Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

The Taliban Strikes Back

By Gary Brecher, AlterNet. Posted July 21, 2008.


After six years of ignoring Afghanistan, things have gotten bad enough to force American officials to pay attention.
51zgqaxm6l.ss500
The War Nerd by Gary Brecher (Soft Skull, 2008).
Advertisement

After six years of ignoring Afghanistan, things have gotten bad enough to force American officials to pay attention. For the past two months, U.S. casualties in Afghanistan have been higher than in Iraq. And on July 13, Afghanistan definitely got everybody's attention when nine U.S. troops were killed in what Wikipedia is now officially calling "The Battle of Wanat." Three days after the battle, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the U.S.-dominated military force running the country, announced it's abandoning Wanat completely.

Let's start with a close-up of the battle, then zoom out to the overall situation in Afghanistan. Wanat is in Kunar Province, along the border with Pakistan. It looks a lot like Northern Wyoming: mountain country, steep slopes with pine forests running down to fast, cold rivers. Some of the photos I've seen from Kunar seem like stills from "The Sound of Music" or "Heidi," only some prankster has Photoshopped in a platoon of soldiers in desert camouflage.

The outpost that the United States had just set up in Wanat was supposed to disrupt Taliban supply lines from Pakistan. Instead, it became a tempting target for the local guerrillas, just like hundreds of other remote forward bases in other rural guerrilla wars from Southeast Asia to Algeria. Guerrillas usually avoid open combat with conventional forces, but when they do attack in force it's usually against the smaller, more vulnerable forward bases. The Wanat base was a very tempting target because it was still under construction.

It's not so easy to be sure what actually happened in the battle there on July 13. A big Taliban force -- big by guerrilla-war standards, meaning several hundred -- was able to mass outside the base without being detected. They attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and rifle fire, managed to take part of the base, and then either withdrew or were forced back into the town of Wanat, where the fighting continued in the ruins. The NATO troops had massive air support, and faced with that, the guerrillas dispersed into the hills. Then, three days later, the U.S. forces, who have de facto command of southeastern Afghanistan, also withdrew. Officially Wanat is now in the hands of the Afghan police, but that's a joke.

You can tell how ridiculous that claim is by looking carefully at the casualties from the battle. This is a good example of how to read war news carefully, how to read between the lines of standard press coverage. It's almost like a story-problem for war nerds. Here are the figures: There were 70 defenders in that base, 45 U.S. troops and 25 ANA (Afghan National Army) troops. That's about a 60/40 split. So if both groups fought equally effectively, you'd expect more than a third of the casualties to be from the ANA. But that's not the story the casualty figures tell you. Every defender who died was American; no Afghan troops died. Three-quarters of the wounded were also American, only four out of 19 were Afghan. What that tells you is that the ANA didn't fight. They left it to the Americans. That's a pattern you often see in guerrilla wars: The locals fight very hard against the occupiers, but not very well for them. So in Vietnam, the Viet Cong fought like demons and the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) barely fought at all, even though they were from the same ethnic background.

There are a lot of very familiar patterns in this story. If you zoom out from Wanat and look at the bigger situation in southern Afghanistan, you've got the classic ingredients for a long, bloody guerrilla war: a big ethnic group on both sides of an artificial border, difficult terrain, and dirt-poor peasants with a long tradition of fighting just about everyone who comes along, from Alexander the Great to the 19th century British. The Pakistani/Afghan border is 1,500 miles long, and the people living on both sides of it are Pashtun, the biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan and the support base of the Taliban. The Taliban started as a Pashtun resistance to the Northern Alliance warlords, mostly Uzbeks and Tajiks, who took power after the Soviet pullout in 1989, and the Taliban is still mostly Pashtun. The reason you don't hear so much about the ethnic angle is simple: Neither side wants to push that angle in its propaganda. The Taliban would like to claim to be defending Islam, and the Americans are happy to go along with that, so they can say we're fighting Islamic terror. But the fact is that the Taliban stands for old-school Pashtun tradition more than for Islam. And the Taliban is divided even further, with complicated loyalties to local warlords and tribal chiefs. There are three main factions right now, and the one that runs Kunar Province is run by an old friend of the CIA's from the 1980s, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar was always a tough guy to handle, for the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, and when the foreign troops finally withdraw, it's a safe bet that his faction of the Taliban will just switch to fighting the other two. But for now, the three factions seem pretty solidly united against the ISAF, the American-dominated occupying force.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gary brecher, guerilla warfare, wanat, afghanistan, taliban

Check out Gary Brecher's new book, War Nerd (Soft Skull, 2008).



