downward spiral in afghanistan - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 09-09-2008, 03:14 PM

i'm not sure folk have noticed some of the strange doings in the world beyond the lint-storm around sarah palin...over the past few days the americans have been staging raids into pakistan, right in the middle of the transition in government. today, there's two new elements, both covered in this article:

Quote:

Bush urges Pakistan to 'take responsibility' for extremists
President announces withdrawal of 8,000 Iraq troops and shifts military focus to fight Taliban in Afghanistan

George Bush today described Pakistan as a central battleground in the so-called war on terror, alongside Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a barbed message for the new Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, Bush said Pakistan had a "responsibility" to fight extremists "because every nation has an obligation to govern its own territory and make certain that it does not become a safe haven for terror."

The remarks are not likely to go down well in Pakistan, which has been in uproar after a raid by US ground troops on Pakistani territory – the first foray of its kind since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Zardari, who was today sworn-in as Pakistan's new president, is an outspoken advocate of tough action against extremists in Pakistan, despite broad public dislike of US foreign policy in the region.

Bush's comments came in a speech to the US National Defence University in Washington, where he announced the withdrawal of 8,000 combat troops from Iraq by next February.

But there will be little respite for an overstretched US military as Bush also announced a troop rise in Afghanistan, currently home to 31,000 US soldiers. He said he was sending roughly 4,500 more troops to face a resurgent Taliban.

More than half of Bush's address was devoted to Afghanistan, which the US president described as "the front where this struggle first began".

Bush highlighted decisions to vastly increase the size of the Afghan national army, which will grow from its current size of 60,000 troops to 120,000, instead of 80,000.

"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world," he said. "And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more."

Bush said a marine battalion scheduled to go to Iraq in November would instead be sent to Afghanistan. One army combat brigade will follow.

The Iraq troop cut will probably be Bush's last major decision in a highly unpopular war that has seen his ratings plummet. He hinted that more troops could return to the US in the first half of 2009 if conditions improve.

"Here is the bottom line: while the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, and Iraqi forces are becomingly increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight," Bush said.

US commanders have been divided on the rate of troop cuts in Iraq and today's plan is a compromise. General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, had argued in favour of maintaining current levels until next June.

Others, including Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, believed a faster withdrawal from Iraq represented a small risk compared with the gain that could be made by sending reinforcements to Afghanistan.

Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the plan reflected the concern of US commanders that a rush to reduce US forces could lead to instability at a crucial moment in Iraq.

"This plan does, however, mean continuing stress on both the active and reserve forces," said Cordesman.

Democrats today criticised the slow pace of withdrawal from Iraq as the troop cut will still leave about 140,000 combat troops - about the same level as before last year's troop surge.

The party's presidential nominee, Barack Obama, said Bush's decision to divert resources to Afghanistan was slow, insufficient and "comes up short".

"It is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency," Obama said, adding that he believed Bush did not understand that Afghanistan and Pakistan were the central front in the "war on terror", not Iraq.

Obama has advocated pulling all combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office. John McCain, his Republican rival, has said he would rely on the advice of US military commanders to determine the timing and pace of troop reductions. Both agree on the need for more troops for Afghanistan, amid growing concern that Nato is losing ground to Taliban insurgents.

Bush urges Pakistan to 'take responsibility' for extremists | World news | guardian.co.uk

the only up side of this i can see is that it may represent a de facto abandonment of the bush people's iran aspirations--but that is not obvious.

either way, this appears to me to be another example of self-defeating american action--nato action---by which i mean the continued american presence in afghanistan has enabled the taliban to regroup by providing it with an enemy around which to rally. the fact of occupation generates it's own momentum--machiavelli knew this in the 16th century.

now, if you accept the idea that afghanistan was a legitimate target in this "war on terror" nonsense--which i have never accepted---then (a) iraq was obviously a bad idea because it hobbled this other campaign and in so doing opened up the space for this regrouping of the taliban. but that's not the curious thing.

the problem here is pakistan. over the past few days, reports have surfaced of at least two american raids into pakistan, each resulting in civilian casualties. this directly after cheney was in georgia chastizing russia for moving into another sovereign nation. this while the american press is entirely distracted by the lint-storm generated by the palin nomination.

[[i took out a couple sentences later because i thought i had already taken them out...]]

this paper gives an interesting and detailed overview of the spiral into which the americans have found themselves getting drawn--it presents far more complex a picture than this post does, but the main line of interpretation is consistent:
The Rise of Afghanistan's Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

and here is a link to an extensive list of articles about this overall situation, which effectively stops in 2007:

Afghanistan Watch

what do you think is going on here?
what do you think the options are facing the bush people? the next president?
how do you think mccain or obama would handle this?

ASU2003 · 09-09-2008, 04:29 PM

I have never liked the way Afghanistan was handled. Well, it started off ok with covert ops and intel gathering. But the execution didn't go the way I thought it should have. It was too overtly military that stopped way short of controlling the whole country and the Pakistan border region.

It should have been kept covert and after a few months of intel gathering from a far, people just start dying in their sleep. Or from accidents. Or from rare diseases.

Tully Mars · 09-09-2008, 04:39 PM

1.) I think we're playing a giant game of whack-a-mole. Once we secure Afghan Iraq or some other country will "need" our help. It's a never ending reason to maintain huge spending & funding for the military and their contractors.

2.) I think Bush and Neocon's are leaving the next POTUS (and the country) one giant shit sandwich. How and who gets the first or biggest bite is any body's guess. But given the size of the debt being left by this I'd say the middle class will end up paying the most and hurting the most. Though the bill may not come completely due for another generation.

3.) I think McCain will keep playing the whack-a-mole game and attempt to use the military at every opportunity he's given. I thin Obama is more likely to use diplomacy prior to sending in the troops.

Willravel · 09-09-2008, 04:50 PM

I guess I'm glad that they're taking their attentions away from Iran, but the government has repeatedly demonstrated that they couldn't fight a war on terror even if it was legitimate.

Obama has started speaking publicly about what we've all been thinking all along: Pakistan is housing violent extremists, and could be housing senior leadership of these radical organizations. The question is (and always has been) how exactly to deal with this. Pervez Musharraf has been an interesting character to watch; he was very vocal about supporting the US against the Taliban and al Qaeda, even going so far as to allow the US to have military bases in Pakistan. Of course later on it was made clear that Pakistan was under unbelievable pressure from the US and that Musharraf was concerned that the US might just tag team with India, which would put Pakistan directly in harm's way.

What I'm left thinking is that Pervez Musharraf never really had full control on the goings on in Pakistan, in fact he really didn't stand a chance in that area. Pakistan is still a very unstable place. I don't really have an official "he's good" or "he's bad" statement about Musharraf. He was about what I expected in many ways.

Now we have Asif Ali Zardari, who I trust even a bit less than Musharraf because of his history, but I find myself unsure of how he will attempt to deal with the tension turning into excursions across the border by the US. Clearly civilian casualties are completely unacceptable, but what can he bargain with? I might try to invite the UN to get involved, but that could be seen unfavorably with the Pakistani people. If they're anything like Americans, they'll want more useless and stupid posturing, which won't serve anyone.

Regardless, my attentions over the next few days will be fixed on google news for "Pakistan".

jorgelito · 09-09-2008, 04:53 PM

But would leaving Afghanistan be worse? If US-NATO decided to up and leave would that just doom the current Afghani gov't? Would they be torn by civil war? Would the Taliban take over?
-----Added 9/9/2008 at 08 : 54 : 27-----
Yes one of the reasons I support Obama is his commitment to the Afghanistan campaign.

Charlatan · 09-09-2008, 05:09 PM

The campaign in Afghanistan feels like it was the right thing to do. That it was not handled properly is not a surprise.

I figured it was only a matter of time until NATO decided to fly missions into Pakistan and it is no surprise that they would choose to do so while Pakistan is in political transition. Musharraf was very much against letting the US into Pakistan but the new President seems to be on board with crushing the Taliban (it could be that his biggest political opponents are the ones allegedly harbouring the Taliban so if a few of them die or thrown into turmoil in the process all the better).

