Time has an interesting article about how we are getting bogged down in a civil war in Aghanistan. We are now fighting to maintain our hand picked government against local warlords, some of whom were recently our allies agsinst the Taliban. Arms are flowing to our opponents through Pakistan. Interestingly it looks a lot like what happened to the Russians when they were in Afganistan and defending their guys against their rivals. This is a very likely scenario for Iraq after we defeat Sadam and put in our guy. Looks like Vietnam quagmire all over again to me. Of course we could always declare victory, with Sadam killed, if we can find him and leave Iraq, declare victory. We could leave Iraq in a bloody intertribal genocdal mess. The Brits used to do this type of thing. ************** The U.S. concedes it has lost momentum in Afghanistan, while its enemies grow bolder By TIM MCGIRK AND MICHAEL WARE SCOTT NELSON/GETTY IMAGES SWEEPING THROUGH: U.S. soldiers raid the village of Naray, looking for weapons and foes CNN: Latest World News Monday, Nov. 11, 2002 If the U.S. has won the war in Afghanistan, maybe somebody should tell the enemy it's time to surrender. The bad guys are still out there, undetectable in the rocky, umber hills of eastern Afghanistan — until they strike, which they do with growing frequency, accuracy and brazenness. These days American forward bases are coming under rocket or mortar fire three times a week on average. Apache pilots sometimes see angry red arcing lines of tracer bullets rising toward their choppers from unseen gunners hidden in Afghanistan's saw-blade ridges. Roads frequented by special forces are often mined with remote-controlled explosives, a new tactic al-Qaeda fighters picked up from their Chechen comrades fighting the Russians. With phantom enemy fighters stepping up attacks and U.S. forces making little headway against them, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt compelled to acknowledge last week, "We've lost a little momentum there, to be frank." Is Afghanistan slipping out of America's control? It's an especially relevant question at a time when Pentagon planners are holding up Afghanistan as a template for possible "regime change" in Iraq. Failure to pacify Afghanistan could make it tougher for the Bush Administration to sustain support for a new war against Saddam Hussein. "If Afghanistan falls," says an Army officer in Washington, "Iraq just got that much harder." LATEST COVER STORY Hunt for Osama Nov. 25, 2002 Past Issues G.O.P Victory Nov. 18, 2002 ----------------- The Womb Nov. 11, 2002 ----------------- Pot Politics Nov. 4, 2002 ----------------- Al-Qaeda Oct. 28, 2002 ----------------- Science and Crimes Oct. 21, 2002 ----------------- New Homes Oct. 14, 2002 ----------------- Headaches Oct. 7, 2002 ----------------- Abraham Sept. 30, 2002 ----------------- Al-Qaeda Sept. 23, 2002 ----------------- Iraq's Future Sept. 16, 2002 ----------------- 9/11 Anniversary Sept. 9, 2002 ----------------- The Fat Riddle Sept. 2, 2002 ----------------- Green Century Aug. 26, 2002 ----------------- Young and Bipolar Aug. 19, 2002 TIME IN-DEPTH Politics of Pot Best Inventions PHOTO GALLERIES Where is Osama? On Patrol with 82nd Airborne Girl Culture More Photos >>> MORE STORIES Inspections: To Catch A Cheat Nation: Democratic Dark Horse? Society: Hotels Of Whim And Vigor More Stories >>> DAILY E-MAILS Sign up today and get the latest news delivered to your inbox CNN.com: Top Headlines The fear of failure in Afghanistan has lately prompted some hard new thinking in both Washington and Kabul. General Myers' candid remarks to the Brookings Institution suggests the Pentagon is trying to be more creative in its pursuit of stability in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, for his part, flashed some atypical steel last week when he fired 15 provincial officials, all of them connected to powerful warlords, on charges of abusing authority, corruption and drug trafficking. Until now Karzai has avoided conflict with the various local potentates, who often ignore the national government. Diplomats in Kabul say Karzai can enforce his announced purge only if the U.S. backs him. After all, two men on Karzai's list of wrongdoers — the intelligence chiefs of Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif — are tough characters whom the U.S. has used as proxies in the war against al-Qaeda. U.S. policy had been to avoid involvement in what it calls "green on green" fighting in Afghanistan: conflicts between militias at least theoretically loyal to the new government. But lately U.N. officials in Afghanistan say they have witnessed a sea change in the American attitude. The new stance was illustrated most vividly last month when U.S. paratroopers seized an enormous cache of weapons and ammo--42 truckloads full — belonging to Pacha Khan Zadran, a chieftain in eastern Afghanistan. Zadran was supposed to be a U.S. ally, but U.S. intelligence officers say Zadran was selling weapons on the side to al-Qaeda. U.S. officers suspect that some of the al-Qaeda rockets now careering into American forward bases near Khost came from Zadran's fire sale. The Americans destroyed many of the weapons they seized and gave the rest to the nascent Afghan national army. Even without Zadran's stores, al-Qaeda and Taliban survivors clearly have the capacity to keep fighting. U.S. forces have managed to uncover a number of arms depots in the eastern part of Afghanistan, where the enemy is still active, still the weapons flow has not ceased. Says a senior Afghan military figure in Paktika province on the border: "Here, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have no shortage of weapons; they're channeling them in from Pakistan." Afghan intelligence officials believe the Taliban and al-Qaeda have set up a network along the border of what the military calls "enablers," those who provide money, hide weapons and spy on U.S. troop movements. The Taliban, they say, have secretly re-established councils throughout most of Paktika province. Lately the enemy has grown better and bolder. A bunker at a U.S. base in Lawara was hit last month by an incoming rocket. There were no casualties, but it was the first time such a hit-and-run attack had scored. Six days later, a rocket was launched at the U.S. special forces' Chapman Army airfield at 10 a.m. It was the first daytime rocket attack since the Taliban's collapse continued
And glynch, your proposal to 'fix' the situation is what exactly? yawn...yet another example of Democrats complaining and offering no solutions... Didn't the midterms teach you anything? sigh
Does it matter that Time never says we are losing the war in Afghanistan? Is your thread title silly, biased, and misleading?
t4, there's a pattern here. All your post claim bias and little else. I guess it saves thinking. BTW ever heard of a question mark? It can imply doubt or uncertainty.
Your thread title is misleading, because it insinuates that Time magazine is asking that question- which they are not.
It is an interesting article. You hear about Karzai asking for more funds and support and I guess no one takes the newsbyte seriously. If we're going to half ass our way into Afghanistan by bribing warlords who don't even know what human rights or democracy is, and not sending in the needed resources that an emerging third world government would need to survive, then we should just pull out all together and cut our losses...
Thanks, Invisible Fan, for a post relating to this crucial topic. If one tries to step aside from party affiliations (I know it's a radical thought), this is a serious issue no matter how you look at it. Without infrastructure or a viable economy, Afghanistan will most likely return to its status (or retain its status, really) as a blighted land of misery and a breeding ground for extremism. What can we do? Most nations want to turn their backs on a sticky and expensive problem. Can the US really pick up the bill? Some would say we're obligated since we are primarily responsible for the fall of the Taliban (no offense to the northern Allicance intended). But money is not the entire answer, of course. How do you "reset" a culture that has come to live with war as a modus operandi? And the question is definitely relevant to Iraq. Most of us admit there will probably be a war where we topple Saddam. What comes after? In previous threads, it has been noted that some top officials consider General Tommy Franks as a viable interim leader in Iraq. While that sounds like a horrible idea, the Afghanistan "model" doesn't look too peachy either.
Personally I was in favor of roasting Pakistan, too. Religious extremists and nukes doesn't seem like a sensible combination. I think Pakistan ever holds an election Muslim extremists would win in a landslide. As for the bill for the coming Iraq war: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0926/p03s01-usec.html heck, even the Russians are having fun with this: http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/18/39613.html There's an article printed today (couldn't find it) that says the US economy collapses in the long term due to high GNP percentage to military by US and no other country. Similiar to other empire's collapsing in the past for the same reason.
On a more positive note...full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,838892,00.html?=rss ============================================ Was it worth it? Polly Toynbee was one of the most robust liberal supporters of the war on Afghanistan. Does she still think we did the right thing? One year after the fall of Kabul, we sent her there to find out. Wednesday November 13, 2002 The Guardian So was it worth it after all? The daisy-cutters and the cluster bombs, the misguided missiles butchering wedding parties while al-Qaida slipped away? Now, a year after Kabul fell as the Taliban left their hot dinners on the front line and ran, was it worth the killing of anything from 800 to 3,000 men, women and children? Of course it was, said everyone I asked. They all had their grotesque Taliban tales. "Right there, bodies hanging, rotting, stinking!" said a trader in Chicken Street, the tourist trinket centre. Taliban horror stories poured out of everyone, unstoppable like water from a broken tap: "I was walking with my cousin and her husband outside here," said another man. "The vice and virtue police beat them both with big sticks, beat them to pieces, blood everywhere, because her ankles showed too much under her burka. I stood there, ashamed, but there was nothing I could do. I didn't go out after that." He was a young Pashtun and no friend of this new mainly Tajik government, but he had no doubt that the Americans did the right thing. ... Chasing away the Taliban has shown that ordinary people, given half a chance, choose music, dancing and kites over the extremes of life-denying fundamentalism. Just as the rich world has a duty to feed the starving, open up trade and help development, so we also have a duty to free people from monstrous oppression wherever there is a chance of doing them more good than harm by intervention. So far, here, there is no doubt that good has been done. But the prospect of lasting peace and respect for human rights in this desperate place hangs by a hair. All the old dark fundamentalist forces are waiting for Karzai to fail: only more money and deep commitment over many years offer any hope of keeping them at bay. Afghanistan needs far more money than the Karzai's disgraceful $460m for next year (roughly the same sum as the British treasury has wasted on drawing up contracts for the London tube public/private partnership.) It is incumbent on all those of us who supported the war to keep the world's brief and fickle attention focused on the task of trying to build a nation from the rubble.
Still the Guardian points out we haven't rebuilt or built Afghanistan up. Lots of articles for some reason pointing out their dissatisfaction with the rebuilding effort. We either do that or stay there forever like South Korea (so far). We need to start getting at improving the lot of folks so they have something to lose by a suicide mission, not nothing to lose.
That's a bittersweet article, Buck. But what the young man with the blown-away face said was this: "This is what we have returned to! We were promised by the world that if we fought the Russians for you, you would look after us, but you didn't. Then we fought the Taliban and al-Qaida, and now look at us, here on this hillside in the mud, the winter coming and our children will die of cold. Where is your help now?"
