How can Afghanistan and Iraq maintain their own security?

[Berkut]

Why did you engage in this entire argument only to just say "Yeah, I actually agree with you about your original point..." then proceed to throw these little tantrums because I called you out on your "OMG, I know SO MUCH about this area! I am such an expert! And there was not Taliban in 2002!"

Berkut, every poster here knows that I tend towards hyperbole.  But I think in absolute terms, the Taliban was closer to non-existence in 2002 than it was to its heights in 2001 or its current revival in 2009, especially within Afghanistan where it was largely contained to the border regions, and often the Pakistani side of the border regions. 

By your logic, if I were to say "there isn't a radical left insurgency in the United States when compared to the 1960s", that could be refuted by showing that a few Freshmen at Reed College watched a documentary about the Weathermen and wear Che Guevara T-Shirts. 

OK, fine, then just say "OK, I was engaging in a little hyperbole..." and explain what you actually meant. Why get so defensive and nasty about it?

[Phillip V]

OK, fine, then just say "OK, I was engaging in a little hyperbole..." and explain what you actually meant. Why get so defensive and nasty about it?

Because you're a Whinny Bitch and YOU GONNA GET RAPED!

[Ed Anger]

Berkut, every poster here knows that I tend towards hyperbole.

NO, REALLY?

[FunkMonk]

Pfft, they are going to have a drug problem regardless. ANy kind of chaos that involves the US is gravy to them.

Actually I think I agree with you. I think perhaps the Iranians would like to walk the fine line of helping the Americans when it suits them. A drug problem is eastern Iran is manageable. An American-backed regime in Kabul, not so much. They want to increase their own power and prestige, not be hemmed in on both flanks by Washington satellite states.

[Sheilbh]

Actually I think I agree with
you. I think perhaps the Iranians would like to walk the fine line of helping the Americans when it suits them. A drug problem is eastern Iran is manageable. An American-backed regime in Kabul, not so much. They want to increase their own power and prestige, not be hemmed in on both flanks by Washington satellite states.

I don't think that the rise of an American supported regime would necessarily diminish Iran's influence.  It certainly hasn't in Baghdad, because Iran had far more long-standing and intimate ties with the people who actually win elections than the US did.  I think the same could happen in Afghanistan.  The Iranians were fighting with the Pakistanis and Saudis over Afghanistan for much of the nineties and, as I say, in 2001 the Iranians were the ones who were able to put the West in touch with the Northern Alliance which was a remnant of the Iranian supported Islamic State of Afghanistan.

[Berkut]

Wow, sure is a good thing we had the Iranians to "put us in touch" with the NA. I bet the State Department didn't even know they existed.

[Sheilbh]

Wow, sure is a good thing we had the Iranians to "put us in touch" with the NA. I bet the State Department didn't even know they existed.

They didn't have contacts with the Northern Alliance, the Iranians did.  They'd had a history with them going back a decade.  I read at the time that the Iranians were being helpful and in a documentary I watched recently one of the under-secretaries of state at the time said that the Iranians provided crucial contacts with the Northern Alliance and provided a list of Taliban sites, because the US didn't have much intelligence and the country and almost ran out of targets at one point (not least due to Afghanistan's state).

[Hansmeister]

What role does Iran play in either country? It borders both hotspots, has considerable influence, and aspires to be a regional superpower. I imagine they see both countries as stepping stones to this aspiration, and with nuclear arms possibly a few years away they probably see time as on their side.

Regional superpower?

Iran's role is generally speaking a lot more constructive here than in Iraq; Iran nearly went to war with  the Taliban after they slaughtered some Iranian diplomats, and supported the (Sufi, Tajik/Iranian) Northern Alliance against the batshit Pashto Taliban.

They opposed the Taliban in 2001. Do they still oppose them? If so, do they do it with the same fervor as before? Could they see the Taliban acting as a meatshield against the Americans? American victory in Afghan could mean increased American influence = bad for Iran. Taliban victory in Afghan is also probably bad for Iran. Is it in their best interests to let both sides go at it for years on end? How nuanced is Iranian foreign policy?

Or are they just batshit insane?

Alas, the Iranian calculus has changed.  And so has the Taliban's.  Iran is now the main supplier of the Taliban.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

[citizen k]

Concerns white phosphorus used in Afghan battle
By JASON STRAZIUSO and RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press