The thing to remember is that nobody can conquer Afghanistan and it is never likely that it will resemble a Western democracy... ever. This is a nation that, with the massive financial support of the US, brought the Soviet Union to its knees. This is now a nation, the massive financial support of certain gulf state interests (with deep pockets made deeper by oil profits), that may bring NATO to its knees.

Tully Mars · 09-09-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The thing to remember is that nobody can conquer Afghanistan and it is never likely that it will resemble a Western democracy... ever. This is a nation that, with the massive financial support of the US, brought the Soviet Union to its knees. This is now a nation, the massive financial support of certain gulf state interests (with deep pockets made deeper by oil profits), that may bring NATO to its knees.

I brought this up with a friend one day. He said "This is the USA there's no way some little rock and dirt country's going to take us out. No way, no how." Bet there were a lot folks in the old USSR that thought the same thing not so long ago.

I get the feeling if this were a Simpson's episode Nelson Muntz would be saying "Ha Ha, you're funding your own demise. What? I said Ha Ha."

Charlatan · 09-09-2008, 05:51 PM

That's the irony isn't it?

roachboy · 09-09-2008, 05:51 PM

the paper i linked to is pretty precise about how the spiral went tho---it's not a question of principle, more a question of the fact that the us installed karzai whose government managed only to control kabul, which was skimming aid money off and diverting it to colleagues---lack of co-ordination in the training of police---inability of the government to deliver basic services--continuing us occupation.

machiavelli knew that occupying another country is the point at which your problems start, not end. the neo-cons obviously only read the cliff notes.

Charlatan · 09-09-2008, 06:05 PM

The neocons are not especially interested in winning a war, just fighting them in perpetuity. In the process of hollowing out and privatizing the military they have a created a massive economic sector of contractors and mercenaries. Like any sizable sector of the economy they need to protect it.

The next administration will be faced with the same issue.

Willravel · 09-09-2008, 06:30 PM

All-in-all, I see this as a devastating demonstration of the importance of high intelligence and ability in leadership. When you vote for an idiot, especially a flock of idiots, who are more concerned with unsupportable goals, this is what you can expect. Clinton was smart enough to avoid things of this magnitude, but even he screwed up repeatedly. Should I be forced to come to terms with the fact that the best leaders for our country only exist in fiction?

jorgelito · 09-09-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the paper i linked to is pretty precise about how the spiral went tho---it's not a question of principle, more a question of the fact that the us installed karzai whose government managed only to control kabul, which was skimming aid money off and diverting it to colleagues---lack of co-ordination in the training of police---inability of the government to deliver basic services--continuing us occupation.

machiavelli knew that occupying another country is the point at which your problems start, not end. the neo-cons obviously only read the cliff notes.

Good point.

Tully Mars · 09-10-2008, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

That's the irony isn't it?

It is , that and you have people in the US cheer leading the whole thing. It's almost like some people think our military can never loose and has a magical endless supply of funds.

I always thought we should go after bin Laden. To me it didn't matter if he was in Afghan, Iraq, Iran or even Moscow. I was one of those 95%+ that was behind Bush on the days after 9/11 100%. I remember thinking who the hell are these other 5%? Bush is going to go get this guy, we need to go get this guy. But Bush didn't really focus on Afghan or OBL that much. Then when he started talking and trying to link Iraq to OBL and committed a much larger force to that task instead of taking out the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks he lost me. The way he's handled Iraq has been proved to me he's one of the worst POTUS we ever had- and we've had some real losers in the oval office.

Now, 8 years later, we're going go back and committing more troops to Afghan. Of course OBL likely isn't there anymore. Hopefully the new President in Pakistan will actually help us find him.

jorgelito · 09-10-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

It is , that and you have people in the US cheer leading the whole thing. It's almost like some people think our military can never loose and has a magical endless supply of funds.

I always thought we should go after bin Laden. To me it didn't matter if he was in Afghan, Iraq, Iran or even Moscow. I was one of those 95%+ that was behind Bush on the days after 9/11 100%. I remember thinking who the hell are these other 5%? Bush is going to go get this guy, we need to go get this guy. But Bush didn't really focus on Afghan or OBL that much. Then when he started talking and trying to link Iraq to OBL and committed a much larger force to that task instead of taking out the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks he lost me. The way he's handled Iraq has been proved to me he's one of the worst POTUS we ever had- and we've had some real losers in the oval office.

Now, 8 years later, we're going to go back and committing more troops to Afghan. Of course OBL likely isn't there anymore. Hopefully the new President in Pakistan will actually help us find him.

Stop reading my mind

. Yeah this is pretty much how I felt too.

loquitur · 09-10-2008, 05:53 AM

We sent troops into Pakistan this past week. The Paks said very little about it. Apparently Bush has decided that one way or the other he's going to take out OBL before he leaves office.

The idea of sending more troops into Afghanistan is not a good one, in my view. Historically it's been proven to be a mistake. We succeeded in taking down the Taliban at the end of '01 because the fighting was done by Afghans, with Special Ops and air support from the US. But we can't do well in a long-term large-scale fight there because we don't know the culture and haven't embedded with it - but the Taliban and AQ have. That doesn't mean there is no military solution - to the contrary, the use of force has to be part of the solution, simply because of the nature of the foe, but it has to be part of an integrated approach that uses a lot more tools. Classic counterinsurgency as developed by Gallula and perfected by Petraeus counsels that dispersed small forces in support of local groups is the most effective way to suppress an insurgency. Fact is, we can never be as bloodthirsty and ruthless as the AQ/Taliban, but we can try to be smarter.

Another part of the problem is that this is a NATO operation, which means everyone and no one is in charge, and different countries' politics will govern which forces are available when for what purpose. Too many cooks and all that. I believe the technical term is "clusterfuck."

host · 09-10-2008, 07:40 AM

loquitur, can you post the most compelling reason(s) that persuades you that "AQ" or bin Laden were the principles in the 9/11 attacks, or that WTC 7, as lead NIST investigtor Sunder concluded, was a collapse that was the first of it's kind....ever....?

Frankly, I'm having the same kind of reaction I had when the operations of the "tooth fairy", were first explained to me.... I wanted to believe, and there was "money in it", but I needed more in the way of a credible explanation...

Quote:

Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11? // Current
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?

* added September 9, 2008

Much of America's foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks. But it is still widely believed that the US attack on Afghanistan was justified. For example, the New York Times, while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a "war of choice," calls the battle in Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Time magazine has dubbed it "the right war." And Barack Obama says that one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to "go after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on 9/11." ....

Quote:

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

....This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. ....

loquitur · 09-10-2008, 07:57 AM

host, conspiracy theorizing about WTC is OT in this thread. I was discussing the [lack of] progress of the war in Afghanistan, which is what this thread is about. So I decline to engage here on that issue.

roachboy · 09-10-2008, 08:01 AM

another vicious circle which cannot be helping anything at all for anyone, anywhere:

Quote:

Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes
Airstrikes Cause Public Backlash, Undermine Protection Efforts

Human Rights Watch Report Cover
(New York, September 8, 2008) – Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban’s use of “human shields” in violation of the laws of war.

Though operational changes advocated by Human Rights Watch have reduced the rate of civilian casualties since they spiked in July 2007, continuing tragedies, such as the July 6, 2008 strike on a wedding party and the August 22, 2008 bombing in Azizabad, have greatly undermined local support for the efforts of international forces providing security in Afghanistan.
The 43-page report, “‘Troops in Contact’: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,” analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.

“Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the chance of a mistake,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans.”

The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war. Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.

In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In 2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least 321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.

In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.

Human Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban. US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to assist civilians harmed by US actions.

“The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many civilians,” said Adams. “The US must also take responsibility, including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian deaths, the US shouldn’t use this as an excuse when it could have taken better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the killing.”

Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in support of “troops in contact” – ground troops who are under insurgent attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special forces units – normally small in number and lightly armed – came under insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US “anticipatory self-defense” rules of engagement applied.

The effects of airstrikes go beyond civilian deaths. For example, an investigation by the Afghan government found that two battles over a three-day period starting April 30, 2007 in Shindand district resulted in the destruction of numerous homes. In every case investigated by Human Rights Watch where airstrikes hit villages, many civilians had to leave the village because of damage to their homes and fear of further strikes. People from neighboring villages also sometimes fled in fear of future strikes on their villages. This has led to large numbers of internally displaced persons.

To respond to public concern and complaints from President Hamid Karzai, in July 2007 the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) announced several changes in targeting tactics. These changes include employing smaller munitions, delaying attacks where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house searches to the Afghan National Army. A review of available evidence suggests that the changes had some impact, as there was a significant drop in civilian casualties due to airstrikes in the last half of 2007, even as the overall tonnage of bombs dropped increased.

Human Rights Watch welcomed these changes in targeting, but remained concerned by continuing civilian casualties from airstrikes, particularly as the number of airstrikes has increased dramatically and the number of deaths and injuries has spiked this summer.

Human Rights Watch called for the US and NATO to address the rising civilian death toll from unplanned airstrikes, and to fix continuing problems with field collateral damage estimation and the inconsistent application of their Rules of Engagement.

“The recent airstrikes killing dozens of Afghans make clear that the system is still broken and that civilians continue to pay the ultimate price,” said Adams. “Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan.”

link to the full report:
"Troops in Contact": Airstrikes and Civlian Deaths in Afghanistan

host · 09-10-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

host, conspiracy theorizing about WTC is OT in this thread. I was discussing the [lack of] progress of the war in Afghanistan, which is what this thread is about. So I decline to engage here on that issue.

You're an attorney, and you worked in this jurisdiction, SDNY....do you have no curiousity as to how the government could bring their version of such a dubious account before a federal judge? This woman was barely 5 feet tall, and 100 lbs....
Pakistani Tortured, Her Attorney Says

yet look at the government's account as to the events leading to her shooting. Consider her atorney's version of the length of her custody.... you dismiss, out of hand, my last post. Is it logic that influenced your reaction, or emotion because of a perceived threat to your belief system?

They lied about why it was necessary to invade Iraq. They've admitted to torturing the principle witnesses that they obtained the core intelligence they claim is the "smoking gun" in who planned the 9/11 attacks. They've "rendered" innocent people and others who received no fair judiciary hearings, to secret prisons and to third countries to be tortured under our government representatives' observation, and you react with a "conspiracy theory", bullshit dismissal? Why would I expect anything but that kind of reaction?

One mo' time....on what basis should anyone participate here, discussing the war in Afghanistan as if it is and was necessary, as if bin Laden was behind he 9/11 attacks, as if he is an al-Qaeda leader, and as if al-Qaeda exists as described to us by our government, because, I don't see it as compelling, and I showed you some of my reasons, and I asked why you buy into the government's narrative....where is their credibility....it looks "shot", to me. I have no "belief system" that can be threatened....I try to go with the facts....what are the irrefutable facts.....there doesn't seem to me that there are any....only farfetched bullshit, propaganda.....

Tully Mars · 09-10-2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

another vicious circle which cannot be helping anything at all for anyone, anywhere:

link to the full report:
"Troops in Contact": Airstrikes and Civlian Deaths in Afghanistan

Yes, back to the topic at hand.

Almost seems the more we use the military the more we need to use the military.

host · 09-10-2008, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Yes, back to the topic at hand.

Almost seems the more we use the military the more we need to use the military.

Why would "the topic at hand", not include who and why we have US troops fighting in Afghanistan? Didn't we attack after the government of Afghanistan, who the Bush admin had recognized and paid millions to.....

....asked for evidence to justify caprturing bin Laden and turning him over to the US, and after the US seemed to agree to provide evidence, then reversed, and then attacked without providing the requested justification?

Quote:

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PROOF; U.S. to Publish Terror Evidence On bin Laden - New York Times
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PROOF; U.S. to Publish Terror Evidence On bin Laden

By JANE PERLEZ AND TIM WEINER
Published: September 24, 2001

The Bush administration plans to make public evidence linking Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda network to the terror attacks on the United States in an effort to persuade the world, and particularly Muslim nations, that a military response is justified.

The evidence will embrace new information gathered by law enforcement and intelligence agents on the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as material used in indictments against Mr. bin Laden in the bombing of American Embassies in East Africa in 1998, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today.

It may also cite leads developed in the investigation of the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen last October.

The administration sees the evidence as crucial to the support of friendly Muslim countries -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan -- whose governments fear that punishing military action by the United States against the terrorists will spur widespread popular unrest.

In the Saudi port city of Jidda, the foreign ministers of six Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, pledged ''total support and co-operation for international efforts to find the authors of the terrorist acts and bring them to justice.'' But the statement offered no specific military or other assistance. [Page B2.]

King Abdullah of Jordan -- which failed to side with the United States in the gulf war -- sounded less equivocal in his support of whatever Washington might do.

''We realize that the start is always going to be difficult, the first step is always going to be a burden,'' the king said on ABC's ''This Week.'' ''But I believe that the steps undertaken by the American armed forces will have the full support of the international community.''

Two reports are expected within days, officials said: a public one from the State Department, and a secret one prepared by United States intelligence agencies and including details from trusted foreign sources. Officials say they are still arguing over how much information to release -- and to which countries.

The list of nations trusted with all the secret information would be short, and some countries might receive fewer details than others, they said.

The evident intention is to produce evidence before any American military strike. ''If you release it after the action, you're lost,'' one official said, since Muslim governments would have no chance to make the case for the American acts.

The evidence, American officials say, reaches from the southern tip of Manhattan to the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan. It traces a group that started out running material aid to the rebels fighting the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan in the 1980's and wound up declaring war on the United States.

The strongest is Mr. bin Laden's declaration of war on Feb. 23, 1998. He proclaimed from his Afghan redoubt: ''To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able.''

The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said today that the government had ''very good evidence of links'' between bin Laden operatives ''and what happened on Sept. 11.'' She added: ''We are drawing in investigative services, law enforcement, intelligence from a lot of countries. And so we need to be careful with how we use this information.''

The public report will omit intercepts by the National Security Agency, including conversations among people on the fringes of Mr. bin Laden's network right after the attacks, officials said.

The secret report will include that type of intelligence information, which will be shared only with some trusted governments....

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 24, 2001

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room

.....Q Ari, yesterday Secretary Powell was very precise that he was going to put out a report on what we had on bin Laden that could be reported, and not classified. Today, the President shot him down -- and he's been shot down many, many times by the administration -- you seem to be operating -- he also retreated a question of putting out a report. No, I'm wrong?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that there was just a misinterpretation of the exact words the Secretary used on the Sunday shows. And the Secretary talked about that in a period of time -- I think his word was "soon" -- there would be some type of document that could be made available. As you heard the Secretary say today, he said "as we are able," as it unclassifies.

Q -- much more emphatic yesterday, I thought.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think he said the word "soon," as I was reminded today by a very knowledgeable official at the State Department, that's called "State Department soon." And so it's fully consistent with what the President has been saying and the Secretary said. You know, I mean, look, it shouldn't surprise anybody. As soon as --

Q The American people thought "soon" meant "soon." (Laughter.)

Q Is this a sign, Ari, that --

MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, let me -- I was getting there, I was answering Helen. Helen, what I was saying is, it shouldn't surprise anybody that as soon as the attack on our country took place, the immediate reaction is the investigations begin. They begin with the intelligence agencies, they begin with domestic agencies, they begin with a regular law enforcement authorities. And they start to collect a whole series of information.

Some of that information is going to end up in the form of grand jury information, which of course is subject to secrecy laws. Others coming from intelligence services is by definition going to be classified, and will be treated as such.

Over the course of time, will there be changes to that, that can lead to some type of declassified document over whatever period of time? That has historically been the pattern, and I think that's what the Secretary was referring to.

Q That's 50 years from now, if you're talking about a State Department white paper.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I'm not aware of anybody who said, white paper, and the Secretary didn't say anything about a white paper yesterday.

Q Is this a sign, though, that allies, particularly Arab and Muslim allies, really want to see the evidence because they're concerned about any potential action in Afghanistan could lead to instability in the region, so they want to be certain that you have the evidence?.....

They never publicly provided the evidence....so why isn't the justification to maintain such a large force in Afghanistan, and why the US invaded in the first place, a reasonable part of the discussion, here?

loquitur · 09-10-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

why isn't the justification to maintain such a large force in Afghanistan, and why the US invaded in the first place, a reasonable part of the discussion, here?

Because the topic is about how the war is going, not about why we went into it in the first place 7 years ago. Besides, I seem to remember a thread about 7WTC specifically, a while back - or is my memory playing tricks on me? Help me out, guys.........

See, host, this thread triggers all sorts of issues in my own head about collateral matters, but I don't raise them because even though there is a connection of some kind, they would side track the discussion. The OP here called for discussion of how the war is going, hence the title "downward spiral in Afghanistan." Isn't it most fair to the author of the OP to stick with that basic topic and not take it on frolics elsewhere, far afield?

roachboy · 09-10-2008, 09:21 AM

for the record, i have never accepted that the war in afghanistan was either necessary or "just"---but the current situation has outstripped that---even as in principle this remains a problem that nags at me. what prompted the thread was the beginning of american incursions into pakistan, coupled with new twitching on the part of the corpse of the bush administration to shift troops from iraq to afghanistan. this led me to wonder why things are as they are, which in turn led me to root about, only to find another beautiful example of neo-conservative incompetence opening onto yet another downward spiral.

the options are: either one can see in this incompetence a kind of justice---false premises opening onto disaster--but that bypasses the questions of how anything happens and retreats to a theological view of the world, nothing different from the "invisible hand" idea or, worse, some kind of royalist thinking (bad things happen to the pretender)---or one can bracket ambivalences as to cause and simply look at what's been happening. i chose b in this thread. i think it's ultimately a more interesting way to go.

loquitur · 09-10-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

new twitching on the part of the corpse of the bush administration

Love that mental image. Great stuff.

Slims · 09-10-2008, 02:51 PM

Edited: Cleaning up old, poorly written posts, sorry.

roachboy · 09-10-2008, 03:19 PM

greg--thanks for that post--it's very interesting.
the main argument that i have to contextualize what you say comes from the paper that i linked to in the op. i run through the points that struck me, but the paper is itself better and more informed.

before that, i had framed the thread away from what i thought of the rationale for going into afghanistan in the first place for a few reasons, one of which is that the taliban were never a great bunch of guys., and there is a side of me that would have probably been more ambivalent about the campaign if the argument had been that the americans were intervening on politico-humanitarian grounds with an organization that the americans, pakistanis and saudis had armed and trained in the 80s in order to fight against the soviets---the taliban is itself another consequence of american stupidity, in a sense. this would have pushed me into an objection to the entire covert operations modality of policy implementation/defense that the americans have used since the 1950s--school of the americas and all that. which to my mind points back the the national-security state. so you see how it would have gone.
within all that, the other problem is the entirety of this "war on terror"---but that's another matter.

there's something kinda overwhelming and really not helpful in terms of one's mood or outlook in thinking about the extent to which the latest policy debacles are of a string of them, and that among the consequences of these policy-level and strategy-level debacles is not only the deaths of civilians, but also of folk like yourself, who did not invent the logic that landed you there, who are not responsible for it, but who are among the human beings who suffer the consequences of it, directly and indirectly. for what it's worth, when my posts get angry or my actual politics start to surface, this kind of information generally lay behind it. so much pain this has caused, and for so little reason.

the article outlines a series of problems.
initially, there's no doubt that folk in the countryside and kabul were all pleased to be rid of the taliban. the problems, the article argues, began when karzai's government, which never controlled much of anything outside kabul, could not deliver basic services, was skimming off money that was earmarked for state-building into the pockets of colleagues in kabul, the incoherence in the training of a police force and consequent inability to provide basic security (ugh--that miserable word) to folk outside kabul---problems of food complicated by the campaign over opium, which failed--and the generation of cash through that trade in large amounts, which led to alternate mechanisms for providing basic services etc.---the fact that the taliban had several years to rebuild in pakistan, that they did rebuild---that the occupation continued, karzai government came to be percieved as corrupt and inept and the occupation continued so that *it* became an explanation for everything bad that was happening so that the taliban--who remain pretty whacked out in terms of their ideology and practices--have been able to attract alot of support again.

this is the scenario outlined in the article, and the steps along the way are documented in the afghanistan watch page that i posted below it.

so have a look, if you havent (don't rely on my plot summary, please--it's nothing more than that) and let us know what you think of it.

Tully Mars · 09-10-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

Roachboy,

there are a couple things I would like to mention.

When I was in Afghanistan, my team conducted a good number of raids into Taliban and/or HIG controlled areas. They almost always resulted in a large number of (enemy) casualties, and often a few Americans. More than one of those raids were conducted against targets which knew we were coming. The women and children had left, and additional fighters had moved in to defend against us. Following those raids, we almost always had a delegation of 'elders' from the effected area come to our base and complain that we killed (insert number between 20 and 100) women and children, but failed to kill any insurgents. They also reported this to the local press and we even saw the occasional article pop up in other muslim-world papers. They would usually even look us in the eye and tell us that we went to the wrong village and that nobody in their village would shoot at us, even though we took casualties and were heavily engaged. I saw the bodies of the ARMED insurgents, and I know for a fact they were lying to us and everyone else. When we seperated them and asked them what the names were of the 'innocent' women and children, the names almost never matched at all. This even occured on a mission where only a single shot was fired...into a man who had a full chest rig of AK magazines, chinese grenades, an AK-47, and an ID card for an insurgent organization (some of them really do that).

Second, most of the fighters in Afghanistan wear what amounts to pajamas and flipflops. When it is cold outside, they almost never travel or conduct attacks. During the summer time (now) there is almost always a large increase in the fighting for the same reason.

Third, Pakistan bulldozed many large refugee camps near the Afghan border, which drove hundreds of thousands of people back into Afghanistan, many of them insurgent leaders who had fled to PK for fear of US attacks. Most of the 'fighters' are paid 300-600 dollars a month to fight against the Americans and/or Afghan Government. This is more than some of them would make in an entire year and is very tempting for a refugee with no home and nothing to eat.

Most of the insurgent commanders operate out of Pakistan, and most large attacks against targets in Afghanistan consist of cross border raids from Pakistan. I can tell you 100% that Pakistani Border police will sit and allow insurgents to attack Afghan outposts from Pakistan and do nothing to prevent it. If Pakistan won't police itself and continues to allow attacks against us to originate from within it's borders, it's hardly surprising that eventually, someone ran out of patience and authorized a few, very surgical cross border attacks. If mexico openly allowed drug smugglers to shoot rockets at our border patrol across the border, how long do you think it would take before we did something about it? how is this any different considering that the Afghan Government is working with us?

Also, you mention attacks against CF and Americans, but you don't seem to weigh them against the tremendous progress that has been made in that country in the last several years. Women can go to school without being stoned to death. People can watch TV, listen to the radio, talk on a cell phone, or go to a Soccer Game without fear of torture. Afghans can vote for the first time and the country has a democratically elected government. Men can choose to trim their beards without fear of going to jail. Afghanistan has paved roads for the first time which greatly prevent accident fatalities (you should see the piles of cars at the bottom of the passes). The Afghan Police are well on the way to being accepted as a professional, and trustworthy organization and they are really 'policing' rather than just taking bribes. The standard of living in Afghanistan has increased dramatically over the last several years. There has been a significant decrease in tribal warfare and blood feuds. Less people are dying now due to the fighting than were being killed under the taliban.

And most importantly: The average Afghan is greatful because we are helping to give them control over their own country once again (remember, the Taliban came from pakistan).

I can accept your opinion that even though the Taliban and Al Qaeda commited an act of war against the United States, we should not have gone to war. I can also accept the argument that it may not have been in Americas best interest to do so. However, while we have significant difficulties, for every step back we take two forward and to imply that our efforts in Afghanistan are a 'disaster' is misguided.

It's always interesting to hear a perspective from someone who's been there, done that. I've heard some of what you're saying here before. I've also talked to returning friends who've come back with a completely different experience and opinion. Should we be there? should we have entered into this war? Don't know and it really doesn't matter now- we're there. I've often held the belief that we didn't commit enough resources to the Afghan theater. I think the troops on the ground have done an amazing job, just weren't given the tools they needed. almost like the team on the field and the fans in the stands were giving it their all, while the guys in the front office were screwing both the players and the fans. Hopefully that will start to change now. We've spent more time there then we did winning WWII. As you said for every step back we've taken two forward... well this must be one long journey. It would be nice to know there's an end in sight.

Slims · 09-10-2008, 03:58 PM

Edited: Same reason.

jorgelito · 09-10-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

Roachboy,

there are a couple things I would like to mention.

When I was in Afghanistan, my team conducted a good number of raids into Taliban and/or HIG controlled areas. They almost always resulted in a large number of (enemy) casualties, and often a few Americans. More than one of those raids were conducted against targets which knew we were coming. The women and children had left, and additional fighters had moved in to defend against us. Following those raids, we almost always had a delegation of 'elders' from the effected area come to our base and complain that we killed (insert number between 20 and 100) women and children, but failed to kill any insurgents. They also reported this to the local press and we even saw the occasional article pop up in other muslim-world papers. They would usually even look us in the eye and tell us that we went to the wrong village and that nobody in their village would shoot at us, even though we took casualties and were heavily engaged. I saw the bodies of the ARMED insurgents, and I know for a fact they were lying to us and everyone else. When we seperated them and asked them what the names were of the 'innocent' women and children, the names almost never matched at all. This even occured on a mission where only a single shot was fired...into a man who had a full chest rig of AK magazines, chinese grenades, an AK-47, and an ID card for an insurgent organization (some of them really do that).

Second, most of the fighters in Afghanistan wear what amounts to pajamas and flipflops. When it is cold outside, they almost never travel or conduct attacks. During the summer time (now) there is almost always a large increase in the fighting for the same reason.

Third, Pakistan bulldozed many large refugee camps near the Afghan border, which drove hundreds of thousands of people back into Afghanistan, many of them insurgent leaders who had fled to PK for fear of US attacks. Most of the 'fighters' are paid 300-600 dollars a month to fight against the Americans and/or Afghan Government. This is more than some of them would make in an entire year and is very tempting for a refugee with no home and nothing to eat.

Most of the insurgent commanders operate out of Pakistan, and most large attacks against targets in Afghanistan consist of cross border raids from Pakistan. I can tell you 100% that Pakistani Border police will sit and allow insurgents to attack Afghan outposts from Pakistan and do nothing to prevent it. If Pakistan won't police itself and continues to allow attacks against us to originate from within it's borders, it's hardly surprising that eventually, someone ran out of patience and authorized a few, very surgical cross border attacks. If mexico openly allowed drug smugglers to shoot rockets at our border patrol across the border, how long do you think it would take before we did something about it? how is this any different considering that the Afghan Government is working with us?

Also, you mention attacks against CF and Americans, but you don't seem to weigh them against the tremendous progress that has been made in that country in the last several years. Women can go to school without being stoned to death. People can watch TV, listen to the radio, talk on a cell phone, or go to a Soccer Game without fear of torture. Afghans can vote for the first time and the country has a democratically elected government. Men can choose to trim their beards without fear of going to jail. Afghanistan has paved roads for the first time which greatly prevent accident fatalities (you should see the piles of cars at the bottom of the passes). The Afghan Police are well on the way to being accepted as a professional, and trustworthy organization and they are really 'policing' rather than just taking bribes. The standard of living in Afghanistan has increased dramatically over the last several years. There has been a significant decrease in tribal warfare and blood feuds. Less people are dying now due to the fighting than were being killed under the taliban.

And most importantly: The average Afghan is greatful because we are helping to give them control over their own country once again (remember, the Taliban came from pakistan).

I can accept your opinion that even though the Taliban and Al Qaeda commited an act of war against the United States, we should not have gone to war. I can also accept the argument that it may not have been in Americas best interest to do so. However, while we have significant difficulties, for every step back we take two forward and to imply that our efforts in Afghanistan are a 'disaster' is misguided.

Great post Greg, thank you. I really appreciate real facts from a real source that go a long way in dispelling a lot of misinformation being spread around here.

Thanks again for taking the time to set things straight.

host · 09-11-2008, 12:17 AM

Greg700,

I was hoping you would post here because you know much better than I, what is or isn't appropriate to share publicly. The sense I get is that the increased bureaucracy, the length of the chain of command, and the differences in goals and execution of policy, recently, vs. before the buildup of conventional US and NATO forces, has had unintended consequences as far as casualty rates of conventional forces, compared to how aggressive their posture has been, and that the way you were able to operate prior to this buildup, accompanied on missions with the native forces you've trained (force multiplication). In other words, before this buildup, smaller US units, working alongside native forces trained by and well acquainted with their US trainers, operated with more autonomy and projected a much different impression on the locals, and were much less provocative, as far as the enemy's impression of these units as they operated in both their "hearts and minds winning" role, in intelligence gathering, and in patrol and combat missions, than currently in border areas with larger numbers of conventional forces and command....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sense I get, if the way I described the changes is correct, is that the introduction of a much larger force is setting back (or at least confusing) the winning of hearts and minds and force multiplication, encouraging a larger and more aggressive response from the enemy, and producing US and NATO casualties that might not have to happen,

jorgelito · 09-11-2008, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sense I get, if the way I described the changes is correct, is that the introduction of a much larger force is setting back (or at least confusing) the winning of hearts and minds and force multiplication, encouraging a larger and more aggressive response from the enemy, and producing US and NATO casualties that might not have to happen,

Good point host. But we're also assuming either the enemy can/will respond in kind or perhaps they can be subdued? Or maybe we stay a little bit longer (with timeline). The idea being to involve and train local forces for handover. Something like that? Flat out leaving doesn't seem very prudent though either. What about afterwards? Infrastructure rebuilding etc. should be part of our exit strategy. Involing allies and partners seems like a good idea too.

What do you think host? Is there anyway out of it? Any good solution for all sides involved?

roachboy · 09-11-2008, 02:36 AM

greg--i appreciate the posts as well, but i stressed that the argument i was interested in your response to was in the linked paper, not my cliff notes version of it. the paper presents a more detailed and comprehensive view than i could, and is focused on trying to explain the "insurgency"....unlike myself, that writer has been to afghanistan, talked with folk, etc. no need to take on my cliff notes version when there's a more substantial version a click away.

loquitur · 09-11-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sense I get, if the way I described the changes is correct, is that the introduction of a much larger force is setting back (or at least confusing) the winning of hearts and minds and force multiplication, encouraging a larger and more aggressive response from the enemy, and producing US and NATO casualties that might not have to happen,

Yeah, host, that's my concern. Historically, big foreign forces didn't do well in Afghanistan. Maybe it's how those forces were used that was more important than the raw numbers, but I'm not enough of a military expert to know. I'm skeptical that what worked in Iraq with the surge will work in Afghanistan because it's a very different kind of country and society - though the basic idea of population-protection-based counterinsurgency is fairly universally valid. The issue is knowing the population well enough and understanding them to be able to implement that strategy in a location- and culture-sensitive kind of way. That doesn't depend on raw numbers, at least not above a critical mass.

Slims · 09-11-2008, 05:11 PM

Also Edited, really sorry.

roachboy · 09-12-2008, 04:10 AM

they're more detailed, greg, and i felt a bit out of my depth speaking in my own voice about complex conditions on the ground. i'll get back to this when i have a bit more time...om my way out to 3-d land, though, i wanted to post this, from the la times, about the increasing incursions into pakistan and something of the backstory:

Quote:

Higher-tech Predators targeting Pakistan

By Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.

The use of the specially equipped drones comes amid a fundamental shift in U.S. strategy in the area. After years of deferring to Pakistani authorities, the Bush administration is turning toward unilateral American military operations -- a gambit that could increase pressure on Islamic militants but risks alienating a country that has been a key counter-terrorism ally.

In an indication of the priority being given to the Pakistan campaign, U.S. officials said the specially equipped aircraft were being pulled from other theaters to augment aerial patrols above the tribal belt along Afghanistan's eastern border.

Pakistan's government has found itself caught between Washington's demands for action and the unpopularity of the U.S. campaign, which has included half a dozen Predator strikes and a ground raid in the last few weeks.

This morning, witnesses said, at least eight people were believed killed in what appeared to be a Predator strike in North Waziristan, near the Afghan border.

Pakistanis complain that U.S. raids frequently kill civilians in addition to militants.

Pakistani forces also are carrying out their own campaign against the militants, and say they have killed hundreds in the last month, making the U.S. raids unnecessary.

American officials requested that details of the new technology not be disclosed out of concern that doing so might enable militants to evade U.S. detection. But officials said the previously unacknowledged devices have become a powerful part of the American arsenal, allowing the tracking of human targets even when they are inside buildings or otherwise hidden from Predator surveillance cameras.

Equally important, officials said, the systems have significantly speeded up decisions on when to strike. The technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator's lens of confirming a target's identity and precise location.

A military official familiar with the systems said they had a profound effect, both militarily and psychologically, on the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq.

"It is like they are living with a red dot on their head," said a former U.S. military official familiar with the technology who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because it has been secret. "With the quietness of the Predator, you never knew when a Hellfire [missile] would come through your window."

The new Predator capabilities are a key ingredient in an emerging U.S. military offensive against Taliban strongholds and Al Qaeda havens in Pakistan.

Previously, the United States' main focus in Pakistan's tribal territory was gathering intelligence that could be used to direct raids by the Pakistani military, or occasional missile strikes from CIA-operated Predator planes.

Intelligence activities will increasingly be geared now toward enabling U.S. Special Forces units -- backed by AC-130 gunships and other aircraft -- to carry out operations against Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, officials said.

The change in strategy reflects frustration within the Bush administration over Pakistan's failure to root out insurgent groups or disrupt the flow of militants who launch attacks in Afghanistan and then retreat to Pakistan.

After years of building alliances with local tribes, Al Qaeda and Taliban groups now have a "mature" haven in Pakistan from which to operate, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The New York Times reported Thursday that President Bush signed an order in July authorizing U.S. special operations forces to conduct missions in Pakistan without asking for its permission.

A former senior CIA official said similar proposals had been in circulation as early as 2003. A Pentagon proposal to make wider use of special operations forces in Pakistan was debated for months by the National Security Council, said a government official.

But until this summer, Bush was reluctant to authorize the action in part out of loyalty to former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who was forced from office last month.

At the same time, rising numbers of American troops being killed in Afghanistan caused a shift in thinking among many in the Pentagon. A total of 113 U.S. troops have been killed in the country this year.

In response, the United States has stepped up Predator strikes. But the clearest signal of a new strategy came last week when about 20 people were killed in a raid on the village of Musa Nika by U.S. special operations forces flown by helicopter from Afghanistan.

That operation, and the turn in Bush administration policy, has been condemned by senior Pakistani officials, including the army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani.

Kayani's statement was his first public criticism of the U.S. military, and his stance on such raids was regarded in Pakistan as a watershed because he had steered clear of politics during his nine months on the job.

Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani issued a statement Thursday saying that government policy forbids American military incursions into Pakistan.

Pentagon officials said they hoped that Kayani's anger was mainly for domestic consumption, and would not lead to curtailed cooperation with the U.S. military, which depends on access to Pakistani ports to supply operations in Afghanistan.

The new surveillance technology being deployed on the Predators was developed as part of a special project within the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The CIA has been responsible for Predator flights over Pakistan but is now being pressured to cede some authority to the U.S. military. The agency declined to discuss details of the program.

"It's a poor idea, with American forces engaged in conflicts overseas, to speculate publicly about things like battlefield reconnaissance capabilities," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.

Predator strikes were used in attacks that killed Al Qaeda military commander Mohammed Atef in Afghanistan in 2001 and Qaed Sinan Harithi, a suspected mastermind of the bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole, in Yemen in 2002.

However, Predators have also frequently missed their targets, including a high-profile attempt to attack Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri in 2006. They have been blamed for the deaths of dozens of civilians in Pakistan, fueling resentment there toward the United States.

The new system now being deployed was first used on aircraft in Afghanistan, then was installed on Predators in Iraq starting about a year ago. Officials said introduction of the devices coincided with the 2007 U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, and was an important, but hitherto unknown, factor in the subsequent drop in violence in that country.

The technology allows suspects to be identified quickly. "All I have to do is point the sensor at him," said a military officer familiar with the system, "and a missile can be off the rail in seconds."

The devices are roughly the size of an automobile battery, but are heavy enough that outfitted Predators in some cases carry only one Hellfire missile instead of two. At times, the systems also have been in short supply, requiring that crews move the devices from one Predator to another as they land and take off.

The unique capabilities have prompted competition among U.S. forces for access to specially equipped Predators, military officials said. The fleet being assembled for use in Pakistan has been assigned to the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Command, meaning fewer of the aircraft are available for conventional forces.

Military officials noted that Predators' effectiveness declines as the winter months approach. Bad weather, especially in the high altitudes of the Afghan and Pakistani mountains, means that many days Predators and other drones cannot fly.

Higher-tech Predators targeting Pakistan - Los Angeles Times

Aladdin Sane · 09-12-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

Roachboy,

there are a couple things I would like to mention.

When I was in Afghanistan, my team conducted a good number of raids into Taliban and/or HIG controlled areas. They almost always resulted in a large number of (enemy) casualties, and often a few Americans. More than one of those raids were conducted against targets which knew we were coming. The women and children had left, and additional fighters had moved in to defend against us. Following those raids, we almost always had a delegation of 'elders' from the effected area come to our base and complain that we killed (insert number between 20 and 100) women and children, but failed to kill any insurgents. They also reported this to the local press and we even saw the occasional article pop up in other muslim-world papers. They would usually even look us in the eye and tell us that we went to the wrong village and that nobody in their village would shoot at us, even though we took casualties and were heavily engaged. I saw the bodies of the ARMED insurgents, and I know for a fact they were lying to us and everyone else. When we seperated them and asked them what the names were of the 'innocent' women and children, the names almost never matched at all. This even occured on a mission where only a single shot was fired...into a man who had a full chest rig of AK magazines, chinese grenades, an AK-47, and an ID card for an insurgent organization (some of them really do that).

Second, most of the fighters in Afghanistan wear what amounts to pajamas and flipflops. When it is cold outside, they almost never travel or conduct attacks. During the summer time (now) there is almost always a large increase in the fighting for the same reason.

Third, Pakistan bulldozed many large refugee camps near the Afghan border, which drove hundreds of thousands of people back into Afghanistan, many of them insurgent leaders who had fled to PK for fear of US attacks. Most of the 'fighters' are paid 300-600 dollars a month to fight against the Americans and/or Afghan Government. This is more than some of them would make in an entire year and is very tempting for a refugee with no home and nothing to eat.

Most of the insurgent commanders operate out of Pakistan, and most large attacks against targets in Afghanistan consist of cross border raids from Pakistan. I can tell you 100% that Pakistani Border police will sit and allow insurgents to attack Afghan outposts from Pakistan and do nothing to prevent it. If Pakistan won't police itself and continues to allow attacks against us to originate from within it's borders, it's hardly surprising that eventually, someone ran out of patience and authorized a few, very surgical cross border attacks. If mexico openly allowed drug smugglers to shoot rockets at our border patrol across the border, how long do you think it would take before we did something about it? how is this any different considering that the Afghan Government is working with us?

Also, you mention attacks against CF and Americans, but you don't seem to weigh them against the tremendous progress that has been made in that country in the last several years. Women can go to school without being stoned to death. People can watch TV, listen to the radio, talk on a cell phone, or go to a Soccer Game without fear of torture. Afghans can vote for the first time and the country has a democratically elected government. Men can choose to trim their beards without fear of going to jail. Afghanistan has paved roads for the first time which greatly prevent accident fatalities (you should see the piles of cars at the bottom of the passes). The Afghan Police are well on the way to being accepted as a professional, and trustworthy organization and they are really 'policing' rather than just taking bribes. The standard of living in Afghanistan has increased dramatically over the last several years. There has been a significant decrease in tribal warfare and blood feuds. Less people are dying now due to the fighting than were being killed under the taliban.

And most importantly: The average Afghan is greatful because we are helping to give them control over their own country once again (remember, the Taliban came from pakistan).

I can accept your opinion that even though the Taliban and Al Qaeda commited an act of war against the United States, we should not have gone to war. I can also accept the argument that it may not have been in Americas best interest to do so. However, while we have significant difficulties, for every step back we take two forward and to imply that our efforts in Afghanistan are a 'disaster' is misguided.

Greg, thanks for your eyewitness report.

I am reminded of the horrific difference between classroom Marxism and Gulag Marxism (Surprise, Ivan!).

What you have contributed is worth more than 10,000 pages of intellectualizing, pontificating, and finger-pointing. Thank you.

jorgelito · 09-13-2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Greg, thanks for your eyewitness report.

I am reminded of the horrific difference between classroom Marxism and Gulag Marxism (Surprise, Ivan!).

What you have contributed is worth more than 10,000 pages of intellectualizing, pontificating, and finger-pointing. Thank you.

Agreed, thanks for your valuable first hand account and insight Greg. Hopefully that will help to clarify things.

roachboy · 09-16-2008, 09:10 AM

so despite what might have at one point or another obtained from a particular viewpoint which was extended to a general assessment through the device of "the average afghani"-----as if that makes any sense---and despite how wonderful it was to have this, thing in more or less real time continue to evolve or devolve depending on your view of an escalation in conflict with pakistan.

it's hard to keep track of all this idiocy, layer on layer of idiocy, between football season and reality tv, the collapse of the american financial system and the slower implosion of the housing market, the disappearance of "risk management" as a pseudo-coherent undertaking, the cloud of lint being blown from the right in place of a coherent political debate about what is happening in the united states and the world and which policy options might or might not make sense to consider when making a decision about who to vote for in the next election....it's hard to keep track, because there is so fucking much stupidity and it is happening continually.

Quote:

Pakistan orders troops to fire on US cross-border raids

Army official says field commanders have been told to take action against further raids launched from Afghanistan

* Mark Tran and agencies

* Tuesday September 16 2008 16:17 BST

Pakistan's military said today its forces had received orders to fire on US troops if they entered Pakistani territory, after a cross-border raid inflamed public opinion.

The country's civilian leaders, who have taken a tough line against militants, have insisted Pakistan must resolve the dispute with the US through diplomatic channels. But the military has taken a more robust line.

General Athar Abbas, an army spokesman, told the Associated Press that after a cross-border assault in the south Waziristan region earlier this month, the military told its field commanders to take action to prevent any similar raids.

"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."

The remarks mark a sharp deterioration in military relations between the US and Pakistan, which have been close allies in the "war on terror" since the September 11 attacks seven years ago.

The Bush administration has shown increasing impatience over what it considers Pakistan's incapacity or unwillingness to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaida fighters operating on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Pakistan insists it is doing what it can. It has about 100,000 troops in the restive north-west and suicide bombers are inflicting an increasingly deadly toll on the Pakistani army.

American officials have confirmed that their forces carried out a raid near the town of Angoor Ada but have given few details. Abbas said Pakistan's military had asked for an explanation but received only a "half-page" of "very vague" information that did not identify the intended target. Pakistani officials have said the raid killed about 15 people, and Abbas said they all appeared to be civilians.

He would not say whether General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who replaced Pervez Musharraf as head of the army last year, personally made the decision on orders to fire on US troops or if it had been discussed with US officials.

The army spokesman played down reports that Pakistani forces yesterday shot at US helicopters after they penetrated national air space. Abbas insisted no foreign troops had crossed the border and that "trigger-happy tribesmen" had fired the shots.

Pakistani troops based nearby fired flares to see what was going on, he said. The US military in Afghanistan said none of its troops were involved in such an incident yesterday.

As the US steps up its military activity in the sensitive tribal area, Pakistani officials have warned that an increase in cross-border raids will achieve little and fuel the insurgency in Pakistan. Some complain that the country is being made a scapegoat for the failure to stabilise Afghanistan.

In a rare public statement last week, Kayani said Pakistan's sovereignty would be defended "at all cost". Abbas said Pakistani officials had to consider public opinion, which was increasingly anti-American and had some sympathy for rebels claiming to fight in the name of Islam.

"Please look at the public reaction to this kind of adventure or incursion," Abbas said. "The army is also an extension of the public and you can only satisfy the public when you match your words with your actions."

Last week, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said a new strategy for Afghanistan was needed that incorporated the tribal territory. George Bush is believed to have signed a secret order allowing US forces to operate in the tribal area, even though the UN mandate for international forces in Afghanistan does not extend into Pakistan.

* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

Pakistan orders troops to fire on US cross-border raids | World news | guardian.co.uk

if you read french, there's an interesting article here:

Pakistan, extension du domaine de la guerre - Les blogs du Diplo

jorgelito · 09-16-2008, 09:31 AM

It's pretty much a debacle, on both sides. But then again, nothing is ever pretty or perfect in war.

roachboy · 09-16-2008, 09:39 AM

so it's all good then because, well, it just is.
no-one is responsible, no choices are made, debacle just happens.
you declare a war, you are declaraing debacle.
things just unfold automatically, like a giant machine.

i don't think so.

09-09-2008, 04:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	1.) I think we're playing a giant game of whack-a-mole. Once we secure Afghan Iraq or some other country will "need" our help. It's a never ending reason to maintain huge spending & funding for the military and their contractors. 2.) I think Bush and Neocon's are leaving the next POTUS (and the country) one giant shit sandwich. How and who gets the first or biggest bite is any body's guess. But given the size of the debt being left by this I'd say the middle class will end up paying the most and hurting the most. Though the bill may not come completely due for another generation. 3.) I think McCain will keep playing the whack-a-mole game and attempt to use the military at every opportunity he's given. I thin Obama is more likely to use diplomacy prior to sending in the troops. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-09-2008, 04:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	But would leaving Afghanistan be worse? If US-NATO decided to up and leave would that just doom the current Afghani gov't? Would they be torn by civil war? Would the Taliban take over? -----Added 9/9/2008 at 08 : 54 : 27----- Yes one of the reasons I support Obama is his commitment to the Afghanistan campaign. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter Last edited by jorgelito; 09-09-2008 at 04:54 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-09-2008, 05:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The campaign in Afghanistan feels like it was the right thing to do. That it was not handled properly is not a surprise. I figured it was only a matter of time until NATO decided to fly missions into Pakistan and it is no surprise that they would choose to do so while Pakistan is in political transition. Musharraf was very much against letting the US into Pakistan but the new President seems to be on board with crushing the Taliban (it could be that his biggest political opponents are the ones allegedly harbouring the Taliban so if a few of them die or thrown into turmoil in the process all the better). The thing to remember is that nobody can conquer Afghanistan and it is never likely that it will resemble a Western democracy... ever. This is a nation that, with the massive financial support of the US, brought the Soviet Union to its knees. This is now a nation, the massive financial support of certain gulf state interests (with deep pockets made deeper by oil profits), that may bring NATO to its knees. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-09-2008, 05:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	That's the irony isn't it? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-09-2008, 05:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the paper i linked to is pretty precise about how the spiral went tho---it's not a question of principle, more a question of the fact that the us installed karzai whose government managed only to control kabul, which was skimming aid money off and diverting it to colleagues---lack of co-ordination in the training of police---inability of the government to deliver basic services--continuing us occupation. machiavelli knew that occupying another country is the point at which your problems start, not end. the neo-cons obviously only read the cliff notes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-09-2008, 04:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I have never liked the way Afghanistan was handled. Well, it started off ok with covert ops and intel gathering. But the execution didn't go the way I thought it should have. It was too overtly military that stopped way short of controlling the whole country and the Pakistan border region. It should have been kept covert and after a few months of intel gathering from a far, people just start dying in their sleep. Or from accidents. Or from rare diseases.

09-09-2008, 04:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I guess I'm glad that they're taking their attentions away from Iran, but the government has repeatedly demonstrated that they couldn't fight a war on terror even if it was legitimate. Obama has started speaking publicly about what we've all been thinking all along: Pakistan is housing violent extremists, and could be housing senior leadership of these radical organizations. The question is (and always has been) how exactly to deal with this. Pervez Musharraf has been an interesting character to watch; he was very vocal about supporting the US against the Taliban and al Qaeda, even going so far as to allow the US to have military bases in Pakistan. Of course later on it was made clear that Pakistan was under unbelievable pressure from the US and that Musharraf was concerned that the US might just tag team with India, which would put Pakistan directly in harm's way. What I'm left thinking is that Pervez Musharraf never really had full control on the goings on in Pakistan, in fact he really didn't stand a chance in that area. Pakistan is still a very unstable place. I don't really have an official "he's good" or "he's bad" statement about Musharraf. He was about what I expected in many ways. Now we have Asif Ali Zardari, who I trust even a bit less than Musharraf because of his history, but I find myself unsure of how he will attempt to deal with the tension turning into excursions across the border by the US. Clearly civilian casualties are completely unacceptable, but what can he bargain with? I might try to invite the UN to get involved, but that could be seen unfavorably with the Pakistani people. If they're anything like Americans, they'll want more useless and stupid posturing, which won't serve anyone. Regardless, my attentions over the next few days will be fixed on google news for "Pakistan".

