Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

strategy page has consistently claimed we are winning,
even when their own metrics have shown failure.

It's an interesting set of claims in this article, but,
where are the sources? Are they citing British Intelligence,
US CIA?, NATO? UN? Pakistani observers? who?

unsourced, unverifiable, wow, if this was the AP, Simberg
would be all over them

Posted by anonymous at January 24, 2007 10:02 AM

"unsourced, unverifiable, wow"

Anonymous himself summed up in three words.

Posted by A Little Bird at January 24, 2007 11:00 AM

Okay... But if the message is "the Afghans are getting tired of the Taliban" isn't that a little odd coming five years after the Taliban were overtossed? At this rate, when will the Taliban finally be gone? 2020?

Posted by Tom Wintour at January 24, 2007 11:53 AM

I'm surprised there are any Afghans left. Shouldn't the "brutal Afghan winter" have killed off all of them by now?

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 24, 2007 12:10 PM

I'm going to have to agree with Mr Anonymous Coward. Where are the sources?

Posted by Adrasteia at January 24, 2007 08:34 PM

Tom has a better point. I thought we had already defeated the Taliban.

Now we are to take comfort because they are disliked?

Posted by at January 24, 2007 09:31 PM

The mark of a failure of propoganda campaigns is that
people begin questioning the foundations of the
campaigns.

It must be frustrating to the Bush-Neocon noise machine
that the same tactics that worked so well in 2002,
work so poorly in 2007.

Much as the same propoganda that worked so well in
1934, worked so poorly in 1944 in Berlin.

Posted by anonymous at January 24, 2007 10:36 PM

Tom has a better point. I thought we had already defeated the Taliban.

We defeated them in the sense that we removed them from power. We didn't eliminate them, and they've continue to wage a guerrilla war.

Now we are to take comfort because they are disliked?

Yes, because it gets increasingly hard to wage a guerrilla war when you're disliked. As the article notes, the locals are turning them in.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 25, 2007 04:32 AM

I'm surprised there are any Afghans left. Shouldn't the "brutal Afghan winter" have killed off all of them by now?

LOL

Posted by McGehee at January 25, 2007 06:14 AM

"Yes, because it gets increasingly hard to wage a guerrilla war when you're disliked. As the article notes, the locals are turning them in."

As Mao put it:

"The people are like water and the army is like fish"

And the Taliban are peeing in the pool.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 25, 2007 06:51 AM

Much as the same propoganda that worked so well in
1934, worked so poorly in 1944 in Berlin.

anon, how you do rave so. But to compare, once again, GWB to Hitler is hackneyed, like most of the rest of your comments. Not to mention that the Nazis carried out a systematic policy of eliminating the mentally feeble. So your being here proves GWB is not a Nazi.

Posted by Steve at January 25, 2007 08:58 AM

anonymous, I get the feeling that underneath your commentary about the situation in Afghanistan is the unstated belief that we should never have gone into Afghanistan. If so, you are an idiot who does not defend the innocent. Those innocent Americans who died on 9/11 had done nothing to deserve their fate or the fate of thousands of their loved ones who mourn. Whatever the lead up to what happened, there is never a justification for the slaughter of innocents.

The war in Afghansitan was JUST. It was not a war of pre-emption. By every measure of justice including the opinion of the Vatican, it was JUST. You may have issues with the war in Iraq, a war of choice, where it is quite possible for me to agree with you. But if you think we should have sat around on our arses after 9/11 you are not defending the innocent. If you really think that, then you should go to Afghanistan, lie on your stomach and offer your own arse to the Taliban; some of them may even use it.

If not, and you do agree that the war in Afghanistan was JUST, come up with constructive criticism that can lead that nation to a democracy, not a return to barbarism.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 25, 2007 04:53 PM

TnT,

How I would have done the Afghan campaign.

