Why is the US in Afghanistan?

[quote="Rogers"][quote="tstv_lover"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tstv_lover

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

---

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

---

Not sure why you think that women wearing Burkhas is my wish????

I think you've completely misunderstood the Stratfor article. This suggests that Obama - not the generals - would likely do a deal with the Taliban. The article concludes:

"In the end, there is never a debate between U.S. presidents and generals. Even MacArthur discovered that. It is becoming clear that Obama is not going to bet all in Afghanistan, and that he sees Afghanistan as not worth the fight. Petraeus is a soldier in a fight, and he wants to win. But in the end, as Clausewitz said, war is an extension of politics by other means. As such, generals tend to not get their way."

It really isn't a question of pacificm and appeasment. It's a question of the strategic aim of this operation - hence the thread title. Responses to date indicate that there is no clear, consistent and coherent objective - hence the confusion.

The Stratfor article has analysed the situation and suggested how things will pan out. I understand your disbelief at the mere suggestion that a US President will do a deal with the Taliban, however that is what the article suggests.

I'm not a pacifist but, like Winston Churchill who had great experience of 3 major wars, I believe that "jaw jaw is better than war war".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

The terms democratic and representative government are "virtually indistinguishable" today. I did say "I.E." (= in essence).
"today representative institutions and democracy appear as virtually indistinguishable"
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919

Here's another one:
"The notion of democracy is the starting point for understanding representative government. The word democracy means “government by the people”, from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). The city-states of ancient Greece decided issues through public meetings in the market place that all citizens could attend."
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rep/

Early democracies were pale shadows of what they are today. But all representative governments are "by the people"!

"representative government should be understood as a combination of democratic and undemocratic elements."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919

And since we're trying to be picky about terms here, strong isn't the same thing as stable. You can also have a stable system that is weak. There is both local (weak) and global (strong) stability in systems. I hope everyone is confused now, hahaha.

Karzai's "no popular mandate" as you called it from 2004 (new election later this year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electio...ntial_election

Sure looks like both a popular mandate and representative DEMOCRACY to me.

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

---

Look at some point one needs to get over the whole looking weak aspect of diplomacy. Unless we're willing to wipe out a good chunk of the billion or so Muslims in the world than we need to do more talking and less fighting.

We should also pause and ask ourselves what is behind the severe level of resentment and anger at the US in many parts of the world. While some of it may be misplaced not all of it is. We have supported countless dictators, "terrorists", rebels, etc; all in an effort to achieve questionable foreign policy goals.

As for ensuring or spreading democracy, that can not be done by force on our part. People have to want that particular form of governance, and be willing to fight for it themselves. The constant cycle of war is bankrupting us, and in the long run it is counter-productive to our own national security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tstv_lover

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tstv_lover

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

---

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

---

Not sure why you think that women wearing Burkhas is my wish????

I think you've completely misunderstood the Stratfor article. This suggests that Obama - not the generals - would likely do a deal with the Taliban. The article concludes:

"In the end, there is never a debate between U.S. presidents and generals. Even MacArthur discovered that. It is becoming clear that Obama is not going to bet all in Afghanistan, and that he sees Afghanistan as not worth the fight. Petraeus is a soldier in a fight, and he wants to win. But in the end, as Clausewitz said, war is an extension of politics by other means. As such, generals tend to not get their way."

It really isn't a question of pacificm and appeasment. It's a question of the strategic aim of this operation - hence the thread title. Responses to date indicate that there is no clear, consistent and coherent objective - hence the confusion.

The Stratfor article has analysed the situation and suggested how things will pan out. I understand your disbelief at the mere suggestion that a US President will do a deal with the Taliban, however that is what the article suggests.

I'm not a pacifist but, like Winston Churchill who had great experience of 3 major wars, I believe that "jaw jaw is better than war war".

---

I've read the Stratfor article in full now. I suspect that Obama is trying to simplify the situation on Afghanistan so that it doesn't become HIS WAR. I agreed with Petraeus on Iraq and now on Afghanistan too, and won't be surprised if he attains high political office someday himself. No matter how wrong the reason for initially invading a country is, you simply just can't leave it in a shambles. Two wrongs never make a right.

The long standing plan for Afghanistan was in the B.B.C. link you posted earlier. I thought everyone knew it. This is why I was suspicious of your motives, and my comments weren't entirely directed at you anyway. I'll still be very surprised if Obama deals with the Taliban for the reasons I've already given. If he does, then he shouldn't expect not to be completely shafted sooner or later. Both the U.K. and France are currently increasing their troop numbers there too. It's a shitty situation, but history is littered with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

The terms democratic and representative government are "virtually indistinguishable" today. I did say "I.E." (= in essence).
"today representative institutions and democracy appear as virtually indistinguishable"
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919

Here's another one:
"The notion of democracy is the starting point for understanding representative government. The word democracy means “government by the people”, from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). The city-states of ancient Greece decided issues through public meetings in the market place that all citizens could attend."
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rep/

Early democracies were pale shadows of what they are today. But all representative governments are "by the people"!

"representative government should be understood as a combination of democratic and undemocratic elements."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919

And since we're trying to be picky about terms here, strong isn't the same thing as stable. You can also have a stable system that is weak. There is both local (weak) and global (strong) stability in systems. I hope everyone is confused now, hahaha.

Karzai's "no popular mandate" as you called it from 2004 (new election later this year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electio...ntial_election

Sure looks like both a popular mandate and representative DEMOCRACY to me.

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

---

Look at some point one needs to get over the whole looking weak aspect of diplomacy. Unless we're willing to wipe out a good chunk of the billion or so Muslims in the world than we need to do more talking and less fighting.

We should also pause and ask ourselves what is behind the severe level of resentment and anger at the US in many parts of the world. While some of it may be misplaced not all of it is. We have supported countless dictators, "terrorists", rebels, etc; all in an effort to achieve questionable foreign policy goals.

As for ensuring or spreading democracy, that can not be done by force on our part. People have to want that particular form of governance, and be willing to fight for it themselves. The constant cycle of war is bankrupting us, and in the long run it is counter-productive to our own national security.

---

It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but everything to do with Gulf War II, America's unconditional support for Israel no matter how many U.N. resolutions they flout, and the emergence of militant islam which has been as a direct result of the Israel-Palestine conflict. No President has been willing to tackle the root of this problem to date. No one blinked an eye when news about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal was disclosed, but Iran trying to develop one is an absolute no-no. Obama started back-tracking on Israel as soon as he was declared Presidential Candidate. Why are people so fucking blind!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21400057137878

The Israel Lobby

"Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation."

"There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’"

"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’"

"Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest."

"The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

The End of Free Speech?

Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

May 7, 2009

"It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html

Obama pays homage to AIPAC after he wins the Democratic Party's Candidacy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

Iraq: A War For Israel

"Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” [14]"
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

Ex-General Says Israel Inflated Iraqi Threat
"Brom held senior positions in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years before retiring from the army in 1998."
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec...ld/fg-isintel5

Ok Rogers, call me spanked on the alQaeda connection to 9/11. I concede.

That still doesn't justify what we're doing or what we've done. Wars of conquest are unamerican. If we really wanted to go get those alQaeda guys back in 2001, the Taliban couldn't have stopped us or even gotten in the way. We bombed for vengeance & didn't care who it was. We bombed the capital city of a non-Arab country over the actions of Arabs who we knew were not residents of that city. At least that was the excuse & still is. We've been making up excuses ever since.

The Taliban was defeated by the "Northern Alliance" before the US army ever stepped on Afghan soil. We could have declared victory & been out of there in a month. I would still have had a problem with the decision to invade, but there would have been no problem with accepting what's already happened & trying to correct the problems.

There's no military solution to social problems, & the military is not a police force, social services, or diplomatic corps. They're the wrong tool for the job. An extremely autocratic organization cannot promote democracy. That's why the US military is under civilian control & not allowed to carry out military operations within our borders, the southern rebellion notwithstanding. We've put them in charge of something they're incapable of doing, & we've made no move to do things right. Maybe this new guy can dial it down. It's a clusterfuck.

The Taliban is resurging because we're still there. It doesn't matter if we pass out candy bars to kids. We're still a military occupation, & nobody likes being occupied. Nobody. The Taliban are their assholes. We're not. Don't kid yourself. The various tribes of Afghanistan look at us the same way they looked at the Soviet invasion force. Intentions don't mean anything when you're staring down a barrel. This has gone on too long & we need to stop before the Taliban gets too powerful for the Afghan people to stop. It may be too late already. They don't need an army. They need a police force. Same goes for Iraq.

Continuing somebody else's inanity by maintaining the same level of incompetence is not a sign of strength. Just the opposite. If the American people wanted perpetual war, they would have voted differently. Weakness is being afraid to stand by your convictions & lying about it. The "war on terrorism" is bullshit because war IS terrorism.

Israel is irrelevant. It's not our job to promote Judaism or zionism, & we're not at war with Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but everything to do with Gulf War II, America's unconditional support for Israel no matter how many U.N. resolutions they flout, and the emergence of militant islam which has been as a direct result of the Israel-Palestine conflict. No President has been willing to tackle the root of this problem to date. No one blinked an eye when news about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal was disclosed, but Iran trying to develop one is an absolute no-no. Obama started back-tracking on Israel as soon as he was declared Presidential Candidate. Why are people so fucking blind!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21400057137878

---

Look I'm no fan of the influence Israel has in our government, nor do I support giving them military aid. However, while it has been a source of contention with Muslims it is not the sole one. It's a great public relations ploy for them, but it's not the end all and be all. Though I would agree with your point on Iran and their nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

The End of Free Speech?

Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

May 7, 2009

"It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html

---

Ah I'm not a supporter of hate crime designations either, but that article you just quoted is misleading at best. Have you read the legislation? I'll quote for you the relevant sections:

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1913

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 2009

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

AND...

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.