IAP Political Forum
December 01, 2008, 05:59:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the new "IAP 2.0" -- please re-register before continuing to post.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Update from Afghanistan - Peisithanatos  (Read 2729 times)
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« on: June 12, 2008, 03:55:41 PM »

P. you do remember when my ramblings about ISI and Pakistan forces helping Taliban insurgents and maybe as far as arming them and providing intel was seen at minimal as an "unproven" and at most a "conspiracy theory". Not by you necessarily P., but by some, and you didnt find it easy to believe yourself. I think you thought I was simply spinning or pulling an un-provable argument out of thin air. In order to prove Pakistan involvement in Afghanistan and the Taliban I was forced to bring forward isolated incidents and evidence such as the number of Pakistan personnel in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion or the odd story of a Pakistan intelligence operative arrested with Taliban in Kabul. This was not very convincing to you as a major problem or reason why Taliban could continually "resurge".

Well this morning I open up my news and see two stories that sound new but have been going on, imo, for a very long time. First is the drone predator hitting the wrong guys on the Pak/Afghan border. This was bound to happen sooner or later and if this higher level of co-operation between the uppers in the Pak military and gov't that has been going on a long time a la clandestine, (in order to insulate the leadership from having to answer for working with the US so closely and inside Pak. borders) wasn't so 'secret' the US wouldn't be using this clumsy "it's the first time" story.

Quote
The U.S. military released video from an unmanned drone that it says shows airstrikes along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border targeted fighters engaged with coalition forces.
....
 A U.S. official with knowledge of the reports told CNN that the airstrike targeted suspected militants who had fled into Pakistan after conducting an ambush on the Afghan side of the border.

The official said Pakistani military officials worked with the U.S. forces to track the militants as they fled across the border into Pakistan. He said the mission was permitted under the rules of engagement, which allow "hot pursuit" across the border of suspected militants when locations are verified.

But Pakistan's military had a much different account of what happened.

The top spokesman for the Pakistan army, Gen. Athar Abbas, told CNN that the airstrike happened after U.S. forces were called in by Afghan troops who had engaged in a border clash with Taliban forces.

The Taliban forces fired on the Afghan troops as they tried to set up a checkpoint in a disputed area along the Afghan-Pakistan border, Abbas said.
The Afghan troops then called for help from the U.S.-led coalition forces, which carried out an airstrike on positions where Pakistani frontier corps forces were stationed, Abbas added.

....And from the RAND corp.:
Quote
Pakistani intelligence agents and paramilitary forces have helped train Taliban insurgents and have given them information about U.S. troop movements in Afghanistan, said a report published by a U.S. think tank.
...

 "Every successful insurgency in Afghanistan since 1979 enjoyed safe haven in neighboring countries, and the current insurgency is no different," said the report's author, Seth Jones. "Right now, the Taliban and other groups are getting help from individuals within Pakistan's government, and until that ends, the region's long-term security is in jeopardy."

Pakistan's top military spokesman rejected the findings.

The study, "Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan," found some active and former officials in Pakistan's intelligence service and the Frontier Corps -- a Pakistani paramilitary force deployed along the Afghan border -- provided direct assistance to Taliban militants and helped secure medical care for wounded fighters.

It said NATO officials have uncovered several instances of Pakistani intelligence agents providing information to Taliban fighters, even "tipping off Taliban forces about the location and movement of Afghan and coalition forces, which undermined several U.S. and NATO anti-Taliban military operations." No timeframes were given.

 The report said Pakistan's intelligence service and other government agencies provided Taliban and other insurgents with training at camps in Pakistan, as well as intelligence, financial assistance and help crossing the border.

When asked in an Associated Press interview last month what the state of the insurgency might be in 2013, the outgoing NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, said: "If there are going to be sanctuaries where these terrorists, these extremists, these insurgents can train, can recruit, can regenerate, there's still going to be a challenge there."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has pleaded with the world community to address the issue of militant sanctuaries in Pakistan. Afghan intelligence officials say young, uneducated males are recruited in the border tribal areas to become suicide bombers and fighters. After battles or attacks in Afghanistan, militants flow back into Pakistan to rest and rearm, officials say.

Pakistan -- which supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan before the September 11, 2001, attacks -- denied it is supporting the insurgents but acknowledged the problem of militant infiltration.

...

 The study said that besides the Taliban, other major militant groups find sanctuary in Pakistan. These include al Qaeda, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's radical Hezb-i-Islami group and the Haqqani network, led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Siraj.

