home

9 Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:40:40 PM EST
Tags: Afghanistan (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Nine U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan today, more than any number since 2005. As Big Tent Democrat noted earlier, President Bush is now suggesting some troops may begin pulling out of Iraq in the coming months.

Pulling out for where? Home? Not so fast. We may just be trading one war for another.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned during a visit to Kabul last week that there are more foreign fighters, including al-Qaeda members, in Pakistan's tribal areas, militants who cross the border and launch attacks against U.S. and Afghan troops.

Mullen has said he hopes improved security in Iraq will allow troops to be shifted this year from Iraq to Afghanistan, where violence is rising.

One of the things that concerns me about Sen. Barack Obama is his many references to the need to step up the fight in Afghanistan. [More...]

One example from Obama's prepared speech in June:

Afghanistan is sliding toward chaos, and risks turning into a narco-terrorist state....We need more resources in Afghanistan. I have been arguing for this since 2002, when I said that we should finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of going into Iraq. I have called for at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts there. I have also called for at least $1 billion in non-military assistance each year.

Today Obama proposed sending 10,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. In an op-ed in the New York Times, he writes:

“We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.”

I'm not interested in swapping one war for another. How do you feel about it?

< Satire? | The War at Home Against Immigrants in the Workplace >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    9 Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    We're not swapping wars (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:06:26 PM EST
    We went into Afghanistan after 9/11, way before Iraq. And we pushed back the Taliban, and could have wiped them out, while helping to re-establish civil society in Afghanistan.

    But Bush didn't care about Afghanistan. The oil was in Iraq, and that's where he wanted to take us. He pulled our troops out of Afghanistan. Since then, the place has spiraled downhill. The corrupt warlords have taken over the place. Forget about women's rights.

    I have a somewhat personal connection to this--I've been to the Pakistan tribal border zones, and have heard the sad stories. We've really let Afghans down. Oh, and incidentally, the border region is crawling with Taliban.

    I don't agree with Obama that we should move our troops inside Pakistan--especially given the political changes that are going on there now. But I think that we must revisit and rethink our Afghan policy.  

    Of course we should rethink our (none / 0) (#5)
    by MarkL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:07:53 PM EST
    Afghanistan policy, but should the starting place be a promise to ratchet up the war?

    [ Parent ]
    It may come to that. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:14:21 PM EST
    We never had enough troops there. We went in and destroyed the existing structure, then rushed out and handed it off to the U.N. so we could do the Shock and Awe thing in Iraq.

    The warlords and thugs, not Karzai, are running the show now. So basically you've got the same kind of situation that allowed Al Qaeda to set up a "virtual state" there in the late 1990s.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I wonder if the Chinese will (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:19:48 PM EST
    fund the Taliban if we commit more troops to Afghanistan, similar to what the US did in the 80s.

    [ Parent ]
    I really doubt it. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:30:34 PM EST
    First of all, the Taliban don't have anything the Chinese want: oil, natural resources, a seaport. The Chinese right now are in bed with the Pakistanis, who are giving them dibs on prime seafront land near Karachi (the Chinese are building a deep water port called Gwadur, as well as major highways through the tribal areas to connect Western China and Gwadur).

    Also, the Chinese have their own Muslim terrorist problem--over the weekend, they executed two Uiguhr tribesmen they claimed were plotting terrorist attacks.

    The Pakistanis (or, at least, the Pak secret service and Musharraf) seem to be protecting the Taliban--for them, it's kind of like Bush pandering to the religious right.

    [ Parent ]

    Wasn't there a potential oil pipeline that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:09 AM EST
    would have run through Afghanistan?  I seem to remember reading something about that.  

