I suspect we are being warmed up for a new kind of war. Afghanistan is really to show us we can't cope as old style colonists or handle insurgencies. I can imagine a first strike attack on Pakistan to hit their nuclear weapons, a similar blitz in Iran and some kind of deal to bring Indian or Chinese troops into play in the aftermath. There were rumours about a pipeline when we went into Afghanistan, but it seems impossible we are in a country so poor and apparently lacking in resources - the drugs stuff hardly seems to count (I was there around 1980 with EU customs people and there was little market then - other than to Iran and Pakistan users). I can't see anything wrong with your analysis Francis - but it seems so stupid 'they' must be up to something else.
On 8 Oct, 13:56, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > I was discussing this with a friend just minutes ago. Sadly it was Bush > and his cronies ego (easing God out) with the desire to go down as a heroic > war time presidency.. what they were was a school yard bully administration > unable to think or act responsibly. > > Sadly the job needs to be done correctly now.. and you just can not leave > popular of not. > Allan > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:51 PM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > How did the Western Allies manage to f*** up so badly in Afghanistan? > > We can all remember the immediate aftermath of 9/11; clear links > > between Al Kaida and the Taliban, Bin Ladin enjoying succour and > > support in Afghanistan, the Luddite religious terror of the Taliban, > > judicial murder of "unchaste" women, the vandalism of the statues at > > Banyam, etc. Operation Enduring Freedom had the basic backing of the > > UN Security Council and the UN-mandated NATO organised ISAF has been > > an integral part of the western operations in Afghanistan since the > > beginning of 2002. > > > Eight years later, Afghanistan has turned into a colossal SNAFU. To > > catalogue all that went wrong would take take a very large book. There > > are, though, a couple of major factors which can briefly be mentioned. > > > The initial goal was - at least publicly - to get rid of the Taliban, > > set up an alternative legitimate government and get out. But, on the > > way, the allies fell foul of the basic premise of the Powell doctrine > > - they broke it and now they own it. It's still broken and deadly > > dangerous as a result. And they can't sell it because nobody they can > > trust wants to buy it. > > > A major contributor to the problem was Bush's crazy war in Iraq. It > > served to divert attention from Afghanistan at a time when that > > attention was badly needed. It also served to divert financial > > resources, manpower, logistical resources etc. from Afghanistan at a > > time, when, had they been committed, the thing just might have been > > brought to a successful conclusion. It also served to politicize the > > whole presence of US-led Western forces in the region and provided > > Islamicist propaganda arguments with legitimation in the eyes of many > > angry young men in the area. By making a limited action to get rid of > > a mad-dog regime in one country part of a much larger regional > > ideological power conflict, it subordinated limited, achievable goals > > within Afghanistan to hopelessly complex geo-political problems - in > > particularly (but not only) with relation to Pakistan. > > Karsai has proven to be a major disappointment, turning out to be just > > another Pashtun warlord, serving his own constituency and personal > > power base. But the West should have known this beforehand and > > factored it in. Many of the other warlords continue to consolidate > > their positions by alternately blackmailing and cooperating with the > > allies. The stupidity of the west and the cupidity of the Afghan > > elites in power have been a powerful recruiting sergeant for the > > Taliban in the past couple of years. And the border region between > > Afghanistan and Pakistan has become a vacuum where the Taliban can > > flourish almost completely unopposed, because everyone is afraid to do > > ANYTHING in Pakistan for fear of the consequences. > > > Then there's the whole opium thing. If the Western Allies (above all > > the US) had given up their fully useless, propagandistic "War on > > Drugs" position, decriminalised the opium production and bought the > > whole Afghan harvest for a couple of years running at (black-)market > > prices, they could have cut off the Taliban financial base, got the > > Afghan peasantry/people enthusiastically behind them, supplied the > > entire world demand for medical opiates and would still have finished > > up spending less money than they have on growing military operations > > in the past couple of years. Then, hell, they could even have burned > > the surplus, if they couldn't find any better use for it. > > > I don't envy Obama on this one, because there is no good solution now. > > Bush dropped him a large bag of fragrant s**t, right in his lap. If > > the West follows the Soviet example and just bails out, the Taliban > > will be back, possibly not just in Kabul but in large parts of > > Pakistan - maybe even in Islamabad. With nukes. A wonderful scenario, > > in which an Ahmadinejad with a nuclear bomb will suddenly be seen as a > > moderate. > > > I have a picture of Obama and Bush standing togther like Laurel and > > Hardy, with BO saying, "That's ANOTHER fine mess you've gotten us > > into!" > > > Francis > > > On 7 Okt., 15:11, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The latest UK retired general is saying he asked for substantial troop > > > increases and was denied by Brown. Our basic problem in all this is > > > that we aren't in any kind of communication with Al Q and what they > > > think they are fighting for. I don't know whether any of this stuff > > > is worth fighting over - history would indicate not much ever is and > > > that our working knowledge is pathetic. There were many valid > > > protests that could have stopped WW1 and 2, yet not much understanding > > > even now about how such culturally advanced societies like Germany, > > > France , Britain, Japan, Russia and the US fell into such a mess. > > > The essential question seems to be why we are forever stuck in the > > > 'war model' when we can clearly change to live in plenty without war. > > > This question raises practical issues about living in peace when there > > > are those who might use such a situation merely to establish better > > > footings for war in their own domains, and a solution is clearly > > > needed to prevent this. Our current solution is the 'American > > > Umbrella'. Even I am reluctant to dismantle this without proper > > > agreements actually put in practice - we should remember here that > > > this umbrella could be collapsed by collapsing the dollar and Euro and > > > is already screwed by the expansion of heavy manufacturing and > > > technology secrets. Bush threatened to bomb (presumably nuke) > > > Pakistan back to the stone age and there will already be some kind of > > > vile plan for a new kind of mad first strike. I suspect our debates > > > are those of innocents. > > > > On 7 Oct, 03:39, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Looks like I may have been too hard on Gen. McChrystal. Our > > > > in-the-tank MSM didn't give me the whole story. Thank God for the WSJ > > > > opinion pages. > > > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020448830457442896122227. > > .. > > > > > dj > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, Obama's war is winding down. I wish he had the guts to cut bait > > > > > or fish but it seems the strategy is to remain there putting our > > > > > soldiers lives at risk fighting a half-ass war with one arm tied > > > > > around our back. The unfortunate leaks have only exacerbated the > > > > > problem. Gen. McChrystal may very well have sacrificed his career > > > > > going public with this disaster but I understand why he did it. I > > > > > wish he'd just quit; talking sets a bad precedent. We don't need our > > > > > military bickering with our elected officials. Mr. President, in > > > > > Afghanistan it is time to shit or get off the pot. All this > > > > > indecision is making us look weaker and weaker. > > > > > > dj > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:07 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and > > > > >> brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far > > > > >> away. Orn. > > > > > >> That's about it I'm afraid. The only way any of this might make > > sense > > > > >> is through dreadful assumptions about someone's human nature. A > > > > >> brilliant turn of phrase Orn. > > > > > >> On 6 Oct, 09:48, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> I hesitate to repeat my views again about such things Neil. So, > > here > > > > >>> are some words from someone else. > > > > >>> Orn. > > > > >>> =========== > > > > >>> Starting Another Year of War in Afghanistan > > > > > >>> October, 02 2009By Solomon, Norman > > > > > >>> October 2009 has begun with the New York Times reporting that "the > > > > >>> president, vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, > > > > >>> intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers gathered in a > > > > >>> windowless basement room of the White House for three hours on > > > > >>> Wednesday to chart a new course in Afghanistan." > > > > > >>> As this month begins the ninth year of the U.S. war effort in > > > > >>> Afghanistan, "windowless" seems to be an apt metaphor. The > > structure > > > > >>> of thought and the range of options being debated in Washington's > > high > > > > >>> places are notably insular. The "new course" will be a permutation > > of > > > > >>> the present course. > > > > > >>> While certainty is lacking, steely resolve is evident. An unspoken > > > > >>> mantra remains in effect: When in doubt, keep killing. The knotty > > > > >>> question is: Exactly who and how? > > > > > >>> News accounts are filled with stories about options that mix > > > > >>> "counterinsurgency" with "counterterrorism." The thicker the jargon > > in > > > > >>> Washington, the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and > > > > >>> brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far > > > > >>> away. > > > > > >>> In the White House, there's no indication of a pane that's facing > > the > > > > >>> pain in Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, > > where > > > > >>> the U.S. government continues to bring gifts: a dollar's worth of > > > > >>> warfare for a dime's worth of everything else… > > > > > >>> For the rest of the story, see: > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
