More foreign fighters join Taliban in Afghanistan

[BrAinPaiNt]

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080730/ts_nm/afghan_security_dc)



By Jon Hemming 2 hours, 41 minutes ago

KABUL (Reuters) - More foreign fighters are joining the ranks of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan as militants increasingly cross the border from Pakistan to attack Afghan and Western troops, the Afghan Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.

Afghanistan has kept up a barrage of criticism against neighbor Pakistan in the last three months, accusing Pakistani agents of being behind a string of high-profile attacks and allowing militants sanctuary along the long and porous border.

"The presence of foreign fighters is increasing, and increasingly the operations of the terrorists are led by foreigners," Defense Ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zaher Azimi told a news conference.

Afghan, NATO and U.S.-led coalition forces are struggling to contain a sharp surge in violence as the traditional summer fighting season gets into full swing.

Already more U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan in May and June than in Iraq, where there are some four times more American soldiers.

July, usually the peak month for fighting, could well be the worse month yet for violence since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2001. Security analysts predict the number of violent incidents could top 1,000 for the first time.

As well as more violence, Afghan and foreign troops are reporting a greater sophistication in Taliban tactics such as multiple roadside bombs and complex ambushes, factors indicating more training and possibly the presence of foreigners.

TALIBAN LEADERS TARGETED

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, said this month there were indications that al Qaeda was switching its focus from Iraq back to Afghanistan.

Violence has increased by 40 percent in the last two months compared to last year, NATO says, partly due to the improved weather, but also due to ceasefires between troops and militants in Pakistan's border tribal belt.

Afghanistan believes foreign funding for the Taliban is channeled through Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agency, Azimi said.

Money for the insurgency comes through donors in Gulf countries and a tax on Afghanistan's booming drug trade, security analysts say.

Afghan security forces have launched a series of operations along the main highway that loops around the south of Afghanistan, killing around 100 militants in the last two weeks, Azimi said.

Meanwhile, Afghan and international troops have killed 20 senior militant leaders, including one from al Qaeda, in the last month and captured another seven, he said.

Western troops in Afghanistan have concentrated on targeting the Taliban leadership in an effort to degrade the insurgent fighting ability.

[iceberg]

maybe they're not more - just the same moving out of iraq and into afganistan cause they're tired of getting kicked around.

[zrinkill]

maybe they're not more - just the same moving out of iraq and into afganistan cause they're tired of getting kicked around.

Thats what a lot of people think.

[ZeroClub]

maybe they're not more - just the same moving out of iraq and into afganistan cause they're tired of getting kicked around.

Yeah.

That's one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of "the surge is working" talk.

[zrinkill]

Yeah.

That's one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of "the surge is working" talk.


If the surge was not working they would not have moved to Afgan.

[BrAinPaiNt]

We know the Taliban has gained strength for the last year or more. This is not just a recent thing. We nearly had them gone and under control at one time. Then we took our eye off the prize to look elsewhere.

Since then they have grown back in strength to the same levels, or more, than pre war status. They continued back to having a nice bumper crop of that poppies to make a nice amount of money to make heroin.

This is not just because the surge is working or why the surge is working or if the surge is working argument IMO.

This is the idea of going away from the original problem and letting it go for so long that it has grown to a bigger problem instead of taking care of it first before going to Iraq.

[ZeroClub]

We know the Taliban has gained strength for the last year or more. This is not just a recent thing. We nearly had them gone and under control at one time. Then we took our eye off the prize to look elsewhere.

Since then they have grown back in strength to the same levels, or more, than pre war status. They continued back to having a nice bumper crop of that poppies to make a nice amount of money to make heroin.

This is not just because the surge is working or why the surge is working or if the surge is working argument IMO.

This is the idea of going away from the original problem and letting it go for so long that it has grown to a bigger problem instead of taking care of it first before going to Iraq.

Yeah, I think you are making sense.

A portion of my skepticism about "the surge" is this:

If you push down on the right side of a long water balloon, the water on the right side of the water balloon is displaced to the left side of the balloon (such that the left side swells as the right side is flattened).

To the extent that "the surge" has simply displaced the opposition from Iraq to Afghanistan (without much water leaking out during the move), I'm underwhelmed by the surge's overall effectiveness.

[Doomsday101]

Good to see them moving into Afghanistan and all parties concerned have said more US troops will be heading there. Should be good hunting.

[burmafrd]

The Iraqi army and government are finaly somewhat competent and that along with the surge (which gave them the breathing space to get on their feet) and more and more Iraqi's realizing that Al Queeda is truly their enemy.
For all intents and purposes AL Queeda has been beaten in Iraq. That is why more are going to Afghanistan. One big problem in Afghanistan is the fractured command set up. There is no one commander with authority over all troops (contrary to what is claimed) anytime any other nations troops are used there are all sorts of strings attached. That is why more US troops are going there. We tried the NATO way and just like in Bosnia it did not work very well.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The Iraqi army and government are finaly somewhat competent and that along with the surge (which gave them the breathing space to get on their feet) and more and more Iraqi's realizing that Al Queeda is truly their enemy.
For all intents and purposes AL Queeda has been beaten in Iraq. That is why more are going to Afghanistan. One big problem in Afghanistan is the fractured command set up. There is no one commander with authority over all troops (contrary to what is claimed) anytime any other nations troops are used there are all sorts of strings attached. That is why more US troops are going there. We tried the NATO way and just like in Bosnia it did not work very well.

Most of the AQ in Iraq were not really the AQ people have been led to believe they were. Many were just insurgents who took on the name AQ.

[iceberg]

Yeah.

That's one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of "the surge is working" talk.

if my surge makes you haul tail, it worked. if it wasn't working they'd be laughing at us and staying there, but it's too hot now, run away.

RUN AWAY!!!!

but no - we suck and should just give the country up to the homeless and all go find new lives.

[ZeroClub]

if my surge makes you haul tail, it worked. if it wasn't working they'd be laughing at us and staying there, but it's too hot now, run away.

RUN AWAY!!!!

but no - we suck and should just give the country up to the homeless and all go find new lives.

If your surge neutralizes me, it worked.

But if all you are doing is changing the locations of battles, you aren't accomplishing all that much.

[yeahyeah]

Both these wars are stupid...ESPECIALLY Afghanistan...we will be fighting and dieing there FOREVER...fruitless...endless...forget the concept of time because the jihadi has.

[Vintage]

We know the Taliban has gained strength for the last year or more. This is not just a recent thing. We nearly had them gone and under control at one time. Then we took our eye off the prize to look elsewhere.

Since then they have grown back in strength to the same levels, or more, than pre war status. They continued back to having a nice bumper crop of that poppies to make a nice amount of money to make heroin.

This is not just because the surge is working or why the surge is working or if the surge is working argument IMO.

This is the idea of going away from the original problem and letting it go for so long that it has grown to a bigger problem instead of taking care of it first before going to Iraq.


I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen in regards to poppy fields.

Can you elaborate on what you wish we'd do in Afghanistan (both in general and in regards to the poppy fields).

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen in regards to poppy fields.

Can you elaborate on what you wish we'd do in Afghanistan (both in general and in regards to the poppy fields).

It's a catch 22 system there I grant you.

You don't want those people growing drugs to sell, we have our own war on drugs of course. But at the same time it is one of, if not the, top GDPs so they have to have money.

I guess the idea of letting them grow and make money knowing that some of that is going back to the taliban is a little disheartening.

[Chinfu]

Both these wars are stupid...ESPECIALLY Afghanistan...we will be fighting and dieing there FOREVER...fruitless...endless...forget the concept of time because the jihadi has.


I totally disagree, Iraq was imo a unjust war but Afghanistan was necessary. You can't just fly planes into our building, kill thousands of people and expect to hide out in a country that harbors these types of criminals. If we had focused our resources and good will to just Afghanistan we would have had this wrapped up 3 years ago. Once we went into Iraq, Afghanistan almost became the forgotten war. This can be won it will just take time and sacrifice.

[Vintage]

It's a catch 22 system there I grant you.

You don't want those people growing drugs to sell, we have our own war on drugs of course. But at the same time it is one of, if not the, top GDPs so they have to have money.

I guess the idea of letting them grow and make money knowing that some of that is going back to the taliban is a little disheartening.

Afghanistan is more of a quagmire than Iraq (if one subscribes to the Iraq = quagmire theory).

Afghanistan doesn't have any real infastructure. The fields are a source of revenue; Afghanistan has little way to draw revenue other than its drugs. We'd have to go in and spend hundreds of billions to pry them away from their dependency on drugs as a source of income. It would make Iraq look pathetic (in terms of spending).

Destroying the crops does some damage. But it equates pretty well to our war on drugs too. Its not really solving anything. You have to fight the demand side.

I think that's why we went into Iraq: Iraq offered a chance at real change. Afghanistan doesn't, unless you want to be there literally, for 100 years.

I criticised Bush in the past for this (switching from Afghan to Iraq). But I think I was wrong. That isn't to say we shouldn't continue to work with Afghanistan (via Pakistan)..... but rather, Iraq was more important because it does offer a realistic chance at change in an area that is unstable.

I need to think/read on this some more...

[iceberg]

Both these wars are stupid...ESPECIALLY Afghanistan...we will be fighting and dieing there FOREVER...fruitless...endless...forget the concept of time because the jihadi has.

i see someone ordered an extra slice of bad drama.

[iceberg]

If your surge neutralizes me, it worked.

But if all you are doing is changing the locations of battles, you aren't accomplishing all that much.

so you're telling me they suffered no losses in the surge and despite the accounts of things getting better they're all wrong cause you want it to be.

how many battlefields has each war seen? this isn't a rumble in the schoolyard, zero. this is war and it's in both places and we're gonna be at it for awhile regardless of where. if this upsets you i can look up apartments in switzerland for you. they seem to stay out of things.

[iceberg]

Afghanistan is more of a quagmire than Iraq (if one subscribes to the Iraq = quagmire theory).

Afghanistan doesn't have any real infastructure. The fields are a source of revenue; Afghanistan has little way to draw revenue other than its drugs. We'd have to go in and spend hundreds of billions to pry them away from their dependency on drugs as a source of income. It would make Iraq look pathetic (in terms of spending).

Destroying the crops does some damage. But it equates pretty well to our war on drugs too. Its not really solving anything. You have to fight the demand side.

I think that's why we went into Iraq: Iraq offered a chance at real change. Afghanistan doesn't, unless you want to be there literally, for 100 years.

I criticised Bush in the past for this (switching from Afghan to Iraq). But I think I was wrong. That isn't to say we shouldn't continue to work with Afghanistan (via Pakistan)..... but rather, Iraq was more important because it does offer a realistic chance at change in an area that is unstable.

I need to think/read on this some more...

so are you saying iraq was easier to get the infrastructure back up and going vs. afganistan? just trying to be clear but that does sound plausable.

[Vintage]

so are you saying iraq was easier to get the infrastructure back up and going vs. afganistan? just trying to be clear but that does sound plausable.


Yes.

Iraq has at least some modern cities and modern infastructure. Aghanistan doesn't, really.

Iraq also has a legitimate source of revenue: oil.

While they don't want to ONLY produce oil, it something; a start while they build their economy up. Afghanistan doesn't really have anything...

[iceberg]

Yes.

Iraq has at least some modern cities and modern infastructure. Aghanistan doesn't, really.

Iraq also has a legitimate source of revenue: oil.

While they don't want to ONLY produce oil, it something; a start while they build their economy up. Afghanistan doesn't really have anything...

sounds like a great spot for a terrorist to hide out, huh? also, if we had won, who would we turn things over to in afganistan? who will we turn it over to now? if no one, are we just kinda there and there's no "real" government to work with?

[ZeroClub]

so you're telling me they suffered no losses in the surge and despite the accounts of things getting better they're all wrong cause you want it to be.

how many battlefields has each war seen? this isn't a rumble in the schoolyard, zero. this is war and it's in both places and we're gonna be at it for awhile regardless of where. if this upsets you i can look up apartments in switzerland for you. they seem to stay out of things.

You said this earlier:

maybe they're not more - just the same moving out of iraq and into afganistan cause they're tired of getting kicked around.

I don't know if you realize what you said, or if you no longer think it, but there are people who happen to agree with the gist of what you said ... That the surge has not neutralized the enemy, but instead has led the enemy to largely abandon Iraq in favor of Afghanistan, where softer targets are available.

[iceberg]

You said this earlier:

I don't know if you realize what you said, or if you no longer think it, but there are people who happen to agree with the gist of what you said ... That the surge has not neutralized the enemy, but instead has led the enemy to largely abandon Iraq in favor of Afghanistan, where softer targets are available.

i'm not gonna quibble over the meaning of a word with someone who's got it tilted their way, no.

i know what you're saying but the problem is, i can reverse it just as easily and i doubt you'll go "yea, i can see that".

you surge, they get kicked around. they can stay there and die, or move onto softer targets.

you're alive - what do you do? their job is to win, not win iraq. our job is to get them out of iraq and secure it to turn it over. if we got them out of iraq, is the surge not then considered a success?

only if you don't want it to be cause you're rooting on good old failure to prove you right. in those cases it really doesn't matter who thinks what, does it?

[burmafrd]

Have to laugh at the part "they are not really AQ just say they are"

Ugh. Well they are dieing in Iraq so the ones left alive are running to Afghan.

Still makes Iraq a success.

[yeahyeah]

I totally disagree, Iraq was imo a unjust war but Afghanistan was necessary. 1) You can't just fly planes into our building, kill thousands of people and expect to hide out in a country that harbors these types of criminals. 2) If we had focused our resources and good will to just Afghanistan we would have had this wrapped up 3 years ago. 3) Once we went into Iraq, Afghanistan almost became the forgotten war. This can be won it will just take time and sacrifice.

1) you mean Saudi Arabia?? Right? 17 of the 19 were from there...they were schooled in the madrassas of Saudi Arabia...a society that is based on Salafi/Wahabi belief system (read up on it)...you mean Saudi Arabia right? Right?
OH thats right!!...my bad..those are the guys that walk around holding GW's hand like a prom date...they could NEVER be the bad guys...OH! they have the OIL..my bad
We are Kafir (non-believer) in the lands of Mohammad. Muslims are obligated to fight against non-muslim armies in the lands of Mohammad. Not all muslims believe this...but the guys driving the car bombs into the groups of recruits..do

2) Yeah keep believing that hype buddy...do yourself a favor and read about the Britsh Empire in Afghanistan (1840-42 and 1878-81) and the Soviets (1979-88).

They have no concept of time..they dont count beans..they dont count the dead..we do.
You dont conquer the Afghans you make deals with them. The problem is the guy you are making the deal with is not the guy over the range in the other tribe.

great read.
Beyond the Khyber Pass: The Road to British Disaster in the First Afghan War

3) LOTS of time...The tribes of that country have been at war for hundreds of years..continuously..either against each other or some foreign army. there is no "winning" this.

[yeahyeah]

i see someone ordered an extra slice of bad drama.

Research: Moral Causation

[yeahyeah]

Yes.

Iraq has at least some modern cities and modern infastructure. Aghanistan doesn't, really.

Iraq also has a legitimate source of revenue: oil.

While they don't want to ONLY produce oil, it something; a start while they build their economy up. Afghanistan doesn't really have anything...

Not true at all Afghanistan has enormous oil and natural gas reserves. Approx 4,500 billion cubic feet natural gas..yes Billion
and about 150 million barrels of oil.

http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/oil.php

[Chinfu]

1) you mean Saudi Arabia?? Right? 17 of the 19 were from there...they were schooled in the madrassas of Saudi Arabia...a society that is based on Salafi/Wahabi belief system (read up on it)...you mean Saudi Arabia right? Right?
OH thats right!!...my bad..those are the guys that walk around holding GW's hand like a prom date...they could NEVER be the bad guys...OH! they have the OIL..my bad
We are Kafir (non-believer) in the lands of Mohammad. Muslims are obligated to fight against non-muslim armies in the lands of Mohammad. Not all muslims believe this...but the guys driving the car bombs into the groups of recruits..do

2) Yeah keep believing that hype buddy...do yourself a favor and read about the Britsh Empire in Afghanistan (1840-42 and 1878-81) and the Soviets (1979-88).

They have no concept of time..they dont count beans..they dont count the dead..we do.
You dont conquer the Afghans you make deals with them. The problem is the guy you are making the deal with is not the guy over the range in the other tribe.

great read.
Beyond the Khyber Pass: The Road to British Disaster in the First Afghan War

3) LOTS of time...The tribes of that country have been at war for hundreds of years..continuously..either against each other or some foreign army. there is no "winning" this.


1) I get it, Bin Laden himself is a Saudi. I never said Saudi is without blood on there hands so I'm not quite understanding your preaching to me about Saudi nationals being the terrorists. Had the "leader" the "mastermind" and the entire "hierarchy" of the terrorist organization responsible been given shelter in Saudi Arabia my stance would be the same.

We didn't have to invade Saudi Arabia to get our point across, the US has made huge gains in the transfer of information from the Saudi gov't. It will never be as good as we hope as long as it remains an Islamic Kingdom but the Saudi Royals understand the importance of the alliance with the US.

2) You put a 130,000 pairs of boots in Afghanistan and it is over 3 years ago. We have roughly 32,000 troops in Afghanistan right now. Again, if we had put the resources we used for Iraq into Afghanistan plus the resources that the rest of the world was willing to offer before the Iraq invasion it would have been over.

I understand how hard it is to conquer Afghanistan you can go back 2300 years ago to the time of Alexander for further evidence if you like. They are fierce fighters in Afghanistan but they have been defeated before. You seem to know your history so I don't have to list them out.

3) "Win" can be interpreted differently for different people but a Democratic Gov't can be established. It will take time and effort by that established government to eventually take over regional warlords as the authority but it can be done. Your pessimistic attitude wouldn't help so hopefully they choose a ruler with hope and vision when the time has come.

[yeahyeah]

1) 1) I get it, Bin Laden himself is a Saudi. I never said Saudi is without blood on there hands so I'm not quite understanding your preaching to me about Saudi nationals being the terrorists. Had the "leader" the "mastermind" and the entire "hierarchy" of the terrorist organization responsible been given shelter in Saudi Arabia my stance would be the same.

We didn't have to invade Saudi Arabia to get our point across, the US has made huge gains in the transfer of information from the Saudi gov't. It will never be as good as we hope as long as it remains an Islamic Kingdom but the Saudi Royals understand the importance of the alliance with the US.

2) You put a 130,000 pairs of boots in Afghanistan and it is over 3 years ago. We have roughly 32,000 troops in Afghanistan right now. Again, if we had put the resources we used for Iraq into Afghanistan plus the resources that the rest of the world was willing to offer before the Iraq invasion it would have been over.

I understand how hard it is to conquer Afghanistan you can go back 2300 years ago to the time of Alexander for further evidence if you like. They are fierce fighters in Afghanistan but they have been defeated before. You seem to know your history so I don't have to list them out.

3) "Win" can be interpreted differently for different people but a Democratic Gov't can be established. It will take time and effort by that established government to eventually take over regional warlords as the authority but it can be done. Your pessimistic attitude wouldn't help so hopefully they choose a ruler with hope and vision when the time has come.

1) This has nothing to do with Bin Laden...but then it does. This is about Wahabism and the incubation and promotion of anti-western Salafi Madrassas in the kingdom. Government FUNDED Madrassas. You are correct the royals have not been directly linked to the funding of terrorist orgs. BUT they pay for the schools...Millions of dollars pour from that kingdom financing Al Qaeda..Hamas..Islamic Jihad. These Madrassas also teach Imams from other parts of the world who then go on to radicalize others..7/7 bombers? Sheik Abdullah al-Faisal?
I think in legal terms its called accessory to murder

its in here
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32499.pdf

2) The Soviets had 120,000 and another 40,000 Afghan troops...10 years..bupkis...hmmm thats sounds awfully comparable to our numbers in Iraq right now. Think we should swap?
Alexander's conquest was pre-Islam. No comparison.

3) Hmm..I thought Hamid Karzai was elected? I am not pessimistic...thats just reality talking.;)

[Chinfu]

1) This has nothing to do with Bin Laden...but then it does. This is about Wahabism and the incubation and promotion of anti-western Salafi Madrassas in the kingdom. Government FUNDED Madrassas. You are correct the royals have not been directly linked to the funding of terrorist orgs. BUT they pay for the schools...Millions of dollars pour from that kingdom financing Al Qaeda..Hamas..Islamic Jihad. These Madrassas also teach Imams from other parts of the world who then go on to radicalize others..7/7 bombers? Sheik Abdullah al-Faisal?
I think in legal terms its called accessory to murder

its in here
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32499.pdf

2) The Soviets had 120,000 and another 40,000 Afghan troops...10 years..bupkis...hmmm thats sounds awfully comparable to our numbers in Iraq right now. Think we should swap?
Alexander's conquest was pre-Islam. No comparison.

3) Hmm..I thought Hamid Karzai was elected? I am not pessimistic...thats just reality talking.;)


1 This has everything to do with Bin Laden, Afghanistan was invaded due to there refusal to hand him over. Go back to the original post you are getting side tracked on Saudi Arabia. It was a just war and a war that must have been waged. Are you suggestion we should have just sat on our hands while Bin Laden was free to plan more attacks?

Islam is divided by beliefs just as Christianity is, they are far ranging in said beliefs I'm not here to debate those. People far smarter than myself can't figure out the mess that is the middle east I'm not going to pretend I've got the answers. My point was Afghanistan had to be invaded and Iraq should not have been.

2 The Afghans would not have stood a chance against the Soviet Union without US funding, training and supplies. You saw what the US military did in Iraq against an army with modern weapons and training. Men on horseback with AK's are not going to defeat the greatest military the world has ever seen.

Ghenkis Khan, post Islam rolled through the region through the Khyber pass. Again, they are fierce warriors but not invincible as you make them out to be.

3 Karzai was elected and the country is moving in the right direction but we must help it in the time of need or it will implode. Iraq looked lost just last year but what a difference a commitment makes. All the pessimists I know are self proclaimed "realists".

[burmafrd]

Afghan is a different society then Iraq. Different terrain, etc. What works in one country might not work elsewhere. A surge in Afghan might work and it might not= but we have to try. As I pointed out, the NATO part of it is frankly not a help and in many cases is a hindrance. We need to build up the Afghan army like we did the Iraqi army. We need to hit the taliban strongholds and destroy them. And we are going to have to finally either convince Pakistan to take serious action on the border or do it ourselves. IF we do all these things Afghan can be a success.

[arglebargle]

Have to laugh at the part "they are not really AQ just say they are"

Ugh. Well they are dieing in Iraq so the ones left alive are running to Afghan.

Still makes Iraq a success.


Guerilla Warfare 101: Do not oppose your superior foe at his strength.

You know this, so you must just be BSing?

[arglebargle]

Afghan is a different society then Iraq. Different terrain, etc. What works in one country might not work elsewhere. A surge in Afghan might work and it might not= but we have to try. As I pointed out, the NATO part of it is frankly not a help and in many cases is a hindrance. We need to build up the Afghan army like we did the Iraqi army. We need to hit the taliban strongholds and destroy them. And we are going to have to finally either convince Pakistan to take serious action on the border or do it ourselves. IF we do all these things Afghan can be a success.


Don't have a heart attack, but I agree. :D
Divided command structure is not going to help, as you pointed out. They maybe should have let the Marines have a go there, at least that would have pretty much lined up the command.

Unfortunately when we first went in, we made all sorts of promises that we did not follow up on, thus wasting the honeymoon period. We didn't help their economy much, and some of the things the Taliban did do that the regular afganis liked (cracking down on the Warlords, etc) we lost control of. The Drug thing is a problem too, as our original Northern Alliance allies are the major processors of heroin in the area. Ooops.

It can be done, of course. But the whole job has been made much tougher due to the earlier errors and continuing ignorance.

The problem with moving into Pakistan is political, not military. They don't control the areas where the Al Qaeda/Taliban fighters hang out. But the government there is not the most stable, and there are elements in it that are very fundamentalist as well. And it already has nuclear weapons.

It's messy, and thank goodness, in a short while, we will have wiser heads to deal with it....;)

[Ben_n_austin]

Afghan is a different society then Iraq. Different terrain, etc. What works in one country might not work elsewhere. A surge in Afghan might work and it might not= but we have to try. As I pointed out, the NATO part of it is frankly not a help and in many cases is a hindrance. We need to build up the Afghan army like we did the Iraqi army. We need to hit the taliban strongholds and destroy them. And we are going to have to finally either convince Pakistan to take serious action on the border or do it ourselves. IF we do all these things Afghan can be a success.

You provoked an interesting impression, if not a thought. I admit we can establish a government, though a corrupt one, in Iraq that may be somewhat formidable over it's people and be somewhat of an improvement over Sadaam.

But is it possible that we just as easily could have established and trained a more formidable enemy there or in Afganistan?

Who is to know which Iraqis or Afgans are to be trusted on the local levels where most of the corruption would occur unnoticed and go unpunished. In that scenerio, we still leave a seemingly broken society behind if we win, because of the government system and its greenness and inexperience.

The upper levels of government stands the risk of surges. This could invoke our obligations to the region because at least some portion of them will be corrupt and leaking info. to the extremists.

With that, then it's our obligation to return to Iraq and Afganistan.

I think when we leave we're dealing with a government that can easily be overthrown and taken over, which doesn't get my hopes up too high that we're leaving.

We're going to be in Iraq forever if McCain is elected just because we have to protect them.... It's actually more interesting to me what we're doing in Afganistan... because they were a screwed ucountry with no shred of decency in their leadership, but both are equally imortant--to move on from.

I think it's going to be complicated there for a while.

And if that's not the case, I hope it all works out peachy. But given the region, I think probably not since their neighbors are our worst enemy--thanks to Bush's rhetoric.

[iceberg]

You provoked an interesting impression, if not a thought. I admit we can establish a government, though a corrupt one, in Iraq that may be somewhat formidable over it's people and be somewhat of an improvement over Sadaam.

But is it possible that we just as easily could have established and trained a more formidable enemy there or in Afganistan?

vintage brought this up and after thinking about it, i had to agree. who is the leader in afganistan? the work to do it there was much higher than iraq. just something to consider.

[yeahyeah]

1) This has everything to do with Bin Laden, Afghanistan was invaded due to there refusal to hand him over. Go back to the original post you are getting side tracked on Saudi Arabia. It was a just war and a war that must have been waged. Are you suggestion we should have just sat on our hands while Bin Laden was free to plan more attacks?

Islam is divided by beliefs just as Christianity is, they are far ranging in said beliefs I'm not here to debate those. People far smarter than myself can't figure out the mess that is the middle east I'm not going to pretend I've got the answers. My point was Afghanistan had to be invaded and Iraq should not have been.

2 a) The Afghans would not have stood a chance against the Soviet Union without US funding, training and supplies. b) You saw what the US military did in Iraq against an army with modern weapons and training. c) Men on horseback with AK's are not going to defeat the greatest military the world has ever seen.

d) Ghenkis Khan, post Islam rolled through the region through the Khyber pass. Again, they are fierce warriors but not invincible as you make them out to be.

3 a) Karzai was elected and the country is moving in the right direction but we must help it in the time of need or it will implode. b) Iraq looked lost just last year but what a difference a commitment makes.
c) All the pessimists I know are self proclaimed "realists".

1) No, You go back to my original post...YOU responded to me not the other way round sir. I know what I wrote...i wrote about the futility of this war and the war on terror in general. My meaning may have escaped you but I know fully what I wrote. As i have attempted to explain it to you in many ways since. The title of the thread is More foreign fighters join Taliban in Afghanistan (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2168647#post2168647)
This war IS NOT about Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden is the hare on the rail. He is a face for a concept that most westerners cannot grasp.
He keeps it simple. He is a soundbite...a mirage. This war is being continued and propogated in large part from the one country that is supposed to be our biggest ally in the region. When we first attacked the Taliban where do you think the VAST majority of the foreign fighters were from?? Saudi Arabia...17 of the 19 hijackers?...Saudi Arabia...Imams that radicalized the London Bombers were trained where?.....Saudi Arabia...See a pattern here?
PLEASE tell me you dont actually think Osama Bin Laden sits in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Waziristan or Tadzhikistan and gives out orders to his minions. Bin Laden is the head on a complicated concept that westerners refuse to understand.

2) a) What have I been saying about the millions upon millions pouring out of Saudi Arabia? Not to mention funds from other muslims countries? They are receiving funding and this is a guerilla war.
b) hahahah!!! can you say "no fly zone" for 12 years AND that was a conventional war..traditional tactics. Not a fair comparison
c) Vietnam...same principle applies..its about attrition..not technology
d) Very true... the Mongols stayed for about 30 years. What about the subsequent generations of Khan? Converted to Islam.

3) A) Oh..ok..so now its a democracy but we must stay..or it will implode...thats good...and we will..forever..and our troops and the Afghans will continue to die...because Dhimmi armies in the land of Mohammad is haram. This is NOT about democracy..this is about GOD B) Hey there ya go! success is sweet....did you know 11 Iraqis were killed today and six wounded? Did you know 600 were killed in the month of July? But our numbers are down right?! Cause this war is about us right?....oh thats right..its not.
C) Yeap....We are sad folks too...the truth is painful

[dacarmelking210]

1) No, You go back to my original post...YOU responded to me not the other way round sir. I know what I wrote...i wrote about the futility of this war and the war on terror in general. My meaning may have escaped you but I know fully what I wrote. As i have attempted to explain it to you in many ways since. The title of the thread is More foreign fighters join Taliban in Afghanistan (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2168647#post2168647)
This war IS NOT about Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden is the hare on the rail. He is a face for a concept that most westerners cannot grasp.
He keeps it simple. He is a soundbite...a mirage. This war is being continued and propogated in large part from the one country that is supposed to be our biggest ally in the region. When we first attacked the Taliban where do you think the VAST majority of the foreign fighters were from?? Saudi Arabia...17 of the 19 hijackers?...Saudi Arabia...Imams that radicalized the London Bombers were trained where?.....Saudi Arabia...See a pattern here?
PLEASE tell me you dont actually think Osama Bin Laden sits in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Waziristan or Tadzhikistan and gives out orders to his minions. Bin Laden is the head on a complicated concept that westerners refuse to understand.

2) a) What have I been saying about the millions upon millions pouring out of Saudi Arabia? Not to mention funds from other muslims countries? They are receiving funding and this is a guerilla war.
b) hahahah!!! can you say "no fly zone" for 12 years AND that was a conventional war..traditional tactics. Not a fair comparison
c) Vietnam...same principle applies..its about attrition..not technology
d) Very true... the Mongols stayed for about 30 years. What about the subsequent generations of Khan? Converted to Islam.

3) A) Oh..ok..so now its a democracy but we must stay..or it will implode...thats good...and we will..forever..and our troops and the Afghans will continue to die...because Dhimmi armies in the land of Mohammad is haram. This is NOT about democracy..this is about GOD B) Hey there ya go! success is sweet....did you know 11 Iraqis were killed today and six wounded? Did you know 600 were killed in the month of July? But our numbers are down right?! Cause this war is about us right?....oh thats right..its not.
C) Yeap....We are sad folks too...the truth is painful

I don't disagree with any of this.

[Chinfu]

Both these wars are stupid...ESPECIALLY Afghanistan...we will be fighting and dieing there FOREVER...fruitless...endless...forget the concept of time because the jihadi has.

Saudi Arabia? You may have known what you meant but it wasn't articulated in this post. The one I originally responded to.

I've got tired head, you waged a war of attrition on me and won. I don't have the will to stay with the topic.

I'll leave with a couple brief things.

What do you suggest we should have done? Still have yet to hear your view just complaints.

Why did we invade Afghanistan if it wasn't about OBL?

Where is OBL at since I would like to know and cash in my 25 million dollar reward?

Vietnam was lost in Washington, a whole other tiresome topic that could be debated until the end of time.

How many Iraqi's were killed last July?

[yeahyeah]

Saudi Arabia? You may have known what you meant but it wasn't articulated in this post. The one I originally responded to.

1) I've got tired head, you waged a war of attrition on me and won. I don't have the will to stay with the topic.

I'll leave with a couple brief things.

2) a)What do you suggest we should have done? Still have yet to hear your view just complaints.

b) Why did we invade Afghanistan if it wasn't about OBL?

c) Where is OBL at since I would like to know and cash in my 25 million dollar reward?

d) Vietnam was lost in Washington, a whole other tiresome topic that could be debated until the end of time.

e) How many Iraqi's were killed last July?

1) First off, I respect your opinion

2)a) Change cannot be affected in the islamic world via war. Just doesnt work. This is a hard thing to swallow but our culture and our way of life is diametrically opposed to the conservative doctrine and culture of the middle east. As long as the Quran is the only text "required" in madrassas. As long as large portion of the Islamic community still take a literal view of their text and there is no reformation in Islam we will have these problems.
The ONLY true change that can be effected in the Islamic world is by Muslims. This is a very deep topic and not one that can be covered in this thread. I think Muslims are the key to radicalism. Because Muslims will only listen to their kind.

b) Why did we invade? Because the American electorate demanded a fix. So we picked a country which was extremely radical had no effective infrastructure, was connected to terrorism and could be easily beaten before the next season of the average voters' favorite show ended. Very western fix..quick..not many dead soldiers..results.

c) Where? does it matter other than 25 million dollars? Do you think it will change anything if he gets killed? Osama is just the symbol of a movement. The jihadists love him and we hate him..simple. This is the thing, you could offer 250 million..it wouldnt matter

d) Vietnam is a symbol of wills.

e) Does it matter? The point is hundreds are still being killed every month. Furthermore...Never forget this..the drop in deaths are due in LARGE part to the Shia and the Sunni leaders working together and easing of the growing pains of freedom. Saddam was in power since 1968..think of all the tension.
Reference Yugoslavia after the fall of Marshall Tito and the end of Communism. Often when you have a powerful dictator overthrown the cauldron of ethnic tensions boils over. Colonialism in Africa? Suharto in indonesia?..these things happen. Plus compound an American army? OH brother, like roaches to cake for a Jihadist.

[Chinfu]

I respect yours as well and although we disagree on some fundemental things I don't think our views are too far apart.

The issues are so old and complex that it's hard to reduce it down to a few paragraphs. This is just a continuation of a war that has been waged for centuries/millennia.