Early Spring in Kabul?

[photon555]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

This is not original with me, but when you put a rifle in the hands of an eighteen year old and people start shooting at him, he will make policy for you. I can understand the initial decision to go into Afghanistan (hereafter called A) to root out the Taliban and punish them. But why attempt to convert a bunch of tribal barbarians steeped in ignorance and hatred into a modern nation-state? Well, we now know it can't be done; as if we didn't know already. Get out as quick as possible, any way possible, over anybody who gets in the way. Read the history of "The 10,000". If the A's want to help us leave, we can leave them some gifts. Otherwise, we should destroy all bases, roads, and bridges we built as soon as we are out. Leave it the way we found it. Isn't that what they want.

Reading the above articles, I looked in vain for the other side of the story. Didn't terrorist prisoners write secret messages in these korans that were burned? So the muslims can profane their holy book, but all hell breaks loose when we burn the profaned korans? Just like they profane their own mosques by harboring murders and storing ammo and weapons, but we can't even search them. Can anyone say "Double Standard". The implied claim of moral superiority doesn't pass the smell test. Again, as in my earlier post, it will not work trying to improve their situation. And they are living in a hellhole, where women and girls are forbidden to even go to school, and religious bigotry and hatred are required to avoid being targeted by the "faithful".

I am afraid we stayed in A and expanded our presence so that multi-nationals could have a cheap source of Lithium; so they would have a steady supply of Chinese made batteries for the coming flood of hybrids and EV's. If this is why our young men and women bled and died there are some people that need hanging.

Just to be clear, while I believe the roots of our Judeo-Christian culture ARE superior to tribal barbarism in just about any way you could ask, I don't believe it's our duty to spread it by force. In fact, such a course of action violates the Judeo-Christian ethic at its core. No doubt someone will point out that being superior to tribal barbarism isn't that difficult. Perhaps, but you should consider the Soviet and Chinese experiment in communism. I would rather have tribal barbarism than that, if for no other reason than that the reach of the barbarians is limited by their lack of tech development.

You can call me an isolationist, but I believe we should isolate ourselves from the madness that thrives in much of the world as much as is possible. Perhaps it's not too late to reverse the course of Empire, and restore a true American Republic.

[c1ue]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Didn't terrorist prisoners write secret messages in these korans that were burned?

Several articles mentioned that the books were being burned not because of any proof of secret messages, but because of fear that such messages might exist. That these books were confiscated from suspected terrorists.

Thus while secret messages might exist, at the same time it is far more likely that what we have here is the 'precautionary principle' employed by security types everywhere. Much like us Americans all having to dump out bottles of water before entering a commercial airport.

So the muslims can profane their holy book, but all hell breaks loose when we burn the profaned korans? Just like they profane their own mosques by harboring murders and storing ammo and weapons, but we can't even search them. Can anyone say "Double Standard". The implied claim of moral superiority doesn't pass the smell test.

I'm unclear what exactly you're trying to say.

Of course there is a double standard: Christians could slaughter Muslims all they wanted during the Crusades, but killing another Christian was officially a sin.

Even today in America there is a significant political and moral split over abortion.

Be that as it may, while I'm no fan of political correctness, it doesn't seem so much a stretch to say that disrespecting the religion of those you are occupying is a bad policy. Even the Romans only crucified those who actively resisted Roman occupation - but the occupy-ees could worship whoever and however they wanted.

And they are living in a hellhole, where women and girls are forbidden to even go to school, and religious bigotry and hatred are required to avoid being targeted by the "faithful".

To say that all of Afghanistan is this way, or was this way, is a long stretch.

More importantly, it doesn't seem like the civilizing presence of American troops is making either a positive impression or a positive impact.

The American occupation must be really terrible if, after a decade, it seems the Afghans in some areas don't think the Taleban is so bad anymore.

[photon555]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Of course there is a double standard: Christians could slaughter Muslims all they wanted during the Crusades, but killing another Christian was officially a sin.

Let's at least try to keep our analogies in the same century, shall we. And the Crusades, though ill-advised, were by and large a response to Moslem aggression. Europe was contested by the Moslem and Christian cultures for several centuries.

Even today in America there is a significant political and moral split over abortion.

There is a clear difference of belief on when life begins, and for some if society has the authority to arbitrarily terminate life, but what does this have to do with a double standard? BTW, I am one of those who firmly believes that abortion is murder.

Be that as it may, while I'm no fan of political correctness, it doesn't seem so much a stretch to say that disrespecting the religion of those you are occupying is a bad policy. Even the Romans only crucified those who actively resisted Roman occupation - but the occupy-ees could worship whoever and however they wanted.

This depended on the time and place. The Jews had a special dispensation to worship the LORD and no other gods. Otherwise, Caesar worship was required as part of the worship of the Greek and Roman pantheon. At first, believers in Christ (who were mostly Jews at that time) were considered a sect of the Jews and were protected from persecution. But this soon ended when the Jews began persecuting believers, and when Peter opened the door to the Gentiles, and especially when Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles. In the first and second centuries, a common charge against Christians that led to their death was that they were atheists and traitors, because they refused to participate in Caesar worship.

In spite of the persecution (perhaps because of it), the Church grew and flourished at this time. When the Christian faith was co-opted by the Roman state it was soon corrupted by the political power it gained. It actually became an enemy of the true faith, and for over a thousand years oppressed anyone who did not obey its doctrine.

To say that all of Afghanistan is this way, or was this way, is a long stretch.

More importantly, it doesn't seem like the civilizing presence of American troops is making either a positive impression or a positive impact.

The American occupation must be really terrible if, after a decade, it seems the Afghans in some areas don't think the Taleban is so bad anymore.

If it's a long stretch please tell me where in Afghanistan Christians, or any other religionists besides Muslims, can worship openly? Where can Christians operate a school? Where in Afghanistan is it NOT worth your life to walk down the street openly carrying a Bible? A lot of broadcast time and print columns in the US are devoted to how terrible it is that Muslims are discriminated against here. Yet they are free to do and worship as they please, unlike many Muslim countries where Christians worship in secret for fear of their lives, where pastors are imprisioned and tortured, and where young Christian girls are kidnapped and forced to marry older Muslim men. BTW, another name for that is RAPE! Now that's a Double Standard!


Your point about the influence of US troops is exactly the point I am making. Neither Christianity, nor our Judeo-Christian culture which is based upon it, can be imposed by force. The Christian faith spreads one person at a time by belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the risen Saviour of the world. If we really want to see a change in Afghanistan we should send missionaries, not soldiers. But missionaries don't need hundreds of billions of dollars in armaments from an ascendant Military Industrial Complex.


Therefore, we should get out NOW! even though we won't. The defense industry is too big a part of the economy, and the neo-hippie anti-war lunatic movement is too useful a distraction for the TPTB.

[c1ue]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Let's at least try to keep our analogies in the same century, shall we. And the Crusades, though ill-advised, were by and large a response to Moslem aggression. Europe was contested by the Moslem and Christian cultures for several centuries.

The same century? I suppose then the actions of the British in their Commonwealth in the 20th century (Afpak, Rhodesia, India, etc etc), the Boers in South Africa, the Italians in Ethiopia (notably an African Christian nation), and so on and so forth are all so 'last century'.

As for the Crusades being a response to Moslem aggression - this is a new one to me. I suppose all those of Islamic persuasion that have lived in Jerusalem for millenia are all aggressors, even as the center of the Christian faith is Italian, and its reformist spinoffs even more European.

And I suppose you also believe that - outside of Spain - the Muslims were threatening Europe all those centuries ago.

Your grasp of history is quite different than any other that I've seen.

There is a clear difference of belief on when life begins, and for some if society has the authority to arbitrarily terminate life, but what does this have to do with a double standard? BTW, I am one of those who firmly believes that abortion is murder.

Exactly my point: it is a belief and one which is not universal in the so called enlightened United States.

To have one part of society practice this and the other part call it murder - is this not precisely a double standard? One specifically built on belief?

Seem hypocritical for any American to castigate Afghan religious outrage over the burning of Korans as a 'double standard' given the duality of belief in abortion/murder.

This depended on the time and place. The Jews had a special dispensation to worship the LORD and no other gods. Otherwise, Caesar worship was required as part of the worship of the Greek and Roman pantheon. At first, believers in Christ (who were mostly Jews at that time) were considered a sect of the Jews and were protected from persecution. But this soon ended when the Jews began persecuting believers, and when Peter opened the door to the Gentiles, and especially when Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles. In the first and second centuries, a common charge against Christians that led to their death was that they were atheists and traitors, because they refused to participate in Caesar worship.

In spite of the persecution (perhaps because of it), the Church grew and flourished at this time. When the Christian faith was co-opted by the Roman state it was soon corrupted by the political power it gained. It actually became an enemy of the true faith, and for over a thousand years oppressed anyone who did not obey its doctrine.

Your grasp of history is again poor.

Rome never required their subjects to worship Caesar. The worship of Caesar could not be prohibited, but then again neither was worship of nature spirits, of the Greek and Romanized Greek gods, of Monophysites, of Persian fire worship, etc etc.

Persecution of Christians was a localized activity much like Jewish pogroms were.

The adoption of Christianity as an official Empire religion - albeit with very Roman characteristics added like the Rites of Mithras - equally argues that your view is quite wrong.

If it's a long stretch please tell me where in Afghanistan Christians, or any other religionists besides Muslims, can worship openly? Where can Christians operate a school? Where in Afghanistan is it NOT worth your life to walk down the street openly carrying a Bible? A lot of broadcast time and print columns in the US are devoted to how terrible it is that Muslims are discriminated against here. Yet they are free to do and worship as they please, unlike many Muslim countries where Christians worship in secret for fear of their lives, where pastors are imprisioned and tortured, and where young Christian girls are kidnapped and forced to marry older Muslim men.

That's funny, I don't see anywhere that Afghanistan states that it is a secular nation. It is called the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in case you didn't know.

Is it more hypocritical for a nation which pays lip service to freedom of religion but relentlessly demonizes over one to two million of its own citizens' faith including all sorts of 'special' exceptions to laws, or a nation which openly proclaims its Muslim status to discourage non-Islamic religions?

As for young Christian girls, this is ridiculous because the same thing is done for Muslim girls. As you might know, they're a poor society, and in general poor societies treat their women badly.

Your point about the influence of US troops is exactly the point I am making. Neither Christianity, nor our Judeo-Christian culture which is based upon it, can be imposed by force. The Christian faith spreads one person at a time by belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the risen Saviour of the world. If we really want to see a change in Afghanistan we should send missionaries, not soldiers. But missionaries don't need hundreds of billions of dollars in armaments from an ascendant Military Industrial Complex.

While I think we share the same beliefs regarding the appropriateness of American troops in Afghanistan, especially once the Taliban was tossed out of power, I'd say that proselytizing of Christianity is very, very far down the list of American objectives in Afghanistan, if on the list at all.

[don]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Flood gates of Afghan anger are opening

The Afghan investigation team of legislators investigating the Kandahar killings submitted a chilling report to the Afghan parliament in Kabul earlier today, which alleges that the killings were not the rampage of a rogue sergeant, as Pentagon claims, but a planned massacre involving many troops and even US army helicopters. The team also alleged that two Afghan women were sexually assaulted by the US troops before they were shot. The team claimed that 15 to 20 American troops were involved and it was a case of revenge killing following some insurgent activity in the area.

President Hamid Karzai probably knew that Washington was not telling the whole truth and feared that the cover-up won’t work beyond a point. So he decided to go public and distance himself from the American version. On Friday, Karzai said cryptically that the American version is “not convincing.” He added in good measure, “It is by all means the end of the rope here” — meaning that US-Afghan relations are at a breaking point.

Karzai is between the rock and a hard place. Barack Obama might have pacified him with a phone call. But it is hard to imagine that Karzai can play ball on this issue. Washington cannot get out of this mess easily. The Washington Times editorial is spot on: maybe, it is getting time to fire up the helicopters on the US embassy roof in Kabul. The US’s retreat from Afghanistan is going to be incredibly tricky. The flood gates of Afghan anger are opening.

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakuma...r-are-opening/

Sgt Bales' secret and an Afghan endgame
By M K Bhadrakumar

Despite the insistence by Washington that the Kandahar killings a week ago were a "rampage" by an "apparently deranged" or "probably deranged" American sergeant, Afghan people believe in the finding by their parliamentarians that up to 15 to 20 US troops were involved. The Afghan president Hamid Karzai also agreed the US version is "not convincing."

Even within the Afghan military establishment, the opinion publicly aired by the Afghan army chief of staff Sher Mohammad Karimi's condemnation of the US troops will prevail. Lieutenant General Karimi who visited the scene of the crime called it a pre-meditated massacre carried out by a number of US troops.

This is going to make the signing of a strategic agreement between Washington and Kabul before the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Chicago in May highly problematic. Washington expects Karzai to put his signature on the dotted line before May and Karzai knows his political future depends on his performance.

In an extraordinary commentary last week, the influential French troubleshooter Bernard Henri-Levy threatened that the international community should never have "blindly depended upon the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai".

Echoing the views of many US commanders, he lambasted the planned 2014 pullout date as "an admission of failure and impotence", but said that prolonging the military presence beyond 2014 is also difficult "considering the human cost". So, the only course available is to "go and stay" - ie,withdraw combat troops "but leave the military bases and instructors".

Levy has the answer: "Admit that Afghanistan cannot be reduced ... to a desperate confrontation between the Taliban killers and the corrupt members of Karzai's regime ... In Kabul ... there are, then, the heirs of [late Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah] Massoud. And perhaps before we pull up the ladder, it would be advisable to try to turn to them, in an ultimate attempt, a last-chance operation."

Karzai is once again being threatened that his potential successor is all dressed up and waiting in the green room. The point is, through all the watershed events of the past six to eight weeks - US troops urinating on Taliban corpses, burning the Koran or massacring civilians - the constant has been the signing of a strategic pact with Kabul that ensures long-term military presence.

The US President Barack Obama repeated last Tuesday during his joint press conference with the visiting British Prime Minister David Cameron that Karzai has been left in no doubt. But post-Panjwayi, this can no longer be reduced to a battle of wits between Obama and Karzai alone.

Moscow enters. In the course of an exclusive 30-minute interview telecast over an Afghan channel last night, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated not fewer than four times that Russia expects a "neutral" Afghanistan - code word for the vacation of foreign military presence.

Russian policy is moving on two tracks. One, Moscow hopes to work closely with Karzai. "Unlike some others [read Washington], we do not dictate to the [Kabul] government how it should build the process of national reconciliation. We know that a part of Pashtuns, there are Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras. [sic] They all must find their way in the political system so they all feel being part of the process, not isolated. This is the general principle; how to apply them in practice, it's not for us to tell the Afghan authorities."

On the other hand, Lavrov questioned how the Obama administration or the North Atlantic Treaty Organizatoin (NATO) could unilaterally decide on matters such as "transition" or ending the "combat mission". He demanded that the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) should first confirm to the United Nations Security Council that its mandate has been fulfilled before jumping the gun and proposing the withdrawal of the NATO and US contingents.

Lavrov pointed out that there is a fundamental contradiction in the US stance. On the one hand, Washington is assuming that the ISAF mandate has been fulfilled and is withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan, while on the other hand it is discussing with Kabul "very purposefully the establishment of four or five military bases for the post-2014 period". In forceful language, he drew Moscow's bottom line:

"I don't think why this should be done this way because if you need the military presence, then you continue to implement the mandate of the Security Council. If you don't want to implement the mandate of the Security Council or you believe that you have implemented the mandate already, but still want to establish and keep the military bases, I don't think it is logical. I also believe that Afghan territory should not be used to create some military sites, which would cause concern by third parties.

"I don't think it is logical that by 2014 the job would be over but we will stay for a much longer period inside military bases. I don't understand the purpose of the military bases, and, besides, the United States is talking to Central Asian countries asking for long-term military presence. WE want to understand the reason for it and why this is needed. We don't think it would be helpful for the stability of the region."

Lavrov then asserted that Moscow is a stakeholder:

One, terrorism hasn't abated in Afghanistan; Two, terrorists are being "pushed" into the northern regions from where they are infiltrating into the "Central Asian neighbors of the Russian Federation and they don't add stability in this region"; Three, the ISAF is using the so-called Northern Distribution Network and "we [Russia] believe this is our contribution to fulfill the mandate which the international forces received from the Security Council", and,therefore, "we have the right to demand" that the mandate should be implemented before the ISAF deems its"combat mission" over. In essence, Moscow served notice that Obama administration can no longer dictate the trajectory of this war. Lavrov's interview was carefully timed, since the ISAF's mandate will be reviewed this week in the Security Council. Moscow is adding Afghanistan to the litany of issues on which will take a "muscular" approach - alongside the planned US missile defence system, Syria and Iran. Last week, Moscow disclosed that it might offer a military base in Ulyanovsk on the Volga for NATO as transportation hub for ferrying supplies for the war. The characteristic Russian offer puts the Pentagon and NATO in a dilemma. From a logistical point of view, it is a vital lifeline, but from the geopolitical point of view, Washington may think twice. The alternative is to go back to Pakistan and get the two transit routes reopened. The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey has done just that. Dempsey told the Charlie Rose Show that Washington is communicating "directly" and "privately" with Rawalpindi and "I'm personally optimistic that we can reset the relationship in a way that meets both of our needs." He mentioned Pakistani army chief Ashfaq Kayani as someone with whom he has had the "most, candid, frank conversations" - and "he will do what he can". Dempsey even played the "India card", underscoring that the main challenge for the US was to get the Pakistani military to shift from its rooted belief that "India poses their greatest existential threat". (He didn't disclose how Washington proposes to assuage the Pakistani fears.) Quite obviously, several templates are overlapping this week. Russia intends to throw down the gauntlet on Washington's Afghan strategy when the renewal of ISAF's mandate comes up before the Security Council this week. The US, in turn,anxiously awaits a positive outcome of the parliamentary processes in Islamabad that may lead to a resumption of the two countries' partnership. Meanwhile, a third vector is hanging in the air - Afghan anger over the Panjwayi killings. The best hope is that Afghans accept the Sergeant Bales version. But Bales himself is locked up in solitary confinement in Kansas at Fort Leavenworth, where by a curious twist of irony, Dempsey and Kayani were once classmates at the School of Advanced Military Studies - studying Theatre Operations. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NC20Df04.html

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Earlier in the thread there were several mentions about ISAF trainers/mentors being targeted.

This has been going on for a few years and accelerating over time. US, UK, Aussie, French and other nations' trainers have been specifically and successfully targeted.

Hard to argue with indigenous folks complaining of massive graft and corruption and at least tacid support or weak opposition of the Taliban when the current "Mayor of Kabul" is accused of corruption, whose brother is widely regarded as a world class illegal drug kingpin, and Afghani Air Force assets have reportedly been used for illegal drug distribution.

A few folks I know with vast experience in the region believe that a mere fraction of resources expended by ISAF thus far,but in the hands of the Taliban and wisely deployed, could transform the "country" of Afghanistan achieving far better bang for the buck.

Prior to late 2001 the Taliban were running the show on the whiff of an oily rag.

Its a shame about Pashtunwali being so rigid. Things could have turned out differently.

The world seemed to be portraying and pushing "Afghanistan" into the 21st century against its will. Female Governor(corrupt) in Baymayan is one thing for the moment. But you don't move from 1812 to 2012 in less than 12 years.

Outsource it to the Taliban with tighter reigns and expectations on aid, security and political exfiltration guarantees. And then move to the next item in the force ranked list on things to do.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Oh so easy to get in... not so easy to get out.

[don]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Winning Hearts and Minds . . .

Afghanistan killings: 'no evidence' against US soldier Robert Bales

John Henry Browne, the lawyer representing US army staff sergeant Robert Bales, says there is no forensic evidence to support allegations that his client killed 16 villagers in Afghanistan. Browne says his client cannot remember anything about the time when the crimes are alleged to have happened. Bales is detained at a US army facility in Kansas.

Meanwhile back at the indigenous ranch . . .

The Afghan investigation team of legislators investigating the Kandahar killings submitted a chilling report to the Afghan parliament in Kabul earlier today, which alleges that the killings were not the rampage of a rogue sergeant, as Pentagon claims, but a planned massacre involving many troops and even US army helicopters. The team also alleged that two Afghan women were sexually assaulted by the US troops before they were shot. The team claimed that 15 to 20 American troops were involved and it was a case of revenge killing following some insurgent activity in the area.

worth a viewing . . .

[Southernguy]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

Thanks Don>
If I am not mistaken it was seen here in 1970...and it was also forbidden by the pre dictatorial government of the time.
A classic, certainly worth viewing again and of course for the first time those who haven't.

Winning Hearts and Minds . . .

Afghanistan killings: 'no evidence' against US soldier Robert Bales

John Henry Browne, the lawyer representing US army staff sergeant Robert Bales, says there is no forensic evidence to support allegations that his client killed 16 villagers in Afghanistan. Browne says his client cannot remember anything about the time when the crimes are alleged to have happened. Bales is detained at a US army facility in Kansas.

Meanwhile back at the indigenous ranch . . .

worth a viewing . . .

[flintlock]

Re: Early Spring in Kabul?

You'd think we would have learned by now. These sort of things rarely work. Especially after 10 years. There has to be another agenda. Surely these political hacks don't think they can "win" this sort of war. Who stands to gain? That is the question.