1) Don't be in rush to invade, really try and use the ICC
and World Court to bring the Al-Qaeda terrorists to
justice. If neccesary, convene a court in a muslim country
such as Turkey or Egypt, and try them in front of a
jury or judicial panel that has some moral authority.
If that doesn't work, and you don't have to spend
years at it, a few months, would work.

2) Don't invade on the cheap. Tie up with the Indians,
cut any deal they want, get a dozen of their divisions,
from a powerful democracy.

3) Recognize that The Afghans like barbarism.
Invading with the idea of installing democracy is a terrible
idea. If you want to come in, use lots of men, minimum
firepower, you need thousands of people who know the
language, who know the culture, who know the ways.

4) Do not go with the idea of overturning the Taliban
who were popular, and met local cultural mores,
instead work to cut deals with the taliban to send
the Al-Qaeda guys to justice, while we do things that
materially improve life for the Afghans. Roads, water,
indigenous solar power, indigenous methane production,
pay locals to build better housing for the chiefs,
and replace the madraassas with what would pass
for victorian era british schools.(Single sex,
simple english, math, history, law, 3-4 years
basic school, and the smart ones go forward)

You aren't going to bring the afghans into the
21st century overnight. While the US Occupied japan
and helped them become a modern albeit japanese style
democracy (Which looks internally a lot like the mexican
system) then the british system, the US did not
install democracy in Indonesia, or the phillipines
in 1947.

The phillippines took decades to evolve to democracy,
Indonesia wanders in and out of authoritarian government.
We did Japan for strategic reasons, and we did a pretty
damned good job. But, it was not sub-contracted to
Halliburton in 1947.

Truman oversaw it.

What we did in afghanistan was a left handed overthrow
of the taliban government which was replaced with criminal
war-lords of our choosing. This was compounded by
utter lack of understanding of occupation which has
led to a broad based guerilla war.

Our NATO partners are now on the spear point
and tiring fast. Instead of achieving peace,
we did a military conquest and will last for
only a few years.

Posted by anonymous at January 25, 2007 05:57 PM

"instead work to cut deals with the taliban to send
the Al-Qaeda guys to justice, while we do things that
materially improve life for the Afghans. Roads, water,
indigenous solar power, indigenous methane production,
pay locals to build better housing for the chiefs,
and replace the madraassas with what would pass
for victorian era british schools.(Single sex,
simple english, math, history, law, 3-4 years
basic school, and the smart ones go forward)
"

That is the most idiotic thing I ever heard. So, the Taliban is going to purge its ranks of Al Qaeda and hand them over to the US if we help them with "indigenous methane production," give them palaces, and replace their madrassas with british schools and teach them english and - LAW -? How does that reconcile with Taliban views on Sharia? Or how about the idea that one only needs to memorize the Koran to learn all one has to know? Or how about the absurdity of a theocracy shutting down religious schools in favor of secular ones that teaches english and LAW?

Anonymous, there is a reason why you are not in charge.

Oh, and when was the US in charge of Indonesia?

Posted by rob at January 25, 2007 06:27 PM

frankly we had a real problem with Al-Qaeda, but
the Taliban, were the lawful government of Afghanistan.

We may not have liked their values, but, it's
their jungle.

You may think it's a great idea to invade afghanistan
but, the british, the indian's the russians
have all had their hats handed to them there.

Any option short of invasion is always a better idea.

Posted by anonymous at January 25, 2007 10:12 PM

anonymous -- Your proposed Afghan policy is close to what I would have expected from Al Gore had he been president in 2001.

The Bush policy ejected the Taliban and Al Queda from Afghanistan in record time and with minimal cost, gained Pakistani cooperation and avoided stirring up the Afghani people to wage Jihad against foreign occupation.

Your inane plan would have utterly failed. Your suggestion to give the Taliban more time is laughable. It would only have given Al Queda more time to prepare another strike at America. But that's not the worst! Using Indian forces to invade Afghanistan would have placed America at war with Pakistan, and Pakistan not only is the 6th most populous nation in the world, Pakistan also has nuclear weapons. Then assuming you managed to reach Afghanistan after the carnage of Pakistan, your mighty occupying force would have to contend with an Afghan population which would have rallied to the side of the Taliban and engaged us in another famous Afghan fight against occupation.