    [ Parent ]
    The oil pipeline (none / 0) (#35)
    by PamFl on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:05:11 AM EST
    through Afganistan down to Karachi was the main reason Russia invaded Afganistan and fought there for 10 years. The US funded Bin Laden and the other insurgents to drive out the Russians.
    After the first invasion of Iraq, Bin Laden resented the US military presence in Saudia Arabia. Al Qaeda formed around Bin Laden and their revenge was 9/11.
    Bush tried to get the Taliban to let the US come in, get rid of Bin Laden, and build the pipeline. The Taliban refused, so the US invaded Afganistan ostensibly to capture Bin Laden, but also to defeat the Taliban, and install a US backed government who would allow the pipeline to be built.
    The pipeline is highy desired because it would allow oil to bypass the narrow Straight of Hormuz, which is constantly under threat of blockade by Iran, and previously by Saddam's Iraq.
    The pipeline is still the reason we're in Afganistan and oil is the reason we are in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Every defeat teh Ruian suffered there (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25:41 AM EST
    was funded by teh British. Every British defeat there was funded by the Russians.

    N reason that China shouldn't fund a US defeat there.  There are funding the Khartoum Junta and Mugabe so I wouldn't be surprized to see a few Chinese efforts in the great game.

    [ Parent ]

    Ruians =Russians (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:26:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    :) I think one of the problems is (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    that the Pak secret service and the Taliban are only a stone's throw away and sometimes are even the same people.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for your words (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    I feel and think as I do yet haven't actually been to the area whereas you have and I can hear that in your words.  I have never understood why we need to go into Pakistan either or why Obama says things like that, strikes me as very wierd.  As I stated in my own post, the world also went into Afghanistan with us and remains with us.  It isn't the same situation that Iraq is and the Afghan people deserve so much better than they've ended up with.  Makes me very sad because situations like Afghanistan are what my husband has spent 20 years training for, not Neocon dreams like Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Exactly (none / 0) (#51)
    by dissenter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13:56 AM EST
    While this is a "coalition" war the only people doing the fighting are the Americans, the Brits and the Canadians. It is a joke - a coalition in name only. I just left there and the place is sinking faster than Iraq 2005.

    At this point, it would be easier to save Iraq. We can't fix what is wrong in Afghanistan. We've had 7 years to do so and we F$cked it up. It is too late. Things have gone too far and seriously doubt we can pull it back. Even the Afghans are starting to get out.

    Hate to say it but the deterioration I have witnessed over the last year has made me very pessimistic that anything good is going to come out of that fiasco.


    [ Parent ]

    We don't exactly currently have the greatest (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    relations with NATO but they are still physically there with us, once again though you sound like someone who wants to be at war instead of someone who wants to empower and protect the people of Afghanistan.  I don't think NATO wants anything to do with the Bush administration's Neocon desires and that is why we have the problems with the ISAF troops there.  For those who don't know, ISAF is the acronym for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, which is made up of soldiers from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and 35 other nations. A number of ISAF detachments are limited by their own governments' combat restrictions. These include prohibitions, or "caveats," against, for example, fighting in the snow for troops from some southern European nations. Other soldiers are required to stay in calmer areas of the country or to keep their aircraft grounded at night or to consult their home legislatures before operating near the volatile Pakistani border. The countries not restricting and always available for heavy fighting are Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Policy is everything in the world and enables or disables many things!  The Bush administration's policies have disabled a lot of willingness and helpfulness.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish I could believe it (none / 0) (#67)
    by js991 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:10:19 AM EST
    was as simple as oil, although in some ways it is. They couldn't have mustered all the will to do it without an oil prize, but there are plenty of other oil prizes to be had globally. What this was really about was GWB avenging his father, both to the Arab world (for trying to assassinate him in Kuwait), and to the American people (for not supporting his father's full engagement in the first attack on Iraq, and for failing to give him what he saw as his birthright -- a two term presidency). Bush is, in the most final analysis, a thug. That is the role he always played in his family, ever since he started his career on the wrong side of the law in his early years. He was an "enforcer", a "bag man", someone who stabbed enemies in dark alleys. Too bad the American people turned up on his hit list. He promptly "did" us.

