German Soldiers killed in Kabul-stop the euro bashing.

tragic story, stupid commentary

 

The administration has a beef with the current French and German leadership, not the French and German people.

For you to use the deaths of these German troops to make a political point is truly classless and disgusting.

 

No what's classless and disgusting is the US totally forgetting our obligations to the first nation we attacked in our WOT.

Hey that’s pretty good!

WOT? What?

 

Did we really attack the entire nation?

How many Americans are still in Afghanistan?

 

From the article:

It doesn't seem like we are forgetting our obligations at all.

 

CARE urges President Bush to reinstate crucial funding for Afghan reconstruction

ATLANTA (August 14, 2002) - CARE urges President Bush to release $174 million in congressionally approved money for reconstruction and refugee assistance in Afghanistan. "Disallowing this modest amount of funding for Afghanistan is penny-wise and pound foolish," CARE President Peter Bell declared, following President Bush's announcement yesterday that he intends to disallow $5.1 billion of the Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation recently passed by Congress.

Included in these cuts is funding critically needed to assist returning Afghan refugees and to accelerate the pace of reconstruction. The funding for Afghan reconstruction ($134 million) and refugee assistance ($40 million) approved by Congress represents 3 percent of the $5.1 billion that President Bush has indicated he will not release.

"Afghanistan is at a critical crossroads, and now is the time to step up economic assistance. To cut assistance at this time could undermine the government of President Karzai and the credibility of the U.S. The people of Afghanistan should not be caught in the crossfire in the budget battle between the White House and Congress," Bell said.

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/8c0e518b04f9df4e85256c15007324c4?OpenDocument

The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in the latest budget.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm

In terms of funding and reconstruction, Afghanistan was to be the recipient of a 21st century Marshall Plan. To date, this has yet to come to fruition, and much of the country, despite some successful projects, remains without hope. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has seen only $20 million of the $194 million pledged for the country this year. In total, $4.5 billion was pledged to the country in Tokyo last year through 2004; not only is that figure grossly inadequate, many donors are reluctant to follow through on their commitments. However, it is not only a matter of money that is cause for despair in Afghanistan. For example, Afghanistan has once again become the world's leading source of opium as production has surged under Karzai after a lull under the Taliban. Even the liberation of Afghan women seems to have been a false hope, according to a recent UN report: "Intimidation and violence by regional and local commanders against women continues unabated. Taliban-like restrictions continue to be applied to women in some parts of the country." In fact, many girls' schools have also been attacked or bombed in the past year.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/03/11/opinion/7576.shtml

 

Well you just take the income from being the worlds leading supplier of opium, you put that toward the reconstruction, and presto, problem solved.

 

teach a man to fish huh?



sorry to derail your thread sam.

Think I'll go open a bottle of french wine.

 

Back where it started

ONE VERSION of the Afghan narrative goes like this:

When American forces toppled the Taliban, they delivered the Afghan people from the clutches of a profoundly cruel and medieval regime. But having destroyed the old order, the United States let loose a plague of warlordism and ordinary thievery - and, as the agent of change, has the obligation to see things through now and help restore Afghanistan as a viable nation.

In its own way, it's a perfectly legitimate perspective on Afghan reality, but it misses something essential. Here's a variation:

When American forces toppled the Taliban, they were carrying out a mission to destroy the terrorist network that had attacked the United States just two months earlier. But the job there still isn't done, and the failure of the U.S. government to maintain its focus on Afghanistan has allowed warlordism and drug trading to flourish and opened the door to a revival of anti-American terrorism. For its own sake, Washington has the obligation to see things through now and help restore Afghanistan as a viable nation.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/bal-ed.afghan29may29,0,1102697.story?coll=bal-pe-opinion

 

Fate of Afghanistan hangs precariously in the balance

| By Atiq Sarwari and Robert Crews | 21-05-2003

With the United States preoccupied with Iraq, the fate of its previous object of liberation – Afghanistan – hangs precariously in the balance.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld arrived in Kabul this month to signal a shift in U.S. priorities from "major combat" to "stability." But within days of his announcement, multiple guerrilla attacks forced the United Nations to suspend mine-clearing operations.

Increasingly bold and frequent strikes by opponents of Hamid Karzai's government have since targeted Afghan and the United States and other foreign soldiers. Last Saturday, American warplanes engaged Taliban troops after a deadly ambush near Khost.

Eighteen months after the fall of the Taliban regime, the threat of renewed mass violence haunts Afghanistan. Veteran mujahideen like Gulbuddin Hikmatyar have declared war against the U.S.-backed government. Taliban leaders have also resurfaced, backed by supporters in Pakistan.

These fighters and their foreign sponsors bear responsibility for jeopardising the gains of the post-Taliban era. But they are not alone.

A flawed reconstruction plan is perpetuating this insecurity, destabilising the region and undermining the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign.

Instability stems from the manner in which the government was formed.

The United States wagered the stability of the nation on Karzai, a Pashtun, and his Tajik rivals from a small region north of the capital.

