The current and future massive expansion of Iraq and Afganistan's militaries and police forces is a good idea, but minus the U.S. how can that be sustained if their economies are not built up extensively either? The only reason why I fail to see how Iraq will do fine if we leave in a year or two is that building up an economy and institutions such as education, democratic government, healthcare, etc. take time.
Another concern of mine is that a built-up military/police in comparison to other less advanced sectors in those countries is a bad thing.
At least Iraq could support a military that can manage its own security in theory.
Afghanistan is hopeless in that regard.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
Afghanistan is hopeless in that regard.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place and had helped Afghanistan get out of the 7th Century BC it wouldn't be so hopeless. They are not animals.
Has nothing to do with being animals, or Iraq, or what we have or have not done.
It is simple economics. They are a poor country in the best of times, and cannot afford anything like the number of men they need to keep armed to have any shot of keeping the peace.
Right now, there defense budget is something like 40% of their total government income, and the US and NATO want them to at least double their military and para-military forces. There is no way they can pay for that, probably not ever.
They have large amounts of natural resources and a pent-up demand for education and consumer products in the non-Talibanized (read non-Pashtun) areas. If we'd just payed some more attention to the country and helped develop Pakistani infrastructure and ports (if the Pakistanis were not behaving like angry retarded children Gwadar would be a port on par with anything in India or China), Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia would be the world's non-African source of raw materials.
40 years ago Afghanistan was not nearly as poor as it is today. Nowhere even close. You'd be surprised what being ravaged by Communists and the Taliban could do to a place; the USSR might as well have dropped neutron bombs on all the major urban centers.
EDIT: Might as well as dropped neutron bombs on urban areas rather than wage the campaign they did, not in addition to. The latter would be hyperbole.
What natural resources are you talking about Squeelus? :huh:
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
They have large amounts of natural resources and a pent-up demand for education and consumer products in the non-Talibanized (read non-Pashtun) areas. If we'd just payed some more attention to the country and helped develop Pakistani infrastructure and ports (if the Pakistanis were not behaving like angry retarded children Gwadar would be a port on par with anything in India or China), Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia would be the world's non-African source of raw materials.
I think the "infrastructure" part is important. Geography and geology aren't very kind to the Afghan infrastructure opportunities. Maintenance alone would cost a fortune, which in turn would probably be at the expense of edumacation and public spending in general.
There's simply no easy way to provide Afghanistan with roads, railroads, broadband etc at low-low prices. Afghanistan really needs a central government, but topography and history dictates a much more decentralised approach, I would think.
Of course, the lack of infrastructure and a polity that at the best of times is inefficient make extracting the riches of Afghanistan economically unviable for the moment, unless those tasked with such endeavors also equipped a private army of 5-600.000 men.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:51:34 PM
40 years ago Afghanistan was not nearly as poor as it is today. Nowhere even close. You'd be surprised what being ravaged by Communists and the Taliban could do to a place; the USSR might as well have dropped neutron bombs on all the major urban centers.
It wasn't wealthy though.
The problem is that they are not just a little behind - they are decades behind. Even the most optomistic of projection do not have them capable of defending themselves in any kind of time frame shorter than a decade or more.
And what are all these natural resources you are talking about, this wealth waiting to be exploited?
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:56:45 PM
And what are all these natural resources you are talking about, this wealth waiting to be exploited?
Trophy wives. Like Ukraine's biggest export. :mmm: :mmm: :frog:
Taken shamelessly from Wiki
QuoteAfghanistan is endowed with a wealth of natural resources, including extensive deposits of natural gas, petroleum, coal, marble, gold, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semi-precious stones. In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that Afghanistan has as much as 36 trillion cubic feet (1.0×10^12 m3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570×10^6 m3) of oil and condensate reserves.[11] According to a recent 2007 U.S. Geological Survey's assessment, it was again revealed that Afghanistan has significant amounts of undiscovered non-fuel mineral resources. Scientists also found indications of abundant deposits of colored stones and gemstones, including emerald, ruby, sapphire, garnet, lapis, kunzite, spinel, tourmaline and peridot.[12]
This area has produced a huge amount of the world's minerals since the time of the Indo-European invasion. Central Asia has a lot of things going for it. Its just that the soil can be harsh, and the land either so flat or so mountainous as to make raiding an extremely profitable, relatively easy way of life.
