|
|
|
|
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 10:27:56 AM | The U.S. Army recently announced that American and allied soldiers "will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians"
Now I am not hawkish about this war or the one in Iraq (I fell for it at first though), nor do I relish the thought of so called "collateral damage",but as a military man there are two things I wish to point out. One, why tell the enemy your intended tactics? With this knowledge, they will, as sure as I write this, engage the troops with hit and run strategy knowing they will not be pursued if they enter a civilian home. Two: did they not learn anything from Vietnam or Korea. If you insist on fighting a war then fight the bloody thing to win! Do not tie one of our collective hands behind our back for political or feel good reasons. Its our boys and girls that will die because of the "rules". There is one constant rule for combat, and that is, in order to win, there are no rules in combat.
It is becoming clearer to me everyday that our current military situation is more about money than any perceived harm that these two countries may have caused us. Remember, I said at the start of this post that I was originally fully supportive of our efforts, but now I want our kids home. Their lives are not worth this nonsense. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 10:37:51 AM | what scares me is that i believe....[MY theory..nothing more].that the announcement came from the president.
its no secret that i dont like obama......but this is one of the biggest reasons he shouldnt have become president AT THIS TIME......our country is at war......and hes anything but a military leader.....hes pandered to our enimies and snubbed our allies since hes been in office.
i honestly dont want our country to ever be in a war....and it saddens me when any of our service personell are hurt or killed, but we're in it .so we need the leadership to see the job done. korea scares the hell out of me too.
one has to ask...what would reagan or kennedy have done? | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 11:40:17 AM | Do we know why this order is being issued? What are the conditions on the ground that might dictate such a policy? Who ordered the policy... Obama or Petraeus?
I agree completely that you can't fight a war with your hands tied behind your back.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from Vietnam is what went wrong with the South Vietnamese that they were not a resource in locating guerilla fighters? Maybe that lesson was learned since then.
Gains against the insurgency in Iraq came only when the general people of Iraq began to see the insurgents as their enemy rather than US forces. This began when civilian casualties dropped. We began to get information leading us to more targeted operations affecting fewer civilians.
View how in the current Pakistani anti-Taliban offensive the not-s0-long ago loathed military is now supported by the public in the operation against the not-so-long-ago admired Taliban. Because the Taliban became the oppressors of the innocent in the time since the new regime.
In a guerrila war you need the general public to be a resource. They won't be if you're their enemy. You fire on a dwelling with 4 militants and 12 civilians, who are you to them? Hearts and minds is important in such a conflict. Allow the Taliban to become the enemy to the Afghani.
The idea that now the militants will all run to civilian homes doesn't work because they already do this. To them they win the battle even if killed if you kill the civilians too.
Plus Karzai wants civilian casualties to end.
For the question above... what would Reagan and Kennedy have done? Perhaps that should be best phrased as... what DID Reagan and Kennedy do?
Kennedy was Commander In Chief during Vietnam. What did he do there? Didn't win the conflict.