    [ Parent ]
    yep, and that should worry us all. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cpinva on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:08:46 AM EST
    That tone-deafness was Obama's inexperience talking.

    our half-assed commitment in afghanistan has allowed the opium poppy farming to rise again. under the taliban, it was pretty much crushed. anywhere there's chaos, and a complete lack of any kind of central controlling authority, it's wide open for becoming crime central.

    we'll almost have to start from scratch. of course, given our reputation in that area (see: kurds, iraq, persian gulf war I, bush I), don't be at all surprised if the natives aren't quick to hop back on that bandwagon.

    Sad, and true (none / 0) (#16)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:15:16 AM EST
    when I was traveling in the tribal areas, I heard a lot of "You can't depend on the Americans."

    Also (and this is bad, because remember, these are macho tribal leaders talking, who carry around  AK47s on their shoulders even when they go to the bathroom) I heard a lot of: "America is weak and cowardly". and "America is stupid. Even the British were far more clever."

    [ Parent ]

    America is weak and cowardly (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:04:07 AM EST
    and I'm afraid it would remain so under either Obama or McCain.  

    The reason?  

    Because the President really doesn't have anything to do with the battlefield.  That goes to the Generals and we don't ever seem to elect those guys.

    Secondly, I don't think we reward "clever" like we should.

    Our "best and brightest" don't go into the military because there is no reason to.  If you are really that bright, with our capitalistic system, you can make a 100-gazillion times more money NOT going into the service.  

    [ Parent ]

    To be fair, there are some brilliant (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:44:37 AM EST
    minds in the military.  (See Clark, Wes, et. al.)

    There are times when the best and brightest are not promoted.  There are times when they are promoted but then, it seems, are run out or get the run-around and can't get their job done.  Sometimes this is owing to internal politics, but most times it seems owing to external politics -- our politicians.  We seem to be in such times now.

    In the military, as in so many fields in this country, many go into them for reasons other than money.  Could we compete for even more fine minds in the military if the compensation was better?  Sure.  But that does not prove that none went into the military for reasons other than money.

    Personally, I can attest that some of the brightest college students I have had have been in the military or veterans.  Some were in it for the money, in terms of earning tuition, but that was hardly the sole or sufficient reason.  And sadly, of course, too many of them who went over did not return.  But many of those who did will be our leaders tomorrow, if we are so lucky.

    [ Parent ]

    mot of the Generals have PhDs these days (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:06:24 AM EST
    So they are often highly educated Engineers or scholars.  Most of them are excellent historians as well. The spec op guys are all anthropologists even if they don't realize it.

    You might even ask the question, show me a brighter military?  There isn't one.

    [ Parent ]

    As usual (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    Salo said it well in fewer words. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    The British (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:37:33 AM EST
    ran the place for nearly a century and sacked Kabul and Kandahar every 25 years.

    Great sport for the Cavalry.

    [ Parent ]

    The "Weak and Stupid" comment (none / 0) (#50)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    was referring to America's strategy, not to its troops. And the British were more "clever" at diplomacy and deals.

    [ Parent ]
    You wanna do something for Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:05:08 AM EST
    Then concentrate on pouring money and development into rebuilding on a massive scale where you can.  Imagine what we could've done to rebuild and revitalize Kabul with all the money that went to murder Iraq.  It is staggering and infuriating.  Imagine the example the new Kabul could have been.  And every other city there that we could have rejuvinated.

    What malevolent fools we are.

    We abandoned a dream to awaken in a nightmare.

    there' really nothing in Afghanistan though (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:08:30 AM EST
    poppy's and ghazis...some big hills and some caves.

    It's a huge military trap.  

    [ Parent ]

    which is why i don't say... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:24:51 AM EST
    ..."You wanna do something for Afghanistan?  Send so many troops the Taliban are overwhelmed."  

    [ Parent ]
    Bush, Cheney & Israel will keep us there (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Saul on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:59:13 AM EST
    forever if they attack Iran before this administration leaves.The danger that is luring in the wind is that Bush and Cheney always wanted to hit Iran before they left.  Knowing how unpopular that is they turned that assignment over to Israel.   Israel is getting the green light from Bush to hit Iran.  It was in the news that he did just that.  Somehow I feel this will happen before Bush and Cheney leave.  What a mess the new president will have on his hands in 09. If it does you haven't seen anything yet.