Quote from: WhotTheFuckIsQueegAnyway?
They have large amounts of natural resources and a pent-up demand for education and consumer products in the non-Talibanized (read non-Pashtun) areas.
Yeah, going to be hard to spend the bulk of their national revenue on the military when that is the case. We will continue to subsidize their security for decades.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
If we'd just payed some more attention to the country and helped develop Pakistani infrastructure and ports (if the Pakistanis were not behaving like angry retarded children Gwadar would be a port on par with anything in India or China), Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia would be the world's non-African source of raw materials.
Gosh, if only we had not screwed everything up! Central Asia could be a paradise, like it was before we screwed it up!
Quote from: Norgy on May 08, 2009, 01:56:32 PM
I think the "infrastructure" part is important. Geography and geology aren't very kind to the Afghan infrastructure opportunities. Maintenance alone would cost a fortune, which in turn would probably be at the expense of edumacation and public spending in general.
There's simply no easy way to provide Afghanistan with roads, railroads, broadband etc at low-low prices. Afghanistan really needs a central government, but topography and history dictates a much more decentralised approach, I would think.
Of course, the lack of infrastructure and a polity that at the best of times is inefficient make extracting the riches of Afghanistan economically unviable for the moment, unless those tasked with such endeavors also equipped a private army of 5-600.000 men.
Agreed on all counts. But I think there was a window in 2002 where we could have made an honest effort to do this, and would have seen significant progress on all fronts, enough for it to eventually become self sustaining I think.
Quote
Gosh, if only we had not screwed everything up! Central Asia could be a paradise, like it was before we screwed it up!
I think it is reasonably fair to say that Afghanistan's plight is not its own fault; the Soviets invaded, Pakistani-supported Ghazis poured in, took over a destroyed country and eventually we came in and forgot all about it on the blind road to Baghdad.
Can't say the same for Pakistan. That country has made some stupid, stupid, stupid decisions.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:32:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
Afghanistan is hopeless in that regard.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place and had helped Afghanistan get out of the 7th Century BC it wouldn't be so hopeless. They are not animals.
Yes they are. Just because Bactria wasn't a total basket case back in the day is not an indicator of future success.
Cut our losses, cluster bomb everybody brown.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:02:55 PM
Agreed on all counts. But I think there was a window in 2002 where we could have made an honest effort to do this, and would have seen significant progress on all fronts, enough for it to eventually become self sustaining I think.
The only way Afghanistan can become self-sustaining is if nobody wants to fight over it anymore.
Do the math. It is pretty simple.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:32:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
Afghanistan is hopeless in that regard.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place and had helped Afghanistan get out of the 7th Century BC it wouldn't be so hopeless. They are not animals.
Yes they are. Just because Bactria wasn't a total basket case back in the day is not an indicator of future success.
Cut our losses, cluster bomb everybody brown.
Afghans are generally pretty fair skinned.
Opium, of course.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:32:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
Afghanistan is hopeless in that regard.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place and had helped Afghanistan get out of the 7th Century BC it wouldn't be so hopeless. They are not animals.
Yes they are. Just because Bactria wasn't a total basket case back in the day is not an indicator of future success.
Cut our losses, cluster bomb everybody brown.
Afghans are generally pretty fair skinned.
Dirty, dirty people are brown. Bomb them.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:08:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:02:55 PM
Agreed on all counts. But I think there was a window in 2002 where we could have made an honest effort to do this, and would have seen significant progress on all fronts, enough for it to eventually become self sustaining I think.
The only way Afghanistan can become self-sustaining is if nobody wants to fight over it anymore.
[Hyperbole I later regretted, and qualified as no Taliban within Afghanistan besides the borderlands]In 2002 there was no Taliban, no insurgency, no nothing. Kabulis flocked to barbers and to movie theaters to watch The Terminator. There
was a window. [Hyperbole I later regretted, and qualified as no Taliban within Afghanistan besides the borderlands]
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:32:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
Afghanistan is hopeless in that regard.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place and had helped Afghanistan get out of the 7th Century BC it wouldn't be so hopeless. They are not animals.
Yes they are. Just because Bactria wasn't a total basket case back in the day is not an indicator of future success.