And don't get me wrong, I like Reagan, but when involved in Afghanistan, he supplied the insurgents until the Communists were expelled and then abandoned the Afghanis allowing the Taliban to eventually rise from the resulting anarchy. Essentially this war is the result of Reagan's apathy toward the Afghan people. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 2:20:16 PM | Long harboured by the exquisitely neutral term, "collateral damage," we would do well to embrace updates to the language used to describe war's signiture effect on the local population. Many here who have previously or currently serve in the armed forces would therefore be in a position to correct or corroborate my understanding that the US Navy has forwarded the far more realistic moniker -"excessive death." Refuting the failed notion that war (an activity undertaken by people against other people) can be asceptically conducted upon things like drugs and terror, this designation underscores the essential character of the act, which it's been observed ends, "only after it has roled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction." (L. Breshnev)
Moreover, given we mark and mourn each and every loss of our "fallen heroes," it may be asked how the champions of human rights can so resolutely refuse to count the legions of liberated civilian dead that result from what the Canadian Prime Minister calls, "a noble and necsessary" mission. Again duly noted is the opinion of one who on behalf of the allied forces, was part of the team that prosecuted the Nazi's at Nuremburg. In 2005, from the podium of the United Nations, he called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "crimes against humanity," and the rationalizations of them, "a system of chaos, not a system of law." (Benjamin Forenz)
Compounding tragedy is the belief that any blame can be laid at the feet of those must instantly distinguish between comrades, civilians, unlawful enemy combatants, friends and "scumbags" (Gen R Hillier) through the sights of a rifle levelled into, "the fog of war." Despite unconscionable efforts to expropriate our natural compassion for our friends and family in the military, through the relentless cry to "support our troops," it's understood that (undertaken at the unfettered discretion of government) the decision to engage in war forms no part of the North American electoral agenda. This is to say, no matter how loud or relentless the chourus of "freedom and democracy," neither the soldiers themselves nor their extended family at home were consulted in the matter of their deployment. To surrender the decision to engage in war (arguably the most important decision people can make) to an omnipotent government, fails humanity and democracy in equal measure. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 4:24:27 PM | | I supported both wars up until about 2005 when I started questioning why things were going so badly. I believe these wars are designed to last as long as necessary to position the chess pieces for the real prize all along. The pincer attacks against Iran. Timing is everything. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 4:40:25 PM |
Afghanistan is a shit hole and no matter how many battles are won, the war was lost before it started.
I am guessing everyone is aware that in the history of mankind that Afghanistan (or the lands that are now Afghanistan) has never known prosperity nor peace? They don't strive for it, never expect it, nor would know how to embrace it. In spite of the oppression of Taliban rule it was the first time ever they've seen any semblance of stability.
The Soviet mistake in the 80s and our mistakes in the past with Afghanistan is not understanding their culture. No experience in dealing with other cultures in conflict can prepare one for a conflict in Afghanistan.
But in all of my expressions of opinion, let me do add that I have the greatest respect, admiration, and gratitude for all men and women that have served in the armed forces both during conflict and otherwise. I don't want my disagreements here to come across as disrespectful and ungrateful to those that have lived the experience. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 6:53:56 PM | ..sigh... Afghanistan...
I've seen Kabul with open tree lined streets, sidewalk cafes, music playing in the park... a most extraordinary city with a long history.. warm friendly people when left to be...
that was 6 mths before the Russians moved in in '79...
I had hitched across Turkey, Iran and passed through on my way East... on trucks, busses, sleeping on the roadside, cheap hotels, etc... immersed myself in the places...
never once did I cop any hostility or insults or felt threatened along the way...
quite the reverse really.... I met plenty of wonderful, interested, humble people.. only too willing to share what they had... and weren't after my charity... or cared that I was a "white christian"....
I was in Bamiyan poking around by myself and with the help of a local worked our way through the passages inside the cliff and came out, crossed a thin plank to be standing on top of the large Bhudda statues head and gazed out over the valley of the Hazara people. .. the one the taliban blasted for target practice... grrrrrr
my heart sunk right there seeing that .I imagined myself standing there as the shell hit...... one of the saddest days of my life.....
it gets sadder every time I see new news footage from Kabul.... the crumbled mess, the desperate look in the peoples eyes.... Why?
our Aussie soldiers are up there.... that certainly gives me mixed feelings.... and would rather we kept out of it...
though I understand the vacuum that would leave if the west deserted them yet again.. after promising so much ...
I've always thought it's about getting a safe pipeline route from the Russian oil/gas fields down to India.... cutting the Saudis/Americans out?...
who's with whom, I don't know.... ie.. do the Americans want that to happen?....
Just what are we doing in Afghanistan, really?.... making Opium?.... that seems to be the only thing on the increase since the west moved back in... | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 7:02:31 PM |
Long harboured by the exquisitely neutral term, "collateral damage," we would do well to embrace updates to the language used to describe war's signiture effect on the local population. Many here who have previously or currently serve in the armed forces would therefore be in a position to correct or corroborate my understanding that the US Navy has forwarded the far more realistic moniker -"excessive death."
collateral damage and excessive death mean two entirely different things.