"These insurgent groups find refuge in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, North West Frontier Province, and Baluchistan Province," RAND said in a news release. "They regularly ship weapons, ammunition and supplies into Afghanistan from Pakistan, and a number of suicide bombers have come from Afghan refugee camps based in Pakistan."

Naturally the RAND corp is the subject of many a conspiracy theory but this is the case with most military think tanks. However all intel should have a 'bullshit factor' assigned to it so lets multiply this study by a bullshit factor of 0.5 and you still end up with fairly rigorous evidence to suggest what I have maintained for a long time which is that the Pak. military, intelligence ISI (2nd largest intelligence organization in the world btw), and the government not only endure the usual pitfall divisions between each other but also suffer in internal schism between players who collaborate across this typical divide in secret.

Logged
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2008, 04:24:31 PM »

PART II:

Some quick notes on ISI:
Quote
The ISI reportedly has a total of about 10,000 officers and staff members, a number which does not include informants and assets. It is reportedly organized into between six and eight divisions:

    * Joint Intelligence X (JIX) serves as the secretariat which co-ordinates and provides administrative support to the other ISI wings and field organisations. It also prepares intelligence estimates and threat assessments.
    * The Joint Intelligence Bureau (JIB), responsible for political intelligence, was the most powerful component of the organisation during the late 1980s. The JIB consists of three subsections, with one subsection devoted to operations against India.
    * The Joint Counter Intelligence Bureau (JCIB) is responsible for field surveillance of Pakistani diplomats stationed abroad, as well as for conducting intelligence operations in the Middle East, South Asia, China, Afghanistan and the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union.
    * Joint Intelligence / North (JIN) is responsible for Jammu and Kashmir operations, including infiltration, exfilteration, propaganda and other clandestine operations.
    * Joint Intelligence Miscellaneous (JIM) conducts espionage in foreign countries, including offensive intelligence operations.
    * The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau (JSIB), which includes Deputy Directors for Wireless, Monitoring and Photos, operates a chain of signals intelligence collection stations along the border with India, and provide communication support to militants operating in Kashmir.
    * Joint Intelligence Technical

...

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made Pakistan a country of paramount geostrategic importance. In a matter of days, the United States declared Pakistan a "frontline state" against Soviet aggression and offered to reopen aid and military assistance deliveries. Pakistan's top national security agency, the Army's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, monitored the activities of and provided advice and support to the mujahidin, and commandos from the Army's Special Services Group helped guide the operations inside Afghanistan. The ISI trained about 83,000 Afghan Mujahideen between 1983 to 1997 and dispatched them to Afghanistan. Pakistan paid a price for its activities, as Afghan and Soviet forces conducted raids against mujahidin bases inside Pakistan.

The ISI continued to actively participate in Afghan Civil War, supporting the Taliban in their fight against the Rabbani government. Backing of the Taliban would officially end after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; however, there are suspicions that sympathetic elements of the ISI continue to aid Taliban fighters.

ISI has been engaged in covertly supporting the Kashmiri Mujahideen in their fight against the Indian authorities in Kashmir. Reportedly "Operation Tupac" was the designation of the three part action plan for the capture of Kashmir through proxy warfare, initiated by President Zia Ul Haq in 1988 after the failure of "Operation Gibraltar."

According to a report compiled by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) of India in 1995, ISI spent about Rs 2.4 crore per month to sponsor its activities in Jammu and Kashmir. Although all groups reportedly received arms and training from Pakistan, the pro-Pakistani groups were reputed to be favored by the ISI. As of May 1996, at least six major militant organizations, and several smaller ones, operated in Kashmir. Their forces were variously estimated at between 5,000 and 10,000 armed men.

The oldest and most widely known militant organization, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), spearheaded the movement for an independent Kashmir. This group declared a cease-fire in 1994. The most powerful of the pro-Pakistani groups is the Hezb-ul-Mujahedin. The other major groups are Harakat-ul Ansar, a group which reportedly has a large number of non-Kashmiris in it, Al Umar, Al Barq, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Lashkar-e Toiba, which is also made up largely of fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of these militants were trained in Afghanistan, where several ISI agents were killed during U.S. air strikes in 1998 against terrorist training camps. Since the defeat of the Taliban, militant training camps have moved to Pakistani Kashmir.

