RE: Afghanistan Command Change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

rulemylife -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 10:35:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

At least we're in the right country this time.


Until we invade Pakistan



Which shouldn't have become the problem it has if we had fought the right war from the start and contained them in Afghanistan.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 10:39:52 AM)

I thought the Taliban originally came from the moutainous areas of Pakistan-Afghanistan border? Where is DomKen when I need a memory refresh on this?

I do not disagree that we should not have been in Iraq, and even if we had, the focus should have been on Afghanistan and stabilzation there first. Your comment about them not being contained because of fighting in the wrong area is inaccurate though.



philosophy -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 10:58:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


And the fact is that all major Western intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMDs, as did most of Saddam's own inner circle.  His deception operation was a success in it's application, although not in its final result.


.....well, what we know is that we have been told that most of the major Western intelligence services said that Saddam had WMD's. We have also heard that there was significent minority opinions about this inside those services. Significent enough to warrant further examination. In the prelude to the Iraq invasion what i couldn't get my head around was the apparent desire of the Bush administration to remove Hans Blix and his inspection team. Given those significent minority opinions it would have been wise (imo) to let Blix do his work. The result of this rush to war was to paint a picture of an administration that hell-bent on attacking Iraq, regardless of any contrary opinion or, indeed, evidence. Whether that perception has merit or not, it's one that could easily have been avoided. Indeed should have been avoided.....especially if the real intent was to counteract Islamic fundamentalism.

quote:

Combine this honest belief in WMD's, with Saddam's propensity for mass murder and invasion of his neighbors, along with his hatred of the US (witness his likely assassination attempt against an American President), his growing involvement with Islamic Jihadists, and the US's realization that Islamic terrorist would use WMD's if they ever got their hands on them ... the danger that SH represented became important enough to warrant action.


..i'm unfamiliar with Saddam planning to assasinate a US president. However, what you're describing is regime change. Fair enough. If the Western powers had been honest about this from the get go there may have been more support. The problem is, however, that regime change is under international law an illegal reason to go to war. It's a bad precedent. In this sphere we can't just play one game at a time. Wise leaders have to look beyond the short term.


quote:

So a long term solution to the Jihadist problem isn't simply going into an Islamic country and killing them all.  The long term solution is to give the Islamic world an Islamic example of a rich, successful and relatively free Islamic nation.



...we have one already....Jordan. That example by itself clearly does nothing to work against the roots of Islamic terrorism. So, i don't think your premise is correct. If it were, then we wouldn't have seen the rise of Islamic terrorism in the first place.

i think the best solution to Islamic terrorism is to deal fairly and honourably. To remove the justifications for the accusations that the US will merely take what it wants regardless of law or justice. The invasion of Afghanistan was fair and honourable. Most moderate Islamics accept that. The problem is that perception of the rush to war in Iraq that i mentioned earlier. If my assumptions are correct, the invasion of Iraq has not only failed to eliminate Islamic terrorism, it may well have increased its power base.



DomKen -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 11:33:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Iraq invasion violated at least one treaty the US signed and ratified so yes the Iraq invasion was illegal.

Make your case.

Firm


Quite simple.

Is the US a signatory of the UN charter? We are. Therefore any invasion of another country is illegal unless the strict requirements of the charter are followed. They weren't therefore the invasion was illegal under US law. Note that the security council resolutions before the invasion are insufficient to authorize the invasion and conquest of a nation.



DomKen -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 11:39:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I thought the Taliban originally came from the moutainous areas of Pakistan-Afghanistan border? Where is DomKen when I need a memory refresh on this?

I do not disagree that we should not have been in Iraq, and even if we had, the focus should have been on Afghanistan and stabilzation there first. Your comment about them not being contained because of fighting in the wrong area is inaccurate though.


Officialy the Taliban formed near Kandahar which isn't far from the Pakistan border.

In reality the Taliban was recruited by the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service, from madrassa inside the pakistani tribal areas, primarily North and South Waziristan.



rulemylife -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 11:50:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

However, the term was what Owner used, and I believe used for a very specific purpose: to cast it in an illegitimate light.  This is an example of lefty newspeak, used to make honest discussion difficult if not impossible, because the real issues of disagreement are hidden.


If you truly want to have an honest discussion you might consider avoiding terms that denigrate the people you are debating, such as "lefty newspeak".
quote:



Dishonest:  You mention primarily that it was about WMD's.  This is based on a lot of media hype, and was one of the rationales for the war, I agree.  As far as it went, it was an honestly perceived threat, IMO.


Revisionist history.

