you suggest, but the The Asia Foundation is a neoliberal tool of the occupying powers so it's hardly suprising that they somehow manage to come up with results that fit their own interests - in fact passing off these interests as that of the Afghan people as a whole is exactly the trick they hoped people would fall for.

Looking at the actual events on the ground suggests that large numbers of people are prepared to ally with the Taliban on a temp (and territorially limited) basis to remove the occupying powers from their immediate areas.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Looking at the actual events on the ground suggests that large numbers of people are prepared to ally with the Taliban on a temp (and territorially limited) basis to remove the occupying powers from their immediate areas.

You think so ? From what I can make out tribal leaders will switch sides based on who they think is winning at the time but I would imagine that for most of them its wishing a curse on the houses of both sides.

For me the key to defeating the Taleban is by hearts and minds ( and probably a lot of cash) and getting the local clans to turn on them which I understand is happening in the border region more and more, hence the change of tactics in terms of resorting to suicide bombings and the like.

 

[EddyBlack]

A report this morning.

'US strike' kills 25 in Pakistan

At least 25 people have been killed in a suspected US missile attack in north-west Pakistan, officials say.

The missile strike hit a house in the South Waziristan area, near the Afghan border, which officials said was used as a hide-out for Taleban militants.

The Taleban confirmed 25 militants were killed in the attack. The US has not confirmed it launched the strike.

The US has carried out more than 20 air strikes from drones in north-western Pakistan in recent months.

Islamabad has long argued that such attacks complicate its own fight against insurgents, and says the strikes violate its sovereignty.

Pakistani leaders had expressed hope that the new US administration of Barack Obama would halt the controversial manoeuvres.

But earlier this week Mr Obama said there was no doubt militants were operating in safe havens in Pakistan's tribal belt and that the US would make sure Pakistan was a strong ally in fighting that threat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7889950.stm

 

[Brainaddict]

What do the Afghan people think?

"ANA needs the support of foreign troops and cannot operate by itself"

Strongly agree 32%
Agree somewhat 37%
Disagree somewhat 18%
Strongly disagree 9%

Source: Afghanistan in 2008: A Survey of the Afghan People

This doesn't back up fantasy claims about the Taliban being plucky independence fighters conducting a popular people's war against evil imperialists.

There are tons of other figures in that report, if anyone wants to base their views on what *Afghans* want rather than some fantasy geo-political ideology wankfest.

Thanks, that's an interesting document, even if it is from a tool of the neoliberal powers

Just been looking at the importance to people of local power structures - often of a less formal variety. It reveals a fundamental problem with statebuilding in afghanistan I think. The state is simply not relevant to people - and never has been I think. It could be made more relevant to people if it did more, but then, at a time when a lot of people in the West are interested in decentralising power, it seems strange to be pushing afghanistan to centralise. Maybe it's helpful temporarily, but I dunno, seems to me that the idea of a centralised state structure is possibly doing as much harm as good at the moment.

This is, obviously, stuff that the Western powers can't even bring themselves to think about. It *must* be a centralised state or it's a failed state

As for people allying with the Taliban, I suspect they do it largely for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological (either religious or nationalist). For starters, it's a country in which allying yourself with whoever has the most guns in the area is a very judicious move. And secondly, in economically deprived areas (i.e. most of the country) joining some kind of armed group can be the only way to earn money.

I do not think people are chiefly concerned with removing the 'occupying powers' - for starters that assumes that the warlords/taliban are any less occupying powers than Nato et al. In a country where people define themselves more by region/ethnic group than by nationality, that doesn't necessarily follow.

I think people are mostly concerned with getting bread on the table and staying alive. If they're caught between a rock and a hard place, they'll choose the side that offers most bread. It's a shit choice to have to make, and the fact that people still have to make it means that, whatever the hell the Western powers thought they were doing, they've failed badly.

 

[butchersapron]

That practical stuff, that practical motivation is what i meant by removing the occupiers and it's partly why this isn't going to 'settle down' anytime soon - the basic pattern has been the same since 1979. Someone tries to take over and is fought by another group who thern takes over and the population side with those who appear to bring stability, when that fails another force develops and the population turns to them. It's why the taliban were first welcomed and why there was little popular resistance when they were removed. (painting with a very broad brush here of course) It's not often i recommend an SWP text but this one by Jon Neale is a really useful historical introduction:

Afghanistan: the case against the “good war”

 

[TomUS]

For me the key to defeating the Taleban is by hearts and minds ( and probably a lot of cash) and getting the local clans to turn on them which I understand is happening in the border region more and more, hence the change of tactics in terms of resorting to suicide bombings and the like.

Yep, the hearts & minds thing is key. But 30,000 more US troops is necessary I think. It will allow more ground ops & fewer civilian killing air strikes but will increase US casualties. Be nice if coninental European countries would send more troops & actually do some fighting. They seem to want to be there but not fight much there.

I think "we" ought to try & inflict severe damage on the Taliban in Afghan & Pakistan. Pakistan's tricky though.

I don't think Obama & co. are in it for imperialism or oil & gas pipelines. We know what kind of state the Taliban want in Afghan & Pakistan. They already demonstrated it.

