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

[EddyBlack]

I dealt with why your bizzare THE POLLS SAY THIS!!! approach is meaningless and makes you look daft when you pick and chose in such a dishonest manner.

He has hung himself by attemting to use his polls to say there is no popular Afghan resistance. 25% support attacks against Nato according to his own poll!

Shift... shift... scramble... scramble... I too have run out of patience to be honest -floaty-

He hasn't got a clue. His other opinion is 'we need to bring peace'. How? 'Beat the fuckers into the ground until they beg for it'. Thats right he's a muppet.

 

[EddyBlack]

New survey out by the UN, incidentally - Death toll of civilians in Afghanistan up by 40%, UN reports. You know, if we're going to look at surveys.

Its a war of surveys at the moment.

55 per cent killed by insurgents, and 39 per cent by Western forces.

Nato forces killed 31 per cent more civilians than in 2007,

I don't know, support the escalation if you like Float, everyone can see that you are clueless with your 'kill them until they ask for peace on our terms' mentality.

 

[_float_]

New survey out by the UN, incidentally - Death toll of civilians in Afghanistan up by 40%, UN reports. You know, if we're going to look at surveys.

Indeed. I linked to that UN report four days ago, in post #60: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8754951&postcount=60

 

[butchersapron]

To make some bizzare point.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yuh, that was a bit of an interesting view on things.

 

[_float_]

I do try and read people's links and follow their arguments. I have to admit I havn't read your SWP link yet butchers...

...I'll go and read that now and see if it helps me come round to your way of thinking, which is "troops out", isn't it?

 

[_float_]

Not finished it yet, but so far it has been very interesting - the historical account since the early 1970s.

The first bit where I have stopped and thought 'hmm', during his analysis of why resistance was low between 2001 and 2004 but increased after that, was where he says:

"One of the great strengths of the Taliban has been that they do not engage in bomb attacks against Afghan civilians, and on the rare occasions when these happen the Taliban issue a public statement denying involvement."

and re. The Taliban

"They do not bomb civilians."

Then I look at the UN report cited above, where it says:

"It also cited partial figures saying that the Taliban and local warlords were responsible for 1,000 out of 1,800 civilian deaths up to the end of October, mainly due to suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices."

Not sure how to reconcile these two statements.

As well as the UN report, there is the Human Rights Watch report "The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan" (April 15, 2007) link:

"based on dozens of interviews with civilian victims of attacks and their families and a lengthy review of available documents and records. The report documents how, in violation of the laws of war, insurgent forces have repeatedly, directly targeted civilians for attack, and how even attacks directed at Afghan and international military forces have often been launched without due regard for civilian life."

(HRW have also done "Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes" (Sep 7, 2008) link)

 

[laptop]

As well as the UN report, there is the Human Rights Watch report "The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan" (April 15, 2007) link:

"based on dozens of interviews with civilian victims of attacks and their families and a lengthy review of available documents and records. The report documents how, in violation of the laws of war, insurgent forces have repeatedly, directly targeted civilians for attack, and how even attacks directed at Afghan and international military forces have often been launched without due regard for civilian life."

Free clue: there are many "insurgent groups" other than the Taleban.

Second free clue: any attempt to understand Afghanistan as if it were, say, a US election with one red side and one blue side is doomed to failure.

Think, rather, of clan loyalties, largely but probably not exclusively mapping into language-group loyalties, overlain with floating allegiances of clans to modern movements such as the Taleban... and the potential for clans dividing when those allegiances go wrong...

 

[_float_]

I've now finished reading the article. The "punchline" (imo) is this bit:

"The American military are beginning to face a stark choice. They can go for mass terror bombing of Afghan villages, but that would destroy Karzai’s government and lose them all their allies. They can attack Pakistan with worse consequences. They can hold on and hope something turns up, while increasing the kill level and wasting the lives of American and European soldiers. Or they can negotiate and leave ... The Taliban are willing to accept a coalition government once all foreign troops leave. Indeed it is now impossible to imagine peace unless they all leave. If any stay, some Afghans will fight them and the war will resume."

"A coalition government would not be a good solution .... [but] ... It would still be much better than the hell that is coming to Afghanistan if the Americans, the British and the rest try to hang on."

"...many on the left, and in the peace movement, in North America, Europe, India and Pakistan don’t want the Americans to actually leave. They want some kind of controlled settlement that excludes the Taliban. This is a fantasy. The Taliban have walked the walk and earned their place at the table..."

*******************
I understand the argument he is making and it is a reasonable one, but I disagree. My pov is 'less bombing, more aid, licensing of poppies, seek a political settlement - but still have NATO troops there in sufficient numbers that they can maintain security and prevent the Taliban getting more power.'

If another 30,000 US troops and additional troops from other ISFA/NATO countries are required then I support this.

I'll also copy Jonathan Neale by saying 'this isn't good but it is better than the alternative'.

The opinions of the Afghan population are important, which is why I referenced the two polls on this thread as evidence of what these opinions are, and I am open to looking at more and better evidence if people find it.

Anyway, I'd just like to say 'thank you' to butchers and EddyBlack for their links, neither of which I would have come across or read if they hadn't posted them on this thread and if we weren't having an argument about this. I hope I haven't insulted either of you personally with any of my posts, and I'd like to think that posting here isn't just a game of one-upmanship or arguing the toss/letting off steam, but actually gets people looking at stuff and thinking about things they might not have otherwise.