You need only go back and Google the pre-war links to find that this was the single, primary justification presented to the public, to Congress, and to the United Nations.
quote:




But far from the only reason, it's just that it's easier for opponents to latch onto, and I'll admit that the Bush Admin didn't do a very good job of justifying and explaining the point after the fact.

And the fact is that all major Western intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMDs, as did most of Saddam's own inner circle.  His deception operation was a success in it's application, although not in its final result.


IAEA, UN Inspections in Iraq Worked

We were all wrong," says weapons inspector David Kay. Actually, no. There was one group whose prewar estimates of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities have turned out to be devastatingly close to reality - the U.N. inspectors.

Consider what Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. nuclear agency, told the Security Council on March 7, 2003, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites: "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites."

He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997 and its dual-use industrial plants had decayed. All these claims appear to be dead-on, based on Kay's findings... The real lesson is that international bodies like ElBaradei's can work.

This was never about WMD's.

Neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and the members of the Heritage Foundation had written position papers advocating the invasion of Iraq for years.  September 11th provided a convenient excuse for preying on a fearful public.   Or have you conveniently forgotten the Bush administration's failed attempts to link Saddam to the attacks?

This was an ideological war based on the belief we could spread democracy in the region. 
quote:




Combine this honest belief in WMD's, with Saddam's propensity for mass murder and invasion of his neighbors, along with his hatred of the US (witness his likely assassination attempt against an American President), his growing involvement with Islamic Jihadists, and the US's realization that Islamic terrorist would use WMD's if they ever got their hands on them ... the danger that SH represented became important enough to warrant action.


More memory problems?  His war with Iran occurred with the full support of our government.  I guess under the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The second part is just patently false.  Saddam looked upon the jihadists as a threat to his own rule.
quote:



However, the real question wasn't whether or not he was directly responsible for anything related to 9/11: the strategic question was how to eliminate the ideological underpinnings of Islamic Jihadism.

Taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan would certainly "take care of the day", but it wouldn't (and hasn't) really addressed any of the "root causes" (!!) of the movement.


Again, Saddam did not support jihadists.  This has been proven over and over.  How did we eliminate the underpinnings of jihadism by deposing a secular leader who was himself fearful of the influence of the religious extremists?

As far as the rest, you are basically supporting two different viewpoints.  Iraq was justified because we thought Saddam "might" have nuclear weapons capability but taking on the Taliban, which harbored and supported those that attacked us, you advocate other than a military solution.  That didn't work too well when Pakistan recently tried it.







rulemylife -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 12:00:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I thought the Taliban originally came from the moutainous areas of Pakistan-Afghanistan border? Where is DomKen when I need a memory refresh on this?

I do not disagree that we should not have been in Iraq, and even if we had, the focus should have been on Afghanistan and stabilzation there first. Your comment about them not being contained because of fighting in the wrong area is inaccurate though.


I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that they were primarily concentrated in Afghanistan and only fled to Pakistan after the U.S. invasion. 

It was, afterall, effectively a Taliban-led government prior to the invasion.

edited to add:

I just now saw DK's response after I posted, but my question still stands to you both.

Did they really have a strong presence in Pakistan prior to our invasion or were they primarily concentrated in Afghanistan?






FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 12:16:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Iraq invasion violated at least one treaty the US signed and ratified so yes the Iraq invasion was illegal.

Make your case.

Firm


Quite simple.

Is the US a signatory of the UN charter? We are. Therefore any invasion of another country is illegal unless the strict requirements of the charter are followed. They weren't therefore the invasion was illegal under US law. Note that the security council resolutions before the invasion are insufficient to authorize the invasion and conquest of a nation.

There are several avenues of logic to counter this particular claim.

Here is one:

Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter states:

The Purposes of the United Nations are

1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

So, one of the primary purposes of the UN is to remove threats to the peace.

You wish to claim that Saddam had not been, was not, and was never going to be a "threat to the peace"?

Here is another:

Another level of logic would be whether or not you believe that the UN is an effective organization, and should be trusted in making decisions, when both Russia and China sit on the Security council and can prevent any action that they believe to be in their interests? Or is the UN basically a thugocracy, corrupt and anti-freedom organization that allows genocide?

I submit that the cause of freedom and individual rights would more often be better served by taking the exact opposite position that the UN might take.

Here is another:

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so.

In other words, although Kofi claims it was illegal, he has no authority to say so, nor take any action. Nor did he take any action, nor has any other nation who is a member of the UN.

So, propagandists, and fellow travels can claim anything they want, but there is no legal basis, no competent authority which backs up their claims.

