New US offensive in Afghanistan

[JHE]

A friend who worked there thinks it will end up with an Ulster-style solution - i.e. some Taliban being invited to join the government. But it could be decades before either side is war-weary enough for that sort of compromise.

The (strange) political arrangements in NI came about (I agree) in large part because people were weary of the bloody conflict.

I can't really see how that relates to what might happen in Afghanistan.

Most of the ordinary people, we can assume, want peace. That's one reason the Taliban were initially welcomed in some areas - they established peace, by defeating their enemies, and law and order, of a severe Islamic sort.

But do the Taliban want to compromise? Their reputation is as fighters so convinced of their Islam that they die willingly, in the belief that they've found a short-cut to paradise.

If there were some sort of power-sharing deal, how would it work? The NI system is about Unionists and Nationalists sharing power. What is the equivalent in Afghanistan?

The only compromise I can imagine is that the Taliban take the Pashtun areas and allow other factions to take other areas. Is that the sort of thing your friend has in mind? (It's not like that in NI.)

 

[camouflage]

Cubans in Angola ?

Exception that proves the rule.

 

[camouflage]

Who are you again????

*scrolls up*

Ah - November.

*suppresses giggle*

Hi there, I'm spring-peeper - nice to meet you.

Don't make me get Evolutionary on yo ass...

 

[nick h.]

The (strange) political arrangements in NI came about (I agree) in large part because people were weary of the bloody conflict.

I can't really see how that relates to what might happen in Afghanistan.

Most of the ordinary people, we can assume, want peace. That's one reason the Taliban were initially welcomed in some areas - they established peace, by defeating their enemies, and law and order, of a severe Islamic sort.

But do the Taliban want to compromise? Their reputation is as fighters so convinced of their Islam that they die willingly, in the belief that they've found a short-cut to paradise.

If there were some sort of power-sharing deal, how would it work? The NI system is about Unionists and Nationalists sharing power. What is the equivalent in Afghanistan?

The only compromise I can imagine is that the Taliban take the Pashtun areas and allow other factions to take other areas. Is that the sort of thing your friend has in mind? (It's not like that in NI.)

He's alluded to it here, with the Talib having seats in Karzai's government: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/afghanistan

 

[spring-peeper]

Don't make me get Evolutionary on yo ass...

Did you see the poll???

 

[Barking_Mad]

Actually JHE I agree with much of what you say. Perhaps my original question wasn't put very well, and it was indeed meant as a question and not a statement.

I've always pitied the Afghans a lot, ever since making friends with a refugee back in the early eighties. I don't agree with the notion that we can or should do nothing to help them and just leave their fate in the hands of the Taliban, but I've no idea what. Seems the collective wisdom of Urban75 doesn't either.

I think as always in these interventions, they are rarely down to the noble ideal and more often down to global interests by invading powers. Yet even if the ideal were noble that should not exclude the possibility that invading for that ideal might make things worse, and not better.

 

[spring-peeper]

It's about bloody time!!!

The new U.S. directive on civilian casualties in Afghanistan: Don't fire on the Taliban if there is a significant risk of civilian casualties -- even if it means they get away to fight another day.

"The guidance to the troops clarifies that citizens are the centre of gravity and that we should do everything to gain their support and we must do everything to avoid civilian casualties," is how army spokesman Col. Greg Julian put it in an interview with Canwest News.

Question: Why is this a "new" policy?

For years now the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan has known that civilian casualties are the single greatest factor in turning Afghans against the international mission and against their own democratically elected government.

It's not rocket science. If your friend or your brother or your mother is killed in an air strike that was directed at insurgents in the house next door, chances are good you won't blame the insurgents for your loss. You'll blame the people who dropped the bomb.

source

Took 'em long enough to figure out, but I think they may finally be getting it.

 

[newharper]

source

Took 'em long enough to figure out, but I think they may finally be getting it.

If they are "getting it", it is not for humanitarian reasons. Sadly.

 

[spring-peeper]

If they are "getting it", it is not for humanitarian reasons. Sadly.

Actually, I'm wondering if it will make the least bit of difference. It's the "significant risk of civilian casualties" bit that implies that it's arbitrary.

I'm betting that my "significant risk of civilian casualties" involves a lot less numbers than theirs does.

 

[JHE]

I expect it will encourage the Taliban to use civilians as protection, firing at their enemies from villages, etc. (Apparently, they already do this.)


It's all fucking hopeless. It isn't going to get any better just because some bright spark has noticed that killing civilians goes down rather badly with the people the Western forces are supposedly helping and protecting.

 

[spring-peeper]

I expect it will encourage the Taliban to use civilians as protection, firing at their enemies from villages, etc. (Apparently, they already do this.)

You are right. They run into the villages.

It's all fucking hopeless. It isn't going to get any better just because some bright spark has noticed that killing civilians goes down rather badly with the people the Western forces are supposedly helping and protecting.

I can see it as improvement. If nothing else, it will bring the US policies more in line with the Canadian ones.

 

[newharper]

Will this make us challenge our presence there.

I think not.

 

[spring-peeper]

Will this make us challenge our presence there.

I think not.

I hope not - we are soooo gone in 2011!!!!

/canadian mode

 

[EddyBlack]

source

Took 'em long enough to figure out, but I think they may finally be getting it.

Killing folk is counterproductive after all, their friends and families might get angry. How progressive.

 

[rich!]

Are they going to start invading all other countries with a known Al Qeada presence?

Nah - all the other countries with AQ presence are proper US allies with their military bases and all...

 

[rich!]

All they've got is rifles, RPGs, some small unguided rockets, IEDs and suicide bombers. The Americans and Brits have learnt a lot about fighting them and their weapons are improving.

It's impossible for the occupying army in 4GW to win against a population who are willing to use suicide bombing tactics. All you can do as a traditional military force is sterilize the ground. Not good.

 

[EddyBlack]

It's impossible for the occupying army in 4GW to win against a population who are willing to use suicide bombing tactics. All you can do as a traditional military force is sterilize the ground. Not good.

Depending on which province you are in, the 'taliban' are in fact Afghans driven to join the resistance out of necessity (poppy eradication policies for example) or through legitimate grievances.

 

[butchersapron]

Great news, Gen McChrystal is already lobbying for another 200 000 US troops to be sent - the current surge isn't enough to complete the mission apparently.

 

[IMR]

All they've got is rifles, RPGs, some small unguided rockets, IEDs and suicide bombers.

They've also got a strong will to fight, a centuries-old culture of honour, feuding and revenge, powerful clan loyalties, an ability to blend in with the local population, knowledge of the terrain, no centralised command to knock out, and a birth rate sufficient to double the number of men of fighting age within twenty-five years.

 

[London_Calling]

I suppose Iran is still the main source of supplies.

I was wondering about the explosives though - Chinese maybe?, and the funding of both men and munitions. . .

 

[Random]

I suppose Iran is still the main source of supplies.

 

[TopCat]

Iran ain't going to help the Taliban. Iran has enough hassle with heroin coming from Afghanistan into Iran and does not wish to compound this.

 

[London_Calling]

You'll have to explain why you think that because, on paper, they have a common enemy, a pretty major one. Plus all those factories that were supplying the resistance in Iraq have a lot of expertise. And Iran is pragmatic if nothing else.

It's difficult to get independent info on this but certainly the western media have been reporting the relationship for a few years - put munitions and Iran in google for all the usual media suspects.

What was interesting reading was the alledged quality of the IED's, which sugests the Iranian ones are very far from improvised. That can also explain their relative success.

 

[Random]

You'll have to explain why you think that because, on paper, they have a common enemy, a pretty major one. Plus all those factories that were supplying the resistance in Iraq have a lot of expertise. And Iran is pragmatic if nothing else.

Iran is a major supporter of the current Afghanistan government; they know that if the Taliban get back into power things wil be far worse for them and their people there.

Maybe some Iranian groups are sending some arms to anti-US fighter in Afghanistan, but to say that Iran is the main source is just ludicrous. The whole country has been dripping in heavy weaponry for over 30 years now. It's one of the most heavily land mined places in the world.

 

[London_Calling]

Iran is a major supporter of the current Afghanistan government; they know that if the Taliban get back into power things wil be far worse for them and their people there.

Maybe some Iranian groups are sending some arms to anti-US fighter in Afghanistan, but to say that Iran is the main source is just ludicrous. The whole country has been dripping in heavy weaponry for over 30 years now. It's one of the most heavily land mined places in the world.

And unstable.

Tell me where you think the factories are, because this isn't a few blokes in a shed somewhere making AK47's out of spare tractor parts?

These IED's are sophisticated armour-piercing kit.

 

[DotCommunist]

And unstable.

Tell me where you think the factories are, because this isn't a few blokes in a shed somewhere making AK47's out of spare tractor parts?

These IED's are sophisticated armour-piercing kit.

I thought they were largely just two anti-tank mines lashed together?


or are there new, improved ones now

 

[spring-peeper]

I thought they were largely just two anti-tank mines lashed together?


or are there new, improved ones now

Sadly, there is always a new and improved one

 

[Random]

And unstable.

Tell me where you think the factories are, because this isn't a few blokes in a shed somewhere making AK47's out of spare tractor parts?

These IED's are sophisticated armour-piercing kit.

Most of them are probably left over from the anti-USSR war, when the CIA poured millions of dollars worth of kit into the place. What new stuff is getting to the Taliban is probably coming via their contacts in the Pakistan army. Which means, ultimately, from the USA.

 

[London_Calling]

or are there new, improved ones now

From what I've read - and it is western media - landsmine/IED development 'took off' during the occupation of Iraq. It was the only tool that worked consistently. I hope there's not going to be an argument about where those munitions came from.

Same sophistication later arrives in Helmund, which borders Iran.

How many countries on the short-list?

 

[London_Calling]

The second queston I posed was, where's the finance coming from?