Canadians in Afghanistan

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by AlternateGray

Don't get me wrong. I am definitely pro-Israel. For one thing, Israel has political values that are fairly close to ours, or at least compatible. For another, while mistakes have been made on both sides, Israel continues to compromise in one way or another to work towards peace, whereas some of their opposition (I believe this came from Hamas) swear that there will be no peace until every infidel is gone from Jerusalem. It's hard to identify with, or sympathize with, an attitude like that. Insane fanatacism. Let's face it. Israel could quickly secure Jerusalem, all of it, along with any disputed territory, any time they chose. They've been pretty tolerant, all things considered.

While it IS a major problem that Hamas is in control of the palestinian government, Israel knows that it would just generally be a bad move for everyone to crack down too hard on the palestinians... because A.) most are unthreatening civilians and B.) the rest of the area would come down on them SO hard...

I still say cut all all finances until all terrorist actions by Hamas ends.

[AlternateGray]

Pashtun dominance of Afghanistan is nothing new, and while the other tribes resent it, it doesn't seem to trigger the xenophobia that Afghanis have acquired from being screwed with by foreign powers for centuries. Heavy Arab and Pakistani influence (especially Arab/Saudi- the Afghanis in general view the Saudis as wealthy, racist, arrogant, fanatic, and up to no good) in the upper heirarchy of the Taliban spawned mistrust and resentment, even among the Pashtun tribe- their cause got hijacked. Also, later on many of the Taliban's foot soldiers (effectively the day-to-day face of the organization to the populace) were Pakistani.
An interesting ground-level view of how the Taliban were perceived by the civilians (urban, anyway- rural and urban Afghanis are very different in culture and views) is in the book, "My Forbidden Face". I don't remember the author's name, and it's a little overdramatic in some parts, but it's a young woman's account of the Taliban's rise to power during her teenage years and how it affected her and her family's lives.

Someday I'll go to college and my grammar will be *somewhat* straight; until then, y'all are gonna have to suffer with it.

[warch]

Taliban = evil, murderous, deluded, vicious...the worst of humanity. Crimes against humanity.
I say as an angry liberal, progressive: If they refuse to surrender and stand down, take them out, no mercy, meet your maker.

My problem with Bush is less his rhetoric and more what I perceive to be his incompetence as commander and chief. Yes, I am just an ignorant citizen funding the war effort, but why weren't al queda and the Taliban crushed into oblivion, and Bin Laden captured when the CIA had them lined up and in their sites in years ago? Where was the swift justice? Where were the troops? diverted to Iraq?

[xoxoxoBruce]

You answered your question in the sentence preceding it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

Taliban = evil, murderous, deluded, vicious...the worst of humanity. Crimes against humanity.
I say as an angry liberal, progressive: If they refuse to surrender and stand down, take them out, no mercy, meet your maker.

Replace "Taliban" with "American Indian" and the logic has not changed. Replace "Taliban" with "VietCong" and the logic has not changed. In all cases, the logic failed to first do what Kennedy repeatedly demanded.

What does he see? What is he being told? What is his objective? As noted so many times, evil only exists when god is on our side. IOW - 'evil' does not really exist. They have a perspective on life that is not consistant with ours. Nothing more.

Remember what the Taliban consider as the advancement of mankind: greater glory of god - their religion imposed upon all other people. Whereas that concept might be described as evil, instead, it is what happens when cultures or objectives collide.

Taliban are only doing what any religion does when it must be imposed on all others. What is happening today is no different from so many years previous - ie Spanish Inquisition.


For example, in 2005, the road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:

The 19th century British fort that dominates the skyline above Qalat offers an easy reference point for low flying Apache helicopters heading for the America base near the town, the capital of Afghanistan's southern province of Zabul. Yet despite being backed by impressive foreign muscle, the government's control of Qalat barely reaches the city limits. ... Zabal remains Taliban country.

