tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post3030777960798699242..comments2024-03-22T05:20:44.167-07:00Comments on The Disaffected Lib: Let's Get Something StraightThe Mound of Soundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-13596500911159024402008-07-25T08:24:00.000-07:002008-07-25T08:24:00.000-07:00Very interesting discussion. It is a mission impos...Very interesting discussion. It is a mission impossible. If mighty Soviet Union could not prevail and invasion partially resulted in its own downfall then good luck to Canada and US.<BR/><BR/>I believe we have put our soldiers in the jaws of death. <BR/><BR/>As far as western-friendly government in Afghanistan - Karzai is one of the many tribes in Afghanistan and some are powerful than his. He controls parts of Kabul only.LeDarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12526776746689708239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-34463447662283212802008-07-25T07:31:00.000-07:002008-07-25T07:31:00.000-07:00Interesting articles, Mark, but not very helpful. ...Interesting articles, Mark, but not very helpful. As the second one noted, something approaching a recognizable Afghan state didn't emerge until late in the 18th century.<BR/><BR/>What is relevant out of the early conquests is the one aspect the article conveniently omits, the most relevant issue. What measures did the conquerors employ to suppress the local tribes and what would become of us were we to try that sort of brutality today?<BR/><BR/>Ours is not supposed to be a war of conquest, Mark, but a counter-insurgency war of at least notional liberation. <BR/><BR/>Then there's the business about air strikes. Read today's news about the three recent US air strikes now under investigation.<BR/><BR/>If you can get past "The Torch" you might want to read the US military counter-insurgency field manual co-authored by Petraeus himself and discover its treatment of the counterproductivity of artillery and air strikes in counter insurgency warfare. The manual, FM 3-24, is available free in PDF format - you could look it up. Once you've gone through it, take the lessons and contrast them with what we're doing in Afghanistan - the whole gamut from our reliance on heavy weaponry to our woefully understaffed forces.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the guys at "The Torch" could have a look at it too.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-76197749047644761572008-07-25T05:42:00.000-07:002008-07-25T05:42:00.000-07:00As for bombing, you might look at:"Greater restric...As for bombing, you might look at:<BR/><BR/>"<A HREF="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/greater-restrictions-on-air-strikes-in.html" REL="nofollow">Greater restrictions on air strikes in Afstan</A>"<BR/><BR/>As for a certain myth:<BR/><BR/>'<A HREF="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/search?q=unconquerable" REL="nofollow">"Unconquerable Afghans"</A>: What the Globe and Mail publishes and does not'<BR/><BR/>By the way, the Greek/Macedonian kingdoms that followed Alexander ruled much of Afstan for some 200 years. "Kandahar" itself derives from "Alexander". You could look those things up. No Euros then intervened in the area until the Brits in the 19th century. But meanwhile lots of other people successfully invaded the place, as the second link shows.<BR/><BR/>Mark<BR/>OttawaMark, Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01193547132937352127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-70642933968327625022008-07-24T20:49:00.000-07:002008-07-24T20:49:00.000-07:00That leads me to pose the question, "what are the ...<I>That leads me to pose the question, "what are the chances of reviving 'the mission' now?"</I><BR/><BR/>That depends on what the "big dogs" consider Afghanistan to mean to them in terms of security. Canada is a small player in this game, and though our efforts are important in the arena of combat, you are correct that we are undermanned.<BR/><BR/>I think the cat is out of the bag vis-a-vis Iraq and the BushCheney foreign policy war they undertook to oust that regime. There is nothing honourable about that war, and it took over a hundred thousand men just to achieve a state of mild emergency over five years.<BR/><BR/>Afghanistan, which has been the relevant target all along, if one is to believe the "war on terror" rhetoric, has been neglected to the point where regional interests have made it very difficult for the Americans to use the impetus of 9/11 to challenge their authority. They can't exactly come charging in with 100,000 men now, even though that is precisely what is needed to subdue the Taliban in Afghanistan and western Pakistan.<BR/><BR/><I>This is the tribal homeland of people whose folklore enshrines the David versus Goliath defeat of all the Euros from Alexander the Great to Brits to the Soviets.</I><BR/><BR/>Afghanistan can work if we stop viewing this as a war to win, and view it more as an objective to complete under occupation. The war was effectively won in 2001 when the U.S. ousted the Taliban regime and replaced it with a western-friendly government. After that began the "occupation", albeit under consentual circumstances.<BR/><BR/>A permanent occupation, like the Russians or British, will not succeed. But one that targets objectives, such as ruthlessly rooting out the Taliban and al-Qaeda network, would work. If the Americans don't commit to the troop level required to finish the job they started, or if they incur a war with Iran during the interim, I think we'll see that the foreign policy objectives of the BushCheney administration had nothing to do with winning the war on terror.<BR/><BR/>Which makes Afghanistan more or less a moot point.Raphael Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14635417096024081504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-8728891355417697022008-07-24T20:31:00.000-07:002008-07-24T20:31:00.000-07:00Hi Raphe and thanks for your input. I understand ...Hi Raphe and thanks for your input. I understand your suggestion but, please tell me, what are the chances of that happening, of the NATO states along with the Americans, flooding Afghanistan with 800,000 soldiers?<BR/><BR/>From our past exchanges I know you're a rational moderate. We just see each other from the opposite side of the fence. That leads me to pose the question, "what are the chances of reviving 'the mission' now?"<BR/><BR/>As the great Petraeus himself wrote, there is a short time before the counter-insurgency force shifts from being seen as liberators rather than occupiers.<BR/><BR/>This is the tribal homeland of people whose folklore enshrines the David versus Goliath defeat of all the Euros from Alexander the Great to Brits to the Soviets.<BR/><BR/>You might want to read the International Herald Tribune (Sunday Times) piece by a senior, US anti-drug official (big enough to sit down with Karzi, big enough to brief Cheney) who shows that not just the Taliban but the Kabul government and, ultimately, our own military presence has a huge and immediate vested interest in the continuation of the opium trade.<BR/><BR/>It's like throwing anti-personnel mines atop a field of punji sticks and then adding cluster bomblets for good measure.<BR/><BR/>Raphe, if you can truly find anything, ANYTHING sane about this mission, I'd appreciate your thoughts.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-2686734146651034282008-07-24T19:49:00.000-07:002008-07-24T19:49:00.000-07:00Great article. I think you're absolutely right, al...Great article. I think you're absolutely right, although I believe the war is too important to abandon now. Instead of firing blindly into the dark, as you suggest, we should be addressing your deficits by insisting a proper fighting force be installed in Afghanistan by all NATO members.Raphael Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14635417096024081504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-13081184247114470692008-07-24T13:45:00.000-07:002008-07-24T13:45:00.000-07:00"Support the troops" is a marketing slogan not a g..."Support the troops" is a marketing slogan not a government policy. Like the car decals on which it appears it is an American import, developed and field tested on focus groups by the Republican party. As a marketing tool it is certainly superior to "Support the war" or "Support the government's war policy". It is utterly dishonest, but no more so than marketing colonial warfare as a "war on terror"<BR/><BR/>As for Mound's troop numbers, it is doubtful that even these would be adequate. In the only other war of this type in which Canada has participated, the Boer War, the British succeeded only after flooding the country with more soldiers than there were Boers and inventing the concentration camp.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-17033308206528205612008-07-24T08:28:00.000-07:002008-07-24T08:28:00.000-07:00Mound: How can you take seriously anyone who says...Mound: How can you take seriously anyone who says you dont support the troops because you question the mission? Thats nuts, and, lacks basic common sense. Question immigration and your called a racist, against gay marriage and your a homophope, anti-Kyoto..your a denier..and on and on and on it goes. You dont take Johnathon seriously because he makes it impossible to take him seriously, why waste time and energy over anyone who puts labels on people they disagree with you. With the exception of music you and I probably disagree on everything else, I've never once thought that you didnt support our troops, and, I'd never once give anyone a second thought who would call me a warmonger or a hawk. We all need thicker skins and smaller ears and a broader perspective. billgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-13270683753831002182008-07-24T05:44:00.000-07:002008-07-24T05:44:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Johnathonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14468885934256262056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-46224661031179327702008-07-23T22:46:00.000-07:002008-07-23T22:46:00.000-07:00Excellent Post! I'm glad you said your peace, but...Excellent Post! I'm glad you said your peace, but you don't need to defend your support of the troops. People are slowly wising up to the fact that there is vast difference between supporting the men and women who serve the nation and blindly and blithely supporting any political decision to use (or abuse) their service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-54615977406424880412008-07-23T21:28:00.000-07:002008-07-23T21:28:00.000-07:00Hi Mound !! Good post. I agree with you a hundred ...Hi Mound !! Good post. I agree with you a hundred percent. If we really support our troops we need to ask hard questions about this war. Since they can't. Too much of the talk about war in this country is mindless cheerleading... like it was some kind of hockey game or something. Anyone who dares to ask questions about the war is set upon by the right-wing chickenhawks and branded a traitor.<BR/>It's PATHETIC...Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15309809679331128837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-1159426174124517782008-07-23T19:25:00.000-07:002008-07-23T19:25:00.000-07:00You're quite right, Sandi. It's time I learned to...You're quite right, Sandi. It's time I learned to be a little more prompt in putting out the trash.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-75252338001279910862008-07-23T19:20:00.000-07:002008-07-23T19:20:00.000-07:00I would strongly suggest that you screen and/or de...I would strongly suggest that you screen and/or delete Jonathon. He goes all over the blogosphere with nasty nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Big City Lib deletes him now and I believe Red Tory screens him.<BR/><BR/>Read Mount of Sounds blog today about the loss of his dad - Jonathon was absolutely vile.RuralSandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09552973218865121867noreply@blogger.com