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Intriguing reading
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Jul 21, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really like the observation that an occupation by a more powerful conventional army speeds up a Darwinian process of selection among guerrillas, culling the "hotheads, sadists and crazies." Hence the more patient, calculating, and dangerous fighters remain to lead the insurgency. This is a fantastic insight.

It is something U.S. commanders should understand but most of whom likely don't, especially in the highest positions of authority. The Pentagon bureaucracy doesn't seem as adaptable as guerrilla fighters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Intriguing reading Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Intriguing reading Posted by: john mont
Help! (Is on the Way-Obama the Messiah)
Posted by: edith on Jul 21, 2008 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U of Chicago constitutional law prof proposes two more combat brigades to thump their heavy boots in the hostile villages of Aghanistan.

Source of said troops? From troops Law Review Editor O would withdraw from Iraq. Oh, that must make the war weary lucky troops to be transferred SO happy.

Change you can believe in?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well Edith... Posted by: chuckjs
» Posse Comitatus anyone? Posted by: Spot
» Repel Invaders Posted by: edith
» Dying for Obama To Win? Posted by: edith
» You also forget basic logic Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well Edith... Posted by: john mont
» RE: Well Edith... Posted by: john mont
It's deja vu all over again
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 21, 2008 4:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a Vietnam vet and I'm frankly puzzled by the U.S. role in Afghanistan. What do the Beltway commandos hope to accomplish? They don't seem to know -- but they're enthusiastic as hell about digging this hole even deeper. I thought we accomplished our goal in 2001 when we displaced the Taliban and gave the warlords a chance to form a decent government. Guess not.

Now we have our young folks getting killed in growing numbers as they slog around remote mountain passes trying to interdict the Tallies, who no doubt are amused by the ponderous NATO columns that thunder along their roads. And, since none of this is working, U.S. and NATO officials want to do much more of it -- as if Afghanistan were an urban area like Baghdad and another surge could magically turn the tide.

Of course, the smart boys -- the ones running the big contractor companies -- are laughing all the way to the bank. And I suspect they're bankrolling both sides of this presidential election. I can think of no other reason why the Democrats would want to plunge into this mess. Why do the Tallies -- and most of the other Muslims -- hate us? It's not because of our freedoms or our SUVS or our Ipods,or even our religion. It's because we're in their back yard, shoving our Western values in their faces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's deja vu all over again Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: It's deja vu all over again Posted by: richholland
WAR is the name of the Game! What a waste of Resources, Time, Money and People!
Posted by: williameon on Jul 21, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Endless WAR instead of a Consumer Based economy.
How do you steal the Money as fast as you can?
War is the way to do it.
Is this the best we can do?
It is theirs!
Dead Eye and The Chump.
I say enough already. They've had their chance.
Start over.
SURGE
PURGE
UPDATE and
REBOOT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a war on terror
Posted by: willd4change on Jul 21, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to get more troops in afganistan if this really is a war on terror. I think the bush administration thought there was oil there, and when they figured out they were in the wrong country it was to late. Now Obama wants to pull out of Iraq and get more troops where the bad guys are, while Mcain wants to stay and protect our oil interests. The problem is in that part of the world without a saddam there is no peace. I feel the writer is right, we need to go kill the talli on the ground same with Iraq but what then, we will have to stay in both countries just like Japan, Germany, Korea and so on. The other option is to let individual talli and iraqi clerics to take care and run their own slice of the pie. If you think the big oil companies will allow that in iraq then they may have a chance. This is some sad shit our country is involved in. The leaders arent interested in the helping the locals they have what they went after, control of Iraq's oil. The US foreign policy in the middle east has gotten us to the point we are at now, thats why we are so hated around the world. The only terrorists prior to 1979 wanted to kill Israelis, thats before Iran started funding more extreamist to fight the western powers for overthrowing their government. I hate the the extreamists and we should kill them all, but if we keep poking our noses in places it doesn't belong for greed then don't be surprised when your grandchildren are still fight jihadists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Talli Powder? Posted by: edith
» "We"? Posted by: Sparks56
» Oil in Afghanistan?? Posted by: gellero1
An Empire 'progressives' can believe in
Posted by: mutualaid on Jul 21, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gross to see this sort of dehumanization of people, with Pushto sayings offered up by hack 'progressive' journalist to allow us to swallow the need to 'do Afghanistan right'.

And wildforchange should enlist if he can support this invasion of people's land with the astounding proviso - 'if the war on terror exists'.

Obama combines all the classic pretexts for war: poverty, socialism (alternative development model - see his statements against Chavez), drugs (he wants more money than bush asked for to send to brutal and corrupt Mexican & El Salvadoran military/police (see Plan Mexico/Merida Initiative and his speech at cuba american foundation in May 2008).

'Some progressives' seem all to eager to believe in pretexts for empire b/c our government couldn't lie/steal and those people are uncivilized and inhuman.

Gross.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Military joke of the day
Posted by: solrev on Jul 21, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our military will never learn that occupations come down man to man and hand to hand. We try to set up a puppet government that destroys the society we invaded, then try to win the hearts and minds of the people. If Kudlow is correct and free market capitalism is the best way to prosperity, then we should be helping the Afghanistan farmers grow their poppies. While they are happily making money we could develop the infrastructure they will need in the future. That is how you win the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately, that is what the Taliban is doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Military joke of the day Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Buy A Poppy for Peace Posted by: edith
Everything gonna be alright,
Posted by: symcokid on Jul 21, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
once we have Momma's Obama at the helm and then we can send over about 300,000 more troops and really clean house. I would rather believe all of our domestic problems will be solved too and the economy will be going full boar hickey once again. Amen to that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try telling that to my parents and my wife's parents who are ignorant pro-GOP.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 21, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They'll tell you that automatic "remote control" technology is "taking care" of it as an "excuse" for pulling troops away from Afghanistan and into Iraq. And tell them about America's very desperate thirst for oil in the Middle East and they'll tell you that "Only oil should be allowed to drive the economy. Everything else is just crummy technology that won't work !" And yes, tell them about the Saudi royal elites and the CIA and they'll ignorantly to try "defend" them as America's "heroes" and "saviors". And my and my wife's parents aren't alone. This backwards thinking is still so headstrong all over the country unfortunately.

P.S.: My and my wife's fathers aren't quite as "conservative" as our mothers surprisingly as they'll be open to rhyme and reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a fundamental...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 21, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Disconnect between what is going on and what we are told, in this country. In order for a military apparatus like our own to validate its existence, the idiots in charge felt we had to send it somewhere... to pound someone's country, to kill someone's children, to "GET EVEN". But you see... the NATURE of a terrorist CELL is that it is just that. An independent, self organizing, unit evolving as the situation around it changes. Originally funded to get over here, they then blend into the fabric of society and patiently await their chance to do some damage. I'd say from the lack of follow ups to WTC, the majority of them lose their initial anger once they get to know the people they blend in with and do nothing. There is no chain of command from on high anywhere as you are made to believe. No headquarters to "take out", no chain of command to break. Plus, the people in the cell that brought down the Trade Center were all from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. So naturally we attack Afganistan and Iraq because that's where they were "trained". The people involved trained in airline schools in this country. It's as if the pentagon and our government "leadership" can only see the world in terms of how WE have things set up. They keep looking for an equivalent to our command hierarchy to take out and "WIN" but THERE ISN'T ONE!
There's just a lot of pissed off people wanting us the hell out of their country. I mean look at the people in the photo accompanying this article. Not uniformed troops but ordinary folks of all ages who have taken up arms to drive these destructive foriegners out of their country. Much as we would find ourselves doing if the situation were reversed. That's why all this crap is so painfully tragic and absurd.