From 4 Oct 2003 The Economist:

The tinsel-clad petrol station at the edge of Maydan Shahr, a desert town west of Kabul, feels like a portal to another and more dangerous country. Aid wokers stop here to check tyres and oil on their jeeps. They do not want to break down. Ahead is southern Afghanistan - a bloody mess that is getting bloodier. Armed attacks on aid agencies in the south, once sporadic, are now daily. Such attacks used to extend only to a pistol whipping. The new rules for those stopped by insurgents are more brutal. If you are a foreigner you will be executed. If you are an Afghan working for a foreigner, you will be hectored, perhaps mutilated, and then executed. Afghan aid workers are the prime targets. Seven were killed last month....

The United Nations thinks 16 of Afghanistan's 32 provinces - almost all in the south - too dangerous for its international staff to venture through. Red Cross officials privately say their marked vehicles are proving a liability. Red Crescent workers are no better off: several were recently murdered. ...

It could get worse. If neo-Taliban are happy to murder those bringing food and water, what might they do to those bringing democracy and rights for women? Officials charged with going out and registering Pushtun voters for the elections will be sitting ducks.

Why is what was normal in 2003 now any different? Taliban are as evil as the Crusaders. What is your perspective? One sided? Or do you first learn why American Indians attacked settlers?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by warch

My problem with Bush is less his rhetoric and more what I perceive to be his incompetence as commander and chief.

My problems have everything to do with his rhetoric and his competence.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq.

1) In the case of Iraq, the fact that we went in at all without preparing.
2) We went in light into both places, considering what would be needed for occupation.
3) We split our forces between both places.
4) In the case of Iraq, because we jumped the gun, we committed %90 of the forces to the 'coalition', taking the majority of the casualties, physical and political.

If the Iraqis do not get it under control we will have to 'cut and run' anyway. Right now, we have essentially ceded control of our military to the competence of the Iraqi government.

If the government begins to lose control, we will have to either leave or commit more troops. If we have to ratchet up the force level to 400 thousand, this will a) probably force the reinstatement of the draft and b) force the issue of the cost of the war to the point where the IOU's cannot be hidden. We are already increasing the 'secret debt' of this country to the point where, when counted with the interest on our 'real debt', will force more and more resources to be used to pay interest.

I know the draft is considered political suicide, but if pushed to the wall the argument will be towards the neccesity of the moment, ignoring the decisions that got to that moment. Any attempt to debate that topic would be met with cries of 'treason' and 'failure to support the troops'.

It's a clusterf**k, and the options are all bad. There is only one good scenario (legitimate secular democracy), and multiple bad scenarios

Long term US troop presence (at least 5-10 more years).
Islamic theocracy with or without Iranian involvement.
Complete breakdown into civil war and a failed state.
Rise of 'Saddam Hussein II', a brutal US supported dictator.

On a purely money level, we are hemorrhaging cash. The 8-billion-a-month figure is probably low, considering new reports about military equipment wear. Items in the soon-to-be-increased Pentagon budget are actually additional war related costs.

Coupled with tax cuts, this is having an effect on money being returned to us in the form of grants, services, etc. Money for everything is drying up, including student loans, non-military research grants, and other items having to do with the future competitiveness of this country.

We are mortgaging our future for this war and the administration is doing everything possible to shift more and more of the costs into the future. This is a lot like putting your mortage payments on your credit card and paying the minimum.

From the CRS report.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated
three military operations:
!
Operation EnduringFreedom (OEF) coveringAfghanistan and other
Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations ranging from the
Philippines to Djibouti, thatbeganimmediatelyafter the9/11 attacks
and continues;
!
Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) providing enhanced securityfor U.S.
military bases and other homeland security, that was launched in
response to the attacks; and
!
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) that began in the fall of 2002 with
the buildup of troops for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and
continues with counter-insurgency and stability operations.

What is most disturbing is that CRF could not figure why the costs were increasing so rapidly.

Some of the reasons for higher operating costs are known.
(snip)
These factors, however, are not enough to explain a 50% increase of over $20 billion
in operating costs.
(snip)
These reasons are not sufficient, however, to explain the level of increases or predict whether these procurement levels are temporary or likely to rise still further. DOD has provided little information about overall requirements to replace worn equipment or to upgrade capabilities, or how war requirements relate to ongoing peacetime investment.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

What is most disturbing is that CRF could not figure why the costs were increasing so rapidly.

Defense Daily 06/28/2006
Author: George Cahlink


The top officers of the Army and Marine Corps yesterday outlined at a House hearing a requirement for billions of dollars that both services need to replace and repair equipment worn out by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) the service would need an average of $13 billion annually to reset equipment as long as the war continues and for at least two years after. In fiscal 2007, Schoomaker added, the Army would request $17.1 billion because nearly $5 billion in maintenance was deferred.

"We are not gilding the lilly, we are requesting what we need," said Schoomaker, who estimated about 290,000 Army items would have to be reset by the end of fiscal year 2006. He noted Army tanks are being driven at five times normal rates, helicopters flown at two to three times projected rates and trucks are being operated at five to six times normal rates.

Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee said the Marines had received $5.1 billion toward reset costs in the recently passed supplemental spending bill and would need more as the wars continue.

"Even with an annual top line of $18.2 billion (FY 2007 President's budget) supplemental funding will continue to be required unless these is a significant increase (almost double) in our total obligation authority," Hagee said.

Lawmakers, meanwhile, linked resetting military equipment to overall readiness.

HASC Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said the war had placed "severe demands" on Army and Marine Corps ground and aviations equipment. He said
resetting the force was "essential" to continuing to fight the war as well as being prepared for future threats.

On a more personal level, I see orders coming in for spare helicopter parts that puzzle me.
I speculate it's a matter of the supply depot says we should get 20 widgets and it gets shot down for lack of funding and filed. This happens several times because widgets are a lower priority than say, bullets.
Suddenly there's a war going and the money flows, support the troops, pull all the denied requests out of the files and order them now.
So all 5 requests for 20 widgets are granted and we're building 100 widgets.
I repeat, this is speculation on my part....I prefer to think it's an *educated* guess.

[AlternateGray]

Thanks, Marichiko... but the cutting of benefits and whatnot has been an ongoing thing. Don't fall for the excuse that it's because of the war. The Army Times and Stars and Stripes have documented the cutting of benefits and overseas pay attempted by the current administration- specifically, by Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.

I may have missed something here or there, I'll admit. But as far as I've read every increase or even sustainment of our pay and benefits has been due to the efforts of Congress. Congress has also blocked several attempts by the Department of Defense to cut some fairly basic programs and benefits, including the overseas pay. The DOD did not start its slash and burn policy when the budget got tight after Iraq kicked off- no, it started it somewhere around the year 2000. And it has continued unabated since.

It's not my job to decide how much I need to be paid or what I'm worth, that's for the public to decide, by way of Congress. It just steams me to know that... the "DOD" has been trying to screw with us for six years now. If it wasn't for Congressional support and backbone, Rumsfeld would have ass-reamed us years ago.

I know, I'm a bad, bad soldier. I'm supposed to avoid all possible criticism of "higher". Sigh. Trust me, if it wasn't for that, you'd see a vitriolic rant covering several subjects, so long and intense it would have a whole new parental warning rating- "W", for "WHOA, DUDE, NOT COOL- there's kids on the net."

Umm... tangent finished.

[AlternateGray]

I disagree, tw. Sure, they have a different perspective. But, no such thing as "evil"? What the fuck ever. You've been overeducated and underpersecuted.

"Evil" exists everywhere. There isn't a group or organization of humans on this earth that doesn't have evil in it somewhere. The U.S. intervened in the former Yugoslavia to put an end to the genocide, the semi-organized mass rape and murder of civilians. A U.S. soldier promptly raped and murdered a little Bosnian girl.

So what's the difference? The Serbian militias' party line was that what they were doing was ok. Sure, they had their "reasons", 600 years worth, but when you line people up and shoot them in the head for history's sake, that's still evil. Rampaging Serbian militia: Big Evil. Sick and twisted soldier: Smaller Scale Evil, but same variety.
Were the motivations behind the militia soldiers' actions and the U.S. soldier's all that different? I don't think so. I seriously doubt that some motherfucker sat there and thought "Well, I'm not really into rape, I oppose it really, but the Bosnians did betray us in the fourteenth century, and what better way to get back at them? This one's for you, grandpa." Politics, religion and war all give people the chance to justify or get away with shit that is normally taboo. And there will always be monsters who understand that, and in the interest of increasing their power or achieving their goals, they dangle that forbidden fruit: the justification of evil.

Just because people sometimes band together to espouse harmful, hurtful (and yes, evil) things does not give their cause or methods legitimacy- and I don't give a goddamn what their little battle-cry is, whether it's religion, past wrongs, or whatever.

As for Islamic extremists: sure, you can try to say that gunning someone down on the street because he shaved his beard is a matter of perspective and therefore not good or evil, but dude, come on. That is standard purebred evil. It's not about Islam. Somewhere in the U.S. there's a man (probably more than a few) who would happily kill me or you for wanting to keep the ten commandments out of a little pissant courthouse in Missouri (Or Kansas, or wherever it was). That also would be evil, but he lacks opportunity.

I guess the difference in our "perspective", tw, is that you say the perception of evil comes from having conflicting cultures. I say that evil exists regardless, that the same kind of men who kill people in Afghanistan for cutting beards, exist in the States and everywhere else. Sometimes those men get a chance to exercise their wants, and the cause is always something different, but the nature of the beast is always the same. Just because they might be from my society, my culture, my nation, my religion, or my neighborhood, doesn't make them any less wrong. The religious right scares the shit out of me, because I really don't see much of a difference between them and the taliban. It's all about method; the militant "Christian" right wingers do whatever they can to shove religion down our throats- and if they get their morals passed into law, is it really all that different? Would I call it evil yet? It's on the path, but not quite there. When their "perspective" on life conflicts with my continuing to live, I'm gonna go ahead and label it, you guessed it: evil.

Actually, screw all that. I'm gonna get advanced here, and claim that most of the world's grief comes from three kinds of "evil" men (or women):
1. The Religious Freak, who can take something innocuous like "love thy neighbor", and somehow extract from that: "Crush the unbelievers beneath thy heel, and oh yeah, take their money and free will too".
2. The Bad Man, who will beat you, rob you, rape your family and your dog, and kill you if time permits, all because he wants to or because he can. Because it's fun. Yes, he exists. If you think he doesn't, you need to get out more, although I wouldn't recommend it. Just take my word for it. Although your neighbor is probably one, who just lacks opportunity... ask a Bosnian.
3. The Truly Bad Man: You'll often find him in the company of the other two. He knows how to push their buttons, and he uses them to get what he wants- money, fame, power, etc; e.g., Hussein, Hitler, Buchanan, Milosevic... He legitimizes or legalizes their actions.
Now, if you combine all three you get a ludicrous level of evil- as tw mentioned, the crusades, the inquisition, the later taliban, the near extermination of the Native Americans, etc.

[tw]

Originally Posted by AlternateGray

... the world's grief comes from three kinds of "evil" men (or women):
1. The Religious Freak, ...
2. The Bad Man, ...
3. The Truly Bad Man: ... Hussein, Hitler, Buchanan, Milosevic...
Now, if you combine all three you get a ludicrous level of evil- as tw mentioned, the crusades, the inquisition, the later taliban, the near extermination of the Native Americans, etc.

Then clearly the American Indian was evil. He was godless. He would be seen naked or wearing only what is found on summer beaches today. How can you sit there and not call American Indians evil since clearly every white man in 1840s knew how evil the Indian was. At least, if using your definitions.

The lion is clearly evil because it kills other lions only for sex - the pride. How despicable. The lion is a godless creature - evil again. So what is the perspective? Once we take a logical perspective, is the lion so evil – or just natural?

By your definition (and using emotions of that time), clearly evil is everywhere even in creatures / people we no longer regard as evil. Is the Great White Shark evil? Having learned of perspective, then emotion (what is and is not evil) gets replaced by logic.

Clearly the Japanese are evil for killing whales. Does not matter what you say. Others say Japanese are clearly evil. And since Japanese are not Christian, then they must be doubly evil. Classic 'emotion replacing logic'. Mien Kopf promoted Hitler by clearly defining Jews as evil. No doubt because Mien Kopf ‘proved an association of Jews with vermin. Jews must be evil - or maybe Germans took an emotional perspective verses a logical one.

Evil only exists when one is emotional. You and I only exist because Kennedy tasked some of this nation's best minds to finally think logically rather than emotionally. He finally got them to stop seeing a Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of 'good and evil'. Had Kennedy not done so, then Americans would have been the evil ones for starting a war that could only go nuclear. Fortunately for us and all lurkers, Kennedy demanded (even from his own brother) conclusions based in logic. Asked them to remember Jupiter Cs and therefore who really was evil? Having learned other perspectives, therefore we all survived. Yes survived only because logic finally replaced the 'Gen Curtis LeMay attitude' of a world only in 'good and evil' terms.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are only doing what mankind did normally only 400 years ago everywhere in North America. Were they evil? No. Their social structure (social standards - also called biases) were different. You tell me how the Taliban are any different today? Why are Taliban evil when the noble American Indian was not; both did/do same thing?

Need to inspire the 'cannon fodder'? Promote the myth called 'evil'. It works everytime. These are the people who cannot think logically - and therefore believe in evil.

Second point - why are you discussing what was common knowledge in 2003. Afghanistan back then was falling apart only because those who could have saved the country did not even perform promised reconstruction. Listen to interviews on the BBC. Just like in Vietnam, Afghani 'hearts and minds' are being lost just like in Vietnam. Therefore who really is evil? The Taliban? Or invaders who lie; make promises and don't keep those promises. Again emotion or logic; what is your perspective - and welcome right back to why the Vietnam war was lost to 'evil' Vietnamese.

"I know evil when I see it" is what we need from the minds of Cannon Fodder. Same mindset in leaders is dangerous. Which type would you aspire to become?

[Undertoad]

March 30, 2003, three years and three months ago, you worried about the prospects of a draft in 2-3 years.

At the rate we are sending troops over, and with the possibility of a much larger than anticipated occupation force, there may be a draft in 2-3 years.

Since March 2003 things have only gotten worse, and yet a draft is unimaginable without some fantasy escalation.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

March 30, 2003, three years and three months ago, you worried about the prospects of a draft in 2-3 years. Since March 2003 things have only gotten worse, and yet a draft is unimaginable without some fantasy escalation.

Basically, because we did not have an occupation force in sufficient numbers to do the job. Tell me how the all volunteer army would have maintained a 400K occupation force for 3 years.

BTW, we may still be there another 5 years, so the only thing that might be off is my timing. %20 is still a reasonable guess for the probability of a draft in the next 8 years my son would probably still be eligible.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

BTW, we may still be there another 5 years, ...

In early 1940, the United States with but a trivial military, raised an Army, built a massive Air Force, built a massive merchant marine fleet, built a massive Navy, then transported all into a multi-theatre war on almost every continent, conducted multiple massive invasions of both islands and countries, and won all wars with unconditional surrenders. All that in but four years. And yet in four years, we will have diminished what existed in our military with a budget that approaches Cold War levels. Why? One war was fought due to a smoking gun and with a strategic objective. A second war was invented in Washington for a political agenda, has no strategic objective, therefore has no exit strategy, and has no ‘light at the end of a tunnel’.

Original reason for military operations - bin Laden - and we make no effort even to capture him. As PBS Frontline recently demonstrated, the reason Americans were involved in Tora Bora: rogue CIA agents went in on their own and without orders.

Four years to conquer multiple world powers because we were attacked. Because we Pearl Harbored a sovereign nation; in four years we still cannot finish off one nation let alone deal with another nation that actually attacked us? Welcome to a basic military principle called the strategic objective - which does not exist today and which is why a 'Mission Accomplished' war cannot be won. For those with basic military science training, a war without a strategic objective cannot be won. For same reasons that a war was created in Vietnam (including presidents that outright lie), then a draft becomes inevitable.

In but four years, and without a significant military, we won wars all over the world? Fundamental difference. A smoking gun existed, that war had a strategic objective, and that war was conducted by a leadership interested in America; not in promoting a political agenda.

Again, it begs one to divorce themselves from emotion; to observe from many perspectives; to appreciate why (just like in Vietnam) a draft may become necessary.

[AlternateGray]

I'd rather stay here until this thing is done than have a draft started, and I think most active-duty infantry guys would say the same. The last thing we need is five gajillion unwilling, barely-trained, scared-shitless cherry infantrymen to our left and right. It's not a good idea.