There are certain more avenues of discussion on the subject, but I think these three are sufficient for now.

Firm



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 12:18:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


And the fact is that all major Western intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMDs, as did most of Saddam's own inner circle.  His deception operation was a success in it's application, although not in its final result.


.....well, what we know is that we have been told that most of the major Western intelligence services said that Saddam had WMD's. We have also heard that there was significent minority opinions about this inside those services. Significent enough to warrant further examination.


The record on this is clear for anyone who was paying attention at the time or cares to research it now. There was, at best, considerable skepticism among Western intelligence agencies, skepticism which only grew as the runup to the war accelerated. The British Attorney General warned Blair two weeks weeks before the invasion that the legality of the war was in serious question. The more the inspectors looked for evidecne of WMD, the more they found not only no evidence of their existence, but increasing evidence that Iraq had no viable WMD capabilities whatsoever. This was widely reported on major news agencies at the time, and that's why Bush wanted the inspectors out.

To whatever extent other countries were willing to set aside their skepticism and accept the Bushers' insistence that thet existed and we had to invade RIGHT NOW, THIS AFTERNOON, QUICK BEFORE HE ATTACKS US!!!!, it was directly attributable to the Administration's outright lies, of which there is now abundant evidence anywhere anyone cares to look (for those who do care to look). In other words, the reason other countries were willing to believe that Saddam had WMD was because they trusted us, and we lied to them (hello, General Powell!). It pretty much demolishes Firm's contention that our mistake was an honest one because other people made the same mistake, if the only reason they made the "mistake" was because of our dishonesty in the first place.


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
The result of this rush to war was to paint a picture of an administration that hell-bent on attacking Iraq, regardless of any contrary opinion or, indeed, evidence. Whether that perception has merit or not, it's one that could easily have been avoided. Indeed should have been avoided.....especially if the real intent was to counteract Islamic fundamentalism.


And again, there is abundant evidence available now that the perception not only does has merit, but is substantively correct. The Downing Street memos, for one example. There's ample evidence that the decision to invade was set in stone and completely independent of the results of the inspections, so much so that I don't see how anyone could seriously question it.



DomKen -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 12:18:51 PM)

However the UN charter lays out very specific prosedures before a member state can attack another state. That procedure was not followed. Therefore since the US Constitution specifically makes all ratified treaties the law of the US then the invasion of Iraq was illegal.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 1:07:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Again, Saddam did not support jihadists.  This has been proven over and over.  How did we eliminate the underpinnings of jihadism by deposing a secular leader who was himself fearful of the influence of the religious extremists?


Obviously, I've hit a nerve with a certain group, and I seriously doubt I have the time (or, honestly the desire) to engage in debunking every error.

So pardon me if I pick and choose.

Let's talk about this issue, as it is one that is constantly harped upon, but which much more data has come to light since the invasion, and a bit of time for a real investigation of Saddam's archives.

Here is the main document you need to review if you want to know the truth:

Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents

This is a 11.7 meg pdf file from ABC new's website.

It came out last year, and the press reported on it, but really didn't read it (or if they did, then they only reported on the things that reinforced their agenda, and ignored many other facts and conclusions contained within the report).

This report is the Pentagon's analysis of Saddam-jihadists links prior to the invasion, based on his governments own internal memorandums and documents.

Some resources which reference the details and conclusions of this report:


Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties
By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | March 14, 2008

quote:

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.


...

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

...

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."


Here are couple of blog articles about the report:

Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups: Pentagon

Saddam and al-Qaeda

I really think we can put this issue to bed, can't we rule?

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 1:20:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

However, the term was what Owner used, and I believe used for a very specific purpose: to cast it in an illegitimate light.  This is an example of lefty newspeak, used to make honest discussion difficult if not impossible, because the real issues of disagreement are hidden.


If you truly want to have an honest discussion you might consider avoiding terms that denigrate the people you are debating, such as "lefty newspeak".

"Lefty" is exactly what it is. Owner59 (bless his heart) is pretty much my definition of a "lefty", although he does have a hidden heart. But when it comes to his positions and posts - he's as "lefty" as they get.

"Newspeak" is exactly what it is: "illegal war" is a term which has moral condemnation built into it, even though the "illegal" part of it is both unproven, and false. It attempts to change the terms of reference without the benefit of reason.

Now, if you (and others) wish to call it an "immoral war", I'd still take exception, but I wouldn't accuse anyone of newspeak.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 2:07:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Dishonest:  You mention primarily that it was about WMD's.  This is based on a lot of media hype, and was one of the rationales for the war, I agree.  As far as it went, it was an honestly perceived threat, IMO.