ISI has been reported to operate training camps near the border of Bangladesh where members of separatist groups of the northeastern states, known as the "United Liberation Front Of Seven Sisters" [ULFOSS] are trained with military equipment and terrorist activities. These groups include the National Security Council of Nagaland [NSCN], People's Liberation Army [PLA], United Liberation Front of Assam [ULFA], and North East Students Organization [NESO].

Pakistan's military leader, General Pervez Musharraf, has attempted to rein in the ISI. Since September 11th, Islamic fundamentalists have been purged from leadership positions. This includes then-ISI head Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, who was replaced in October 2001 by Lieutenant General Ehsanul Haq.

Additional reforms of the ISI have been made. Most notable was the decision to disband the Kashmir and Afghanistan units. Both these groups have promoted Islamic fundamentalist militancy throughout South Asia. Some officials have been forced to retire and others have been transferred back to the military. Intelligence experts have estimated that these moves would slash the size of the ISI by close to 40%.


Anyways I don't post this so much as an "I-told-you-so", P. because I don't think you ever disagreed with the possibility of this but rather the severity of the problem. I post it more out of a desire to be able to come back with at least some proof of what I was saying months ago when I had no proof at all.



Ahk
Logged
Cass
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +23/-62
Posts: 656



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2008, 08:40:30 PM »

Somehow, Ahk, I don't find all of this particularly surprising. Particularly when until 9-11 Musharraf was an ally of the Taliban.
Clinton had cut the military assistance, but after becoming a very well bought and paid for ally in the Bush so-called Global
War on Terror, I once attempted to locate the numbers of funds both of military aid and aid then directed to the benefit of the
the dictator of Pakistan, one who rivaled Saddam in his brutality, but being nuclear armed threatened the region. I wasn't  successful in getting a valid estimate and then there is also the "black budget." That Musharraf even theoretically having lost some of his power, might continue to assist the Taliban or even al Qaeda surprises me not at all. Not to forget Khan, his nuclear scientist never suffered any punishment for providing Iran with information that has created much of the situation now
very dangerous between Bush and Iran.

While posting on another forum I often joked about Osama being well ensconced in the presidential suite of the Islamabad Hilton,  well cared for there to remain the "boogy man" used for fear mongering, maybe in the end I came close to being correct.
 
Assistance by those in power in Pakistan to the Taliban?  Did others accuse you of tin hattery? How many have been fooled into believing this great ally really was out destroying Madrassas and risking himself for Dubya when the funds would continue to come rolling in.  Send me my tin hat if I have joined with you or just ignore the ravings of a person who hardly believes a
leopard changes his spots for what amounts to far more than 30 pieces of silver when he can remain in the position of obtaining even more as an "ally" while providing assistance to those who continue to be the enemy in Afghanistan.   

Feel free to tell me if I've misread your posts and I understand they weren't meant for me.   
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 08:44:36 PM by Cass » Logged

\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\"  Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator

The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2008, 07:29:44 AM »

Quote
Assistance by those in power in Pakistan to the Taliban?  Did others accuse you of tin hattery?

Not over assistance. It speaks to the claim against the idea that the Taliban are inherently "native" to Afghanistan. They aren't. It was invented in Pakistan. The Madrasses are in Pakistan. They are mostly Pakistani.

Quote
That Musharraf even theoretically having lost some of his power, might continue to assist the Taliban or even al Qaeda surprises me not at all.

I don't think he did. I don't think he could if he wanted. My impression is of a military/intelligence and even government that is split by dual personality. It used to be accepted that the Taliban was "resurging" because of home grown Afghan recruitment, which was supposed to further speak against the support for the mission there. Besides Taliban, there were thousands of Pakistan intelligence and military when the US invaded.

Personally I think the answer here has a little less to do with US assistance on and off and more to do with a 50-year long struggle the country has had in terms of direction. There is a schism in Pakistan just as there is in Iran and Afghanistan between the hardline, fanatical Islamic and the 'liberal' Islamic. Between also the rural and the cosmopolitan .


Ahk
Logged
Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +30/-31
Posts: 868



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2008, 02:16:42 PM »

Karzai officialy said that he is ready to enter Pakistan (but is it relay Pakistan?) with his army to hunt terrorists.
A la mode Turque.


Quote from: (Reuters) from KABUL
Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday threatened to send troops into Pakistan to kill Taliban militants if they pursued cross-border attacks into Afghanistan
.
article
Logged

Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!)

Cass
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +23/-62
Posts: 656



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2008, 08:27:56 PM »

Ahk, I'm not well informed enough to contribute to this thread. And while some may find Frank Rich's op ed from Sunday's NY Times on the surface, OT to post here, I found the topic hardly OT for the dangers as you noted lurking in Pakistan.  IMHO some very valid points made.  There are confirming hyperlinks on the link. Worth a read so i'm posting the total column.

July 13, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Real-Life ‘24’ of Summer 2008

By FRANK RICH
WE know what a criminal White House looks like from “The Final Days,” Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s classic account of Richard Nixon’s unraveling. The cauldron of lies, paranoia and illegal surveillance boiled over, until it was finally every man for himself as desperate courtiers scrambled to save their reputations and, in a few patriotic instances, their country.

“The Final Days” was published in 1976, two years after Nixon abdicated in disgrace. With the Bush presidency, no journalist (or turncoat White House memoirist) is waiting for the corpse to be carted away. The latest and perhaps most chilling example arrives this week from Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, long a relentless journalist on the war-on-terror torture beat. Her book “The Dark Side” connects the dots of her own past reporting and that of her top-tier colleagues (including James Risen and Scott Shane of The New York Times) to portray a White House that, like its prototype, savaged its enemies within almost as ferociously as it did the Constitution.

Some of “The Dark Side” seems right out of “The Final Days,” minus Nixon’s operatic boozing and weeping. We learn, for instance, that in 2004 two conservative Republican Justice Department officials had become “so paranoid” that “they actually thought they might be in physical danger.” The fear of being wiretapped by their own peers drove them to speak in code.

The men were John Ashcroft’s deputy attorney general, James Comey, and an assistant attorney general, Jack Goldsmith. Their sin was to challenge the White House’s don, Dick Cheney, and his consigliere, his chief of staff David Addington, when they circumvented the Geneva Conventions to make torture the covert law of the land. Mr. Comey and Mr. Goldsmith failed to stop the “torture memos” and are long gone from the White House. But Vice President Cheney and Mr. Addington remain enabled by a president, attorney general (Michael Mukasey) and C.I.A. director (Michael Hayden) who won’t shut the door firmly on torture even now.

Nixon parallels take us only so far, however. “The Dark Side” is scarier than “The Final Days” because these final days aren’t over yet and because the stakes are much higher. Watergate was all about a paranoid president’s narcissistic determination to cling to power at any cost. In Ms. Mayer’s portrayal of the Bush White House, the president is a secondary, even passive, figure, and the motives invoked by Mr. Cheney to restore Nixon-style executive powers are theoretically selfless. Possessed by the ticking-bomb scenarios of television’s “24,” all they want to do is protect America from further terrorist strikes.

So what if they cut corners, the administration’s last defenders argue. While prissy lawyers insist on habeas corpus and court-issued wiretap warrants, the rest of us are being kept safe by the Cheney posse.

But are we safe? As Al Qaeda and the Taliban surge this summer, that single question is even more urgent than the moral and legal issues attending torture.

On those larger issues, the evidence is in, merely awaiting adjudication. Mr. Bush’s 2005 proclamation that “we do not torture” was long ago revealed as a lie. Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges.

Top Bush hands are starting to get sweaty about where they left their fingerprints. Scapegoating the rotten apples at the bottom of the military’s barrel may not be a slam-dunk escape route from accountability anymore.

No wonder the former Rumsfeld capo, Douglas Feith, is trying to discredit a damaging interview he gave to the British lawyer Philippe Sands for another recent and essential book on what happened, “Torture Team.” After Mr. Sands previewed his findings in the May issue of Vanity Fair, Mr. Feith protested he had been misquoted — apparently forgetting that Mr. Sands had taped the interview. Mr. Feith and Mr. Sands are scheduled to square off in a House hearing this Tuesday.

So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.” But while we wait for the wheels of justice to grind slowly, there are immediate fears to tend. Ms. Mayer’s book helps cement the case that America’s use of torture has betrayed not just American values but our national security, right to the present day.

In her telling, a major incentive for Mr. Cheney’s descent into the dark side was to cover up for the Bush White House’s failure to heed the Qaeda threat in 2001. Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!”

After 9/11, our government emphasized “interrogation over due process,” Ms. Mayer writes, “to pre-empt future attacks before they materialized.” But in reality torture may well be enabling future attacks. This is not just because Abu Ghraib snapshots have been used as recruitment tools by jihadists. No less destructive are the false confessions inevitably elicited from tortured detainees. The avalanche of misinformation since 9/11 has compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases. The coerced “confession” to the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.