    Unofficial request by Pentagon for troops (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by wasabi on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:32:36 AM EST
    Barbara Starr just reported on CNN that the Pentagon has requested that 3 brigades move to Afganistan soon.  That's 10K troops.  Matches Obama's speech given in June.

    I read that he asked for two brigades (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:38:29 AM EST
    which would be 10,000 troops, the story said.

    We will know more soon, anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    I am depressed about how Bush (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04:30 AM EST
    dealt with the Afghanistan problems.  Afghanistan was taken over by the Taliban, the people of that country were terrorized, tortured, murdered....and then terrorists who attacked and killed 3,000 innocent people in America were empowered, protected, and nurtured by the same Taliban.  My opinion, we belong in this with the people of Afghanistan.  Is this all going to be too little too late though? Maybe, most military folk that I know though have no beef with serving in Afghanistan.  Should Afghanistan be viewed as a war?  I would like the empowerment of the people to be the major focus of our energies there.  Will doing that often require military protections using our military?  Yes.  Will Taliban members die by our hand?  Yes.  Will U.S. soldiers likely die as well?  Yes.  Can I promise you no innocent bystanders will be hurt or killed in standing up to the Taliban?  No, but I can almost promise that will happen if America's military is there with the citizens of Afghanistan or not so really this is just about whether or not America has the courage to get some dirt on us standing up to the Taliban alongside the general population of Afghanistan.  I cannot abide by what the Taliban has done to the women of Afghanistan either.  I'm fine supporting our soldiers and their families being there with the Afghan people.  As far as war goes......what we focus on we grow.  I would like to grow people and give them the protection they require in doing it if we can provide that.  I think we all must remember that the world went to Afghanistan with us as well and they remain there with us now. Afghanistan is not Iraq and honor these soldiers who lost their lives standing up to the system that fostered murdering 3,000 innocent Americans.

    There seems to be a feeling that becase (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:52:37 PM EST
    Afghanistan is the "right war" to fight, things won't go as badly as they have in Iraq.
    Even the most cursory study of the history of the region should indicate the absurdity of that notion.
    Afghanistan is where empires die. Not far from there is where Alexander the Great died, IIRC.
    Would Iraq have gone better if it had been a "just" war? In fact, many people honestly believe it was one.
    What about Obama's repeated promise to engage battle in Pakistan, if necessary. Is that smart saber-rattling?

    Oh yeah. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:50:11 AM EST
    That's really smart.  

    Doesn't Pakistan have nuclear weapons?  :(

    I think it might be smart to saber-rattle when we are mad at India -- but since that isn't happening...  I have to wonder how smart it is to do that.  

    We'll never win in Afghanistan.  If we send in more troops, they'll retreat until we pull back.  They're like cockroaches.  They scatter when the lights are turned on.  There has been war in Afghanistan for so long that this is old hat to them.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ask the former Soviet Union (none / 0) (#2)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST
    how well a war goes in Afghanistan...not to mention the British.

    They didn't have hope and change. (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:05:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Techincally the British (none / 0) (#29)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:30:11 AM EST
    were only wiped out because they panicked and decided to run off through the Kyhber Pass (Elphy Bey period)

    Still, those Afghans can conduct a war indefinitely.  They can fight the US 'til kingdom come if they are being funded from Arabia and Russia and China.

    [ Parent ]

    Do we need a war? (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:11:01 PM EST
    The Bush regime has made it legitimate to look at every problem as a war. Bush didn't like Saddam, let's have a war. We already had a war in Afghanistan; we won. We didn't rebuild Afghanistan, we didn't help the people of Afghanistan; we took an Afghani from Bethesda, Maryland and made him president.