Collateral damage refers to damage that is an artifact of an attack, and unintended .... destroying an adjacent building in addition to the one you targeted, (bad if it's a school, good it it's an ammo dump), or even cratering a road when you take out a tank. Civilian deaths are, indeed, collateral damage - but it is not a euphemism for civilian causalities in any way.
Excessive death is used to describe where you kill more people than you need to achieve your mission objectives. Going into battle and destroying an enemy force by killing 100 of 500 troops is one thing - "finishing" the job by killing the other 400 is excessive - ie, excessive death.
Taking out a bunker in the middle of a city with precision munitions is one thing. Taking out that same bunker with a 50 kiloton nuclear strike would cause excessive death.
I hope you can see the difference between the two terms, and not try to play any further word games to try to equate the two.
Refuting the failed notion that war (an activity undertaken by people against other people) can be asceptically conducted upon things like drugs and terror, this designation underscores the essential character of the act, which it's been observed ends,
Of course war is conducted by people against other people - only an idiot would claim otherwise. What you fail to mention, though is that things like drugs and terror are WHY some people go to war against other people. I would hope that your oversight was unintentional.
"only after it has roled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction." (L. Breshnev)
Nikita Khrushchev, not Brezhnev.
Again duly noted is the opinion of one who on behalf of the allied forces, was part of the team that prosecuted the Nazi's at Nuremburg. In 2005, from the podium of the United Nations, he called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "crimes against humanity," and the rationalizations of them, "a system of chaos, not a system of law." (Benjamin Forenz)
The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were about a lot more than just Nazis killing Jews. To try to give credence to somebody's opinion just because he is Jewish, by trying to paint him as a victum of Nazi excess, is odious as hell.
Compounding tragedy is the belief that any blame can be laid at the feet of those must instantly distinguish between comrades, civilians, unlawful enemy combatants, friends and "scumbags" (Gen R Hillier) through the sights of a rifle levelled into, "the fog of war." Despite unconscionable efforts to expropriate our natural compassion for our friends and family in the military, through the relentless cry to "support our troops," it's understood that (undertaken at the unfettered discretion of government) the decision to engage in war forms no part of the North American electoral agenda.
That's quite the statement, given that the potential or current wars in Iraq and Afganistan were public issues during the last 2 presidential campaigns in the US, and the Canadian elections held during the same period. I'm pretty sure that the voters of both countries took those possibilities into account when they cast their ballots.
This is to say, no matter how loud or relentless the chourus of "freedom and democracy," neither the soldiers themselves nor their extended family at home were consulted in the matter of their deployment. To surrender the decision to engage in war (arguably the most important decision people can make) to an omnipotent government, fails humanity and democracy in equal measure.
See above - your assertion is false on it's face.
Now I would like to say a few things here .... first, wordy, contorted writing is NOT profound, erudite, or intellectual - it's just bad writing. And given that your namesake (I am assuming Noam Chomsky?) is a LINGUIST, I have no doubt his head would explode reading what you wrote.
2nd point - still assuming your some sort of disciple or fan of Chomsky's .... he is one hellova linguist, and deserves every accolade he's ever received in that field.
But why he is held out to be such a great political mind, or a philosopher, is beyond me. His view on politics have about as much weight or authority as those of Albert Einstein's on football. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 7/31/2009 10:15:00 AM | The US and NATO use very heavy firepower in their battles. That is a great thing in hills and forests, but in cities it tends to create more enemies than it kills. What good is it to kill 5 enemies when you destroy people's homes or kill their families and create 25 NEW enemies in the process? Our opponents know this, so of course they will try to engage us in cities where the threat of civilian casualties is very high.
Somalia is a great example of this. We went in in December of 1994 (?) to crowds where were glad to see us, but a few months later they were dragging our dead soldiers through the streets because our tactics had turned most of the population against us. We basically did the same in Iraq except the people weren't glad to see us when we invaded. Only after we focused on the people did things calm down and more of the population start to work with us.
Iraq started to turn around when the US started to focus on security and not fighting the insurgents. It is long past time we started to do that in Afghanistan as well. The only way to defeat a insurgency is to undercut their support, and you don't do that by killing civilians, blowing up their houses or bombing wedding parties because you thought their celebration gunfire was a firefight. When provided with security, the various tribes in Iraq quit fighting us and started protecting their own neighborhoods. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 7/31/2009 10:26:53 AM |
as a military man there are two things I wish to point out
If your questions are an accurate indication, then I am underwhelmed by your military experience
why tell the enemy your intended tactics?