The enemy is our ATTITUDE. People don't like being told they are sitting on OUR OIL. On OUR minerals or that they should be happy to return to their shanty town after cleaning our hotel toilets all day. Or that the field where they once grew food crops now must grow coffee for export or rice or soybeans or bananas or Mangoes for export only. Our system is fucked up that way. We think on some level that we are entitled to live as we do simply by virtue of being American. That these poor unfortunates need our pity, our "aid" and our missionaries. What they need is to be left alone. Most of these places prospered for thousands of years before they became part of the empire.

People rise up against corrupt governments that make deals like that that they then have to live with. Then we declare the citizenry there who want change to be terrorists. We fund the corrupt government leaders who made the trade deals and send military aid to help them keep the people down. Then when something bad happens we join in the chorus led by talk radio morons... "Why do they hate us?" It's because too many of us are mired in our own struggle to survive, to pay those all important bills and we don't really check what our government is doing in our name. Then we are rallied as we are trained so well to do in our addiction to team sports to cheer on the troops, no matter what they might actually be doing over there.

That's all i have to say right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Beautiful! Posted by: chief of okeefe
AMERICA put the guns in the hands of TALIBAN and USAMA bin LADEN TO KILL THE RUSSIAN INVADERS AND...
Posted by: Turiye on Jul 21, 2008 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....who won that one??? Usama bin Laden the Supreme Mujahadeen of Afghanistan.
Who thinks we are tougher, stronger and have the staying power of the Russian Troops? Why does anyone think we, without Troops necessary to fight, will defeat Taliban?
Can we all just come home now???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OBL did not defeat soviets Posted by: DesertStone
» RE: OBL did not defeat soviets Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: OBL did not defeat soviets Posted by: DesertStone
» RE: OBL did not defeat soviets Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: OBL did not defeat soviets Posted by: DesertStone
What blatant racist drivel
Posted by: DesertStone on Jul 21, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am shocked that an outlet like AlterNet which prides itself on being so progressive and righteous would publish such a blatantly racist load of utter crap. Gary Brecher is a vile racist low life who doesn’t know crap about Afghanistan, Pashtuns, Tajiks or Uzbeks which is wildly obvious to anyone with even a slight knowledge of Afghanistan. Firstly most Afghans are a mixture of the various ethnic groups of Afghanistan; hence do not decide political loyalty based on ethnicity alone. What you have here is an American pushing an agenda of artificial ethnic separatism for the benefit of the US. Afghans of all ethnic groups are fed up with interference of Pakistani nationals coming in over the borders interfering in Afghan affairs Pashtun or not. The Taliban have always been funded and sponsored in part by Pakistan’s government to keep Afghanistan in perpetual chaos, for one thing aid money for Afghan refugees has nourished Pakistan for decades, while Afghanistan is lawless Pakistan can continue to loot natural resources from Afghanistan including timber along the southern border Pakistan’s lease on the NWFP has long expired. The common enemy of Afghans is Pakistani terrorists regardless of ethnicity and many Afghans are united on this matter. Pakistan has contributed to Afghanistan’s war for decades and is deeply invested in keeping Afghanistan in a state of chaos with yet more help from their American and British friends. Furthermore Americans have committed atrocities all over Afghanistan rest assured that you are equally resented as imperialist occupiers by all Afghans regardless of ethnic affiliation. Apparently smearing particular ethnic groups and promoting artificial ethnic separatism is the new US strategy in their war of terror.