And as far as the Afghan "insurgency", a sizable part of the Taliban are not indigenous, they're invaders like the western armies. They've blown up 150 schools (mostly girls ones) in Pakistan & regularly assinate teachers, doctors etc in Afghan. They recently murdered & dumped 27 bodies in the town center of Swat, Pac for living "unislamisc lives." They get kicks out of spraying acid in the faces of girls trying to go to school. I'd say the Afghans need to be protected from them for the sake of the Afghans & much of the world.

So is this all western propaganda & the Taliban are glorious freedom fighters?.....don't think so.

 

[camouflage]

Yep, the hearts & minds thing is key. But 30,000 more US troops is necessary I think. It will allow more ground ops & fewer civilian killing air strikes but will increase US casualties. Be nice if coninental European countries would send more troops & actually do some fighting. They seem to want to be there but not fight much there.

I think "we" ought to try & inflict severe damage on the Taliban in Afghan & Pakistan. Pakistan's tricky though.

I don't think Obama & co. are in it for imperialism or oil & gas pipelines. We know what kind of state the Taliban want in Afghan & Pakistan. They already demonstrated it.

And as far as the Afghan "insurgency", a sizable part of the Taliban are not indigenous, they're invaders like the western armies. They've blown up 150 schools (mostly girls ones) in Pakistan & regularly assinate teachers, doctors etc in Afghan. They recently murdered & dumped 27 bodies in the town center of Swat, Pac for living "unislamisc lives." They get kicks out of spraying acid in the faces of girls trying to go to school. I'd say the Afghans need to be protected from them for the sake of the Afghans & much of the world.

So is this all western propaganda & the Taliban are glorious freedom fighters?.....don't think so.

See, there ya go again. The Europeans (except the UK of course) seem more keen on diplomacy, talking with the 'Taliban' and working something out. The US just wants to use a bigger hammer and bash harder. I honestly don't think they know the meaning of peace. They just want obedience really, and can't understand that the more they bomb and insist on ramming their will home by force, the more resistance they generate. Soon every Afgan will be an enemy combatant, and the 'people of Afganistan' whose freedom they are fighting for will be the Western mercenaries and the corrupt officials eager to suck on that sweet yankee teet.

As with Iran, they seem totally happy to choose the way of war and confrontation over diplomacy, compromise and peace. If they gave a fuck about totalitarian theocracy, they'd not be so friendly with the Saudis. The problem for th US is that the Afgans are an uncooperative lot, and so are their clans-fellows across the border.

Why is that anyway?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Your assumptions need correcting, more like. Britain is involved in a war; I'm British; so I use an inclusive pronoun. I'd love not to have cause to use it, but there we go.

I stand uncorrected, but amused at the power of the almighty "we".

One of the more amusing thread derails in recent times on here...

 

[Brainaddict]

That practical stuff, that practical motivation is what i meant by removing the occupiers and it's partly why this isn't going to 'settle down' anytime soon - the basic pattern has been the same since 1979. Someone tries to take over and is fought by another group who thern takes over and the population side with those who appear to bring stability, when that fails another force develops and the population turns to them. It's why the taliban were first welcomed and why there was little popular resistance when they were removed. (painting with a very broad brush here of course) It's not often i recommend an SWP text but this one by Jon Neale is a really useful historical introduction:

Afghanistan: the case against the “good war”

Too many generalisations in there for my liking - phrases like 'Now that ordinary Afghans have opted for resistance' are political rhetoric - he has no research to back that up.

Because of his class perspective he is also intent on downplaying the ethnic strife. Most other sources I've read agree that the reason the Taliban are stronger in the south and east is that they are Pashtun areas and the Pashtuns feel disempowered as a group by the new government. He offers no counterargument as to why the Taliban are stronger in those areas - in fact I think he totally fails to talk about the regional differences.

There's some interesting stuff in there though, and it's the first time I've heard of the alleged deal with the old Taliban to make them leave - he seems very confident about it though for something based on hearsay. If you think conspiracy theories are rife in rich countries you should hear what they're like in less educated/informed countries...

 

[Azrael]

One of the more amusing thread derails in recent times on here...

One of the more unexpected, certainly!

Glad this thread has got back OT now.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That practical stuff, that practical motivation is what i meant by removing the occupiers and it's partly why this isn't going to 'settle down' anytime soon - the basic pattern has been the same since 1979. Someone tries to take over and is fought by another group who thern takes over and the population side with those who appear to bring stability, when that fails another force develops and the population turns to them. It's why the taliban were first welcomed and why there was little popular resistance when they were removed. (painting with a very broad brush here of course) It's not often i recommend an SWP text but this one by Jon Neale is a really useful historical introduction:

Afghanistan: the case against the “good war”

Interesting article. Thanks.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Yep, the hearts & minds thing is key. But 30,000 more US troops is necessary I think. It will allow more ground ops & fewer civilian killing air strikes but will increase US casualties. Be nice if coninental European countries would send more troops & actually do some fighting. They seem to want to be there but not fight much there.