Revisionist history.

You need only go back and Google the pre-war links to find that this was the single, primary justification presented to the public, to Congress, and to the United Nations.

I'm sorry, but you are in error. The actual US Resolution gives these additional justifications for the use of force:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

All of these points were accurate, and valid.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

But far from the only reason, it's just that it's easier for opponents to latch onto, and I'll admit that the Bush Admin didn't do a very good job of justifying and explaining the point after the fact.

And the fact is that all major Western intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMDs, as did most of Saddam's own inner circle.  His deception operation was a success in it's application, although not in its final result.


IAEA, UN Inspections in Iraq Worked

We were all wrong," says weapons inspector David Kay. Actually, no. There was one group whose prewar estimates of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities have turned out to be devastatingly close to reality - the U.N. inspectors.

Consider what Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. nuclear agency, told the Security Council on March 7, 2003, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites: "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites."

He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997 and its dual-use industrial plants had decayed. All these claims appear to be dead-on, based on Kay's findings... The real lesson is that international bodies like ElBaradei's can work.

This may be all good and fine and correct.

But it is a blindness to who Saddam really was.

You remember the Duelfer Report? I'm sure you read it, and probably quoted it, because some parts support your contention.

However, here is the key issue from that reports "Key Findings" that you and others seem to avoid:

quote:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

It pretty clear, even if one accepts your argument that WMD's were not a valid reason to invade, that justification was certainly valid in the long term.

I tend to be a long term thinker when it comes to politics and international events. Accepting that WMD's were not a valid reason is short-sighted, and wishful thinking.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

This was never about WMD's.

See the above conclusion from the Duefler Report.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and the members of the Heritage Foundation had written position papers advocating the invasion of Iraq for years.  September 11th provided a convenient excuse for preying on a fearful public.   Or have you conveniently forgotten the Bush administration's failed attempts to link Saddam to the attacks?

*shrug*

So?


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

This was an ideological war based on the belief we could spread democracy in the region. 

So? You have something against allowing people to live in freedom, in a democratic nation?

You do believe that all men are created equal, and have inalienable rights given by our Creator, don't you?

Or do you believe that freedom, democracy and rights are something that only the US and the West should enjoy?

Are you your brother's keeper?


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

More memory problems?  His war with Iran occurred with the full support of our government.  I guess under the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

"Full support?"

I don't think so.

At best, the US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was a Morton's fork. Choosing the lesser of two evils, but hoping for the failure of both. Life (and international politics) often presents us with less than desirable options.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

As far as the rest, you are basically supporting two different viewpoints.  Iraq was justified because we thought Saddam "might" have nuclear weapons capability but taking on the Taliban, which harbored and supported those that attacked us, you advocate other than a military solution.  That didn't work too well when Pakistan recently tried it.

I've done enough with you today, but if you really need me to explain this, ask me again some other time.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 2:10:58 PM)

philo,

Sorry I haven't responded specifically to your post.

As you can see, I've been busy. Some of my other post cover some of the issues we are discussing, but I owe you a direct reply, which I will get to when I've recovered a bit more. [:)]

Firm



Vendaval -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 2:24:23 PM)

From The New York Times -
 
"Taliban"
 
Updated: April 23, 2009

"The Taliban are a Sunni Islamist group that ruled Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, when they were ousted by the American-led invasion. During their time in power the Taliban also sheltered Osama bin Laden and outlawed the education of women. Since 2004, the predominantly Pashtun movement has re-emerged and mounted an insurgency against Western forces in Afghanistan and the country's government. Their influence has spread as well in the often lawless territories of northwestern Pakistan to the point where it has begun to supplant the government's hold over cities as well as the countryside. More ominously, in the spring of 2009 Taliban units began teaming up with local militants to make inroads in Punjab, the province that is home to half of Pakistan's population as well as its capital.

The Taliban grew out of a student movement dedicated to purifying the country, based in the Pashtun region in the country's southeast. Their rise was initially greeted with relief by many Afghans weary of the corruption and brutality of the warlords who had fought for control in the years after the end of Soviet occupation."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
I thought the Taliban originally came from the moutainous areas of Pakistan-Afghanistan border? Where is DomKen when I need a memory refresh on this?