I have to add that I’ve never heard nor know of any Afghans Pashtun or otherwise who espouse the absurd proverbs that you attribute to Pushtuns. You feel quite entitled to dismiss over half of the Afghan population as “hillbillies” while elevating yourself as some superior American clever enough to determine that “to gain that sort of local knowledge, you need troops settling in to the villages, getting to know people” but not bright enough to conclude that smearing an entire ethnic group which constitutes over half the country will hardly earn you the trust or alliance of the people. You’re a repugnant scum sucker of epic proportions, a primitive racist and an idiot hardly worth the ink in your pen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What blatant racist drivel Posted by: jareilly
» RE: What blatant racist drivel Posted by: DesertStone
» This is too good. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: This is too good. Posted by: DesertStone
» RE: This is too good. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: This is too good. Posted by: DesertStone
» RE: This is too good. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» I disagree Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Disturbingly Sensical
Posted by: Mark Andrews on Jul 21, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article does contain a disturbing amount of truth to it. Gary has a point in comparing Taliban and Viet Cong strategies; I have increasingly little doubt as time progresses that the Taliban have actually studies the tactics of the Viet Cong. What I am concerned about are the increasing sophistication of their tactics and operations. After all, one month ago they broke out 400 prisoners from jail, and then apparently launched an operation to cover their retreat using 200 fighters. They have been increased their attacks, but I can't escape the feeling that they're not using their full force, and that they are in fact preparing to unleash an offensive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's fun for them Posted by: gellero1
The CIA Strikes Back
Posted by: perkywa on Jul 21, 2008 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would be a much more appropriate title for this article since the CIA created the "Taliban" AND "al-qaida" (aka the database of "terrorists").

Someone might want to clue O-BOMB-A in that Russia had 600,000 troops in Afghanistan and LOST. He might also want to review "the Charge of the Light Brigade" when the British lost half of their calvary in a valley in Afghanistan 100 years before the Russians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» FBI Posted by: gellero1
» RE: FBI Posted by: jwverez
Dockside
Posted by: rtmyth on Jul 21, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are we there? Is that in our own best interests, or is it in the best interests of the power elite? Of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WHY??? Posted by: gellero1
AhhhHaaaa..............
Posted by: gellero1 on Jul 21, 2008 4:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, AlterNet writers want war afterall !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what it's like........
Posted by: gellero1 on Jul 21, 2008 5:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike 99% of the posters here, I've been to Afghanistan, when I was a student, age 23. ( before it was dangerous, on the way to India )

Afghans are rural, clannish, tribal people. The Government has always only had any authority in the cities ( Kabul, Khandahar, Herat, Mazar - i - Sharif. )
They have no industry............even matches were imported from the Soviet Union.

They live in another world............they are largely illiterate. They like to fight. They have always been armed. They don't like outsiders, they are not 'terrorists' in the sense we know it.

They are not always 'Taliban', ( religious zealots ), but they like to fight, grow their hash and opium, and live in the 12th century.

I have no problem with that. But they did allow Osama to set up training camps with his millions, and recruite foreign fanatical fighters. And that's the problem..........not the locals.

really, who cares if they grow their hash and opium...it's what they do.

We cannot 'pacify' these people without massacring all of them.

But we really don't need to. Let them grow their opium and make money the traditional way......hard work in an unhospitible environment.

Afghanistan is interesting, but hopeless. My impression when I was there was that it needed a good old fashioned Communist revolution to organize them.
But even that failed.

We don't want training camps there. All we have to do is pay them tribute and the Taliban will never return. The Warlords will make sure of that. And it won't be very expensive.

Unfortunately, the 'War on Drugs' will screw us all. Ironically, opium and hash could save us.

It'll never happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Funding Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Funding Posted by: jwverez
» RE: Get over yourself Posted by: DesertStone
» LOL............... Posted by: gellero1
» RE: LOL............... Posted by: jwverez
If Your Quarry Goes To Ground, Leave No Ground To Go To” –Sun Tzu
Posted by: European American on Jul 21, 2008 5:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are Chechen Muslims going to Afghanistan to fight the US instead of fighting the Russians at home?

I guess the Russian military won their hearts and minds… via brutality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Journalistic Asumptions
Posted by: gellero1 on Jul 21, 2008 7:06 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Three-quarters of the wounded were also American, only four out of 19 were Afghan. What that tells you is that the ANA didn't fight. They left it to the Americans."

Is this guy serious? How does he know? Will he give a deposition under oath to this? Has he talked to anyone there? Or did he get his facts from the internet, the font of all knowledge.????????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

get out!
Posted by: wormfarmer on Jul 21, 2008 7:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always referred to this debacle as, "Bushes little viet nam," crossing borders in this case is similar to Cambodia and Thailand, with similar results.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Doesn't Get It, Either
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jul 21, 2008 9:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even Obama, as bright as he is, hasn't figured out that we are making 100 enemies for every one we kill. We weren't attacked by the Afghan people, or even the Taliban; we were attacked by a small group of criminals, most of whom were Saudi. Obama has fallen under the spell of Brzezinski, the father of the Taliban. Now he's hawking it up on Pakistan, too. This is not like fighting a national government, as we did in WWI and WWII, and defeating one group will just create dozens more who vow our destruction. The best thing for us to do is treat 9/11 as the crime that it was, and stop our military meddling in other countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

observer
Posted by: davy on Jul 22, 2008 12:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A very interesting and thought provoking article. Here we are "post Russia". The dogs bark the kids die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Jul 22, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's all pause for a moment and give thanks where it is due. To the former Soviet Union. Bad as it was the Soviet client regime created what was about as safe, stable and modern a society Afghanistan as ever existed. The only comparable period was a brief, peaceful interlude right after WW II. The Soviets brought education, technical support, roads, clinics and links to the Eastern bloc economies. No picnic by Western standards but still a vastly superior to the decades of war, barbarism and warlord misrule that followed and still haven't ended. For their trouble the Soviets faced a CIA-Saudi-sponsored war with $250 million a year courtesy of Zbigniew Brezinski, Jimmy Carter and you and me. The USSR took 15,000 casualties before they gave up and went away. It's too bad Carter succeeded. About 3000 New Yorkers paid the price for that...

Obama is hoping you will not remember (or be too young to remember) all this. He hopes you think it was all some kind of wild, cowboy adventure, with amiable, "colorful" Rep. Charlie Wilson and his chilly-ass, ex-cheerleader Texas matron cleverly assisting the downtrodden "freedom fighters". Obama wants this thing to drag until at least midway through his second term. Presidents get a lot credit for the blood shed by others. After that I am sure he doesn't give a rat's ass. He'll retire to "the Obama Institute" or the Board of ADM or both and play kingmaker among the other warmonger Dems. The rest of us will be coerced, cajoled, extorted and exhorted to keep supplying the blood and treasure.

And nobody in a position of authority or public influence will say, "let's just get out and leave Afghanistan to it's inhabitants".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: big words from a big mouth Posted by: DesertStone
40 million from Clinton
Posted by: zorba1 on Jul 22, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During Clintons terms 40 million bucks was given to our friends in Afganistan to help wipe out the poppy fields.
How much do you think was used for guns, rpg's ammo etc instead.
I doubt if one poppy was taken out.
Then there were those images of CIA operatives handing out tens of thousands of dollars every month to Afgan chieftains to keep them on our side.
Those chiefs are only loyal to themselves. They laughed all the way back to their tents.
Remember those images and articles just a few years ago?
I remember one zine showing a picture of a chief holding a stack of $100 bills with a big grin.
What do you think he was thinking?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of Bold Comments Out There
Posted by: sid8891 on Jul 22, 2008 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! I didn't realize how many people out there knew so much about how to fight wars. Some of you should really run for office. That is my horrible sarcasm as it seems many of you are so good at. I wonder how many of you (and I am not saying it is zero) actually have spoken with the soldiers that fought that battle. I don't even think the writer of the article acquired accurate information. Sounds like more propaganda to get more people to think like them. We hear a few things and jump to conclusions, then write really big words to sound smart. Nice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neither the article nor the comments hit the mark....
Posted by: captbobalou on Jul 22, 2008 6:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This area of Afghanistan is a highly productive poppy growing area. The "Taliban" and local government officials represent somewhat organized gangs financed by the drug trade (which has been pretty good in this area over the past 5 years because of the ridiculous "eradication" policies of NATO, ISAF, and the Karzai government). Things were relatively quiet until the harvest of 2006, which was a banner year for opium production. The cash produced by that harvest allowed the "Taliban" to rearm, retrain, regroup, and get smarter. Two years later, our troops and the nascent Afghan national police pay the price. This defeat is a direct result of the failure of US and European counter-narcotics & counter-terror policies.

If you continue to follow what happens here (beyond the headlines), pay attention to the nexus between the poppy harvest, who controls the distribution and financial networks, and the sporadic outbreaks of violence in this area.

The US has a moral obligation to help sort things out in Afghanistan, (our money and promises, made over five Democratic and Republican administrations, completely screwed things up over there). But that means we have to be a lot smarter than we were in Vietnam. There was no way we could be smarter under the Bush administration given their ideological blinders, reliance on the Pentagon as the sole instrument of US foreign policy, and its short-sighted trade policies.

Fortunately, there is (scant I'm afraid) hope that an Obama administration might consider a more rational approach to the conflicts in Afghanistan. But it is a challenge we need to face as a nation, and as a national priority.

The US needs to better synchronize our national security policies with our commercial and ideological policies to bring things to any kind of satisfactory conclusion in this region. To accomplish this is going to require some major political muscle and popular persuasion. I'm not sure it can be done given how little Afghanistan means to the material well-being of the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barb Gantt's Blog
Posted by: ganttbarb on Jul 23, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom from Big oil and US terrorism

Barb Gantt's Blog


The main 08 election topic has to be America's Industrial grid without oil.
A Nuclear industrial grid is now the only alternative to give America time
to develop green renewable electric trains, electric cars, wind, and solar.
The main topic of discussion needs to be America's Industrial grid without oil.
America needs at least 200 additional nuclear plants within the next presidential first year in office.
Because, America has to have time to develop into green renewal energies.
I am told that Nuclear plants can be built in 2 years not 25.
I am told that Nuclear plants can self digest their waste before they are retired.
America needs 200 additional nuclear plants within 2009.
France is 80% nuclear.
America will need electric trains and cars, wind and solar within the next presidential first year in office.
Why is Washington not bringing this primary issue front and center?
This is the principal issue for America to survive.
Otherwise Big oil will continue to take America into bankruptcy with wars and cost prohibitive drilling attempts.
Why are our leaders not bringing this primary issue front and center?
This is the principal issue for America to survive a conversion to green renewable energies.
Otherwise Big oil will continue to take America into bankruptcy with exorbitant food and transportation costs.


How do you like those "high tech" Big oil commercials?
All of their technology is being used to find more oil instead of invest in green renewable alternatives.
Do Americans really believe the U.S. can survive spending 30 Billion a month for 7 years?
Should China and Japan own the U.S. through all the foreign debt extensions?
Doesn’t anyone out there in America remember the dust bowl or the depression?
A nuclear industrial grid has to remain front and center.
There is no alternative to give us time to get to green renewable energy.
America needs the time that nuclear will give us to develop the green renewals of electric trains, electric cars, wind, and solar.
Washington has been in
bed with oil for 30 + years. We have had 30+ years to plan
for the depletion of oil.
But Big oil has always overcome patriotism.
Are Americans delusional?
Washington is certainly delusional.
Will Americans wait until the strike of midnight to decide to voice the need for change?
What will the cost of steel and concrete and food and transportation be by that time?
Does there have to be catastrophic poverty, then famine for the United States to pull away from Big oil?

Too many Americans are not voting because they choose to be
demoralized by what Big oil is doing to our "democracy".
2: Freedom from Terrorism in the US
American international security will improve
through support of UN Security Council Resolution 242 the basis of Oslo Agreement to build Palestinian E Jerusalem.
A major factor in America's global security is the need to be objective towards Palestinians.
Until America sets the consistent tone of an East Palestinian Jerusalem and a Western Israeli Jerusalem
the terrorists are going to continue attacking the US for our bias towards Israel.
We can no longer afford to be biased in this matter.
The US has to show integrity towards the Palestinians regarding land being stolen by Israeli aggressions.
It is ironic.
After all that the Jewish people have suffered... that Israeli leaders perpetrate genocide for Palestinian lands.
Conclusion
The 08 US Presidential Election is Crucial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barb Gantt's Blog
Posted by: ganttbarb on Jul 23, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom from Big oil and US terrorism / Continued

I worry a lot about America.
So many Americans have lost their integrity.
So few Americans tell the truth anymore.
So many Americans don't know HOW to tell the truth anymore.
Neo con political correctness is political censure.