KABUL – Doctors voiced concern over "unusual" burns on Afghan villagers wounded in an already controversial U.S.-Taliban battle, and the country's top human rights groups said Sunday it is investigating the possibility white phosphorus was used. The American military denied using the incendiary in the battle in Farah province — which President Hamid Karzai has said killed 125 to 130 civilians — but left open the possibility that Taliban militants did. The U.S. says Taliban fighters have used white phosphorus, a spontaneously flammable material that leaves severe chemical burns on flesh, at least four times the last two years.
Using white phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is considered legitimate under international law, but rights groups say its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitutes a war crime.
Afghan doctors told The Associated Press they have treated at least 14 patients with severe burns the doctors have never seen before. The villagers were wounded during last Monday's battle in Farah province.
Allegations that white phosphorus or another chemical may have been used threatens to deepen the controversy over what Afghan officials say could be the worst case of civilian deaths since the 2001 U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban regime.
In Kabul on Sunday, hundreds of people marched near Kabul University to protest the U.S. military's role in the deaths. Protesters carried signs denouncing the U.S. and chanted anti-American slogans.
The incident in Farah drew the condemnation of Karzai, who called for an end to airstrikes. The U.S. has said militants kept villagers captive in hopes they would die in the fighting, creating a civilian casualties controversy.
However, President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Sunday the United States would not end airstrikes. Retired Gen. James Jones refused to rule out any action because "we can't fight with one hand tied behind our back."
Along with Afghan and U.S. investigations into the battle, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has been looking into concerns that white phosphorus may have been used after strange burns were reported. Nader Nadery, a commissioner in the leading rights organization, said more investigation was needed.
"Our teams have met with patients," Nadery told AP. "They are investigating the cause of the injuries and the use of white phosphorus."
White phosphorus is a spontaneously flammable material that can cause painful chemical burns. It is used to mark targets, create smoke screens or as a weapon, and can be delivered by shells, flares or hand grenades, according to GlobalSecurity.org.
Human rights groups denounce its use for the severe burns it causes, though it is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.
The U.S. military used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. Israel's military used it in January against Hamas targets in Gaza.
Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the U.S. did not use white phosphorus as a weapon in last week's battle. The U.S. does use white phosphorous to illuminate the night sky, he said.
Julian noted that military officials believe that Taliban militants have used white phosphorus at least four times in Afghanistan in the past two years. "I don't know if they (militants) had it out there or not, but it's not out of the question," he said.
A spokesman for the Taliban could not be reached for comment Sunday.
The U.S. military on Saturday said that Afghan doctors in Farah told American officials the injuries seen in wounded Afghans from two villages in the province's Bala Baluk district could have resulted from hand grenades or exploding propane tanks.
Dr. Mohammad Aref Jalali, the head of the burn unit at the Herat Regional Hospital in western Afghanistan who has treated five patients wounded in the battle, described the burns as "unusual."
"I think it's the result of a chemical used in a bomb, but I'm not sure what kind of chemical. But if it was a result of a burning house — from petrol or gas cylinders — that kind of burn would look different," he said.
Gul Ahmad Ayubi, the deputy head of Farah's health department, said the province's main hospital had received 14 patients after the battle, all with burn wounds. Five patients were sent to Herat.
"There has been other airstrikes in Farah in the past. We had injuries from those battles, but this is the first time we have seen such burns on the bodies. I'm not sure what kind of bomb it was," he said.
U.N. human rights investigators have also seen "extensive" burn wounds on victims and have raised questions about how the injuries were caused, said a U.N. official who asked not to be identified talking about internal deliberations. The U.N. has reached no conclusions about whether any chemical weapons may have been used, the official said.
Afghan officials say up to 147 people may have died in the battle in Farah, though the U.S. says that number is exaggerated.
The investigation into the Farah battle coincides with an appeal by Human Rights Watch for NATO forces to release results of an investigation into a March 14 incident in which an 8-year-old Afghan girl was burned by white phosphorus munitions in Kapisa province.
The New York-based group said Saturday that white phosphorus "causes horrendous burns and should not be used in civilian areas."
In the latest violence, a double suicide bomb attack killed seven people and wounded 20 in southern Afghanistan on Sunday. The majority of casualties were police and army units responding to the initial attack, said Dawood Ahmadi, the governor's spokesman.
A roadside bomb in eastern Nangarhar province killed eight construction workers traveling on a rural road on their way to build a checkpoint for the country's border police, an official said, while a truck driver and two assistants died in a roadside bomb blast in Zabul province while transporting goods to a U.S. base, police said.
Taliban militants have increased their attacks the last three years as the country's insurgency has turned increasingly bloody. President Barack Obama is sending 21,000 additional U.S. troops to the country to bolster the record 38,000 American forces already in the country.

[Sheilbh]

Alas, the Iranian calculus has changed.  And so has the Taliban's.  Iran is now the main supplier of the Taliban.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

It's complicated.  The Iranians have given hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to Afghanistan and are pretty friendly with the government and seem committed to reconstruction (especially in Shiite areas).  But there's been arms shipments.  According to someone at the IISS, though, it's not clear that it's the doing of Iran's state.  His view was that it was 'rogue elements' within the IRG running, as we know they do, a shadow foreign policy alongside general Iranian policy.  Having said that the Iranians have broken numerous promises to the Afghan government regarding refugees (though mostly kept them regarding suspects in Iran).

Though it's worth remembering that there are arms factories in North-Western Pakistan and they are known to manufacture Iranian model weaponry for the Taliban because they're cheap to make.

I think even a restoration to the productive level of talks on Afghanistan that were happening until 2003 when the US broke off relations over allegations (I believe still unsubstantiated) that Iran was behind al-Qaeda bombings in Saudi Arabia would be positive.  But it would probably be best to wait until the Iranian election (speaking of which Ahmedinejad's had a couple of embarassing anti-endorsements recently).

[Hansmeister]

There are no "rogue elements" within the Iranian gov't.  That's just an excuse the West invented in order to be able to justify ignoring bad acts by the Iranian gov't.

[Sheilbh]

There are no "rogue elements" within the Iranian gov't.  That's just an excuse the West invented in order to be able to justify ignoring bad acts by the Iranian gov't.

No it's not.  Iran's government is as riven with internal splits and differing actions as the Kremlin ever was.  We've just got less Teheranologists.

[Berkut]

There are no "rogue elements" within the Iranian gov't.  That's just an excuse the West invented in order to be able to justify ignoring bad acts by the Iranian gov't.

No it's not.  Iran's government is as riven with internal splits and differing actions as the Kremlin ever was.  We've just got less Teheranologists.

A shortcoming you are addressing, I see.

[Admiral Yi]

No it's not.  Iran's government is as riven with internal splits and differing actions as the Kremlin ever was.  We've just got less Teheranologists.

That doesn't really refute what Square Head said.

[Sheilbh]

That doesn't really refute what Square Head said.

I don't know the truth of it, and neither does he.