:D I was going to argue EXACTLY that. Honest to God.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:08:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:02:55 PM
Agreed on all counts. But I think there was a window in 2002 where we could have made an honest effort to do this, and would have seen significant progress on all fronts, enough for it to eventually become self sustaining I think.
The only way Afghanistan can become self-sustaining is if nobody wants to fight over it anymore.
In 2002 there was no Taliban, no insurgency, no nothing. Kabulis flocked to barbers and to movie theaters to watch The Terminator. There was a window.
Oh, I see. And we should have swooped in and built them roads and stuff, and then none of this would have happened, I am sure.
No taliban. :lmfao: I suppose they just sprang out of the head of Dick Cheney a few years later.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:11:04 PM
Oh, I see. And we should have swooped in and built them roads and stuff, and then none of this would have happened, I am sure.
We should never have taken our eye off the ball. Afghans are the toughest motherfuckers in the world; they fucking charged Soviet tank columns on
donkeyback; and they liked us! We should have rebuilt the schools, rebuilt the roads and planted some trees (very few since the end of the Soviet War). Totally remade the country.
This place isn't hell. A lot of is pretty, mountainous, naturally rich. But if you have 10 years of war with Russia and another 10 of rule by the most retarded religious regime ever and another ten of constant conflict, even New York City or Northern California would start to look Post-Apocalyptic.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:11:04 PM
No taliban. :lmfao: I suppose they just sprang out of the head of Dick Cheney a few years later.
Waziristan and North-West Frontier Province. Look it up.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:10:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:32:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
Afghanistan is hopeless in that regard.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place and had helped Afghanistan get out of the 7th Century BC it wouldn't be so hopeless. They are not animals.
Yes they are. Just because Bactria wasn't a total basket case back in the day is not an indicator of future success.
:D I was going to argue EXACTLY that. Honest to God.
I'm psychic.
My point has nothing to do with how the place looks, or looked in 2002.
My point is simply that Afghanistan cannot afford the amount of military it needs to maintain its own security. Not now, and not in the near future, and not EVER unless the need side of the equation is reduced a LOT.
What we coulda shoulda done in 2002 has nothing really to do with that. It is trivial to always point back at some time in the past and say "golly, if only we had done everything perfectly right then and with perfect results, why we wouldn't have this mess today!" Whatever.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 02:16:35 PMI'm psychic.
:rolleyes:
Dude, it's a safe bet (as in like less than 1:1 odds) that Spellus will always use some ancient comparison in every thread that has no connection to the subject at hand other than a geographic one. -_-
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:15:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:11:04 PM
No taliban. :lmfao: I suppose they just sprang out of the head of Dick Cheney a few years later.
Waziristan and North-West Frontier Province. Look it up.
Why would I look it up? Is there some article somewhere that will state that in 2002 there was no Taliban anywhere?
If so, how about YOU look it up and share it with us. It isn't my claim, so I don't really care. You are the first person I have ever seen argue that the taliban was completely gone, and then somehow magically re-appeared out of thin air.
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 02:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 02:16:35 PMI'm psychic.
:rolleyes:
Dude, it's a safe bet (as in like less than 1:1 odds) that Spellus will always use some ancient comparison in every thread that has no connection to the subject at hand other than a geographic one. -_-
DO NOT TAUNT MY POWERS!
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 02:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 02:16:35 PMI'm psychic.
:rolleyes:
Dude, it's a safe bet (as in like less than 1:1 odds) that Spellus will always use some ancient comparison in every thread that has no connection to the subject at hand other than a geographic one. -_-
So Quee is Spellus?
:bleeding:
And I've been arguing with him like he is an actual real person with actual real arguments?
:frusty:
I have:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkevinrobinson.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Fepic_fail.jpg&hash=115865a001d064f3d5133297fa98ae07e3cfdd12)
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:19:10 PM
If so, how about YOU look it up and share it with us. It isn't my claim, so I don't really care. You are the first person I have ever seen argue that the taliban was completely gone, and then somehow magically re-appeared out of thin air.
They magically reappeared because Osama drew the Event card which gives you a free on-map reinforcement. Bypassed the eliminated/replaceable box even, baby. :smoke:
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 02:21:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:19:10 PM
If so, how about YOU look it up and share it with us. It isn't my claim, so I don't really care. You are the first person I have ever seen argue that the taliban was completely gone, and then somehow magically re-appeared out of thin air.
They magically reappeared because Osama drew the Event card which gives you a free on-map reinforcement. Bypassed the eliminated/replaceable box even, baby. :smoke:
That is the problem with CDG's. Too much fucking weird shit happens. USE A PRODUCTION SPIRAL!
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 01:51:34 PM
40 years ago Afghanistan was not nearly as poor as it is today.
indeed, was a rather well-traveled (given its location and all that) tourist-destination. I think it was Kabul that was known for it's gardens, while the country itself was known for its breathtaking landscape. All lost now of course.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:19:10 PM
Why would I look it up? Is there some article somewhere that will state that in 2002 there was no Taliban anywhere?
If so, how about YOU look it up and share it with us. It isn't my claim, so I don't really care. You are the first person I have ever seen argue that the taliban was completely gone, and then somehow magically re-appeared out of thin air.
This is pretty basic, Berkut. Figured you knew it.
The most basic summary from the NYT (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Taliban&st=cse)
QuoteBut the Taliban continued to exist, living as a guerrilla warfare operation based in the mountainous and largely lawless tribal area on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. As the American military focus was diverted to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Taliban regrouped and began to extend its influence in the southern part of Afghanistan.
Now both Eastern Afghanistan and Western Pakistan are Pashtun areas, so naturally the totally Pashtun Taliban found home with their cousins (literally) in Pakistan. They did something similar during the Soviet invasion. Oldest trick in the book.
Quote
indeed, was a rather well-traveled (given its location and all that) tourist-destination. I think it was Kabul that was known for it's gardens, while the country itself was known for its breathtaking landscape. All lost now of course.
Yup. I often use ancient examples because I think that the previous existence of functional, wealthy innovative societies in a certain area means that it is hypothetically possible for one to arise again. This isn't Madagascar.
Lost? This is what Northern France used to look like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F43%2FPozieres_view_north_28_August_1916.jpg&hash=b04c160f9251c150f4d1ae9b6a0aad2001452d30)
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:17:23 PM
My point is simply that Afghanistan cannot afford the amount of military it needs to maintain its own security. Not now, and not in the near future, and not EVER unless the need side of the equation is reduced a LOT.
What we coulda shoulda done in 2002 has nothing really to do with that. It is trivial to always point back at some time in the past and say "golly, if only we had done everything perfectly right then and with perfect results, why we wouldn't have this mess today!" Whatever.
My disagreement with you here is largely inconsequential I think; only wanted to point out that Afghanistan isn't totally incapable of being raised out of its current Sub-Saharan state, and that the Taliban are defeatable.
I largely agree on military spending today; they need our help, will for some time, probably longer than Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:21:06 PM
And I've been arguing with him like he is an actual real person with actual real arguments?
For all my eccentricities, I know
something about the area. All you have is a psychotic addiction to argument, rage and arguments from ignorance.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:21:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:21:06 PM
And I've been arguing with him like he is an actual real person with actual real arguments?
For all my eccentricities, I know something about the area. All you have is a psychotic addiction to argument, rage and arguments from ignorance.
Ah yes, like your claim that there "was no Taliban" in 2002?
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:21:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:21:06 PM
And I've been arguing with him like he is an actual real person with actual real arguments?
For all my eccentricities, I know something about the area. All you have is a psychotic addiction to argument, rage and arguments from ignorance.
Ah yes, like your claim that there "was no Taliban" in 2002?
:face:
In AFGHANISTAN? There might have been the odd Taliban Sympathizer, and maybe a few left near the Pakistan Border, but they were wildly unpopular and we did a good job of kicking them out. The problem was that we kicked them into Pakistan.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:34:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:21:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:21:06 PM
And I've been arguing with him like he is an actual real person with actual real arguments?
For all my eccentricities, I know something about the area. All you have is a psychotic addiction to argument, rage and arguments from ignorance.
Ah yes, like your claim that there "was no Taliban" in 2002?
:face:
In AFGHANISTAN? There might have been the odd Taliban Sympathizer, and maybe a few left near the Pakistan Border, but they were wildly unpopular and we did a good job of kicking them out. The problem was that we kicked them into Pakistan.
Ahh yes, you "knowing something about the area" know that every single one was kicked into Pakistan. I guess you were there, right?
Of course, the border areas are unsecured, so whether they are in Pakistan proper or Afghanistan proper is impossible to say - the point is that your claim that "there was no Taliban" in 2002 is bullshit. Of course there was - they were just laying low and regrouping. And no, there probably was not really anything we could have done then to stop them from coming back, no matter how many pipe dream roads we built, or whether we went into Iraq or not.
Hell, the very article you cite states that they were driven into the border regions, which in fact are in Afghanistan in part.
Yeah, you sure are an experten on the region. "No taliban at all" indeed.
You just restated everything I said in the post you quoted as a refutation of me.
You just lost all right to complain about arguing with me.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
You just restated everything I said in the post you quoted as a refutation of me.
You just lost all right to complain about arguing with me.
Yes but you DID post once there was no Taliban in 2002. For that you shall suffer.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:49:04 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
You just restated everything I said in the post you quoted as a refutation of me.
You just lost all right to complain about arguing with me.
Yes but you DID post once there was no Taliban in 2002. For that you shall suffer.
One moment of hyperbole doesn't excuse that kind of sloppiness.
Me: Its raining.
Berut: No, its not.
Me: Well, its drizzling. There's water coming down from the sky.
Berkut: I GOT YOU YOU MOTHERFUCKER! ITS DRIZZLING! DRIZZLING ISN'T RAINING! YOU FUCKING RETARD!
Obviously Afghanistan is going to need money, training, and lots of economic help for some years, decades maybe. Just as other nations have needed in similar circumstances. I kind of think it's worth the investment to give the Afghans a good chance at a better life, and to keep the nation out of the mess it's been in, with the kinds of extremists who would likely come to power.
I think Afghanistan could be fixed by a 500 year campaign of atomic purging.
Quote(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkevinrobinson.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Fepic_fail.jpg&hash=115865a001d064f3d5133297fa98ae07e3cfdd12)
:lol:
Quote from: KRonn on May 08, 2009, 04:57:09 PM
Obviously Afghanistan is going to need money, training, and lots of economic help for some years, decades maybe. Just as other nations have needed in similar circumstances. I kind of think it's worth the investment to give the Afghans a good chance at a better life, and to keep the nation out of the mess it's been in, with the kinds of extremists who would likely come to power.
It'll be for nothing if we don't somehow sort out Pakistan. I think Afghanistan can succeed but it'll take a long, long time. I think it's worth doing. But if Pakistan's decline continues then I don't think anything we could do could work in Afghanistan.
And I've few ideas on stabilising Pakistan, I've not read any that sound plausible. But hopefully some brights spark in some Chancellery somewhere has worked out some sort of plan :mellow:
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:14:40 PM
Afghans are the toughest motherfuckers in the world; they fucking charged Soviet tank columns on donkeyback; and they liked us!
You lust after the Croats first, now the Afghans? You do realize that, while charging a tank on a donkey may sound heroic, it is not very intelligent, right?
You're the Lettow of the third-world hellholes.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 08, 2009, 06:40:27 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:14:40 PM
Afghans are the toughest motherfuckers in the world; they fucking charged Soviet tank columns on donkeyback; and they liked us!
You lust after the Croats first, now the Afghans? You do realize that, while charging a tank on a donkey may sound heroic, it is not very intelligent, right?
You're the Lettow of the third-world hellholes.
Croats?They beat the Soviets, didn't they? Our weapons and some of our training, but they did it. Not even the Chechens did that.
You don't find that impressive?
And I don't think *all* Third World peoples are tough. Look at the Georgians, or the Arabs, or the Azeris.
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.
Edit: :rolleyes:
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:28:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 07:36:53 PM
Regional superpower?
Yeah that is kind of a contradiction in terms isn't it?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 07:36:53 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:28:18 PM
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?
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:45:59 PM
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?
The Iranians are still very anti-Taliban. It's not often reported but chaos in Afghanistan directly affects Iran. The border with Iraq is okay, there's little instability caused by what's happening in Iraq. From what I understand there are bits of Eastern Iran that have pretty serious problems because of drug traffickers based in Afghanistan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 08:08:16 PM
The Iranians are still very anti-Taliban. It's not often reported but chaos in Afghanistan directly affects Iran. The border with Iraq is okay, there's little instability caused by what's happening in Iraq. From what I understand there are bits of Eastern Iran that have pretty serious problems because of drug traffickers based in Afghanistan.
Drugs are a huge problem in Iran. All true.
I find it amusing that the NYT asserts that a 'lack of military focus' in Afghanistan caused by the Iraq war is what allowed the Taliban to regroup. As if the coalition troops in Afghanistan were distracted by the fact that there was another war, thousands of kilometres away.
I think the fact that they were able to find refuge, recruits, supplies and cash in Pakistan was a little more telling.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 08:08:16 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:45:59 PM
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?
The Iranians are still very anti-Taliban. It's not often reported but chaos in Afghanistan directly affects Iran. The border with Iraq is okay, there's little instability caused by what's happening in Iraq. From what I understand there are bits of Eastern Iran that have pretty serious problems because of drug traffickers based in Afghanistan.
Interesting bit about the drugs. From what I read Iran serves as a major transport hub for Afghan opiates and the UN estimates that Iran has as many as 1.7 million opiate addicts.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:49:04 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
You just restated everything I said in the post you quoted as a refutation of me.
You just lost all right to complain about arguing with me.
Yes but you DID post once there was no Taliban in 2002. For that you shall suffer.
One moment of hyperbole doesn't excuse that kind of sloppiness.
Me: Its raining.
Berut: No, its not.
Me: Well, its drizzling. There's water coming down from the sky.
Berkut: I GOT YOU YOU MOTHERFUCKER! ITS DRIZZLING! DRIZZLING ISN'T RAINING! YOU FUCKING RETARD!
Nice try.
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!". Really, you start crowing about your "expertise", expect to get called on it when you saw something stunningly stupid like the Taliban was gone, and then follow it up by saying "Well, I didn't mean they were GONE, I meant they were in Pakistan, and by Pakistan, I actually mean they are in parts of Afghanistan, just not the parts that aren't near Pakistan, so by gone, what I really meant is that they were hiding out --- which of course is what you said to begin with..."
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 10:29:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 08:08:16 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:45:59 PM
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?
The Iranians are still very anti-Taliban. It's not often reported but chaos in Afghanistan directly affects Iran. The border with Iraq is okay, there's little instability caused by what's happening in Iraq. From what I understand there are bits of Eastern Iran that have pretty serious problems because of drug traffickers based in Afghanistan.
Interesting bit about the drugs. From what I read Iran serves as a major transport hub for Afghan opiates and the UN estimates that Iran has as many as 1.7 million opiate addicts.
Pfft, they are going to have a drug problem regardless. ANy kind of chaos that involves the US is gravy to them.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2009, 09:53:09 AM
Pfft, they are going to have a drug problem regardless. ANy kind of chaos that involves the US is gravy to them.
This isn't necessarily true. They were hugely helpful in 2001 and offered help in Iraq.
QuoteWhy 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.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 09, 2009, 12:23:53 PM
QuoteWhy 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?
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2009, 12:49:39 PM
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!
Quote from: Queequeg on May 09, 2009, 12:23:53 PM
Berkut, every poster here knows that I tend towards hyperbole.
NO, REALLY?
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2009, 09:53:09 AM
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.
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 09, 2009, 01:11:13 PMActually 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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2009, 06:26:07 PM
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).
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:45:59 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 07:36:53 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:28:18 PM
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".
QuoteConcerns 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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 10, 2009, 11:32:05 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2009, 07:27:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2009, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2009, 07:27:24 AM
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. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2009, 08:15:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2009, 08:32:41 AMThat doesn't really refute what Square Head said.
I don't know the truth of it, and neither does he.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 08:17:53 AM
A shortcoming you are addressing, I see. :P
:lol: No :p
Thinking about it rogue elements is a bad phrase. What I'm trying to describe is that I've read that there are numerous, equally powerful bases of power within Iran (as in Soviet Russia there was the KGB, the Party, the military and bureaucracy). Each of those bases of power have slightly differently calibrated sort-of awareness of what's going on and have different, sometimes contradictory, interests. Short of a direct order from the Supreme Leader these different centres of power often carry out their policies, try and damage others' and fight internal battles that are like what you get in Washington but because of the secrecy required, but also provided by dictatorship they're more below the surface but also have more agenc to act more-or-less independently.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 02:09:55 PM
In 2002 there was no Taliban, no insurgency, no nothing. Kabulis flocked to barbers and to movie theaters to watch The Terminator. There was a window.
A window to do what? Take over? That hasn't worked well in the past (see: USSR, Britain, etc).
Besides which, your assertion that the Taliban didn't exist in 2002 is manifestly false.
Edit: didn't realize this was in response to such an old post.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2009, 10:40:57 AM
Besides which, your assertion that the Taliban didn't exist in 2002 is manifestly false.
:lol:
Poor Spellus.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 10:43:34 AM
:lol:
Poor Spellus.
:yes:
Sometimes it is best to delete posts like that to prevent future pile on.
Quote from: citizen k on May 11, 2009, 12:20:33 AM
Concerns white phosphorus used in Afghan battle
:w00t: Willie Pete!!!!
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2009, 10:47:46 AM
:yes:
Sometimes it is best to delete posts like that to prevent future pile on.
Or edit them to note that they are mere hyperbole and not to be taken seriously.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2009, 08:32:41 AM
That doesn't really refute what Square Head said.
People don't need to "refute" Hans's delusions about what "the West" invented or what the "MSM" has decided. His statements are absurd on the face of them.
However, one can respond to these absurdities in a way that makes it clear that there is a truth, even if it is more complicated than the delusions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2009, 08:15:06 AM
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.
I don't see why you can't both be right. I remember a briefing on the Iranian nuclear threat that was published and got linked here a while back- the org chart did mention how one of the problems is that the relationship between Khameini and Ahmadinejad is somewhat unclear, while Khameini is more likely to engage in those kinds of shadow ops and more or less has the Quds Forces at his disposal.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2009, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2009, 10:47:46 AM
:yes:
Sometimes it is best to delete posts like that to prevent future pile on.
Or edit them to note that they are mere hyperbole and not to be taken seriously.
Better?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 12:05:38 PM
I don't see why you can't both be right. I remember a briefing on the Iranian nuclear threat that was published and got linked here a while back- the org chart did mention how one of the problems is that the relationship between Khameini and Ahmadinejad is somewhat unclear, while Khameini is more likely to engage in those kinds of shadow ops and more or less has the Quds Forces at his disposal.
Iran has a government, and then a supragovernment. The supragovernment, led by the Supreme Leader (Khameini) is highly subject to rogue actions that even he may know little or nothing about, as the supragovernment has a military wing that, like many supragovernmental military and intelligence wings we have seen in the past, exploits its independence while also exploiting the fact that nobody wants to ask the Supreme Leader/Fuhrer/Whatever if he has okayed this, given the dire consequences of doubting when the answer is "yes."
So, yeah, arguing that there is an Iranian "rogue element" is entirely understandable, even if one could quibble that the supragovernment is also part of what outsiders would call "the government."
General McKiernan thrown under a bus:
QuoteGates Recommends Replacement for Top Command in Afghanistan
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 11, 2009 4:08 PM
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today asked for the resignation of the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, saying the U.S. military "must do better" in executing the administration's new strategy there.
Gates recommended that President Obama nominate veteran Special Operations commander Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to replace McKiernan, who would depart as soon as a successor is confirmed. Gates also recommended that Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the former head of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan who is currently serving as Gates's military assistant, be nominated to serve in a new position as McChrystal's deputy.
The leadership shift comes as the Obama administration has voiced increasingly urgent concern about the surge in violence in Afghanistan as well as unrest in neighboring Pakistan.
"We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership is also needed," Gates said at a hastily convened Pentagon news conference.
"I think these two officers will bring . . . a focus which we really need in 2009. And I just didn't think we could wait until 2010," Gates said.
Gates praised McChrystal and Rodriguez for their "a unique skill set in counterinsurgency" as well as "fresh thinking."
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen also lauded McChrystal and Rodriguez for ranking "at the top of the list" of U.S. military officers for a range of leadership positions.
McChrystal is currently the director of the joint staff. From 2006 to August 2008 he was the forward commander of the U.S. military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command, responsible for tracking down high-level leaders of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, including its then-leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was responsible for a brutal campaign of bombings and beheadings until he was killed by U.S. Special Operations Forces in April 2006.
Gates thanked McKiernan for decades of "distinguished" service leading troops, but when asked whether this decision would effectively end McKiernan's military career, Gates replied: "Probably." He said he spoke with McKiernan about the decision during a trip to Afghanistan last week.
In a statement, McKiernan said: "It has been my distinct honor over the past year to serve with the brave men and women from 42 ISAF contributing nations and the Afghan National Security Forces. I have never been prouder to be an American Soldier."
McKiernan took command of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan less than a year ago in June 2008, and was scheduled to serve in the post for two years, according to a U.S. military official. Like other top U.S. commanders before him, McKiernan pressed the Pentagon to provide additional forces to combat rising violence and an escalating Taliban insurgency.
He oversaw initial troop increases under the Bush administration as well as the ongoing increase of 21,000 troops this year ordered by President Obama. McKiernan also worked to reduce Afghan civilian deaths from coalition military operations, although such incidents continued to occur, drawing criticism from Afghan officials.
He's pretty blunt about it, too. Ouch. :pinchL
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 07:45:59 PM
Or are they just batshit insane?
Of course they are. They are MUSLIMS!
They believe all kind of stupid conspiracy theories and global domination schemes.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 11, 2009, 06:52:51 PM
He's pretty blunt about it, too. Ouch. :pinchL
And that is why I love Defense Secretary Gates. :) And he majored in History! :w00t:
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2009, 06:49:08 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 12:05:38 PM
I don't see why you can't both be right. I remember a briefing on the Iranian nuclear threat that was published and got linked here a while back- the org chart did mention how one of the problems is that the relationship between Khameini and Ahmadinejad is somewhat unclear, while Khameini is more likely to engage in those kinds of shadow ops and more or less has the Quds Forces at his disposal.
Iran has a government, and then a supragovernment. The supragovernment, led by the Supreme Leader (Khameini) is highly subject to rogue actions that even he may know little or nothing about, as the supragovernment has a military wing that, like many supragovernmental military and intelligence wings we have seen in the past, exploits its independence while also exploiting the fact that nobody wants to ask the Supreme Leader/Fuhrer/Whatever if he has okayed this, given the dire consequences of doubting when the answer is "yes."
So, yeah, arguing that there is an Iranian "rogue element" is entirely understandable, even if one could quibble that the supragovernment is also part of what outsiders would call "the government."
This is a better explanation than mine. It's not even that you've got a Presidential government and then a Khameini government because all of the actors seem to often do their own thing and, as you say, there's a fear of contradicting them by asking Khameini 'did you okay this?' and each centre of power (some hawkish, some doveish) have a fear of being left out so they present further fait accompli which the regime as a whole then has to back up or lose face.
This is one of the reasons I think saying the US'll talk to Iran is a good idea. The Iranians have engaged very productively before with the US, especially in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the early 90s, but I don't think they've ever mustered the support, within the regime, to okay Secretary of State level talks about all issues. It puts the onus on them.
This is sad. Why don't they just let them be.
I think it's a bit significant that a Special Forces General has been nominated to command in Afghanistan. Special Forces have gained hugely in stature, funding and need since the initial invasion of Afghanistan, and have been given much more prominence among the military. Much different than the way they used to be looked at, I think.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:34:35 PM
In AFGHANISTAN? There might have been the odd Taliban Sympathizer, and maybe a few left near the Pakistan Border, but they were wildly unpopular and we did a good job of kicking them out. The problem was that we kicked them into Pakistan.
in all fairness to Berkut, the Talebans were in Kandahar in 2002, and never really left the area. Not until the Canadians arrived, with the British and the near 20 000 US Air Force soldiers did the Taleban partially vacate Kandahar due to some military push.
They were less present than now, no doubt about it, but they weren't totally out of Afghanistan and without support.
I do agree with you in retrospect that the US should have kept it's big Eye focused on Afghanistan, but at the time, I'm not really sure if maintaining more troops would have been feasible or would have changed anything. At some point the US would had left or largely diminished its presence, and then the Taleban could have come back.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 07:36:53 PM
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.
here, I'm with Grumbler. Yes, Iran did fight the Taleban pre-2001. Now that Afghanistan is filled to the rim with US&NATO troops however, and now that they have a new [fearless] leader [who hates America just as much as Hugo Chavez], they see the Taleban as a potential ally.