World history shows that
corruption has always been a country’s
downfall.

America should have started 30 years ago
to develop Industrial alternative energies.
Instead, America stays in bed with Big oil.
The leaders of the United States exercise rich, pedigreed privilege to be in bed with Big oil at the expense of their own country's survival.
Where do the upper crust elite plan to live when their homeland collapses? With a Big oil lobbyist friend?
But in what country?

Now the remaining super powers have to
fight for what remains of peak oil on our planet.
China, India, U.S. ...
The U.S. is overdrawn
in many ways today ...Especially morally and ethically.

What do I believe today...right now?
The 08 US Presidential Election is Crucial.

Do you Americans really believe the U.S. can survive spending 30 Billion a month for 7 years?
Our grand total for just the Iraqi war is now greater than > 3 trillion.
How different our country could have been if Gore had taken the White House.
Gore's popular vote was stolen. Gore probably would have sent in a covert action against Bin Laden at minimal costs.
Or maybe Gore would have been smartest of all to only focus on America's inner strength and boundaries.
Instead Cheney and Bush waged a catastrophic credit card war to benefit a select few in Big oil.
Cheney and Bush have gutted America in so many ways.
Cheney and Bush did exactly what Bin Laden wanted. Now there are
Bin Laden clones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, etc..etc..
A nuclear industrial grid has to remain front and center.
There is no alternative to get us to a green renewable Industrial grid.

Cheney and Bush have gutted America in so many ways.
Washington is betraying America one civilian at a time...
Fighting wars to prop up Big oil and US Defense Contractors.
In the armed forces probably 90% do all the work.
On the civilian side, only 10% do all the work.
90% of the Defense Contractors do no work at all!
I admire the armed forces for their discipline, loyalty, team synergy and strong boots on the ground Leadership.
What I see in Defense contracts, is the opposite.
I see an attitude of false superiority and a lack of humility.
I see Defense contractors that think their entire job responsibility is to show up in Theater and avoid doing work.
Some Defense contractors have a total disconnect about the value and power of teamwork.
Supervisors, managers, and corporations choose political correctness over accountability and choose selfish preservation over initiative.
A widget in Theater is still billable hours.
ALL THOSE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT COULD HAVE STARTED AMERICA TOWARDS FREEDOM FROM Big oil
went to Defense contractor employees
that talk on their cell phones all day long doing no work for America.
The customer, the Armed Forces, needs to start showing teeth about the dead weight of a widget.
A widget in Theater is still billable hours.
Soldiers get left carrying the burden of a contractor's job.
People often think that deployment is fear of "dangers".
However the biggest problem is the American Contractors who have no oversight.
The "coworker" that is self serving without regard for our military.
THE MOTO OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS: "I CAME HERE TO GET MY MONEY".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barb Gantt's Blog
Posted by: ganttbarb on Jul 23, 2008 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom from Big oil and US terrorism / Continued

I look at Jerusalem, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, and the Continent of Africa with their enormous populations of Islamists.
All Islamists have their focus on Palestinian land in Jerusalem. Poverty gives them no option but radical terrorism.
> 3 Trillion or more has now been spent just in Iraq, and most of that has been to Big oil via Defense Contract Companies.
Greed instead of Patriotism.
While America has had 30 years to prepare for the depletion of oil.
"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" / "Let them eat cake"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This author and this article is a racist detriment to its publisher
Posted by: DesertStone on Jul 24, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was profoundly hate filled and contemptuous. It was also completely lacking in sources and was poorly and childishly written. I have asked the editors for an apology or explanation as to why such a piece would be published and received no response. I do not intend to read any more articles on this site as one can not put any faith in the words of ill informed, childish, ranting hate mongers who litter their writings with absurd personal prejudices based on their own delusions. I will guess Gary Brecher has had no contact with the people he attempts to dehumanize. Ultimately this writer only proves his own shortcomings and inadequacy. Hardly a writer for any well informed reader to take seriously let alone a serious news outfit to publish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 27, 2008 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated&