Thumbs up from me.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
Damn fine plan B.
Plan A was believing that Afghans would appreciate the benefits of democracy, and given the sweep of world history that was a reasonable belief to Western eyes like ours. Democracy doesn't hold the same appeal for everyone it appears, so we need plenty of plan Bs, and not just in Afghanistan.
See? And you'll say the same thing about the Wahhabi terrorists in Syria. You'll help them gain power like you did in Afghanistan, and then say, "oh well we should just accept them".
Danny your deduction skills really need some work.
Plan A was quite feasible as long as there weren't outside actors (the ISI) ruining it by supporting the Taliban.
Why are you providing f-16's apart from other hardware to those who run the ISI then ?
To some extent, but it's clear that the ideological will to fight for democracy just isn't there in the same way as it is in other parts of the world, their priorities are religious and ethnic. That's not to say the West was wrong to try and create conditions for democracy in Afghanistan, or Iraq, but now we need to learn to deal with things as they are. Hence I approve of talking to the Taliban.
Pakistan is pretty much bifurcated between the military and political sides.
Plan A wasn't to enforce democracy. It was to annihilate the Taliban for their perceived involvement in 9/11. It was an elongated and prolonged revenge mission.
In the short term annihilating AQ obviously came first, I was talking about how the way forward was seen after that. I try to know what your getting at, but perceived isn't the right word. If the US perceived AQ were in Afghanistan they were right, and if they perceived the Taliban were anti-democracy they were right again. In any event the long-term plan didn't work, so as Raoul says, there needs to be talks and boundaries agreed, whatever side you're on.
I remember when Bush was the president and anytime a militar was killed they used to add the numbers of casualties and since Obama is the president I see a criminal silence in our media about the number of casualties.
Yeah, maybe. At the same time I think I read some time ago that the Taliban leadership would have surrendered the AQ leadership if they knew what they do today, about the consequences I mean. I also understand that these foreign AQ soldiers weren't popular at all with local Afghans.
Given the fact that Western leaders have a pretty relaxed attitude towards oppressive regimes, and support the Saudis for instance, I do wonder, in a realpolitikal sense, why we should worry about the Taliban anymore. They won't go away, and would they pose any threat to the West in the future? No one cared about their ISIL'esque cruelties before 2001. In fact, what created most havoc in the West was the destruction of the Bamyian buddhas, not them slaughtering whole villages based on ethnicity.
I would also assume that a strong Taliban would be preferable to these reports of a growing Afghan ISIL branch.
Well, the F-16s are being flown by Raheel not Nawaz Sharif.
Families of Afghans killed in US drone raids seek probe
Relatives and tribal elders deny US and Afghan officials' claims the air strikes hit Taliban-associated fighters.
Shereena Qazi | 09 Apr 2016 22:03 GMT |
Relatives and tribal elders in southeastern Afghanistan are demanding an investigation into the killing of 17 people by US drones this week, claiming the air strikes hit civilians - not members of armed groups.
US army officials said on Thursday two air strikes in Paktika province, near the Pakistani border, had only targeted fighters, without any evidence of civilian casualties.
Afghan officials confirmed to Al Jazeera that 17 people had been killed in Wednesday's strikes in Gomal district, but added they all had links to the Taliban.
Yet, local leaders and relatives insisted on Saturday all of those killed were innocent civilians.
"We demand an investigation into the brutal killings of these innocent people," Nimatullah Baburi, a deputy of the Paktika provincial council, told Al Jazeera.
"I know them personally and their families too. They are in no way affiliated with the Taliban," he added.
"Those men were doing low-paid jobs to feed their families. All of them were civilians".
Bahadur Noorullah Khan, a clerk working in the district office, was one of the 17 people killed in the raids.
He left behind a wife and two children.
"Who is going to feed them?" Khan's wife told Al Jazeera. "Bahadur was the sole breadwinner of our family, now where am I going to go with my children?" He was innocent. He was never involved with militants. This case should be investigated.
Another man killed in the air strikes was 37-year-old Hussain, who like many Afghans goes by one name.
"This man got married a year ago," his friend Mohammed Hassan told Al Jazeera.
"Innocent people die every day in our country. No one asks about them... These drone strikes have taken lives of innocent people since the beginning of time."
However, Aminullah Shariq, the governor of Paktika province, told Al Jazeera on Saturday only Taliban-affiliated people were killed in the attack.
"We've been in touch with the Americans and after all the investigations and inquiries, we've come to the conclusion that all people killed in the strike were linked to the Taliban," he said.
"We will continue to support the US in their operation as both of us have the same aim: to defeat the militants."
His comments came after Brigadier General Charles H Cleveland, spokesman for the US military in Afghanistan, said in a statement on Thursday: "We can confirm that the US conducted two counter-terrorism strikes in Paktika on Wednesday afternoon.
"There was no evidence to indicate that there were any civilian casualties at all."
'Nameless and faceless'
Emran Feroz, an activist and founder of Drone Memorial, a website listing documenting civilian drone-strike victims, said Afghan officials are not doing enough to protect civilians.
"The new government of [President] Ashraf Ghani doesn't even criticise the attacks," Feroz told Al Jazeera.
"We witness that the Afghan police and army say that the victims were Taliban, or al-Qaeda militants.
"It's not clear why they insist on this but it's always the same scenario after drone strikes, which is why most of the civilian victims of the strikes remain nameless and faceless."
The US has intensified drone operations in the country since Islamic States of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known ISIS) loyalists started appearing in Afghanistan.
According to the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Afghanistan is the "most drone-bombed country in the world" with at least 1,368 people killed since 2015.
Relatives and tribal elders deny US and Afghan officials' claims the air strikes hit Taliban-associated fighters.
Shereena Qazi | 09 Apr 2016 22:03 GMT |
Relatives and tribal elders in southeastern Afghanistan are demanding an investigation into the killing of 17 people by US drones this week, claiming the air strikes hit civilians - not members of armed groups.
US army officials said on Thursday two air strikes in Paktika province, near the Pakistani border, had only targeted fighters, without any evidence of civilian casualties.
Afghan officials confirmed to Al Jazeera that 17 people had been killed in Wednesday's strikes in Gomal district, but added they all had links to the Taliban.
Yet, local leaders and relatives insisted on Saturday all of those killed were innocent civilians.
"We demand an investigation into the brutal killings of these innocent people," Nimatullah Baburi, a deputy of the Paktika provincial council, told Al Jazeera.
"I know them personally and their families too. They are in no way affiliated with the Taliban," he added.
"Those men were doing low-paid jobs to feed their families. All of them were civilians".
Bahadur Noorullah Khan, a clerk working in the district office, was one of the 17 people killed in the raids.
He left behind a wife and two children.
"Who is going to feed them?" Khan's wife told Al Jazeera. "Bahadur was the sole breadwinner of our family, now where am I going to go with my children?" He was innocent. He was never involved with militants. This case should be investigated.
Another man killed in the air strikes was 37-year-old Hussain, who like many Afghans goes by one name.
"This man got married a year ago," his friend Mohammed Hassan told Al Jazeera.
"Innocent people die every day in our country. No one asks about them... These drone strikes have taken lives of innocent people since the beginning of time."
However, Aminullah Shariq, the governor of Paktika province, told Al Jazeera on Saturday only Taliban-affiliated people were killed in the attack.
"We've been in touch with the Americans and after all the investigations and inquiries, we've come to the conclusion that all people killed in the strike were linked to the Taliban," he said.
"We will continue to support the US in their operation as both of us have the same aim: to defeat the militants."
His comments came after Brigadier General Charles H Cleveland, spokesman for the US military in Afghanistan, said in a statement on Thursday: "We can confirm that the US conducted two counter-terrorism strikes in Paktika on Wednesday afternoon.
"There was no evidence to indicate that there were any civilian casualties at all."
'Nameless and faceless'
Emran Feroz, an activist and founder of Drone Memorial, a website listing documenting civilian drone-strike victims, said Afghan officials are not doing enough to protect civilians.
"The new government of [President] Ashraf Ghani doesn't even criticise the attacks," Feroz told Al Jazeera.
"We witness that the Afghan police and army say that the victims were Taliban, or al-Qaeda militants.
"It's not clear why they insist on this but it's always the same scenario after drone strikes, which is why most of the civilian victims of the strikes remain nameless and faceless."
The US has intensified drone operations in the country since Islamic States of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known ISIS) loyalists started appearing in Afghanistan.
According to the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Afghanistan is the "most drone-bombed country in the world" with at least 1,368 people killed since 2015.
It's apparent the head of the Taliban was greased by a drone strike just inside Pakistan. While the Taliban hasn't conformed his death, a shura is convening to pick his replacement.
Early chatter is they're looking at Mullah Omar's son as a unifying figure. Mansour's appointment was acrimonious.
Siraj Haqqani's name has come up again, but he's more.likely to continue the role of deferring broker like his father did. He's cool with the Loya Pakiya heartland and the increased role and expansion they've undertaken. I don't think he has ambition for the helm of the Taliban movement. That's good for the Taliban because a Ghilzai Pashtun probably couldn't keep the Durrani Pashtun in step.
It's been a delicate balance between the main tribal factions of the Taliban. This is another challenge in their main task of keeping it together.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKCN0YC0P6
Early chatter is they're looking at Mullah Omar's son as a unifying figure. Mansour's appointment was acrimonious.
Siraj Haqqani's name has come up again, but he's more.likely to continue the role of deferring broker like his father did. He's cool with the Loya Pakiya heartland and the increased role and expansion they've undertaken. I don't think he has ambition for the helm of the Taliban movement. That's good for the Taliban because a Ghilzai Pashtun probably couldn't keep the Durrani Pashtun in step.
It's been a delicate balance between the main tribal factions of the Taliban. This is another challenge in their main task of keeping it together.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKCN0YC0P6
Fire up the drones
It's going to be even easier to kill the next guy than Mansour--unless it's Siraj Haqqani. More movement, more communication and a shift in the system of cut outs and carriers. No Taliban head will be able to carry out his duties with as low profile as Omar did.
I'm sure they will cough up another leader to take charge shortly. More ominously the security situation seems to have deteriorated over the past year or two, especially in big cities and places like Helmand, Nangarhar etc.
The new guy. Let's hope he's a Gorbachev type perestroika hipster who wants to strike a peace deal and not more of the same.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/afghan-taliban-appoint-leader-mansours-death-045123915.html
The Taliban are willing to negotiate for years. Their demands are just not acceptable for the West. And while i am not a fan to see them govern a big chunk of Afghanistan, there is just no viable alternative. That kind of peace deal would have been possible for a long time.
How do you know this ? Do you know what was actually negotiated in Secret by Karzai and his backchannel in Pakistan ?
yes. of course I know every detail about secret negotiations. Who doesnt?
How about you use google and you´ll find plenty of reports about talks and negotiation attempts from 2008 onwards.
How about you use google and you´ll find plenty of reports about talks and negotiation attempts from 2008 onwards.
yes. of course I know every detail about secret negotiations. Who doesnt?
How about you use google and you´ll find plenty of reports about talks and negotiation attempts from 2008 onwards.
I was actually there at the time and am a bit bemused by what people think they know by hopping onto a search engine.
Go on.yes. of course I know every detail about secret negotiations. Who doesnt?
How about you use google and you´ll find plenty of reports about talks and negotiation attempts from 2008 onwards.
That is actually quite funny:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-ammunition-idUSKCN100312
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-ammunition-idUSKCN100312
That sucks. I was there a couple of years ago. Very nice University (comparatively speaking).
is it for foreigners or Afghans?
It's generally for Afghans - both men and women although most of the faculty are imported from other countries.
What were you doing there, if I might ask?
Visiting the University.
Must read for anyone who is interested in Western (military) foreign policy even if you don´t care about Afghanistan. I know that the length of articles can discourage people from reading it, but it would be 10 minutes well spend. Politicians should be hit with a print version of this article until they have fully memorized and understood it.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2016-09-22/losing-afghanistan
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2016-09-22/losing-afghanistan
Saudis Bankroll Taliban, Even as King Officially Supports Afghan Government
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/0...nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&referer=
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/0...nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&referer=
Is Russia backing the Taliban? Anything on this in Russian language media @antihenry?
Russia, Iran ties with Taliban stoke Afghan anxiety
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-iran-ties-taliban-stoke-afghan-anxiety-040857785.html
Russia, Iran ties with Taliban stoke Afghan anxiety
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-iran-ties-taliban-stoke-afghan-anxiety-040857785.html
The world has turned 720 degrees, hasn't it.
Its a pretty obvious strategy.