 |
Do you seriously think Bib Laden would have been emboldened to fight in Afghanistan if it had not been for the US covert campaign? Do you think Bin Laden started the war against the soviets on his own? So the Taliban were a US ally, one more US ally who proved to be a horse of a different colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Where do you get this stuff ? No Bin Laden did not start the war against the Soviets ;they invaded Afghanistan and then Saudi Arabs went there on their own... our efforts there had nothing to do with the Saudi Arab jihadists;nor did we materially support their efforts.
Who said the Taliban was a US ally ? More fractured fairy tales and rewriting of history! The mujahideen were a lose collection of various networks and tribes fighting the Soviets. Perhaps some US money made it to Pashtuns that later became the Taliban via the ISI ;but they were virtually unknown until after the Soviets withdrew and an Afghan civil war among rival militias was underway. If any one person could claim credit for defeating the Soviets it was Ahmed Shah Massoud ;the ethnic Tajik leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered by AQ in the days before 9-11 .
The Taliban really did not emerge until 1994 when the ISI supported them to guard trade routes. Now this is when it can be argued that the US got involved. Briefly ;the Clintoons were seduced by Benazir Bhutto into thinking the idea that the Taliban could stabilize the country and act as a counterweight to Iran. But there was no material support for them... instead the Clintoons considered sit down talks etc.. . and even those dopey Clintonoids quickly soured on the Taliban because of the way they treated women.
Tom I start by not listening to what Washington wants me to know and I think you have some basic comprehension problems reading what I actually said. The Taliban didn't just appear, they existed and they filled the vacuum created when the Russins departed. On the one hand you tell me the Taliban was not a US ally and a little later you tell me Clintoon was prepared to negotiate with them. Who did he think he was negotiating with, the mujahideen the US had been financing and supplying, or someone completely different, and by the way OBL was part of the mujahideen. I define ally as someone who is fighting for the same cause we are, or to use a more recent definition giving material support. That doesn't mean there is a formal political agreement spelling out all the possible responses on both sidesQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What you are trying to tell me is that because Pakistan was used as a go between, the US couldn't be said to have a relationship and what I say is plausiable denyibility doesn't wash with me. Any way Tom a good conspiracy theory is an unprovable theory
Seems to me the comprehension problems are at your end of the pond.
Clearly that is not what I said . What I wrote was The Taliban really did not emerge until 1994 when the ISI supported them to guard trade routes. And... they were virtually unknown until after the Soviets withdrew and an Afghan civil war among rival militias was underwayQuote:
The Taliban didn't just appear, they existed and they filled the vacuum created when the Russins departed.
They filled no vacume ;they defeated all rivals in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan.. they never truly controlled northern Afghanistan.
So now negotiations makes allies ? Where do you get that ?Quote:
On the one hand you tell me the Taliban was not a US ally and a little later you tell me Clintoon was prepared to negotiate with them.
So ? I already addressed the fact that the Arab's were not part of our effort at all. Their jihad efforts there was self funded and self directed . Peter Bergen in Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden wrote :Quote:
And by the way OBL was part of the mujahideen.
[Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]Quote:
Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the a** ." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, 'Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"
... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other.. . the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill."
Ayman al-Zawahiri AQ #2 man wrote in Knights Under the Prophet's Banner
(Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)Quote:
"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."
"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."
"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ...."
"Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization."
Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:
Quote:
"No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting."
And if you tell a lie and misinformation long enough it becomes the truth . The REAL truth is that neither did the US create or support bin Laden ;nor did we ever support the Taliban .Quote:
Any way Tom a good conspiracy theory is an unprovable theory
Facts? FACTS? You expect people to actually listen to FACTS? C'mon Tom, your dreamin'. Paraclete has made up his mind... don't confuse him with the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Great sources, BTW. Do you have any of them in electronic format? Can you pass them on? I'd like to add them to my library.
Elliot
I could've listed more if pressed.
bin Ladin links to the CIA
Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Afghanistan Deputy Intelligence Chief Abdullah Laghmahni was wacked by a human Predator this week .
Similar to Iraq is the reality that the fence sitters will side with the strongest tribe. The surge in Iraq worked because we proved we were the strongest tribe . In Afghanistan we are losing that edge.
The Taliban used to come down from their lair in the spring to get their butt's kicked . Now they are still around and twice in a short period have penetrated the inner security perimeter .