Congratulations anonymous, you've managed to make the Russian campaign in Afghanistan look like the pinnacle of perfection in comparison with your plans.

Thank God Gore wasn't President in 2001!

by the way, nice slam you made on President Karzai and the elected parliment of Afghanistan, 'criminal war lords of our choosing', nice -real nice. Have you no shame?

Posted by Brad at January 26, 2007 02:11 AM

the Taliban, were the lawful government of Afghanistan.

No, they weren't, Anonymous Moron. No one recognized them except the Saudis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 26, 2007 05:41 AM

you left off the UN.

Considering, D Dub, went around texas with their
foreign minster in 1999, he did too.

Posted by anonymous at January 26, 2007 07:55 AM

He's right, Rand. You left off the UN as one of the groups that did not recognize the Taliban.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/21/taliban.un/index.html?eref=sitesearch

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/14/us.taliban/index.html

This might have something to do w/ the fact that the Taliban had refused to comply with a United Nations demand that they hand over Usama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/unsecres_1267.htm

But I'm sure if anonymoron had done the asking, the Taliban, the officially recognized government of Afghanistan in his world would have complied.

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 26, 2007 08:36 AM

Brad

Al Gore was right in 2000 on most issues, If you support a drunken
ignorant buffoon, that's your privilege.

But, Gore wouldn't have been on vacation when the
PDB said "Bin Laden determined to attack"

Posted by anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:03 AM

Anonymoron neatly sidesteps the point that his plan was already being tried by the UN/US in the 1990s and failed.

And, of course, the simple point-of-fact: The UN never recognized the Taliban as the proper government of Afghanistan.

But, hey, who is anyone to differ with his assessment of what Al Gore might have done?

Given a choice between a drunken buffoon (Dubya) and a delusional twit (anonymoron), however, I'll take the drunken buffoon any day.

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 26, 2007 11:56 AM

Wow it is good to see anon actually show what he supports so that it can be dissected.

Taliban a popular government? I guess that is why 1/3 the population of Afganistan were refugees in other countries.

Indian divisions? Geez Louise!! Talk about stoking a regional war!

The rest has been addressed by others. So add delusional to his traits.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at January 26, 2007 01:03 PM

Dennis

I notice your concerns about stoking war in afghanistan
are not matched by your concerns for stoking a regional
war in Iraq.

Sure, getting the Indians involved in Afghanistan
involves risk, but, the pakistani's are no friends of
ours, and if we lean on them, along with the indians,
they will knuckle under.

We give the Pakistani's billions and what do we get
for it, our Embassy overrun and direct funding
for Al-qaeda by the ISI.

I'm sorry, giving the Pak billions in the vague hope
they will be friendly was a disastrous
strategic error.

Posted by anonymous at January 26, 2007 05:35 PM

'But, Gore wouldn't have been on vacation when the
PDB said "Bin Laden determined to attack"'

Anonymous is right - that memo concerned a dangerous foreign national who was inclined to attack our country, and Bush should really have done something about that immediately. I mean, how would well-meaning people react if, say, the president of Iran said Israel and the United States should be wiped off the map, and we didn't do anything about it?

Oh wait...

All sarcasm aside, he does have a point (elaborated upon by many Indian friends of mine) that Pakistan is by no means our friend. However, I haven't heard from either anonymous or anyone else in the world a sensible way to deal with that fact.

Posted by P. Aeneas at January 26, 2007 06:52 PM

you support your friends not your enemies,

so i would cutoff the pak immediately

Posted by anonymous at January 27, 2007 11:13 AM

Before or after the UN recognizes them, Anonymoron?

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 27, 2007 11:44 AM

Post a comment