Like they're not going to notice if we don't tell them
Two: did they not learn anything from Vietnam or Korea. If you insist on fighting a war then fight the bloody thing to win!
In VietNam, the military had "free fire zones" where they would should ANYONE who was not a US soldier. 59,000 Americans died in VN. Giving the military a "free hand" only led to more american deaths, which you seem to favor.
There is one constant rule for combat, and that is, in order to win, there are no rules in combat.
That's so dumb I doubt you have any military experience. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:02:20 PM |
so we have almost 60,000 troops in Afghanistan and the army is calling for more. Obama is already taking a pounding from the Right about increased troop levels and spending.
this war was always a bad idea. nobody has ever successfully invaded the place. there is no winning this but at this point we dare not leave for fear the Pakistanis will let there nuclear weapons fall in to the hands of the Taliban.
so what do you think? more troops? a lot more probably. at least a decade probably more of occupation, escalating losses, widening conflict etc. pull out? beat it hope for the best?
our military is already beat to shit. its in serious need of rest and rebuilding.
got ourselves in a sticky wicket here we have.
NY Times today
BAGRAM, Afghanistan — American military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told President Obama’s chief envoy to the region this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limit by Taliban rebels who operate across borders.
The commanders emphasized problems in southern Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents continue to bombard towns and villages with rockets despite a new influx of American troops, and in eastern Afghanistan, where the father-and-son-led Haqqani network of militants has become the main source of attacks against American troops and their Afghan allies.
The possibility that more troops will be needed in Afghanistan presents the Obama administration with another problem in dealing with a nearly eight-year war that has lost popularity at home, compounded by new questions over the credibility of the Afghan government, which has just held an as-yet inconclusive presidential election beset by complaints of fraud.
The assessments come as the top American commander in the country, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has been working to complete a major war strategy review, and as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, described a worsening situation in Afghanistan despite the recent addition of 17,000 American troops ordered by the Obama administration and the extra security efforts surrounding the presidential election.
“I think it is serious and it is deteriorating,” Admiral Mullen said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “The Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated, in their tactics.” He added that General McChrystal was still completing his review and had not yet requested additional troops on top of the those added by Mr. Obama.
The American commanders in Afghanistan spoke this weekend with Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Over the past two days, Mr. Holbrooke visited all four regional command centers in Afghanistan, and the message from all four followed similar lines: while the additional American troops, along with smaller increases from other NATO members, have had some benefit in the south, the numbers remain below what commanders need. The total number of American soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan is now about 57,000. It was unclear whether the commanders told Mr. Holbrooke exactly how many additional troops might be required. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:38:36 PM | the reason for announcing this change in tactic was to win "the hearts and minds of the citizens"
we have killed so many innocents, we wanted to give them a false sence of security, that we really care how many of their citizens we explode
no one has ever won in this region- and mentioning "won" how do WE define winning-
they have had their "election" so wow, it must be a democracy...
word is that democratic process, so called "election" was totally rigged
Afghanistan has become the world's number one heroin supplier and that is with US soldiers there- so what kind of impact are we really having?
we didn't belong in Iraq and we sure don't belong in Afghanistan, apparently that "magical moment" when Americans NOTICE that there is actually a war going on, billions spent, many lives lost and NO results to speak of, interest, what little there was at all, will decline even more and we will sheepishly excuse ourselves and head home- that time is near-
but before that happens, we're going to hear the hawks cry that there aren't enough troops, and they will demand more bodies over there, and then to explain why we didn't win- they'll scream, well, ah ah ah, if we had more troops we would have won, and they won't mention, that this fiasco has been going on for 8 damn years, more than enough time to have won-
and then when it is over, in a couple years more down the road, another foolish reason for going to war will be concocted, a president will want to be known as a war president and here we will go again~ | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:57:01 PM | | A tank, a plane, a bomb. All can destroy, but the only weapon in a Military's aresenal that can clear and hold a single square foot of territory is the infantryman. As long as we allow the infantry of our opponents to safely hole up in homes, we allow them to retain the land we are trying to remove them of. The only way to "win" this is to go door-to-door. I say "win" because I think we have bitten off more than we can chew. The United States trying to bring peace to this corner of the world is like a single swat-team trying to prevent the illegal sale of drugs in Calliope. Lots of people are going to die and nothing will change. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 6:37:42 AM | As usual, Edisto cut to the bone on the truth of Afghanistan and Iraq and our other bloody little wars. Wars waged for US corporate interests will never be able to win the hearts and minds of the invaded. We could not do it in Vietnam and will fail in the Middle East as well.
After the millions of innocent lives slaughtered in Vietnam and our subsequent withdrawal, the Vietnamese have proven to be a forgiving people and our relations are quite civilized these days.
The oil wars are unnecessary, based on lies and have only served to destabilize the world and make us less safe, less self-sustaining, and financially indebted to the Chinese.
The euphemisms contrived to try minimize our shame at the slaughter of innocent lives are mere constructs, designed to keep the hearts and minds of the invaders safe from reality. "Collateral damage" and "excessive deaths" are nothing but mind control for US citizens. These wars have been sanitized for YOUR protection. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:08:35 AM | so thats the Left and the Right agreeing that we're pretty well fooched here.
however the question isn't was this a bad idea (because it undoubtedly was) but what to do now?
any ideas?
get out? stay with more troops?
usually I have a pretty good idea of what to do, but this one has me stumped.
kind of got ourselves in a jam here huh? | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:42:22 AM | | Well OP, there are rules in war. We signed an agreement *Geneva* to fight according to certain conventions. The reason there is so much collateral damage is not because of us. It's because of them. We fight according to our enemies. The ONLY way to stop gurellia type warfare is to start disrupting lives. When someone shoots at us, or sets an IED off. You stop the convoy, hit the battle drill 1A React to Contact, and you go disrupt lives. You kick in doors and you make life miserable for everyone in the neighborhood. Eventually those people will get tired of getting messed with and will start pointing out and standing up against the Taliban. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:50:46 AM |
Well OP, there are rules in war. We signed an agreement *Geneva* to fight according to certain conventions. The reason there is so much collateral damage is not because of us. It's because of them. We fight according to our enemies. The ONLY way to stop gurellia type warfare is to start disrupting lives. When someone shoots at us, or sets an IED off. You stop the convoy, hit the battle drill 1A React to Contact, and you go disrupt lives. You kick in doors and you make life miserable for everyone in the neighborhood. Eventually those people will get tired of getting messed with and will start pointing out and standing up against the Taliban.
man, read some history. these people have had their lives disrupted since Alexander the Great marched through. they've had the Russians kick the hell out of them for a decade and followed it up with a fanatical religious cult, not to mention centuries of drug wars.
"disrupting" their lives is a joke. Afghanistan is not Levittown. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 2:15:18 PM | I have yet to figure out exactly what they mean by their decision with fighting around civilian houses. I'm almost sure until we talk with someone right there ,right now there will be no clear answer. Those who believe the media is ever correct well....
Secondly we have had our hands tied from day one wich has been one of the biggest obstacles fighting. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 2:40:38 PM | Must be Afganistan is now on the evening news more...the US has something like 35k troups in Afganistan or maybe 50K to win that war...you got more cops in NY city than soldiers on the ground in a country. What is the Iraqi war boring now. Wasn't this the original war..the reason why we went. Bin Laden...whos dead. What now, what do we do, tell the masses.
I am pissed off at this war...really pissed off. We send our troups there to free them, to offer them the reality of being yourself, individual...and what does the elected offical say to get voted in...that you can abuse your woman, beat her, that the man is superior. And only a fraction of the girls are able to go to school not because they won't because they still can't. There religious idealism prevails...what a waste of life and time. The military made pacts and treaties with the tribesmen in the north and Heroin is back on the streets in full fashion. The taliban is in part Pakistanis dedicated to allah and theres 70 million of them. You got 50k, hell Canadas got 1k a canoe and a cesna. And these guys are giving it there all...at a high cost. I don't see Afganistan or Iraq as important...its not my business after hearing that guy and his politics over there...Its not just that there women are whipping post, but anything other than what they understand will not be tolerated, state wise anyways. I think we should just leave and let them live the way they want...don't interfer anymore...just go..it isn't worth it. Just look at the orders there giving our men and women over there...put a target on your back. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 3:03:17 PM | The troops are hampered by stupid PC rules of engagement.
If he has an AK47 in his hand he's taliban and can be fired upon.
As soon as he throws the AK47 down and picks up a fork he's a farmer and can't be fired upon. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 4:33:07 PM | Some folks still don't get it. Iraq and Afghanistan were never some noble cause for "freeing the people" or "democracy". It was all pipelines and oils supplies and euros vs. dollars. The people were just pawns, in both the US and in the invaded regions.
As for "PC rules of engagement", can anyone here honestly say that they would play by the rules of engagement of the invaders of our nation(s) when faced with overwelming firepower? Would anyone here not react the same way when their families were terrorized in the middle of the night, when robot drones killed entire families by mistake, or when the invaders acted like thugs blocking commerce, roadways, access to clean water and electricity? The Afghans have a long history of resisting outsiders. Our "democracy" smells just as bad to them as the other excuses to "liberate" them over the centuries. Gunpoint democracy is a sham, a nice cover for our more insideous national interests. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 5:47:59 PM | I respect the President for taking the fight not only to the peole who actually attacked us but to actual misoginists and hypocritical "Muslim" "fundamentalists." A lot different than invading a country like Iraq who we'd actually given tacit approval to use WMDS and the only secular country where women actually went to school and asumed the highest positions in government in a region we were subsequently told we were trying to instill Democracy into.
"War," not occupation, means actually seeking out and destroying the enemy on a regular if not daily basis. The hypocrites of the Bush Administration were either nefarious or unforgiveably myopic, take your choice. | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 5:58:17 PM | We serve only to unite the people of Afghanistan against the US. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...as the old saying goes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/13/world/worldwatch/entry5240954.shtml
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1248188004863&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs/MAELayout
snip..
"Commenting on the Afghan scenario and the future of foreign troops in this landlocked country, analyst Waheed Muzhda said that the best option for NATO countries is to have a timeframe, address the security issue at the earliest, and pull out of Afghanistan.
Muzhda believes that a longer stay would cause more civilian deaths, attracting much popular anger, and hence leading to more support bases for the Taliban.
He foresees more violence in days ahead as militants have now extended their operations to the northern and western zones of the country, once considered peaceful and out-of-the-reach of the Taliban.
The similar apprehensions were recently shown by the UN special envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide and a NATO commander, who both admitted that the Taliban have spread to the northern zone.
As for violence, Muzhda said that there was no solution to the problem. "Kill one and it would create 10 more," he added. Muzhda asked for talks through tribal elders with all those who are ready to talk.
He also suggested the establishment of Afghan troops — both police and army — and providing Afghan youth with jobs, who in many areas either become drug addicts or turn to Taliban to become their foot soldiers.
According to a recent survey, corruption, civil war, and warlordism are the biggest problems of Afghans. More than half of the Afghan population lives below the poverty line, with 40 percent are unemployed." | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:22:49 PM | | Yet another cover my eyes and hope it goes away perspective | |
|
| Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:46:39 PM | I'm curious to know where you picked up that U.S Army statement. Can you please provide a direct link to it?
The 1st respondent to your thread mentions his distaste for Obama. I admit, I'm not particularly fond of how he keeps borrowing money to pay for bailouts. In the 1st respondent's posting, he mentioned that "Obama snubs our allies". Which allies has he snubbed?
I am 100% in favor of this war, as sad as it is written. For 8 years osama and his nutjobs are still out there. How many times will we have to listen to the head of CIA( and no Panetta didn't say this, his predecessor did) say "we know where osama is". If you knew/ow where he is/was, then go get him. Just don't flap your jaws blowing hot air up the American Public's a**. If it takes 40k more troops with boots on the ground to find this coward than I'm all for it. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