The biggest torture-fueled wild-goose chase, of course, is the war in Iraq. Exhibit A, revisited in “The Dark Side,” is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an accused Qaeda commander whose torture was outsourced by the C.I.A. to Egypt. His fabricated tales of Saddam’s biological and chemical W.M.D. — and of nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda — were cited by President Bush in his fateful Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech ginning up the war and by Mr. Powell in his subsequent United Nations presentation on Iraqi weaponry. Two F.B.I. officials told Ms. Mayer that Mr. al-Libi later explained his lies by saying: “They were killing me. I had to tell them something.”

That “something” was crucial in sending us into the quagmire that, five years later, has empowered Iran and compromised our ability to counter the very terrorists that torture was supposed to thwart. As The Times reported two weeks ago, Iraq has monopolized our military and intelligence resources to the point where we don’t have enough predator drones or expert C.I.A. field agents to survey the tribal areas where terrorists are amassing in Pakistan. Meanwhile, the threat to America from Al Qaeda is “comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001,” said Seth Jones, a RAND Corporation terrorism expert and Pentagon consultant. The difference between now and then is simply that the base of operations has moved, “roughly the difference from New York to Philadelphia.”

Yet once again terrorism has fallen off America’s map, landing at or near the bottom of voters’ concerns in recent polls. There were major attacks in rapid succession last week in Pakistan, Afghanistan (the deadliest in Kabul since we “defeated” the Taliban in 2001) and at the American consulate in Turkey. Who listened to this ticking time bomb? It’s reminiscent of July 2001, when few noticed that the Algerian convicted of trying to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium testified that he had been trained in bin Laden’s Afghanistan camps as part of a larger plot against America.

In last Sunday’s Washington Post, the national security expert Daniel Benjamin sounded an alarm about the “chronic” indecisiveness and poor execution of Bush national security policy as well as the continuing inadequacies of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Benjamin must feel a sinking sense of déjà vu. Exactly seven years ago in the same newspaper, just two months before 9/11, he co-wrote an article headlined “Defusing a Time Bomb” imploring the Bush administration in vain to pay attention to Afghanistan because that country’s terrorists “continue to pose the most dangerous threat to American lives.”

And so we’re back where we started in the summer of 2001, with even shark attacks and Chandra Levy’s murder (courtesy of a new Washington Post investigation) returning to the news. We are once again distracted and unprepared while the Taliban and bin Laden’s minions multiply in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This, no less than the defiling of the Constitution, is the legacy of an administration that not merely rationalized the immorality of torture but shackled our national security to the absurdity that torture could easily fix the terrorist threat.

That’s why the Bush White House’s corruption in the end surpasses Nixon’s. We can no longer take cold comfort in the Watergate maxim that the cover-up was worse than the crime. This time the crime is worse than the cover-up, and the punishment could rain down on us all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Logged

\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\"  Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator

The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
Cass
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +23/-62
Posts: 656



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2008, 04:14:31 PM »

"Yet once again terrorism has fallen off America’s map, landing at or near the bottom of voters’ concerns in recent polls. There were major attacks in rapid succession last week in Pakistan, Afghanistan (the deadliest in Kabul since we “defeated” the Taliban in 2001) "
Quote from the Rich op ed.

And today 9 U.S. troops paid the ultimate price with 15 more wounded, whose lives will never be the same, for Bush's choices.

Nine U.S. soldiers die in attack on Afghan base


Nine American soldiers were killed and 15 were wounded on Sunday, officials said, in what appears to be the deadliest attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in years.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Nine+US+soldiers+die+in+attack+on+Afghan+base/Home/ContentPosting?isfa=1&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080713%2fafghan_violence_080713&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True

Logged

\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\"  Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator

The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2008, 01:35:30 PM »

I don't know what to say here except that tunnel-viewing specific incidents does not paint the accurate landscape.

One could just as easily point out that in 6 years the US has been in Afghanistan weathering the 'vicous onslaught of the sneaky and mysterious Taliban" the best they've been able to do in a single ambush is kill 9 of those soldiers.

Combat is combat. I know it sounds so much more compelling when you break it down to these specific 9 lives but you are trying to connect that (emotionally and thusly inaccurately) to the overall picture which is still going well dispite the bumper opium crop and the now certain aid from major elements in Pakistan.

I say the same thing to you as I say to others who rush here to make a non-point by bringing forward a Coalition casualty story: where are you when we off 150 Taliban at once? You don't want to use those stories as a "point" do you?



Ahk
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 01:40:24 PM by Ahkenaten » Logged
Cass
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +23/-62
Posts: 656



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2008, 03:18:51 PM »

Ahk, in his op ed, Rich wanders around though a number of the current Administration's actions that I believe have been grievous errors and choices that have proved devastating in the so-called "global war on terrorism" both in foreign policy and domestic policy, leaving the U.S. as Rich states,

"And so we’re back where we started in the summer of 2001, with even shark attacks and Chandra Levy’s murder (courtesy of a new Washington Post investigation) returning to the news. We are once again distracted and unprepared while the Taliban and bin Laden’s minions multiply in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This, no less than the defiling of the Constitution, is the legacy of an administration that not merely rationalized the immorality of torture but shackled our national security to the absurdity that torture could easily fix the terrorist threat."

As far as the inclusion of the loss of life of 9 troops, I've long ago lost trust in information provided by the U.S. MSM and also question the information provided by the DOD,
so it was just one more example of what I believed Rich was attempting to get at.  I readily admit I may not be as informed on the issues related Afghanistan and Pakistan
as you may be, but continue to wonder if, in the end, the actions taken are reversible regardless of the upcoming elections after almost eight years now of the current corrupt and venal Administration. 

Question Ahk, do you believe in the end it is possible to describe a "win" or "victory" in  Afghanistan? Does this long compilation of news, regardless of the locations it may emanate from provide hope or a never ending occupation in an attempt a to provide the stated goals of the U.S. and will NATO continue to support the occupation?

http://icasualties.org/oef/

While this forum may be a location for stating personal opinion I prefer at times to use it for a location for reading and learning even when my observations and personal opinions may be in strong disagreement with the opinions of others. I would be the first to admit, debating is not my thing nor do I exhibit any talent at doing so. Does that make my participation here unwelcome?



 



Logged

\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\"  Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator

The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2008, 03:32:20 PM »

Quote
Question Ahk, do you believe in the end it is possible to describe a "win" or "victory" in  Afghanistan? Does this long compilation of news, regardless of the locations it may emanate from provide hope or a never ending occupation in an attempt a to provide the stated goals of the U.S. and will NATO continue to support the occupation?

Yes and no. You can no longer measure victory in WWII terms where there is an enemy, that enemy is utterly vanquished and peace ensues. That is no longer the evolutionary path of conflict and combat since the nuclear age. In WWII all your average soldier had or even really needed was guts and luck. Training good or weak was still under incredible time restraints. Todays conflicts require more than beech storming and if total surrender was all that was ever fought over we would've encountered the MAD situation a while back. Dyer and I agree here.

Victory cold be 20 years away for Afghanistan. It could "lose" and then "win". Personally to me winning is a sustainable Afghanistan that is in control of it's own policies and growth. Many could point out that this will be a hard transformation for that culture but it really isn't the West's idea and if anyone has inspired Afghan unity it's the Taliban.

Buuuuut. Well. What can I say. Pakistan may be next. Sorry Cass but that's as unambiguous as the world gets. You have no argument from me over bush policy this or Bush policy that but taking out the Taliban was a no-brainer and their destruction really is directly related to how safely people both in the immediate region and the rest of the world can sleep.


Ahk
Logged
Cass
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +23/-62
Posts: 656



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2008, 04:20:26 PM »

An OT question Ahk, or maybe not. I have Canadian friends in the Toronto area and also in B.C.. Like me they express so-called "liberal" viewpoints and would like to see Harper gone as well as Canadian troops removed from Afghanistan even with the NATO obligation. Another Aussie friend, (not Terry Mathis)  worked to remove assist in campaigning for Rudd and the removal of Howard. Wonder if Harper's position remains somewhat tenuous, or is that a pipe dream? Another friend who served years ago in
the RCAF, during WWII, expresses a very different opinion about Canadian troops continuing to serve in Afghanistan. If you don't care to an express an opinion to add to the
others I know you won't, but I remain interested in opinions other than those who are not in the U.S. and also have had troops involved in the current occupations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, though IMHO, our friends above the 49th chose well to avoid official involvement in both the current invasion and occupation of Iraq and previously in Nam.