    The Taliban are very creative and fight well, but they are a small group that, mainly, concentrates on the Pakistani side of the border. We don't need a war, we need to secure the border and drive them out from whatever they got to in Afghanistan. This is a limited action. You cannot eliminate them, but you can reduce their penetration to manageable level. Again, this is not a war; it's a police action.

    If done well, which it clearly isn't, we don't need the whole Army and Marines to do it. Thinking in massive expendable units causes you to think of a war, which it isn't.

    Instead of an electronic fence on the Mexican border, how about building it on the Afghani/Pakistani border? Obama may agree since it may bring him Latino votes.

    First of all, there is no (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    Afghan-Pakistani border. It's a fiction called the Durand Line, created by the British. The Pashtun and Baloch and Waziri tribes who inhabit the regions don't recognize it.

    And putting a fence there is simply impossible. You are talking about some of the highest, most difficult to negotiate mountain passes in Asia!

    Secondly, this isn't a "war" to be fought. There is no enemy. It is more like a police action. We went in and broke the existing state. Then we turned and split to do the Shock and Awe thing in Iraq, and left these people (many of whom--unlike in Iraq-- HELPED us, FOUGHT with us...high and dry). Now there's no security, no rule of law, a completely dead economy.

    I think we owe it to these people to help them get back on their feet.

    [ Parent ]

    I think these comments (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:37:54 PM EST
    show me that I need to learn and think a lot more about Afghanistan -- as I have had to do about Iraq.  I look forward to more info, including here, so we can either fully support the troops there or pull them out, as I have known too many who have died there -- or served there and feel, too, that it is the forgotten war.  

    (And I keep picturing that lovely face of the girl on the National Geographic cover, eons ago, and the recent updates on her life and that of her family since. . . .)

    Anyway, I will say for Obama that he is sounding specific and unequivocal in this call, and that is refreshing!  I hope that, if he does know what he's talking about, he doesn't dial this one back . . . and forth . . . and back again.  And his call emphasizes need for equipment, not just troops -- and those I know who served there say that they are quite unequipped, with so many resources going to Iraq.

    I also will say for Obama that this is no flipflop, as he has said "from the start," as he says, as quoted in his 2002 speech, that he is not antiwar, per se.  As for whether he is too eager to go to war, this gives an opportunity to see more from him without him having the power to do so, as yet.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's position on Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:46:09 PM EST
    as far as I can tell, is pretty much the same as Obama's--minus the gaffe of saying she would send troops into Pakistan without its government's approval.

    That tone-deafness was Obama's inexperience talking.

    If you want to get up to speed on the Afghanistan/Pakistan/Taliban situation, I'd suggest reading anything by Ahmed Rashid, the essayist who is pretty much the main man in this field. He spent 10 years fighting with the Baloch tribes on the Afghan border!

    [ Parent ]

    Afghanistan is one more thing Bush (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03:15 AM EST
    has turned into a rats hole. I wish I knew the answer, but the above posters are right, we broke it and we left it to put itself back together as best as they could. This is the second time we did this and each time it has come back to haunt us.  This job would be nation building at its worst. There are people who have good ideas, but they aren't Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    Afghanistan is was and will (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:39:10 AM EST
    always be a rat hole.

    Iraq is, at least, civilized.

    [ Parent ]

    You cannot mean that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    and Afghanistan has its own history of growth and progress and being decent to women as well.  It hasn't always been a rat hole.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry Tracy (none / 0) (#52)
    by dissenter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST
    I don't know what Afghanistan looked like 50 years ago but I can tell you what the streets of Kabul look like today - after we have restored freedom. There is hardly a woman left on the street who isn't covered in a burka. They are being forced to quit their jobs. Their lives are hell and I see little evidence that will change within the next two generations.

    As for progress, the Flintstones lived better. It is rat hole and with the mindset currently there, it will remain so for a very long time.

    [ Parent ]

    Whose mindset though? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    As for what the streets of Kabul look like, how many streets in Iraq look better?  Certainly none in Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul, Sadar City. Is it a mindset of fear or has the Taliban actually killed off anybody with different social beliefs to the point that most of those remaining are okay with how they now live?  If that is the case we really can't do much to empower those people, they have what they want.  If it is a mindset of fear though, we can do something about that.