My cousin is Helmond at the moment with the Royal Marines and would agree with you 100% Apparently the locals can be quite helpful with providing intelligence, even more so now the Marines are there. He dispares of the US and even sections of our own armies policy of shoot first ask questions later. Since they replaced the paras they've started getting more positive results by moving into the villages.

The problem is suicide bombers, its really hard to build up a good relationship with the locals when you have to treat each one like they might go bang.

 

[_float_]

...then then blame the Taliban or something, which is the western name for the insurgency...

seem to suggest that there is a widespread popular 'liberation struggle'.

...The Asia Foundation is a neoliberal tool of the occupying powers

Very easy to make claims like this. How about you back it up? Presumably you can also show they falsified or manipulated their opinion polls in Afghanistan to produce figures they wanted?

Looking at the actual events on the ground suggests that large numbers of people are prepared to ally with the Taliban on a temp (and territorially limited) basis to remove the occupying powers from their immediate areas.

Which "events on the ground" are you referring to?
Afghanistan has a population of c.33 million. How many fighters do you think have joined the Taliban? How many have allied with them or criminal or other opportunistic reasons? How many are being paid out of drug money?

I can understand an analysis that suggests that NATO et al should get out or people being isolationist/antiwar on principle, but to try and bolster arguments by inventing some heroic 'liberation ideology' for the Taliban is pathetic.

 

[Detroit City]

escalation in Afghanistan is going to be total 100% disaster and will make the iraq debacle look like childs play...

 

[_float_]

Nice soundbite. How about some reasons?

If you have too few 'boots on the ground', you can clear areas but when you move on to the next area the previous one is reoccupid by the Taliban. The idea of more troops is to "clear and hold", rather than "clear and move on".

At first glance "more troops" might equal "more fighting" but in reality if you can actually secure areas permanently then the amount of fighting goes down, and the likelihood of being attacked there also goes down if you are stronger, rather than in isolated and weak pockets because of overstretch over large areas.

The Afghan National Army is improving all the time and has a high level of public respect and support (c.80-90%).

It is not too much to demand that the Afghan people should have the same chance as 90% of other people around the world - ie to live in a country with an army, police force, courts of law, schools, hospitals, roads, a fuctioning government chosen via elections and to be free from terrorist groups and drugs-armies taking their country over for their own purposes and ruling via terror and murder.

This is going to mean forces from the 40-odd participating countries remaining in Afghanistan for a decent amount of time to allow its own military and police to be trained up and established, for a stable political settlement to be achieved and for reconstruction to continue.

Having troops on the ground is not going to automatically lead to Afghanis achieving a political settlement, but it will prevent the Taliban or other warlords/factions from simply marching on Kabul and settling things at gunpoint.

 

[_float_]

To people bleating on about how much Afghanis hate American troops and love the Taliban:

Where is your evidence?

BBC poll results in full: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Nobody can "secure" an area. Afghanistan is vast. If you want to "secure" an area you have to make sure that the people living there will fight the people you want them to fight, and take orders from the people you want them to take orders from. And there seems to be an issue with that.

 

[_float_]

How would you rate the work of U.S. in Afghanistan:

Excellent 5%
Good 27%
Fair 36%
Poor 27%
No opinion 5%

Who would you rather have ruling Afghanistan today?

Current government 82%
Taliban 4%
Other 10%
No opinion 4%

Which of the following do you think poses the biggest danger in our country?

Taliban 58%
Drug traffickers 13%
Local commanders 7%
United States 8%
Current Afghan government 1%
Something else 10%
No opinion 3%

From today’s perspective, do you think it was very good, mostly good, mostly bad or very bad that U.S. military forces came into our country to bring down the Taliban government in 2001?

Very good 27%
Mostly good 42%
Mostly bad 12%
Very bad 12%
No opinion 7%

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of <U.S. military forces> in Afghanistan today?

Strongly support 12%
Somewhat support 51%
Somewhat oppose 21%
Strongly oppose 15%
No opinion 2%

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of <Fighters from the Taliban> in Afghanistan today?

Strongly support 2%
Somewhat support 6%
Somewhat oppose 20%
Strongly oppose 70%
No opinion 2%

(and lots more...)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And yet things are fucked, and getting worse, by the admission of everyone. Why not send the poll results around in Afghanistan?

 

[_float_]

Nobody can "secure" an area.

My point is that more troops allow a different approach and different tactics, not simply 'more fighting'. In fact it can lead to less fighting - because you don't keep 'taking - leaving - retaking' strategic points.

I agree that the long term solution rests with an Afghan political settlement and Afghan police and military forces that can protect the country with no outside help.

I'd argue that this is far more likely to happen via a continued NATO prescence rather than a wholesale withdrawal of forces, as is suggested by some people.

It seems that the Afghan people agree with this as well - see the BBC and Asian Foundation opinion polls quoted above.

 

[Detroit City]

Why not send the poll results around in Afghanistan?

indeed. and i question the results since two-thirds of Afghanis are functionally illiterate so how the fuck did THEY complete said poll?

 

[_float_]

Why not send the poll results around in Afghanistan?

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

The poll results have been made publically available so if the media in Afghanistan want to quote them I am sure they can do so.