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 2:47:00 PM)

The war with the Soviets, that occured in Afghanistan started the seeds of the movement, as it led to the civil war afterwards. Notice in each of the article links that Pakistan provided most of the bodies, and much of the training. Where the Afghanistan refugess got their training and schooling, would still be in Pakistan regardless of whether Iraq was invaded or Afghanistan was concentrated on. This is the point that I was refuting in Rule's post.:

"There was no such thing as a Taliban until the Afghanistan’s civil war in the wake of Soviet troops’ withdrawal in 1989, after a decade-long occupation. But by the time their last troops withdrew in February 1989, they’d left a nation in social and economic shards, 1.5 million dead, millions of refugees and orphans in Iran and Pakistan, and gaping political vacuum that warlords attempted to fill. "

" Thousands of Afghan orphans grew up never knowing Afghanistan or their parents, especially their mothers. They were schooled in Pakistan’s madrassas, religious schools which, in this case, were encouraged and financed by Pakistani and Saudi authorities to develop militantly inclined Islamists. Pakistan nurtured that corps of militants as proxy fighters in Pakistan’s ongoing conflict with over Muslim-dominated (and disputed) Kashmir. But Pakistan consciously intended to use the madrassas’ militants as leverage in its attempt to control Afghanistan as well. "

http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a_2.htm

" Afghanistan’s central government had long been dominated by the country’s majority ethnic group, the Pashtuns, but after the Soviet withdrawal a coalition government that included Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and other minority groups came to power. The Taliban emerged as a faction of mujahideen soldiers who identified themselves as religious students. The Taliban consisted mostly of Pashtuns intent on once again dominating the central government in Kābul. They were trained and armed by the Frontier Constabulary, a quasi-military unit in Pakistan, which also has a significant Pashtun population. The Taliban actively recruited thousands of young men in the Afghan refugee camps and the madrasas in Pakistan. Many war orphans also joined the movement. The Taliban promoted itself as a new force for peace and unity, and many war-weary Afghan people, particularly Pashtuns, supported the Taliban in hopes of respite from years of war. "

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588418/taliban.html

" Origins - Where did the Taliban come from?
The first devotees came from the poverty-stricken refugee camps that sprung up along the Pakistani border during the Afghan-Soviet war. The young men of these camps learned a fierce and fundamental strain of Islam through the madrassas, Islamic schools that dotted the Afghan-Pakistani border. In September 1994, Mohammad Omar, then a mullah and today the leader of the Taliban, created the militia in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar. From the start, its goal was to unite a divided and war-plagued Afghanistan under a strict and unyielding version of Sharia -- Islamic law as written in the Koran, the life of Mohammed and his followers, and Muslim scholars through the ages. "
 
http://www.islamfortoday.com/taleban11.htm



rulemylife -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 3:07:46 PM)

You know, we really both need to start making shorter posts and concentrate more on one argument, because this is starting to take up too much time for both of us.

I'm winding it down here now, but I will try to address your points tomorrow.



Vendaval -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 3:14:59 PM)

Hello Orion....found a map from PBS' Frontline that shows the area in detail,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/tribal/map.html


and another one that is more topographical,

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan_pak_border_map.htm


and photos of the area for mountaineering, climbing and hiking.
 

http://www.summitpost.org/area/range/180975/the-hindukush.html


I think in this case, as with the desert areas between the U.S. and Mexico, the terrain and the local tribes shape the cultural and political environment,  more so than the official governments in distant cities.  From an outsiders perspective an area viewed as being two or more separate entities may not appear that way on the ground, especially not to the locals.
 
I am not refuting or disputing any points made previously, just noting that it is easy to overlook the social/cultural/religious/linguistic realities that in turn shape a political and military reality.





FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 3:19:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You know, we really both need to start making shorter posts and concentrate more on one argument, because this is starting to take up too much time for both of us.

Absolutely.

All of these issues are certainly complex, and interrelated, so it's time consuming and  a lot of work to fairly address them all.

I generally try to focus on only one or two issues per thread, even if it leaves me open to claims that I'm not "fully addressing the issues".

If you wish, we can choose only one or two of the issues to continue.  I'll not make any claims of "desertion" if you so wish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I'm winding it down here now, but I will try to address your points tomorrow.

Thanks rule.  That would be great.  I'm not sure that I'll be able to come back in any detail until the weekend.

Firm



Politesub53 -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/12/2009 4:25:24 PM)

Firm, the two main reasons for the invasion of Iraq were given as Sadam having WMD`s, of which none were found. The other was that he was supporting Bin Laden, and the quote in one of your own posts confirms this wasnt true either.

"The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda."  Afghanistan was always the place that should have been the only theatre of operation, and no report from the Penatagon ( hardly unbiased ) will persuade many of us otherwise. Cutting through the B/s hardly makes us blinkered.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.796875