In a reversal of two centuries of Afghan history, power now resides not with rulers from Pashtun tribes, with the exception of Karzai, but with a narrow Tajik élite that controls the ministries of defence, intelligence and foreign affairs.

Ignored outside Kabul, the president rarely appears in the capital. The United States blames Karzai's isolation on regional warlords and is pressing him to move against them, hinting that U.S. forces may assist him.

However, these charges conceal a more complex story behind Karzai's weakness. Although the United States secured a loyal executive in Karzai, it failed to forge a coalition broad enough to integrate Afghanistan's varied regions. With 200,000 men under arms (some provided by the United States for operations against Al Qaida), local commanders now have little incentive to co-operate.

Enriched by control of the drug trade and customs duties, they oppose demobilisation. Afghanistan's past also makes these commanders wary of surrendering their autonomy. Pashtun governments have long used a heavy hand to impose their will. Hazara, Uzbek and other tribal or ethnic communities remain anxious about a national army, which previous regimes used to bully various groups.

These communities nervously await a new constitution to see whether it provides for federalism and equality between Sunnis and Shiites.

The scarcity of reconstruction aid contributes to this warlordism. Although the national army, which pays its members just $30 a month, must struggle to keep even half its recruits, militias thrive.

Herat Gov. Ismail Khan supports 40,000 soldiers and a solid infrastructure.

Until real aid arrives, Afghans will keep their AK-47 rifles. And without funding for crop substitution, farmers will preserve the country's status as the world's leading opium producer.

Action against Khan and other regional élite won't solve the problems that sap the legitimacy of Karzai's government. For one thing, the government was never equipped to address the humanitarian crisis, or even to provide the capital with a steady flow of electricity.

Half a million are internally displaced. Only 20 per cent of the population has clean water. Land mines kill 100 villagers and injure 500 monthly.

Although a new reconstruction plan promises $200 for every family, many will not see this money for three years. The Pentagon's Provincial Recons-truction Teams are operating in only three of 32 provinces.

The interim government faces a growing number of critics. Human rights groups, long critical of the warlords, have charged members of Karzai's government with threatening journalists and expelling Pash-tuns from the north. Other officials stand accused of nepotism. In Kabul, protesters denounce the government and the United States.

Disillusioned Afghans now cast doubt on U.S. plans for the establishment of a democratic government representative of this diverse society – the very matrix of the U.S. vision for Iraq. The fortunes of the anti-terrorism campaign are tied to Karzai's narrow base.

U.S. policy-makers suggest that U.S. troops may withdraw next year, when elections are scheduled to take place. Yet they have not created a mechanism to hold neighbouring states accountable for pursuing their rivalries at the expense of Afghanistan.

Without such an international agreement, improvements in the security and humanitarian situation and meaningful incentives and guarantees for broader power-sharing, a wider war threatens the region. Afghanis-tan and its neighbours must be pulled from the brink and their lessons learned for Iraq.

Atiq Sarwari is programme associate at the Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Robert Crews is a fellow in international studies at the Library of Congress' John W. Kluge Center.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=88183

 

I agree with some of your points.

I feel that we are overlooking the French and German assistance in the War on Terror in Afghanistan. If I remember correctly, the French gave significant air support only dwarfed by our own.

They simply did not, as much of this country did not, feel that Iraq posed enough of a threat to invade the nation. I don't think thats Anti-American, I just don't feel they were justified in this battle.

 

I don't understand the part about the scarcity of reconstruction aid, yet Ismail Khan supports 40,000 soldiers and has a solid infrastructure in Herat. Does it mean that if there was a huge increase of aid to the central government, it would enable it to have a military force that could defeat the 40,000 soldiers in Herat? Does it mean that an increase of reconstruction aid to the central government will <b>inspire</b> Ismail Khan to simply disband his 40,000 soldiers?

If money is a problem in Afghansitan, then how is Ismail Khan supporting 40,000 soldiers? With Afghanistan's population roughly one tenth of the United States, those 40,000 men in Herat equate to 400,000 soldiers in the United States. Considering that the US military has roughly 1.4 million men & women on active duty, the 40,000 is a truly outlandish number.

 

"Old Europe" is a euphemism for anyone that doesn't agree with the US.

It's just a right wing conservative tactic they use in the media to get the conservatives riled up (especially those that fought in WWII).

Freedom fries this, or French Fries that...

Similar to how the conservatives are able to switch from "Freedom Fighters" to "Terrorist" in a split second based on political agendas.

It's all a game.

And the conservative public are the cheerleaders. And the current White House knows it.

As all parties in the past had. They know how to "play the public."

Remember, once you achieve national loyalty, you can manipulate them. In good and bad ways.


P.S. In reallity, if there's anyone that "Old" anything, it's Bush with his "Axis of Evil" stament. That phrase would have done well in the 40's. But not today.

 

That's right. Most people (Mall of America crowd) can't read between the lines.

They like clear cut, black and white...

To them, "International Bogeymen" is easy to understand.

It's Hollywood.

Of course, we all know that the "Mall of America" learn about culture and history from movies anyways...



Heh...