    [ Parent ]
    I had Afghani students and (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    I learned a great deal about the country from their point of view.  Had Bush moved the Europeans into that country under US leadership and pushed back 8 years ago we would be looking at a different country today.  The Taliban was almost wiped out and the war lords were badly weakened.  Instead we put in a puppet govt. and let him have photo ops for the US while the bad guys crept back into power. I am not knowledgeable about nation building, but I am sure there are people who have ideas short of another war.  I hope so because this is a wonderful place for Obama to point the way "Change and Hope" here he comes.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you -- (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:07:39 AM EST
    as soon as I saw Rashid's name, I know it's scribbled on some scrap of paper in a pile on my  desk to which I never remember to resort when I need to do so.  I.e., maybe it was you or some other poster here who already gave that tip on the best source.

    So I just emailed your post to myself.  I'm always better able to find email in the morning, and even down the line, it's more searchable than my desk.:-)

    Btw, I just finished yet another book I found out about from comments here, the fourth this summer.  The range of reading by folks here is phenomenal.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahmed Rashid has a new book (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:21:05 AM EST
    that's just out: "Descent Into Chaos". There's a very good interview with him here

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the Info (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:21:45 AM EST
    Rashid looks like a pretty prolific writer -- I'm inclined to start with his most recent work, Descent into Chaos, but am wondering if you recommend reading Taliban first, as this seems to be Rashid's seminal work -- it is referenced in every (outstanding) review I read on Chaos.

    [ Parent ]
    Either way is okay, it depends (none / 0) (#20)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:25:52 AM EST
    If you are more interested in the current situation in Pakistan, read the new book. If you want to go back and learn about the roots of the situation, go with Taliban. This is the classic history of the group, but it ends, IIRC, years before the US intervention.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks again (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:40:03 AM EST
    I think I'm going to start with Chaos --I'm interested in a more contemporary account of what's going on in that area, and I've found the book reviews, without exception, indicate it is an outstanding piece of work.

    BTW, I'm fascinated by the brief glimpses you've shared of life over there, post-occupation -- thanks for sharing them with us.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's position (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    is outlined here. She had a specific proposal for Afghanistan.

    She called on NATO to supply extra troops. I don't see that her plan is the same as what Obama is calling for now.

    Therefore, an increase in international forces supporting the Afghan people's fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is required. As President, Hillary will ask our NATO allies and other nations to play a larger role, and she will press for elimination of national caveats -- restrictions placed by individual NATO governments on the use of their forces in Afghanistan.

    As to Pakistan, she said:

    Increasing non-military assistance to Pakistan.  This aid should be targeted at strengthening democratic institutions, building civil society, and improving economic and educational opportunities. A stable and democratic Pakistan will be a stronger security partner for the United States in the years ahead.


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton's Afghan Policy was evolving from there (none / 0) (#54)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    check her Senate questioning of General Petraeus in May:

    "I have been increasingly concerned that we have lost the initiative, both militarily and diplomatically," said Senator Clinton. "We have to have as much of a focus as we can bring to Afghanistan."

    From her questioning and statements at the Petraeus hearing, it sounds like Hillary's position on the Afghan situation was moving towards a realpolitik view that would include more military deployment. Frankly, it would have to--without security and police support for the institutions of civil society, any aid we threw to Afghanistan would end up in some warlord's coffers.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is the reality (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by dissenter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    You can't work with the government in office and I am not just talking about Karzai. Three quarters of the Parliament is either a drug lord or a war lord. Think about that for a minute. That is your freely elected government. The police are completely infiltrated by insurgent elements. The Afghan Army is a joke. There are no real functioning civil institutions. You have NOTHING to work with that isn't corrupt and/or stealing all the reconstruction money. That is the reality. There is no there, there. It is all fantasy.