Ahk, even some of we ancient females who never saw, and hopefully will never see a day of combat, not only have an interest in what those in the U.S. believe, but also
an appreciation of the opinions of others.   
Logged

\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\"  Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator

The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2008, 07:18:04 PM »

Quote
I have Canadian friends in the Toronto area and also in B.C.. Like me they express so-called "liberal" viewpoints and would like to see Harper gone as well as Canadian troops removed from Afghanistan even with the NATO obligation.

a. You know more about what's going on in Afghanistan than they probably do.

b. Canadians are no less bi-party or partisan, or for that matter have any better attention span than Americans. People who's parents voted liberal will vote liberal till they die. No matter what. Fact is it was the previous liberal government first made the commitment to Afghanistan.

c. Canadians were chomping at the bit to vote in the first 'non-liberal' party led by anyone resembling sane for 20 years now. Happened to be Harper. Personally, I think the Canadian voter is still bitter towards liberals, hard to say. But even die hard liberals have a serious problem giving credence to anything they say, and often the bottom line in an election is "Are you personally doing better?" By in large Canadians are.

d. A liberal party can come in and the troops will be staying, unless something more drastic happens in Afghanistan. I will say this: The hottest places in Afghanistan are the 3 provinces bordering Pakistan. That's the US, the UK and the Canadians. Now Canadian military budget and troop levels are no secret. So what's wrong with that picture? If Canada is asked to keep Qandahar too much longer and it stays hot even Canadians who approve will want out. France has the worlds second largest troop deployment and at least the worlds 3rd largest military industry. Let them take it for a while. Not saying we can't pick it up again after a year or two, but we're paying the dues with the big guys and its getting a heavy load.

Regardless of whether your Canadian friends agree or not I truly believe I know Canadians better than a lot of them know themselves (at least sociologically) and I bet my right nut on all of the above.

Cheers
Ahk
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 08:13:29 PM by Ahkenaten » Logged
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239


Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2008, 06:06:57 AM »


Just a quick note ... Australia has about 1,000 highly respected S.A.S. troops in the Khandahar region of Afghanistan. For a nation with hardly 22 million people, that is a very healthy contribution.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.  Grin
« Last Edit: July 15, 2008, 06:35:17 AM by Terry Mathis » Logged

Quote
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does !
- Will Rogers
Quote
So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2008, 08:44:57 AM »

That's a good point Terry. I was remiss in not including them.
Logged
Cass
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +23/-62
Posts: 656



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2008, 09:31:07 AM »

I don't know what to say here except that tunnel-viewing specific incidents does not paint the accurate landscape.

One could just as easily point out that in 6 years the US has been in Afghanistan weathering the 'vicous onslaught of the sneaky and mysterious Taliban" the best they've been able to do in a single ambush is kill 9 of those soldiers.
Ahk

Ahk, as of today a somewhat different analysis posted on the CSM, a MSM site I find to often be quite accurate, even with my distrust of most.  Maybe naïveté on my part, but the sources appear to believe the attack mentioned in the previous post noting the loss of U.S. troops was quite different from previous methods of attacks by the Taliban.

Comments please related to this report, in particular this analysis by Afghans suggest a change unmentioned in the previous reports.

"Haroun Mir, the deputy director for Afghanistan's Center for Research and Policy Studies, said the attack's superior planning was clear evidence of the presence of Al Qaeda troops in the area. Recent incidents have pointed to an increased capability of the insurgents, marked first by a major jailbreak in Kandahar in June and the influx of Taliban fighters into Kandahar Province in the south.

Analysts have also noted activity of the insurgent group Hezb-i Islami and the Taliban in Nuristan Province, which neighbors Kunar Province.

Mr. Mir said that "the recent attacks show that the Al Qaeda is involved in the planning and execution of the attacks. Until now the Taliban have been avoiding direct confrontation and after 2006 they were using IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and bombs. Now for the first time they are engaging directly. Once the bodies of the insurgents are recovered from the area I am sure Pakistani and Arab fighters will be found among them."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0715/p07s05-wosc.html

Note: to Terry, like Ahk, I was aware of the SAS troops in Afghanistan. While Rudd may have promised removal of Australian troops from Iraq, do you think Rudd will as
Obama continues to suggest in his op ed yesterday and again today in a foreign policy speech , increase levels in Afghanistan? The article above appears to confirm activity by al Qaeda and not just the Taliban.


Logged

\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\"  Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator

The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.177 seconds with 26 queries.