Both Generals Petraeus and McChrystal have as much as admitted that the Taliban has the initiative. Both have asked for greater troops strength. Drones ,missile and satellites are not enough to keep Taliban at bay. Not when they can match our missiles shot from the drones with human missiles and a seemingly superior intel presence.
Obama called Afghanistan the good war;a war of necessity... and Iraq the bad war .But his strategy seems to be the same for both... retreat before the mid-term elections.
Tom, your post suggests that the Taliban are a few brigands hiding away instead of realising that the situation is like Vietnam, the enemy is right there in the midst of the population, the Pustun people number millions and are spread over a wide area in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the idea that the Taliban is a small part of that population, just a few thousand militants, is flawed. The longer the US stays there, the bigger will be the resistance. The US is not fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan, it is fighting a religious war, an ideological war, and the only necessity is that the US go home and allow these people to determine their future for themselves, however repugnant that idea might be to western thinking. The lines are confused you actually have two of america's wars in Afghanistan; the war on terror and the war on drugs, and each is equally elusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A war cannot be fought on the vague allegiences of the US political system which is constructed to prevent anything from actually being done. What is they say in the US; congress is the opposite of progress:D
That's like saying every hispanic in Los Angeles is a member of the Latin Kings or is affiliated with the Aztlan movement . The Taliban is a fairly loose collection who even at it's strongest never controlled the whole country .Quote:
Tom, your post suggests that the Taliban are a few brigands hiding away instead of realising that the situation is like Vietnam, the enemy is right there in the midst of the population, the Pustun people number millions and are spread over a wide area in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the idea that the Taliban is a small part of that population, just a few thousand militants, is flawed.
How does that differ from the situation we faced in Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And yet, here we are, two years after the Surge, and the "insurgency" is pretty much done. We WON. They can place a few IEDs, blow up some cars... but that's about it. The terrorists will never control the country. We won.
Why is Afghanistan any different?
That statement has been proven false by what has happened in Iraq. If we are willing to fight the war, the "resistance" cannot hope to match us. They will die in a war of attrition because we are bigger and better funded, and they will die if they try to face us in battle. That's what happened in Iraq, and that's what will happen in Afghanistan if we fight the war correctly.Quote:
The longer the US stays there, the bigger will be the resistance.
Again, this is what was said about Iraq, and it turned out not to be true.Quote:
The US is not fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan, it is fighting a religious war, an ideological war, and the only necessity is that the US go home and allow these people to determine their future for themselves, however repugnant that idea might be to western thinking.
Again, I disagree.Quote:
The lines are confused you actually have two of america's wars in Afghanistan; the war on terror and the war on drugs, and each is equally elusive.
The reason that we have failed in the war on drugs is the same as the reason we were failing in the War on Terror in Iraq before the Surge... we weren't WILLING to fight it. We weren't willing to take whatever action was necessary to beat the enemy. Once we started to fight with the right mentality, we won in Iraq. It takes a willingness to completely destroy the enemy... boot him, don't pi$$ on him. If we used that same willingness in Afghanistan, we could destroy both the Taliban AND the poppy growers who's money supports the Taliban. But it takes a willingness that YOU don't have.
Our troops are better than that, and they have proven that they DO have that willingness.
That's why any "allegiences" have to be entered into by the MILITARY COMMANDER ON THE GROUND... not the State Department. It has to be a MILITARY operation, not a political or diplomatic one. The military commander has to determine who the best ally for the USA is (from a strategic point of view), open negotiations with that ally, and back that ally in helping us defeat the enemy(ies). And the State Department should either support the military commander's decision or get the hell out of the way.Quote:
A war cannot be fought on the vague allegiences of the US political system which is constructed to prevent anything from actually being done.
Part of the problem is that every faction within the US government has their own opinion of who our allies should be. The President has his opinion, which is based on his desire to get re-elected. The State Department life-time bureaucrats have their opinions of who our allies should be, usually based on who is giving them the most graft or setting them up with the best retirement package. The Department of Defense/Intelligence Agency bureaucrats have their opinion of who our allies should be, sometimes based on who is giving them the best information about his enemies, but also often based on graft. And the Military Commander has his opinion, usually based on the current status of the war and who has been most helpful to us in fighting that war.
Everyone's got an opinion, and they usually conflict with each other.
But while the war is being fought, the only opinion that really matters is the opinion of the Military Commander. He's the guy on the sharp end of the stick. HIS decisions are the ones that determine the course of the war. And if you want to win that war, you had either better back HIS position or get the hell out of the way.
We did that in Iraq. We gave Patreus the lead, let him take charge, let HIM decide where our allegiances would go, and let him set the strategy. And the result is that we have won in Iraq.
We have not done the same in Afghanistan. And THAT is why we are not in control there.
Agreed.Quote:
What is they say in the US; congress is the opposite of progress:D
That's because of politicians who practice politics.
Politics: from the word "Poli" meaning "many", and "tic" meaning "disgusting blood-sucking creature".
(With thanks to Robin Williams.)
Elliot
Hello El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That's probably a pretty good indication that we shouldn't be having a war right now, no??
excon
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We had such factionalization during WWII too. There were factions who believed we should be supporting the Partisan movement, and others who thought we shouldn't. There were those in favor of helping the French and others who thought we shouldn't. There were those who were in favor of helping the Brits, and others who felt we shouldn't. There were those who tried to get us involved in the war earlier in order to help the Jews being killed in the Concentration camps and others (notably Poppa Joe Kennedy) who felt we shouldn't. There was even a faction who thought we should be supporting the Germans. The Department of War and the Department of State were contantly at odds with each other over these issues. There were Congressional factions that were constantly at odds with each other over these issues.
The key point is that once we got into the war, it was the military leaders who determined strategy, not politicians and bureaucrats. They detemined who we would join with, who we would ally with, and who we would have nothing to do with. It didn't matter if they were right or wrong... there was a single policy run by the most relevant leaders (the military was the most relevant leadership to the war), and we followed that policy instead of fighting among ourselves from within the bureaucracy.
That's all I'm suggesting that we do here.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Nope. You're wrong again... Doesn't that get tiresome?? Anyway, Iraq is lost. I've said it since the beginning, and I'm saying it now...
The dufus broke it and left it RIPE for Iran to INCREASE it's influence there, and they ARE. We didn't win. IRAN won.
excon
You're the only one who seems to think Iraq is lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Even the anti-Bush press had to admit that we won Iraq.
Even OBAMA had to admit that he was wrong on Iraq.
You're alone on this one.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I've never been a follower.
excon
That is the essential question and Afghanistan is not Iraq. I also think the question of Iraq remains in the balance, the US may have won the battle but have they won the war? They have achieved a lower death count for US forces. The incident yesterday in Afghanistan where 90 civilians were allegedly killed is one of the reasons you won't win. The thinking of the military is too large scale. The US is fighting the wrong war. Eight years and the enemy is stronger now than when you started, that should tell you somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Afghan bombing|NATO strikeWhat did they hope to accomplish by destroying those tankers surrounded by civilians?The Taliban has no need of fuel they were just denying supply, but the fall out from that strike in a political sense did more that the Taliban could hope to do in a month.
It seems in your remarks you wanted to make this personal. I don't think a win at all costs philosophy is what is needed in Afghanistan. The Taliban have time on their side, they only have to wait, but their religious ideology won't let them stand idly by and let an invader walk over their country and defile it with obscene acts http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/as...ors/index.htmlas was reported recently
Until the US and its allies decide that collateral damage is unacceptable they will not win
How do you win a war when you are required to read captured terrorists their Miranda Right ? In this there is a comparison to Vietnam. The troops are handcuffed by ROEs .
But Joe Biden has a secret plan. He is advising the President to mine Afghanistan's harbors.
We were making progress in Afghanistan and then we concentrated out efforts on Iraq.
Look at two years ago,things were improving.
Schools,health care things were looking up. A change was happening.
Women back in power.The Taliban was being shut down!
Look back at what was happening two years ago.
We were being killed with our own weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Americans I mean .
Thank you Ronald Reagan and you Contra BS!
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You actually WIN the war on the battlefield, not in the POW camp.
Here's the thing you righty's don't understand about war. When we've captured a terrorist, he's NO LONGER in the fight. It really doesn't make ANY difference WHAT we read him or what we don't.
You just want to punish him further. That's not very nice.
Plus, if we torture OUR prisoners, they're going to torture OUR boys, and I'm not going to like that. When they DO, who do you think I'M going to blame?? Them?? Wrong!
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:15 AM. |