    The tribal issues make the situation even more dire. While everyone sits around obsessing on Iraq, most Americans would be surprised to find out that Kabul is surrounded by Taliban on three sides, 20 Ks out. The south is gone, the west is overrun with kidnappers and thieves, the east is starting to fall, etc. Everyone is just waiting around collecting guns for the civil war to start again. Security is horrible and those of us that work on the reconstruction projects are trying to get out because it is getting too dangerous.

    Unfortunately nobody has bothered to notice. It is too late at this point. You would need HUNDREDS of  THOUSANDS of troops to fix that country and nobody has them to give and nobody has the support at home to do such a thing.  The Europeans, outside of the UK, won't even let their troops engage in offensive operations.

    [ Parent ]

    Word! (none / 0) (#58)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    I can't think of a region in the world more crucial to international geopolitics and security right now than Afghanistan, and the Pakistan border areas.

    It's the contemporary version of the old Great Game.  The Chinese are there, both overtly and covertly. Probably the Russians, too--at least Russian money. There's oil, natural gas, precious minerals, a brewing independence movement complete with guerilla army (the Baloch Liberation Army in Balochistan).

    Then you've got Taliban and Al Qaeda (I've no doubt that Osama bin Laden is holed up in some Waziristan village).

    Really, if you were scripting a movie thriller you'd be hard pressed to come up with a more volatile and complicated place.

    If we don't turn our attention back here, I am sure we'll be looking at another 9/11 situation. It's criminal: Bush exaggerated and invented threats from Saddam to get us into Iraq. Meanwhile, he's ignored a very real threat to the point where it may be impossible to recover.

    [ Parent ]

    It may very well be too late (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    I have entertained that possibility and I haven't spoke to a fresh return from Afghanistan in a year.  If so I'm sad and if so then all we can do is leave.  I would be very interested in hearing Wes Clark's assessment of the situation.  Not that I'm going to get that right now but it would be great if we got it.  Imagine the possibilities if Obama hadn't thrown the past Nato commander under the bus!

    [ Parent ]
    In the year and a half (none / 0) (#61)
    by dissenter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    I've been working there I have gone from hopeful to realizing this experiment is going to be a disaster of unimaginable proportions. The difference just from last summer to now is astonishing. The Taliban hasn't hit Kabul yet - really hard anyway - not because they can't but rather because they haven't chosen to. That is what people need to understand. Nobody is investing in that country any longer and they aren't going to.

    We failed and to put 30K more soldiers in there is like putting a band aid on a leaking dam. Without security, you can't reconstruct. That is what many - not you - don't quite get. We don't have enough soldiers to occupy to ground so that we can fix the place...if that was ever even possible.  Every Afghan that works for me has begged me to help them get a job with the US Government so they can get out. Nobody is worried about rebuilding at this point. They are just looking for a way out.

    [ Parent ]

    Those are the stories that tear my heart (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:34:06 PM EST
    up, the stories about the people who have helped us and who may not be taken care of and who will be murdered as soon as possible.  Iraq isn't much different in that respect either.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with everything you say (none / 0) (#63)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    except that I don't think we have a failure option here. If 30K troops in Afghanistan is just a band aid on a Katrina levee, then we need a Plan B that involves either a big, renewed international effort, or a smarter use of our manpower, money and strategy. Preferably both.

    When my Baloch tribal friends talked to me about the U.S. versus the British, they basically told me they thought that Americans are woefully naive. Our "strategy", repeated in so many places, is that you can send in troops and money, declare "freedom" and...voila!...a modern democratic state will just appear like magic.

    The British, on the other hand, were more devious and Machiavellian colonialists. They scoped out all the tribes and the warlords, picked the strongmen they thought they could deal with, then played one group off against the other. They didn't concern themselves with directing a Broadway production called "Democracy" aimed at the international audience.

    The British approach wasn't "nice"--yet these tribal chiefs I spoke to respected them more than us. Even though these guys fight with modern weapons, and use cellphones and GPS, this is a pre-modern macho tribal culture, and any Afghan/Pakistan tribal strategy has to take this into account.

    Our initial success in the Afghanistan invasion was due to very old-school British style intelligent warfare--we sent in our top special ops guys, formed strategic alliances with the leaders of the Northern Alliance and others.
    We need to go back to this approach. It's not going to be clean, or easy, or make lots of people happy, but it is the only way to bring some measure of security back to Afghanistan.

    [ Parent ]

    Spouse just came home from work (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    Says that soldiers have been contacting each other and discussing this all day.  Seems it was a very well organized attack with over 200 attackers involved.  Does not bode well if they were able to conduct this.  If something is going to be done it must be done now and my husband also says that at this point 30,000 may only be what dissenter has said - a band aid on a leaking dam.  No good news coming his way about this at all right now.  I may have been in a optimistic cocoon this morning.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't feel bad (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by dissenter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:41:20 PM EST
    The US Embassy won't notice until the Taliban rings their doorbell:)

    This is what happens when everyone lives behind their walls. They fail to connect with the people on the street. Thus, they fail to see the obvious. Just as they fail to understand that Karzai couldn't be elected again in a rigged election. He is universally hated. And the Parliament is a bunch of thieves and murderers.

    My job is the opposite. I have lots of contact with the street cuz I'm out there every day and you can feel, hear and see the change. I saw this movie before..

    It was called Iraq, 2005.

    As for my Afghans, I lay awake at night trying to find them jobs because I know what is going to happen to them and I want to throw up. I have great affection for them and there are very few I can realistically help. It haunts me.

    [ Parent ]

    I wish I could offer you a portion of (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:07:37 AM EST
    my energy daily, something that could be useful to you in this situation because you seem to be in the thick of it.  For those living at the heart of things such as this, at this point opinions tend to be the least useful things and only actions matter.  And the smallest action can mean so much to many of those surrounding you.

    [ Parent ]
    They found the green-eyed Afghan (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:22:57 AM EST
    girl again....She has had a hard life....

    [ Parent ]
    Here are her (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:46:00 AM EST
    photos and the story of how she was found again.

    [ Parent ]
    Mid-East borders (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:46:14 AM EST
    are arbitrary creations of the British government dating back to 1911, I believe. Same time they mapped out what would become Israel, too, IIRC.

    Afghans are resilient and war-hardened from generations of proxy wars fought on their soil. The USSR collapsed after ten years and tens of thousands troops killed in Afghanistan. One Soviet general was interviewed in an article I read. He said he had never seen such  fearless warriors, who "really know how to die".

    An oil pipeline has been long in the works, but pure folly. A prime sitting duck for insurgents, requiring massive troop protection for any foreseeable future.

    We continue to ignore history and continue to pay a now unbearable price for our willful ignorance.

    [ Parent ]

    no (none / 0) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:08:51 PM EST
    If you win wars you draw borders. They are no more arbitrary than any border you would draw. Draw me better borders.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:23:33 AM EST
    I opposed Iraq from Day 1 but I continue to believe that Afghanistan is a place of critical importance to us.  

    [ Parent ]
    Quite wrong (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:34:46 AM EST
    The mountainous territory does function as a natural border. IMpassable passes are extremely good places to draw borders. They are watersheds, inhospitable, demarlk tribal boundaries and whatnot.

    You are actually refering to the Semi-autonomous tribal areas where the writ of the Pakistani Military does not carry authority.   It's as geographically coherant a border as any other you 'd care to  name.

    [ Parent ]

    Border Fence (none / 0) (#39)
    by koshembos on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:37:08 AM EST
    There is a political border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Splitting tribes and even villages between countries is common all over the world; Europe is full such cases, e.g. Southern Switzerland is more Italian than Sicily.

    One should not confuse an electronic fence with a picket fence. It doesn't have to be visible or consecutive. The Taliban's now are a typical Muslim guerilla movement. You fight it, but a war is a wrong description for this fight.

    We have a war on drugs, war on illegal immigrants, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan. We really have lost  our way and sound frighteningly as a school yard bully.  

    [ Parent ]

    9 Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment