I have been checking http://www.drudgereport.com for recent news... check this story out from the U.K. Anarchy as Taliban Lose Control Looks like things are getting crazy in Kabul!! Here's the story: Anarchy as Taliban lose control By Ahmed Rashid (Filed: 21/09/2001) Law and order was breaking down in Kabul yesterday as Taliban soldiers and poverty-stricken civilians carried out armed daylight robberies and looted houses left empty by people who have fled. In many areas of the Afghan capital, discipline among the Taliban appeared to be collapsing ahead of an expected American assault. "Armed men are entering people's homes under the guise of checking to see if they have arms, are watching a film or listening to music [both banned activities]," said one resident. "The owner of the house lets them in because he has nothing to hide. Then he and the male family members are rounded up and the women are forced to hand over cash or jewellery." Another complained: "I have lost everything." Crime was almost stamped out in Kabul after the Taliban seized it in 1996. They cut the limbs off thieves or hanged them from lamp posts. Bringing law and order back to an anarchic country was one of the main reasons for the Taliban's early popularity. The breakdown of law and order demonstrates the rapid collapse of the militia's hierarchy. It appears that soldiers are no longer obeying their officers.
WIRE: 09/21/2001 9:57 am ET Afghan Opposition in Heavy Fighting with Taliban KABUL (Reuters) - Fierce fighting raged in northern Afghanistan on Friday as Taliban troops battled opposition forces seeking revenge for the assassination of their leader and taking advantage of threats of U.S. strikes. The latest battle broke out on Thursday in a region south of Balkh and in Dara-i-suf in neighboring Samangan province where the opposition Northern Alliance, headed by Burhanuddin Rabbani, reported the capture of several Taliban posts and dozens of villages, sources told Reuters. The leader of Afghanistan's Uzbek minority, General Rashid Dostum, also joined the fray, sending his force toward the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif to fight the Taliban. With the world focusing on how the Taliban respond to demands from the United States to hand over wanted fugitive Osama bin Laden, the puritanical Islamic movement's opponents have been stepping up their activities inside the country. "The operation does not belong to the United States attack or some reaction," said Soleh Muhammad Registani, the Alliance's military attach in Tajikistan on Afghanistan's northern border. "But it is a good opportunity to begin fighting against the Taliban because they are so concerned about this reaction that they are moving from place to place." The United States has vowed to hunt down bin Laden -- who lives as a "guest" of the Taliban -- and punish his protectors. On Friday, the Northern Alliance said it had driven the Taliban out of Dara-i-suf -- which lies on a strategic Taliban south-north supply line -- but they had struck back with air power. "After our victories, the Taliban launched a massive counterattack with help of their air force but so far they have not succeeded in regaining any of the lost ground," spokesman Ashraf Nadeem told Reuters. He spoke by satellite phone from within the five percent of Afghanistan controlled by the opposition. Nadeem said "dozens" of Taliban fighters had been killed, while Northern Alliance casualties were put at four dead and 10 wounded. The figures could not be verified because of the remoteness of the rugged region. The Taliban confirmed fighting had erupted in the area but gave no other details. The Northern Alliance suffered a major blow last week when two suicide assassins posing as Arab journalists fatally wounded military commander General Ahmad Shah Masood. The next day hijackers seized four aircraft in the United States and flew three of them in suicide attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. Bin Laden has been linked to both plots. Uzbek leader General Dostum, meanwhile, had concentrated a huge force in the north, his aides said. The Alliance's military attach said the aim of the offensive was to seize Mazar-i-Sharif. Dostum rose through the ranks of the Afghan army after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and switched sides several times as the country's government changed. In 1998, Dostum had to flee Afghanistan after Taliban forces took over territories in the north populated by ethnic Uzbeks. Earlier this year he joined the Northern Alliance.
I feel almost as bad for Alfghans as I do for the families of WTC\Pentagon\PA victims. Nobody deserves such a deplorable, sadistic "regime" in their country. If our troops could accomplish just one thing, I hope that it would be to destroy the Taliban and return Afghanistan to its people.
General Dostum and his rebels will be a major ally of ours. I don't know if all of our goals are the same but they want the Taliban out and are willing to help us with Bin Laden. Our biggest threat in Afganistan is the territory and Dostum and his men know the terrain as well as anyone. Seems like a great alliance we should make, but I'm not sure what the rebels other goals may be, if any.
Taliban: 'We'll Never Surrender' Afghanistan's ruling Taliban has vowed never to give in if the US starts attacking its country after George W Bush warned them to either surrender Bin Laden or share his "fate". The government's ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salaam Zaeef said: "It would be a showdown of might. We will never surrender to evil and might." He also claimed the request by Islamic clerics in Afghanistan to Osama bin Laden to leave the country was not binding on the government. Afghan revolution The statement came as the Taliban reiterated that it would not hand over the Saudi dissident without evidence of wrongdoing. <b>There have also been reports that the US wants to start a revolution in Afghanistan which would overthrow the Taliban and restore the exiled king to power. The Guardian said on Friday that Washington was pressing its European allies to fall in behind a US-led military campaign to topple the Taliban. It claimed the leak came from a senior European politician in Washington.</b> 'Rise up' The source said cables from the Washington embassy of a major Nato country asked for allied views on "post-Taliban Afghanistan after the liberation of the country". <b>The paper says Washington is planning and funding the return of the exiled 86-year-old monarch of Afghanistan, King Zahir Shah, who has lived in Rome for the past three decades. US intelligence found he would have popular support in Afghanistan. "The King plans to call on all the Afghan tribes to rise up against the Taliban," the diplomatic cable reported.</b> The Taliban are seen in the West as one of the world's most undesirable leaderships - sheltering Islamic terrorists, imposing strict sharia law on their people, as well as poverty causing thousands of refugees, and running the world's biggest heroin-export industry.
Why in the world would we restore some 90-year-old king to power in Afghanistan? Let the people rule themselves. Don't exchange an oligarchy/theocracy for a monarchy.
Maybe because the<b> life expectancy of a male in Afghanistan is 46 years</b>, and the dude is way beyond that.
Didn't someone mention on this board that the Northern Alliance was almost as bad as the Taliban (but less strict)? Is that true?
<B>Why in the world would we restore some 90-year-old king to power in Afghanistan? Let the people rule themselves. Don't exchange an oligarchy/theocracy for a monarchy.</B> When the people rule themselves after a nightmare like they've been living, its very easy for a psycho (ie, Hitler) to take control. There's also the danger of a military coup. With a popular King, you've got strong support, hopefully from the military as well. Also, he's lived in the West for 30 years, meaning there's a good chance he could implement Western reforms based on his experiences. I think its definitely a great start.
You're just exchanging one dictator for another, shanna. That is what we did when we supported the Taliban's take over in the first place. Where did that get us? And I mentioned his age because it seems doubtful that he will live many more years. When the king dies, no doubt a power struggle would erupt, anyway. Not to mention the possibility of a military coup against an elderly ruler, before he dies, taking advantage of his perceived weakness. My thought is that if we are going to pick a new government for Afghanistan, give them one that we, ourselves, would want.
The Taliban just joined Osama bin Laden on the "My life expectancy just dropped 95%" list. I'm telling you, I would be really surprised if the U.S. has to send in a huge force. The majority of this is going to be done politically, financially, in the dark, in the dirt, inside jobs, and "starving" the terrorist and cutting off trade routes. This is going be a war of the minds more then a war of military forces.
<B>My thought is that if we are going to pick a new government for Afghanistan, give them one that we, ourselves, would want.</B> If we put in a government of our choice, it can be portrayed as western imperialism and breed a whole new generation of terrorists. By putting in an already-popular government, you do give the country back to the people, since that's the guy they support. I guess a part of it is what kind of leader was this guy when he was their king? Was he a benevolent leader? Or a tyrannical-type?
I guess a part of it is what kind of leader was this guy when he was their king? Was he a benevolent leader? Or a tyrannical-type? Good questions. If he was benevolent then that weighs in his favor, in terms of acceptance. Of course 30 years is a long time. Also, I wouldn't trust "U.S. intelligence" on the issue farther than I could throw it, at this point. I look at implementing a democracy in Afghanistan not as forcing a government on them, but as letting them choose one themselves. How else can we turn the country over to its people than by an election? If they want to elect a dictator, a king, a pope, or Pauly Shore, at least they would be making the call.
SamCassell: We've backed benevolent dictatorships many times in the past. Which is far better than the fascist, repressive regimes we've also backed. In Morocco, for instance, the people love their king, who allows a great deal of economic and social freedom, and even some freedom of speech. Their current monarch, who ascended to the throne two years ago, is actually quite liberal, and is considering instituting democratic reforms. His father was less liberal, but still quite popular, and certainly not repressive. The Moroccan regime is hopefully the sort that the US would be seeking to install. The same thing is true in Tunisia, except their monarchs utterly despise religious fundamentalists and allow less freedom of speech. Still, they ensure a safe environment for their citizens, and don't seem to be repressive in everyday life. Sure, democracy is great... but that would be a huge step up from the Taliban.
Benevolent dictatorship <> Constitutional Monarchy. Morocco has a King, Prime Minister (appointed by the King) and Parliament. Tunisia is actually a Republic. It has a President, Prime Minister and Legislature. Regardless, just because we have done it in the past does not mean that we should continue the habit.