09-09-2008, 06:05 PM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The neocons are not especially interested in winning a war, just fighting them in perpetuity. In the process of hollowing out and privatizing the military they have a created a massive economic sector of contractors and mercenaries. Like any sizable sector of the economy they need to protect it. The next administration will be faced with the same issue. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-09-2008, 06:30 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	All-in-all, I see this as a devastating demonstration of the importance of high intelligence and ability in leadership. When you vote for an idiot, especially a flock of idiots, who are more concerned with unsupportable goals, this is what you can expect. Clinton was smart enough to avoid things of this magnitude, but even he screwed up repeatedly. Should I be forced to come to terms with the fact that the best leaders for our country only exist in fiction?

09-10-2008, 05:53 AM	#15 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	We sent troops into Pakistan this past week. The Paks said very little about it. Apparently Bush has decided that one way or the other he's going to take out OBL before he leaves office. The idea of sending more troops into Afghanistan is not a good one, in my view. Historically it's been proven to be a mistake. We succeeded in taking down the Taliban at the end of '01 because the fighting was done by Afghans, with Special Ops and air support from the US. But we can't do well in a long-term large-scale fight there because we don't know the culture and haven't embedded with it - but the Taliban and AQ have. That doesn't mean there is no military solution - to the contrary, the use of force has to be part of the solution, simply because of the nature of the foe, but it has to be part of an integrated approach that uses a lot more tools. Classic counterinsurgency as developed by Gallula and perfected by Petraeus counsels that dispersed small forces in support of local groups is the most effective way to suppress an insurgency. Fact is, we can never be as bloodthirsty and ruthless as the AQ/Taliban, but we can try to be smarter. Another part of the problem is that this is a NATO operation, which means everyone and no one is in charge, and different countries' politics will govern which forces are available when for what purpose. Too many cooks and all that. I believe the technical term is "clusterfuck."

09-10-2008, 07:57 AM	#17 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	host, conspiracy theorizing about WTC is OT in this thread. I was discussing the [lack of] progress of the war in Afghanistan, which is what this thread is about. So I decline to engage here on that issue.

09-10-2008, 09:21 AM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	for the record, i have never accepted that the war in afghanistan was either necessary or "just"---but the current situation has outstripped that---even as in principle this remains a problem that nags at me. what prompted the thread was the beginning of american incursions into pakistan, coupled with new twitching on the part of the corpse of the bush administration to shift troops from iraq to afghanistan. this led me to wonder why things are as they are, which in turn led me to root about, only to find another beautiful example of neo-conservative incompetence opening onto yet another downward spiral. the options are: either one can see in this incompetence a kind of justice---false premises opening onto disaster--but that bypasses the questions of how anything happens and retreats to a theological view of the world, nothing different from the "invisible hand" idea or, worse, some kind of royalist thinking (bad things happen to the pretender)---or one can bracket ambivalences as to cause and simply look at what's been happening. i chose b in this thread. i think it's ultimately a more interesting way to go. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-10-2008, 02:51 PM	#25 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Edited: Cleaning up old, poorly written posts, sorry. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 09:39 PM..

09-10-2008, 03:19 PM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	greg--thanks for that post--it's very interesting. the main argument that i have to contextualize what you say comes from the paper that i linked to in the op. i run through the points that struck me, but the paper is itself better and more informed. before that, i had framed the thread away from what i thought of the rationale for going into afghanistan in the first place for a few reasons, one of which is that the taliban were never a great bunch of guys., and there is a side of me that would have probably been more ambivalent about the campaign if the argument had been that the americans were intervening on politico-humanitarian grounds with an organization that the americans, pakistanis and saudis had armed and trained in the 80s in order to fight against the soviets---the taliban is itself another consequence of american stupidity, in a sense. this would have pushed me into an objection to the entire covert operations modality of policy implementation/defense that the americans have used since the 1950s--school of the americas and all that. which to my mind points back the the national-security state. so you see how it would have gone. within all that, the other problem is the entirety of this "war on terror"---but that's another matter. there's something kinda overwhelming and really not helpful in terms of one's mood or outlook in thinking about the extent to which the latest policy debacles are of a string of them, and that among the consequences of these policy-level and strategy-level debacles is not only the deaths of civilians, but also of folk like yourself, who did not invent the logic that landed you there, who are not responsible for it, but who are among the human beings who suffer the consequences of it, directly and indirectly. for what it's worth, when my posts get angry or my actual politics start to surface, this kind of information generally lay behind it. so much pain this has caused, and for so little reason. the article outlines a series of problems. initially, there's no doubt that folk in the countryside and kabul were all pleased to be rid of the taliban. the problems, the article argues, began when karzai's government, which never controlled much of anything outside kabul, could not deliver basic services, was skimming off money that was earmarked for state-building into the pockets of colleagues in kabul, the incoherence in the training of a police force and consequent inability to provide basic security (ugh--that miserable word) to folk outside kabul---problems of food complicated by the campaign over opium, which failed--and the generation of cash through that trade in large amounts, which led to alternate mechanisms for providing basic services etc.---the fact that the taliban had several years to rebuild in pakistan, that they did rebuild---that the occupation continued, karzai government came to be percieved as corrupt and inept and the occupation continued so that it became an explanation for everything bad that was happening so that the taliban--who remain pretty whacked out in terms of their ideology and practices--have been able to attract alot of support again. this is the scenario outlined in the article, and the steps along the way are documented in the afghanistan watch page that i posted below it. so have a look, if you havent (don't rely on my plot summary, please--it's nothing more than that) and let us know what you think of it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-10-2008, 03:58 PM	#28 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Edited: Same reason. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 09:40 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-11-2008, 12:17 AM	#30 (permalink)
host Banned	Greg700, I was hoping you would post here because you know much better than I, what is or isn't appropriate to share publicly. The sense I get is that the increased bureaucracy, the length of the chain of command, and the differences in goals and execution of policy, recently, vs. before the buildup of conventional US and NATO forces, has had unintended consequences as far as casualty rates of conventional forces, compared to how aggressive their posture has been, and that the way you were able to operate prior to this buildup, accompanied on missions with the native forces you've trained (force multiplication). In other words, before this buildup, smaller US units, working alongside native forces trained by and well acquainted with their US trainers, operated with more autonomy and projected a much different impression on the locals, and were much less provocative, as far as the enemy's impression of these units as they operated in both their "hearts and minds winning" role, in intelligence gathering, and in patrol and combat missions, than currently in border areas with larger numbers of conventional forces and command.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sense I get, if the way I described the changes is correct, is that the introduction of a much larger force is setting back (or at least confusing) the winning of hearts and minds and force multiplication, encouraging a larger and more aggressive response from the enemy, and producing US and NATO casualties that might not have to happen,

09-11-2008, 02:36 AM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	greg--i appreciate the posts as well, but i stressed that the argument i was interested in your response to was in the linked paper, not my cliff notes version of it. the paper presents a more detailed and comprehensive view than i could, and is focused on trying to explain the "insurgency"....unlike myself, that writer has been to afghanistan, talked with folk, etc. no need to take on my cliff notes version when there's a more substantial version a click away. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-11-2008, 05:11 PM	#34 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Also Edited, really sorry. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 09:40 PM..

09-16-2008, 09:31 AM	#39 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	It's pretty much a debacle, on both sides. But then again, nothing is ever pretty or perfect in war. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

09-16-2008, 09:39 AM	#40 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so it's all good then because, well, it just is. no-one is responsible, no choices are made, debacle just happens. you declare a war, you are declaraing debacle. things just unfold automatically, like a giant machine. i don't think so. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite