The Afghan people are winning - part 9

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
The Afghan people are winning - part 9

Continued from [url=here[/url]">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/afghan-people-ar....

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8171368.stm]Two more UK soldiers killed, bringing total to 191[/url]

Meanwhile, as the insurgency grows in strength, the British government makes a mockery of the upcoming phoney elections by trying to split the insurgents and build an unelected "coalition", promising power to those who want to lay down arms and establish "Islamic rule" in local and central government:

Quote:

[UK foreign secretary David Miliband] said a viable political solution, alongside the military offensive, was essential to securing Afghanistan's future.

As part of this, Mr Miliband said current insurgents should be reintegrated into society and, in some cases, given a role in local and central government.

In doing so, he said a distinction should be drawn between "hard-line ideologues" and Jihaddist terrorists who must be fought and defeated from those who could be "drawn into a political process". [...]

Denying the approach marked a change of strategy, he added: "That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan - separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally - and giving them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with the government." [...]

For the Lib Dems, former leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Nato's evident lack of confidence in Afghan President Hamid Karzail could be a major stumbling block to reconciliation efforts.

"President Karzai shows no inclination for the kind of engagement with the Taliban that David Miliband envisages," he said.

"If Britain and America want to promote dialogue they will have to do it by working round Karzai and presenting him with a fait accompli."

[url=Source.[/url]">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8169789.stm][=red]Sourc...

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

"If Britain and America want to promote dialogue they will have to do it by working round Karzai and presenting him with a fait accompli."

[url=Source.[/url]">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8169789.stm][=red]Sourc...

That's interesting because Karzai has stated and has in fact, entered negotiations with Taliban and other insurgent leaders on the issue of forming the next (national) government - with the knowledge and collusion of the U.S. and U.K. governments.

Unionist

Frmrsldr, I think Karzai and his foreign protectors are terrified of the growing insurgency and uncertain about the upcoming elections. Everyone is scrambling to: 1) try to divide and weaken the insurgents; and 2) build alliances with warlords and powerbrokers to stave off military and/or electoral defeat. The U.S. and UK will dump Karzai in two seconds flat if they can manage to build a coalition without him, and he knows it. That's why everyone is talking to everyone, though not necessarily at the same time. The only ones not at the table are the insurgents themselves, and I would invite you to provide some - any - evidence that there are or have been negotiations with "Taliban and other insurgent leaders".

 

Unionist

Well, maybe we're using different terminology. I said:

Quote:
Everyone is scrambling to ... build alliances with warlords and powerbrokers to stave off military and/or electoral defeat.

Your links (other than the RAWA one, which seems to be broken?) simply confirm that they're trying to talk to warlords like Hekmatyar, Zardad, and Fahim. But I'm talking about the insurgency - you know, the one that controls land and kills coalition troops.

Holbrooke meeting an Afghan-American businessman who lives in California and claims to be Hekmatyar's agent isn't what I meant by "insurgent leaders". The U.S. portrays Hekmatyar as a leader of the insurgency when it suits their purposes to try to ally with him. But I can't recall the last time I heard a report of Hekmatyar's forces engaging U.S.-NATO forces militarily, though maybe I'm mistaken.

 

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Frmrsldr,... I would invite you to provide some - any - evidence that there are or have been negotiations with "Taliban and other insurgent leaders".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-warlords-casting-a-shad...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KD10AK04.html

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/07/11/afghan-warlords-formerly-back...

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/27/britain-next-step-in-helmand-operatio...

"Afghan President Hamid Karzai has also made talks with Taliban a key part of his strategy if reelected."

 

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Well, maybe we're using different terminology. I said:

Quote:
Everyone is scrambling to ... build alliances with warlords and powerbrokers to stave off military and/or electoral defeat.

Your links (other than the RAWA one, which seems to be broken?) simply confirm that they're trying to talk to warlords like Hekmatyar, Zardad, and Fahim. But I'm talking about the insurgency - you know, the one that controls land and kills coalition troops.

Holbrooke meeting an Afghan-American businessman who lives in California and claims to be Hekmatyar's agent isn't what I meant by "insurgent leaders". The U.S. portrays Hekmatyar as a leader of the insurgency when it suits their purposes to try to ally with him. But I can't recall the last time I heard a report of Hekmatyar's forces engaging U.S.-NATO forces militarily, though maybe I'm mistaken.

Permanently holding land is conventional warfare, not an insurgency or guerilla warfare - although, eventually when an insurgency is successful, insurgents capture and hold land permanently - like in China 1949 and Vietnam 1974 -1975. Have you read the articles about Afghan insurgents (called the "Taliban", of course) prior to Obama's troop surge, permanently holding 73% of Afghan territory?

I corrected the Rawa url (left out an "-"). Read it and the others carefully. Troops of these insurgent leaders have/are fighting U.S./ISAF troops and some are occupying territory in Afghanistan.

There are reasons why the U.S. and Canadian governments and mainstream media are hush-hush about this:

1. Imagine the outrage if the mainstream media told the truth. Imagine the embarassment, back pedalling and plausible deniability on the part of our governments. Imagine the political dammage this would cause our governments.

2. Imagine the outrage our soldiers would express when the reality sunk in that while they are fighting against the insurgents and are being killed by them, our governments are negotiating with the insurgents' commanders. What would be (what is) the point of the war then? Large scale troop dissatisfaction would end the war pretty quick.

3. Since the beginning, the government, the military and the mainstream media have dummied down the war through "spin": There is only one insurgent group in Afghanistan - the Taliban.

We know that. Wink

Frmrsldr
Frmrsldr

The American Empire enlists Columbian gladio mercenaries to fight colonial war in Afghanistan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/27/eveningnews/main5192173.shtml

"The more Afghanistan can look like Colombia, the better."

Yikes. Remember when the Americans bitched when King George III sent Hessian mercenaries to assist in the fight against American independence?

NDPP

Frmrsldr wrote:

 

 Remember when the Americans bitched when King George III sent Hessian mercenaries to assist in the fight against American independence?

NDPP

before my time...

Frmrsldr

I was a lot older and wiser then.

remind remind's picture

Quote:
DESPITE THE FACT that this past month has been without a doubt the most deadly period for NATO forces in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion in 2001, there are still pro-war pundits taking to the airwaves to reassure Canadians that all is under control.

I nearly put my foot through my television screen while watching a young female military analyst reassure her viewers that nothing was amiss in NATO’s overall strategic plan.

When asked to explain the 62 allied deaths in the previous three weeks, the pro-war pundit didn’t blink her eyes before replying smoothly, "We’ve expected this increase. The summer is when the Taliban come out to fight."

The onion ring topper on her heaps of whoppers was the suggestion that the leap in NATO’s death toll is proof that we’re winning.

SparkyOne

DOesn't it make sense that if we are sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and they are going farther and farther into the country that they will get into more fights and run the risk of more injuries and deaths?

remind remind's picture

What makes more sense is that they are battle fatigued, and Afghans are fucking tired of our colonial oppression and murdering of Afghan citizens.

SparkyOne

Okay.

Unionist

SparkyOne wrote:

DOesn't it make sense that if we are sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and they are going farther and farther into the country that they will get into more fights and run the risk of more injuries and deaths?

Absolutely. The more we send, the more they kill. And the more they kill, the more we should send. Sounds like a strategy for military victory! Thanks for setting us straight on that.

 

SparkyOne

You're welcome :)

9 threads of 800+ posts and we finally have an answer, stop sending more soldiers, send home the ones that are there now.

 

You should have asked me sooner  I could have saved 800 posts!

NDPP

and those that come back...

What Imperialist War Produces

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/colo-j28.shtml

"atrocities US troops are committing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the inevitable products of neo-colonial war and occupation, are transforming a section of returning veterans into a genuine menace to society.."

SparkyOne

wow is his happening with Canadian soldiers too?

remind remind's picture

There was just a murder at Trenton over the week end, and spousal assault rates are up.

From NPP's link and the article is horrific and I would imagine does not even cover a part of it all.

Quote:
The responsibility for those war crimes lies with the military high command, the White House and the American ruling elite in general. Were there the slightest democratic inclination within the mass media or the political establishment, demands for trials on crimes against humanity would dominate US political life. As it is, there is essentially silence.

The Gazette of Colorado Springs has published a lengthy two-part series, by Dave Philipps (see parts one and two), based on interviews with soldiers and their families, that is very valuable. It documents the horrors of the US occupation of Iraq, along with the callousness and indifference of the Pentagon to those they toss into the hell of combat.

Of the 10 charged with murder, attempted murder or manslaughter, Philipps writes: “Almost all those soldiers were kids, too young to buy a beer, when they volunteered for one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Almost none had serious criminal backgrounds. Many were awarded medals for good conduct.

And the murderpous unit continues on

"The unit Needham and the others belonged to is now deployed in Afghanistan, near the Khyber Pass."

NDPP

more or less why wouldn't it be?

Bringing Violence Back: An Afghan Veteran's Rage

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/650299

 

SparkyOne

remind wrote:

There was just a murder at Trenton over the week end

Ummm neither the victim nor the alledged attacker in Trenton were in the military?

http://www.northumberlandnews.com/news/article/131949

Quote:
Sgt. Rae said Mr. Wilson and Mr. Read knew each other. Neither were military personnel. An arrest warrant for Mr. Wilson, of Quinte West, was issued Sunday morning. He is wanted on a charge of first-degree murder.

It just happened on/near a military base.

That reminds me I wonder if the 4 Afghan women just murdered in Kingston in an 'honour killing' actually had to do with anything in the military?

 

I'm asking about stats for soldiers comitting violence against women on the increase because I have a friend who's boyfriend is over there right now and he's beserk jealous. Calling her 20 or 30 times a day if he can't get a hold of her. Emailing her friends, her mom and sister asking us tofind where she is. Asking his friends back home to go and check on her at work and make sure she's actually there. It's scarry. Kim (my friend) seems to think thats normal behavior and chalks it up to him being stressed. We're scared for her

remind remind's picture

Thank you for that Star article it is nauseating but everyone hould read it.

NDPP

remind wrote:

Thank you for that Star article it is nauseating but everyone hould read it.

NDPP

I agree

remind remind's picture

sparkly one read the Star article.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Remember when the Americans bitched when King George III sent Hessian mercenaries to assist in the fight against American independence?

Wasn't he also known as "Crazy George"? [IMG]http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.gif[/IMG]

NDPP

Britain's Propaganda Offensive on Behalf of Afghan War

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14558

"there is growing concern that Afghanistan is fast becoming a worse and more intractable debacle than Iraq."

Watch for a similar propaganda offensive to start here soon..

Frmrsldr

The British government is not content on the outright defeat of the Taliban:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-mckittrick-talki...

Afghanistan is not the same as Northern Ireland. The IRA and other groups, unlike (some) members of the Taliban, (some) other insurgent groups and (some) other Northern warlords, did not commit war crimes and/or gross and systemic crimes against humanity

NDPP

Taliban Interview: Mullah Baradar: In his own words

http://www.newsweek.com/id/208638

'Divide the Taliban' urges UK

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/07/2009727134325933154.html

"David Miliband, Britain's foreign minister have called on the Afghan government to divde the Taliban, by openly talking with moderate fighters.."

remind remind's picture

Quote:
"There is no question this has been a very difficult fighting season. With the election on, that is another factor. There is an attempt by the insurgents, the Taliban, to destabilize and to give people a feeling that they are waiting in the wings," MacKay told reporters yesterday.

The Taliban have used recent attacks on NATO troops to drum up public support and portray themselves as the ones winning the war, he said on Parliament Hill.

MacKay said, however, he is optimistic the violence will decrease once the presidential elections in Afghanistan are over and the surge in U.S. troops begins to make its presence felt in the region.

"We're working very closely with all the NATO allies but the American surge of troops is inevitably, in my view, going to make ... a positive difference," he said.

This month has been among the bloodiest for NATO troops in Afghanistan since the campaign began after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Unionist

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8175658.stm][=blue][... soldier refuses to return to Afghanistan - takes protest to PM - will face court martial next week[/size][/][/url]

Great news!

It is shameful that not one single member of the Canadian Forces has taken a public stand like this after serving in Afghanistan.

 

SparkyOne

I'm sure they have they just don't want to "get into a car accident" so keep quiet.

remind remind's picture

What I think is just as  bad, is those who have left the military so they don't have to "participate", but go back as private specialists for huge contract fees.

SparkyOne

I don't think thats why they leave Remind.

I think they leave and come back because they make 3 times as much money as a private contractor.

The military is paying my second cousin 10 grand a month to do the same job he was doing as a soldier making 4 grand a month.

remind remind's picture

And they do not have to participate as a enlisted person, they have special status as a private contractor and are way less at risk.

I have lots of words for them none of them nice.

Frmrsldr

remind wrote:

And they do not have to participate as a enlisted person, they have special status as a private contractor and are way less at risk.

I have lots of words for them none of them nice.

Something that is also just as bad are those in the military who, for whatever reason, are not nor will not serve in Afghanistan, yet they are either recruiters or (if not) vocally supportive of the war and encourage their subordinates to take tours over there.

Unionist

Frmrsldr, I have no doubt that there is discrimination in the forces there (as here). But surely L/Cpl Glenton is not under attack simply for being critical. He is being court-martialed because he made a public declaration of mutiny - insubordination - saying he would refuse to return to Afghanistan.

Anyway, Major Miller's "criticism" seems to be an attack on the Labour government for not being vicious and committed enough to win:

Quote:

In concluding his essay, Maj Miller wrote the "British Army must believe that it can win wars again".

He added: "Politics needs to be squeezed out of the military campaign. The point of going to war is not to then save ministerial discomfort by avoiding casualties and buttering the media.

"Wars cost lives and the media better get used to it. The British people understand this. They are far tougher than a worried government PR man imagines. We need to win a war, not spin one."

Not a very "subversive" viewpoint. He'll probably end up with a medal.

 

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Not a very "subversive" viewpoint. He'll probably end up with a medal.

Ha, ha, ha, ha...Laughing

Fraud casts shadow over Afghan presidential vote:

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/24/fraud-casts-shadow-over-afgha...

Unionist

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8176256.stm]Taliban urge election boycott[/url]

Quote:

In a statement on a Taliban website, the movement ordered fighters to block roads on the eve of the elections and stop voters going to polling stations.

The statement said that participation in the vote would be a show of support for "invading Americans". [...]

The Taliban statement also comes days after the Afghan government announced it had agreed a truce with Taliban insurgents in the north-western province of Badghis for the elections.

Although Taliban militants later denied any deal, our correspondent says it served to underline the disjointed and complex nature of the insurgency - with many different groups operating under a Taliban banner.

 

remind remind's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:
remind wrote:
And they do not have to participate as a enlisted person, they have special status as a private contractor and are way less at risk.

I have lots of words for them none of them nice.

Something that is also just as bad are those in the military who, for whatever reason, are not nor will not serve in Afghanistan, yet they are either recruiters or (if not) vocally supportive of the war and encourage their subordinates to take tours over there.

Yes, I agree. Way back when the USA was first entering Iraq, Oprah had a program on about whether or not, the USA should go into Iraq. There were heated discussions on her message boards about it.

One recruiters wife, was so happy that her husband was going to make a huge amount on bonuses for signs up for Iraq, it was sickening. She knew he would never face death in Iraq, and gave a shit about condemning others to death, it was all about the additonal mullah, their family was goig to have.

Frmrsldr

Unreliable Afghan police make life difficult and dangerous for U.S. soldiers:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63940

Frmrsldr

"L/Cpl Glenton is believed to be the first serving soldier to speak out against the Government's policy."

That's only if by "soldier" they mean a member of the non-commissioned officer class.

Major SN Miller, a current serving officer in British military intelligence wrote last month in the "British Army Review", an official MoD publication, an article that was critical of the Afghan war.

I haven't heard anything about Major SN Miller facing a court martial. Yet when L/Cpl Glenton makes public statements critical of the Afghan war, he faces a court martial.

Seems like there is still discrimination within the U.K. military based on class and rank.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5587822/Briti...

Here's an update that provides additional information on L/Cpl Glenton's views:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090730/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestbri...

NDPP

Pentagon's 21st Century Counterinsurgency Wars

http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/64956

"There will soon officially be military units from fifty or more nations serving under NATO command in Afghanistan. Never before in history have soldiers from so many nations served under a common military structure in a single war theater. Afghanistan is the training and testing ground for an embryonic world army.."

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Pentagon's 21st Century Counterinsurgency Wars

http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/64956

"There will soon officially be military units from fifty or more nations serving under NATO command in Afghanistan. Never before in history have soldiers from so many nations served under a common military structure in a single war theater. Afghanistan is the training and testing ground for an embryonic world army.."

Yes, a Super Nato.

July in Afghanistan: A month of worsts:

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/31/july-in-afghanistan-a-month-of-worsts/

Frmrsldr

I don't know if this is the correct thread to post this, but failing knowledge of a better,

Bin Laden worked for the U.S. until 9/11:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7332

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
....it was all about the additonal mullah, their family was goig to have.

They were planning to bring one back, to go with the one they had? Laughing

Unionist

Oh SJ, you're so mean, spelling flames, ouch...

 

Slumberjack

And it felt good too, being on the other end of one for a change.

Unionist

Laughing

Misery loves company.

Anyway, I confess to having thought the same thing when I read the original typo, but in my characteristically saintly fashion, I restrained myself. Innocent

 

Slumberjack

I imagined bookends...

SparkyOne

My cousin told me before that even though all these countries are sending murderers (ama soldiers) to Afghanistan that most of them don't even leave their main base. He said they sit around shop at the little shops and cafe's and eat. Only a few countries out of the many actually send soldiers outside the base

I'm not sure how I feel about that. One on hand it's less soldiers running around killing innocent civilians but on the other hand why even send soldiers?

Just to make it seem like they support NATO which NATO turns around and uses as justification.

remind remind's picture

Just gotta love men ganging together to attack. FFS grow up.

Pages

Topic locked