Bush Kills 6 Canadians

[Charlie Monoxide]

Yes, I know it's BS rhetoric, but it still bugs me that Bush and his merry band could have had at least 1 major success during in his administration, if they had finished Afghanistan properly (including the capture of bin Laden).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070409.wxafghanmain09/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

I'm sure there still more body bags begging to be filled ....

Charile (RIP fellow Canucks) Monoxide

[Darth Rotor]

Bush Kills 6 Canadians


Charile (RIP fellow Canucks) Monoxide
Did this happen while quail hunting? :boggled:

DR

[Mephisto]

Too bad Bush didn't announce Mission Accomplished in Afghanistan. ;)

[RandFan]

Yes, I know it's BS rhetoric, but it still bugs me that Bush and his merry band could have had at least 1 major success during in his administration, if they had finished Afghanistan properly (including the capture of bin Laden).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070409.wxafghanmain09/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

I'm sure there still more body bags begging to be filled ....

Charile (RIP fellow Canucks) MonoxideIt's far worse than rhetoric. It's gravely naive or intellectually dishonest. There is nothing to suppose that thngs should have been different in Afghanastan. We have been very succesful there considereing the crap the Soviets went through when they went to war with Afghanastan. Anyone whoever thought this was going to be a cake walk was wrong.

[Darth Rotor]

Too bad Bush didn't announce Mission Accomplished in Afghanistan. ;)
He's still working on how to pronounce Jalalabad. (http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/jalalabad.html)

DR

[steverino]

He's still working on how to pronounce Jalalabad. (http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/jalalabad.html)

DR

Terrorists disproportionately operate in areas with names difficult for English-speakers to pronounce. Oh, except that one place, New York City.

[Charlie Monoxide]

It's far worse than rhetoric. It's gravely naive or intellectually dishonest. There is nothing to suppose that thngs should have been different in Afghanastan. We have been very succesful there considereing the crap the Soviets went through when they went to war with Afghanastan. Anyone whoever thought this was going to be a cake walk was wrong.

Define "very successful" ....

Charlie (Iraq was suppose to be the "cake walk") Monoxide

[Mephisto]

He's still working on how to pronounce Jalalabad. (http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/jalalabad.html)

DR

:) I heard they were considering changing it to Jalalagood. ;)

[RandFan]

Define "very successful" ....

Charlie (Iraq was suppose to be the "cake walk") MonoxideDefine unsuccessful? We did what the Soviets couldn't. We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.

[Darth Rotor]

Terrorists disproportionately operate in areas with names difficult for English-speakers to pronounce. Oh, except that one place, New York City.
Baghdad is pretty easy to pronounce. So too is Ramadi. Fallujah is a bit trickier, or can be, but Al Kut was really simple.

I think your hypothesis needs a bit of rework. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

:) I heard they were considering changing it to Jalalagood. ;)
I expect someone from Dobson's office called, and asked W if they could change it to

Ja la la la la, la la la laaah

in honor of Christmas. :p

DR

[LawnOven]

I like saying "Jalalabad"; sometimes I sing it.

[D'rok]

Define unsuccessful? We did what the Soviets couldn't. We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.

My definition of unsuccessful is the current Karzai government, which has little control or influence outside of Kabul.

My opinion is that any attempt to enforce a certain type of governance on a people whose traditions are completely inhospitable to it will be unsuccessful. The Soviets couldn't make the various tribes communists, The British couldn't make them good little colonials, we won't be able to make them democrats.

I'll freely admit that events could end up proving me wrong.

[steverino]

Baghdad is pretty easy to pronounce...
I think your hypothesis needs a bit of rework. :)

DR

Well this guy is hard to pronounce, and he deserves being blown to smitherenes, IMO.



*

با 1354 هجري شمسي در روستاي ارادان از شهرستان گرمسار، چشم به جهان گشود و از يک سالگي به همراه خانواده در تهران اقامت گزيد. وي دوران تحصيلات ابتدايي ، راهنمايي و متوسطه خود را در اين شهر گذراند و در سال 1335دکتر محمود احمدي نژاد در سال به عضويت هيات علمي دانشکده عمران دانشگاه علم و صنعت 1368 در مقطع کارشناسي ارشد همان دانشگاه پذيرفته شد و در سال 1365 کنکور سراسري گزينش دانشجو، تحصيلات عالي خود را در رشته مهندسي عمران دانشگاه علم و صنعت آغاز کرد و در سال 132کسب رتبه موفق به دريافت مدرک تحصيلي دکتراي مهندسي و برنامه ريزي حمل و نقل از دانشگاه علم و صنعت گرديد . ايشان به زبان انگليسي آشنايي دارند و طي سال هاي تدريس در اين دانشگاه و تدوين مقالات و پژوهش هاي متعدد علمي ، راهنمايي ده ها پايان 1376در آمد و در سال نامه کارشناسي ارشد و دکتراي تخصصي در زمينه هاي مختلف مهندسي عمران ، راه و حمل و نقل و مديريت ساخت را بر عهده داشته است.

دکتر احمدي نژاد پيش از پيروزي انقلاب اسلامي در کسوت دانشجو و با شرکت در مجالس مذهبي و سياسي وارد فضاي سياسي جامعه شد و پس از پيروزي انقلاب اسلامي با توجه به حضور در دانشگاه از پايه گذاران انجمن اسلامي دانشجويان دانشگاه علم و صنعت ايران بود و در دوران جنگ تحميلي به عنوان داوطلب بسيجي در قسمت هاي متعدد جبهه به ويژه مهندسي رزمي به خدمت پرداخت و اين مهم را تا پايان دوران دفاع مقدس ادامه داد. دکتر احمدي نژاد متاهل و داراي سه فرزند- دو پسر و يک دختر – مي*باشد.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Define unsuccessful? We did what the Soviets couldn't. We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.I'm pretty sure the objective of the Afghanistan invasion by coalition forces was NOT to "do what the Soviets couldn't" If that was the case, we should have immediately handed Afghanistan over to the Soviets after the Taliban was generally routed (and say "neener neener neener").

I personally feel that the invasion is NOT successful, but may be at some point in the future. Please check out the Wiki link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Enduring_Freedom

"The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan."

Charlie (are we there yet?) Monoxide

[D'rok]

"The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan."


Bingo. Somehow we got derailed into nation-building.

[ponderingturtle]

It's far worse than rhetoric. It's gravely naive or intellectually dishonest. There is nothing to suppose that thngs should have been different in Afghanastan. We have been very succesful there considereing the crap the Soviets went through when they went to war with Afghanastan. Anyone whoever thought this was going to be a cake walk was wrong.

You are so right. It is so unreasonable to think that diverting assets and public consciousness from there would have any sort of detrimental result for our goals.

[ponderingturtle]

Define unsuccessful? We did what the Soviets couldn't. We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.

Wrong we have had relatively many casualties in Afghanistan. It is a more dangerous posting for the troops there than Iraq. Iraq just has enough more troops that people forget about that the percentage of casualties in Afghanistan is higher.

[ponderingturtle]

If the theory of unpronounceable names being the refuge of terrorists does this mean what we will start bombing wales next?

With places like

Llanfairpwllgwyngyll

They have to be next.

[ponderingturtle]

Bingo. Somehow we got derailed into nation-building.

That is because the idea came along that failed states ferment terrorism.

I guess we could periodicaly invade afganistan every few years and acomplish those goals repeatedly.

[D'rok]

That is because the idea came along that failed states ferment terrorism.

I guess we could periodicaly invade afganistan every few years and acomplish those goals repeatedly.


There's quite the history of failed attempts at nation-building in Afghanistan. IMHO we would be better served focusing on the original goals as stated in Charlie's post.

Not only that, but by destroying what civil society the Afghanis had (barbaric and oppressive as it was) we've created a brand new failed state. Eventually we will leave, and the power vacuum will be filled by the usual suspects - tribal warlords and islamists.

[a_unique_person]

Define unsuccessful? We did what the Soviets couldn't. We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.

I don't think the Soviets are backing the Mujuhadeen this time.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I don't think the Soviets are backing the Mujuhadeen this time.I don't think RandFan will answer the question ....

Charlie (very successful response) Monoxide

[Earthborn]

Define unsuccessful? Doing what you claimed you were going to do.
Not making a mess out of it that is worse than what you started with.
We did what the Soviets couldn't.What a strange claim. The Soviet Union was fighting the Mujahideen who were supported by the US. The US supported the same group of people to fight the Taliban. So the US never tried to do the same thing the Soviets couldn't, they did the opposite. They let others do their fighting for them, twice.

We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.That's because the US left a lot of the fighting to the 'Northern Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Islamic_Front_for_the_Salvation_of_Afghanis tan)' who did suffer a lot of casualties (not to mention causing them).

[ponderingturtle]

There's quite the history of failed attempts at nation-building in Afghanistan. IMHO we would be better served focusing on the original goals as stated in Charlie's post.

Not only that, but by destroying what civil society the Afghanis had (barbaric and oppressive as it was) we've created a brand new failed state. Eventually we will leave, and the power vacuum will be filled by the usual suspects - tribal warlords and islamists.

But the tribal warlords and islamists where the leaders that we have suppostedly destroyed to make it a failed state

[Molinaro]

Why blame Bush?

Why not blame the Canadian military?

[Lonewulf]

Terrorists disproportionately operate in areas with names difficult for English-speakers to pronounce. Oh, except that one place, New York City.

Yeah, I mean, this may be surprising to a lot of people, but there are other countries besides England and the U.S.

No! Really!

[WildCat]

I don't think the Soviets are backing the Mujuhadeen this time.
But their arsenal is made up almost entirely of Russian-made hardware, isn't it?

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah, I mean, this may be surprising to a lot of people, but there are other countries besides England and the U.S.

No! Really!

Right, someone mentioned Wales earlier.

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah, I mean, this may be surprising to a lot of people, but there are other countries besides England and the U.S.

No! Really!

Right, someone mentioned Wales earlier.

[Katana]

Why blame Bush?

Why not blame the Canadian military?


Or perhaps the Taliban? :con2:

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I know it's BS rhetoric,

If you know it's BS, then why the hell did you say it, Charlie (hates Bush more than the Taliban) Monoxide?

[D'rok]

But the tribal warlords and islamists where the leaders that we have suppostedly destroyed to make it a failed state


Before we arrived the Taliban had more or less solidified their control of the country - such as it was. The Warlords were marginalized. We didn't destroy either group, we scattered them. What we did do was destroy the nascent stability. Now it's anybody's game after we leave. Maybe something better than the Taliban regime will emerge, but I think it's bloody unlikely.

Exactly how we could have destroyed Al Qaeda without destroying Afghanistan I really don't know, but I sure wish we had tried. I think one of the main problems is that we are stuck in a Westphalian warfare mindset - we just cannot deal with non-state actors who do not have standing armies or easy bombing targets.

[D'rok]

Why blame Bush?

Why not blame the Canadian military?


Because the military doesn't decide which wars they get sent to. That's what governments do. Blaming Bush is a bit of a non sequitr though. The Liberal govt of Jean Chretien ordered the deployment.

The Canadian military is doing everything it can to safeguard the troops while attempting to accomplish all of the ill-defined and futile missions that are inevitable in quagmires.

[Ziggurat]

What we did do was destroy the nascent stability.

Yes: the Taliban had imposed the stability of the grave. We should rush to bring that back. :rolleyes:

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah, I mean, this may be surprising to a lot of people, but there are other countries besides England and the U.S.

No! Really!

Right, someone mentioned Wales earlier.

[D'rok]

Yes: the Taliban had imposed the stability of the grave. We should rush to bring that back. :rolleyes:

Please don't spin my post as support for the Taliban regime.

The purpose of the mission was to destroy Al Qaeda, not to spread liberal democracy. I am arguing against misguided idealism and mission creep.

I'm not an expert, but I do have some perspective beyond the usual keyboard warrior. I worked at the Canadian Department of National Defence providing IT support for NATO operations in Afghanistan. My security clearance gave me access to operational intelligence, and I needed to know what was going on in order to do my job.

[Pardalis]

Or perhaps the Taliban? :con2:

Exactly.

[Charlie Monoxide]

If you know it's BS, then why the hell did you say it, Charlie (hates Bush more than the Taliban) Monoxide?I guess the corollary of "hates Bush more than the Taliban" would mean I love the Taliban more than Bush. This is true. I had 2 for lunch ....

Charlie (they were deeeelish) Monoxide

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Right, someone mentioned Wales earlier.
I'm sure there are some African villages whose names use multiple glottal stops that have to be high on the list...

[aggle-rithm]

If the theory of unpronounceable names being the refuge of terrorists does this mean what we will start bombing wales next?

With places like

Llanfairpwllgwyngyll

They have to be next.

I think we should start with Islam-jihad-durka-durka-stan.

[Azure]

Why blame Bush?

Why not blame the Canadian military?

Why blame anyone?

Man, the threads on here get dumber by the day.

I live in Canada, no one here is blaming Bush.

[ponderingturtle]

But their arsenal is made up almost entirely of Russian-made hardware, isn't it?

As they are one of the leaders in the world in low cost military hardware, it would be suprising to find it wasn't russian gear.

[qayak]

The US supported the same group of people to fight the Taliban. So the US never tried to do the same thing the Soviets couldn't, they did the opposite. They let others do their fighting for them, twice.

My understanding is that the Taliban was made up of young religious fundamentalists from countries friendly to the U.S. (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) Instead of having them cause problems in their own countries, they were armed and sent to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets pulled out, leaving the Taliban as the best armed group, they promptly took over and made their religious beliefs the foundation of the new Afghanistan. The legal government had just waged a ten year war with the Soviets and were powerless to do anything about it.

[D'rok]

My understanding is that the Taliban was made up of young religious fundamentalists from countries friendly to the U.S. (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) Instead of having them cause problems in their own countries, they were armed and sent to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets pulled out, leaving the Taliban as the best armed group, they promptly took over and made their religious beliefs the foundation of the new Afghanistan. The legal government had just waged a ten year war with the Soviets and were powerless to do anything about it.

Not quite. You are describing the jihadist element of the Afghan Mujahideen that would later become Al Qaeda. The Taliban were almost entirely homegrown Pashtuns from Southern Afghanistan. They were the victors of the Afghan Civil War (1992-1996) that followed the Soviet withdrawal.

[a_unique_person]

As they are one of the leaders in the world in low cost military hardware, it would be suprising to find it wasn't russian gear.

Just free market economics. Ouch.

IIRC, it's China that's a leader in that area, along with $10 power drills.

[RandFan]

I don't think the Soviets are backing the Mujuhadeen this time.?

No one said that they are. What is your point?

[RandFan]

I don't think RandFan will answer the question ....

Charlie (very successful response) MonoxideWhat question?

[RandFan]

Doing what you claimed you were going to do.
Not making a mess out of it that is worse than what you started with. Women were being systematicl murdered. How are things worse now?

What a strange claim. The Soviet Union was fighting the Mujahideen who were supported by the US. The US supported the same group of people to fight the Taliban. So the US never tried to do the same thing the Soviets couldn't, they did the opposite. They let others do their fighting for them, twice. There is no same group. The groups are fluid and people change sides constantly. Many people worried that we would be in quagmire in Afghanastan like the soviets including military personell so calling the claim strange is without merit.

That's because the US left a lot of the fighting to the 'Northern Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Islamic_Front_for_the_Salvation_of_Afghanis tan)' who did suffer a lot of casualties (not to mention causing them). BS.

The Northern Alliance had been pushed back to irrelevance by the Taliban.

[Azure]

What question?

Knowing Charlie (I don't know what the hell I'm talking about) Monoxide, he probably doesn't know either.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Knowing Charlie (I don't know what the hell I'm talking about) Monoxide, he probably doesn't know either.Screw you!

The question is (was) "define very successful?"

Charlie (I don't know what Azure is talking about) Monoxide

[RandFan]

The question is (was) "define very successful?" Who asked to "define very successful"? What the hell are you talking about.

The Taliban controlled Afghanastan and had free reign to direct operations from there. They no longer have that ability.

It meets the definition of success.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Who asked to "define very successful"? What the hell are you talking about.

The Taliban controlled Afghanastan and had free reign to direct operations from there. They no longer have that ability.

It meets the definition of success.

scroll back and read these 2 posts:


Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
It's far worse than rhetoric. It's gravely naive or intellectually dishonest. There is nothing to suppose that thngs should have been different in Afghanastan. We have been very succesful there considereing the crap the Soviets went through when they went to war with Afghanastan. Anyone whoever thought this was going to be a cake walk was wrong.
Define "very successful" ....

Charlie (Iraq was suppose to be the "cake walk") Monoxide


Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide View Post
Define "very successful" ....

Charlie (Iraq was suppose to be the "cake walk") Monoxide
Define unsuccessful? We did what the Soviets couldn't. We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.



You stated it was "very successful there". I disagree and felt maybe I didn't understand your definition of "very successful". Asking me to define "unsuccesful" is just avoiding my initial request ....

Charlie (getting clued in) Monoxide

[RandFan]

scroll back and read these 2 posts:


Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
It's far worse than rhetoric. It's gravely naive or intellectually dishonest. There is nothing to suppose that thngs should have been different in Afghanastan. We have been very succesful there considereing the crap the Soviets went through when they went to war with Afghanastan. Anyone whoever thought this was going to be a cake walk was wrong.
Define "very successful" ....

Charlie (Iraq was suppose to be the "cake walk") Monoxide


Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide View Post
Define "very successful" ....

Charlie (Iraq was suppose to be the "cake walk") Monoxide
Define unsuccessful? We did what the Soviets couldn't. We have had relatively few casualties in Afghanistan.



You stated it was "very successful there". I disagree and felt maybe I didn't understand your definition of "very successful". Asking me to define "unsuccesful" is just avoiding my initial request ....

Charlie (getting clued in) MonoxideI've been out of the loop, clearly I missed some posts.

Yeah, I believe given the possibilities and the concern of many militiary pundits we were very succesful. We accomplished our primary goals with few losses. I'm not sure how else one could find it.

Still, I'll withdraw my request to define unsuccesful.

I think such a judgment naive but that's my 2 cents.

[Ysidro]

Did someone mention Wales?

Maybe Welsh recipes?

[D'rok]

The Taliban controlled Afghanastan and had free reign to direct operations from there. They no longer have that ability.

The Taliban were not the enemy. What "operations" were they directing? Are you sure you're not confusing them with Al Qaeda?

[Ziggurat]

The Taliban were not the enemy.

While it's not always true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, it pretty much always is true that the friend of my enemy is my enemy. After 9/11 Bush stated that we would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and states which harbored them. The Taliban chose to continue to dharbor Al Qaeda. That decision made them our enemy.

[RandFan]

The Taliban were not the enemy. What "operations" were they directing? Are you sure you're not confusing them with Al Qaeda?Excuse me. The Taliban were a-holes murdering women and destroying priceless works of art all the while giving Al Qaeda safe haven.

Damn this forum can be pedantic.

[D'rok]

Excuse me. The Taliban were a-holes murdering women and destroying priceless works of art

True but irrelevant. Brutal regimes are not uncommon.

all the while giving Al Qaeda safe haven.True. But by going to war with the Taliban we simply forced Al Qaeda to find a new safe haven. Al Qaeda is the enemy, not the Taliban.

Damn this forum can be pedantic.When we drop bombs on people, we should be sure of who and why.

[RandFan]

True. But by going to war with the Taliban we simply forced Al Qaeda to find a new safe haven. Sure.

When we drop bombs on people, we should be sure of who and why.?

News flash. I'm not anyone in a position to drop bombs on anyone.

[D'rok]

Sure.

?

News flash. I'm not anyone in a position to drop bombs on anyone.

Your government is doing it in your name and so is mine. The niceties of who actually pulls the trigger are unimportant. "We" are doing it to "Them".

[D'rok]

While it's not always true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, it pretty much always is true that the friend of my enemy is my enemy. After 9/11 Bush stated that we would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and states which harbored them. The Taliban chose to continue to dharbor Al Qaeda. That decision made them our enemy.


Actually, they offered to bring Osama and his crew to justice, Taliban style. But your point is valid. In that case, why aren't we invading Pakistan? By all accounts, the new safe haven is the tribal regions near the Afghan/Pakistan border.

ETA: Faulty memory....they offered to hand him over to a 3rd party country, not prosecute him themselves. I remembered that incorrectly. Sorry about that.

[RandFan]

Your government is doing it in your name and so is mine. The niceties of who actually pulls the trigger are unimportant. "We" are doing it to "Them".Entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.

1.) I am familiar with the history of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
2.) I made a mistake referring to the Taliban when I should have said Al-Qaeda (as if it would cause any great confusion).
3.) Your anal attention to my mistake was pedantic at best. (Rule 8 prohibits my noting what is worst).
4.) I noted the silly nature of your correction.
5.) You made the statement that if we are bombing people we should know who they are.

That is a non-sequitur and you are still being pedantic and apparently unable to figure that out which is precisely why you will continue in that vain. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

[RandFan]

By all accounts, the new safe haven is the tribal regions near the Afghan/Pakistan border.Yeah, right, safe haven. They are constantly on the move and they have had to significantly change their methods of communication and travel. There was a time when reporters could routinely intervew Al Qaeda leaders like Bin Laden. Now it is not allowed for fear that the leders will be discovered. Some safe haven.

[D'rok]

Entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.

I was responding to your assertion that you didn't/don't drop bombs. I would think that it was fairy obvious that I was talking about "us" as nation-states not individuals. It did seem a little pedantic of you to quibble...


1.) I am familiar with the history of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
2.) I made a mistake referring to the Taliban when I should have said Al-Qaeda (as if it would cause any great confusion).
3.) Your anal attention to my mistake was pedantic at best. (Rule 8 prohibits my noting what is worst).
4.) I noted the silly nature of your correction.
5.) You made the statement that if we are bombing people we should know who they are.

That is a non-sequitur and you are still being pedantic and apparently unable to figure that out which is precisely why you will continue in that vain. Prove me wrong, I dare you.
Here is why I am being pedantic. (Congratulations, I am proving you right by continuing the discussion). I have tried to make this point before, I will try again.

First of all, I will reiterate that I probably have a perspective that you do not as i worked as a support person for Canadian Forces in Kandahar and for NATO operations in general. From a nice safe cubicle in Ottawa of course, but nonetheless...I am not talking entirely out of my ass.

Our efforts have been targeted at the Taliban from day one. They continue to be largely targeted at the remaining Taliban forces, although the chaotic and fluid nature of the place means that it's rarely that simple. It was and is a regime change operation.

We are now bogged down in nation building. When we leave - and we most certainly will - it is highly unlikely that the Karzai government will stand. We are attempting to impose a form of governance (liberal democracy) on a place with hostile traditions. We will not succed at this any more than the Soviets or the British succeeded with their agendas before us. Our energy is being wasted on this project. I honestly hope I am wrong about this.

I am no expert - I don't know how it would have been possible to directly take out Al Qeada without getting distracted by unachievable goals, but I wish it had been tried.

The sad truth is that Afghanistan has been a failure that has been overshadowed by the larger failure in Iraq. Conditions for many if not most Afghanis are not better than when the Taliban were in power. Future prospects are bleak.

It is not a non sequitr to suggest that making a distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is important - especially considering the title of this thread. (The dead Canadians part...not the Bush-bashing part).

[D'rok]

Yeah, right, safe haven. They are constantly on the move and they have had to significantly change their methods of communication and travel. There was a time when reporters could routinely intervew Al Qaeda leaders like Bin Laden. Now it is not allowed for fear that the leders will be discovered. Some safe haven.


Good point. However, what if we could've taken them out in Afghanistan before they had the chance to regroup elsewhere? Wouldn't that've been a good thing? I think we had that chance and blew it because we focused on the Taliban and regime change.

[RandFan]

Here is why I am being pedantic. (Congratulations, I am proving you right by continuing the discussion). I have tried to make this point before, I will try again. A fresh breath of honesty. I appreciate that.


First of all, I will reiterate that I probably have a perspective that you do not as i worked as a support person for Canadian Forces in Kandahar and for NATO operations in general. From a nice safe cubicle in Ottawa of course, but nonetheless...I am not talking entirely out of my ass.

Our efforts have been targeted at the Taliban from day one. They continue to be largely targeted at the remaining Taliban forces, although the chaotic and fluid nature of the place means that it's rarely that simple. It was and is a regime change operation.

We are now bogged down in nation building. When we leave - and we most certainly will - it is highly unlikely that the Karzai government will stand. We are attempting to impose a form of governance (liberal democracy) on a place with hostile traditions. We will not succed at this any more than the Soviets or the British succeeded with their agendas before us. Our energy is being wasted on this project. I honestly hope I am wrong about this.

I am no expert - I don't know how it would have been possible to directly take out Al Qeada without getting distracted by unachievable goals, but I wish it had been tried.

The sad truth is that Afghanistan has been a failure that has been overshadowed by the larger failure in Iraq. Conditions for many if not most Afghanis are not better than when the Taliban were in power. Future prospects are bleak.

It is not a non sequitr to suggest that making a distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is important - especially considering the title of this thread. (The dead Canadians part...not the Bush-bashing part). Assuming this is true it really does not justify the correction. You are back at square one and nothing has changed.

In any event, I don't think anyone could reasonably believe that we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan following 9/11 nor do I think that there was any reasonable hope of achieving any of our goals without going to Afghanistan.

I don't think we are in any hurry to leave Afghanistan so I'm not too worried about that.

Your definition of failure is by no means mine. As much as I would love for conditions to improve that was not really the reason for going. The problems of the people of that region lie very much with their religion and culture. We can't force everyone to embrace civilization and behave in a rational manner. If conditions for the people have not changed and Al Qaeda can no longer operate with impunity then it is a very significant success.

I'm damn glad we went. I would gladly rule in favor of going again given what we know now. Iraq however is another thing. Looking back I wish we hadn't have gone though I don't see it as you do that is for sure.

[RandFan]

Good point. However, what if we could've taken them out in Afghanistan before they had the chance to regroup elsewhere? Wouldn't that've been a good thing? I think we had that chance and blew it because we focused on the Taliban and regime change.I can't prove otherwise. I doubt it. We will have to see what history says and even then we will have to take that with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Earthborn]

Women were being systematicl murdered."Systematically murdered" usually means that there has been a deliberate attempt to wipe out a particular group of the population. I don't believe the Taliban ever attempted such a thing with women.

How are things worse now?I did not say they were.

The groups are fluid and people change sides constantly.That's true, but it is also true that the Mujahideen who defeated the Soviet Union was the organisation that later formed into what we now call the 'Northern Alliance'.

Many people worried that we would be in quagmire in Afghanastan like the sovietsAnd if the US military had done most of the fighting itself, I think there would have been a good chance that it would have happened.

The Northern Alliance had been pushed back to irrelevance by the Taliban.So are you denying that "In late 2001, with extensive assistance from U.S. air support and United States Special Forces, the UIF succeeded in retaking most of Afghanistan from the Taliban." ?

[Charlie Monoxide]

Yeah, I believe given the possibilities and the concern of many militiary pundits we were very succesful. We accomplished our primary goals with few losses. I'm not sure how else one could find it.

Sorry Randfan, I'm just not getting it. If you read an earlier post in this thread:
I personally feel that the invasion is NOT successful, but may be at some point in the future. Please check out the Wiki link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...during_Freedom

"The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan."

Charlie (are we there yet?) Monoxide


You'll see at best, we stopped the "cessation of terrorist activities", but only for a short while. Taking over the Taliban was NOT an objective (unless that was part of "infrastructure" ).

I can find it very easily that Afghanistan was NOT "very successful". It was only successful in the same way that "Mission Accomplished" was "very successful" as displayed on that carrier when Bush spoke.

We I see people bandy phrases like "very successful" where it is not clearly so, it bothers me. It is pure spin.

Charlie (no spin response) Monoxide

[RandFan]

So are you denying that "In late 2001, with extensive assistance from U.S. air support and United States Special Forces, the UIF succeeded in retaking most of Afghanistan from the Taliban." ?No, not at all. The assistance from the US was critical however.

[D'rok]

In any event, I don't think anyone could reasonably believe that we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan following 9/11 nor do I think that there was any reasonable hope of achieving any of our goals without going to Afghanistan.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have gone. I'm suggesting we should have gone to destroy Al Qaeda, not the the Taliban.

You disagree. Fine. I won't trouble you further.

[RandFan]

Sorry Randfan, I'm just not getting it. If you read an earlier post in this thread:
I personally feel that the invasion is NOT successful, but may be at some point in the future. Please check out the Wiki link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...during_Freedom

"The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan."

Charlie (are we there yet?) Monoxide


You'll see at best, we stopped the "cessation of terrorist activities", but only for a short while. Taking over the Taliban was NOT an objective (unless that was part of "infrastructure" ).

I can find it very easily that Afghanistan was NOT "very successful". It was only successful in the same way that "Mission Accomplished" was "very successful" as displayed on that carrier when Bush spoke.

We I see people bandy phrases like "very successful" where it is not clearly so, it bothers me. It is pure spin.

Charlie (no spin response) MonoxideYour only proof is a wiki link? A link that doesn't work BTW.

Rand (color me unimpressed) Fan

[Charlie Monoxide]

Your only proof is a wiki link? A link that doesn't work BTW.

Rand (color me unimpressed) FanSorry that you were unable to scroll back to page 1 of this thread to get the link. When I cut & pasted, it gave me the abbreviated link. Here is the proper one:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Enduring_Freedom#OEF_Mil itary_Objectives


Errr, actually it's Source Watch, the source linked to from the Wiki page.

Charlie (I hope you're duly impressed) Monoxide

[Freddy]

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have gone. I'm suggesting we should have gone to destroy Al Qaeda, not the the Taliban.

You disagree. Fine. I won't trouble you further.

How exactly could we have fought al Qaeda without fighting the Taliban? I doubt the Taliban would have just let us go in and fight al Qaeda without fighting them too. In fact, we only invaded after they refused to turn over bin Laden or allow us to hunt al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Given that, once you remove the Taliban from power some sort of government has to fill the vacuum. "Nation building" was unavoidable, because the Taliban were not about to allow us to operate in Afghanistan, which we needed to do to destroy training camps and fight al Qaeda.

[D'rok]

How exactly could we have fought al Qaeda without fighting the Taliban? I doubt the Taliban would have just let us go in and fight al Qaeda without fighting them too. In fact, we only invaded after they refused to turn over bin Laden or allow us to hunt al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Given that, once you remove the Taliban from power some sort of government has to fill the vacuum. "Nation building" was unavoidable, because the Taliban were not about to allow us to operate in Afghanistan, which we needed to do to destroy training camps and fight al Qaeda.

All valid points. I can't give a very good answer.

I'm reminded of the first Gulf War, which had modest and achievable goals - i.e. kick Hussein out of Kuwait, end of story. I think it would have been possible to apply a similar approach to Afghanistan. Although the Taliban denied us permission to operate, they were powerless to stop us. We could have targeted our resources at destroying the camps and hunting Al Qeada while simply keeping the Taliban at bay. Invading and bombing cities and actively engaging the Taliban was a distraction. Regime change and nation building essentially took too much of our attention, and constitute an exercise in futility.

Like I said, not very good answers. But much smarter military minds than mine could surely have come up with a strategy.

[Ziggurat]

Actually, they offered to bring Osama and his crew to justice, Taliban style. But your point is valid. In that case, why aren't we invading Pakistan? By all accounts, the new safe haven is the tribal regions near the Afghan/Pakistan border.

Primarily because that would be a far bloodier endeavor (remember, they have nuclear weapons) than the invasion of Afghanistan OR of Iraq.

ETA: Faulty memory....they offered to hand him over to a 3rd party country, not prosecute him themselves. I remembered that incorrectly. Sorry about that.

Close, but not exactly. Prior to our invasion, they offered to try him themselves. During our invasion, they offered to discuss handing him over to an unnamed third party if we would halt the invasion - no offer to actually turn him over to anyone else was ever made.

[D'rok]

Close, but not exactly. Prior to our invasion, they offered to try him themselves. During our invasion, they offered to discuss handing him over to an unnamed third party if we would halt the invasion - no offer to actually turn him over to anyone else was ever made.

I stand corrected.

[RandFan]

Sorry that you were unable to scroll back to page 1 of this thread to get the link. When I cut & pasted, it gave me the abbreviated link. Here is the proper one:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Enduring_Freedom#OEF_Mil itary_Objectives


Errr, actually it's Source Watch, the source linked to from the Wiki page.

Charlie (I hope you're duly impressed) MonoxideOk, I've read your link. I'm not sure what your point is.

"The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan."

What terrorist camps are currently operating in Afghanastan?
What exactly is the terrorist infrastructure with Afghanastan?
What terrorist activities are happening in Afghanastan?

We haven't caught Bin Laden and others but we have put a crimp in the their ability to carryout terrorism. Right? Has Al Qaeda launched any terrorist activities against the US from Afghanastan?

I'll concede that there are insurgents in Iraq linked to Al Qaeda but I think most would concede that is mostly Iranian in nature.

I think Afghanastan was very succesful. I'll stand by that.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think Afghanastan was very succesful. I'll stand by that.Cool ...

Charlie ('nuff said) Monoxide

[D'rok]

I'll concede that there are insurgents in Iraq linked to Al Qaeda but I think most would concede that is mostly Iranian in nature.

That's quite the claim. The Iraqi insurgency is primarily Sunni. Al Qaeda is/was Sunni. Iran is Shia. Suggesting that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda in Iraq would be like saying Protestants in Northern Ireland are aiding the IRA.

[Ex-drone]

Yeah, I mean, this may be surprising to a lot of people, but there are other countries besides England and the U.S.

No! Really!

International participation in Afghanistan is significantly more widespread than in Iraq. Besides the US and UK, 35 other nations are providing half the troops to the mission, mostly under NATO ISAF command.

Much of the heavy lifting is taking place in Regional Command (South) by the US, UK, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Estonia and Romania. Based on per capita participation, the Canadian Army is paying a heavy casualty toll and was hoping that there would be more burden sharing by other NATO nations. Unfortunately, since these nations were clever enough to pick relatively safe Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) areas, they are not keen to rotate or send relief. Thankfully, the US, UK, Netherlands and Australia are good friends.

[RandFan]

That's quite the claim. The Iraqi insurgency is primarily Sunni. Al Qaeda is/was Sunni. Iran is Shia. Suggesting that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda in Iraq would be like saying Protestants in Northern Ireland are aiding the IRA.I'll concede that I wasn't clear. Most of the insurgents in Iraq are being trained and are linked to Iran. I didn't mean to suggest that Al Qaeda was linked to Iran.

[D'rok]

I'll concede that I wasn't clear. Most of the insurgents in Iraq are being trained and are linked to Iran. I didn't mean to suggest that Al Qaeda was linked to Iran.

Sorry RandFan...I have to continue to be pedantic :)

Most of the insurgents in Iraq are most definitely not being trained by Iran. Iran has influence over the Shia militias like Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and the Shia religious leaders like Ali al-Sistani. But these are not the insurgents. Iran has been showing restraint in how it exercises its influence in Iraq. if it set the Shia militias loose on the occupying forces, all hell would break loose. Al-Sistani has in fact been one of the relatively moderate voices post-invasion.

The Shias in Iraq are in ascendance now after decades of repression under Saddam's regime. (The Sunni minority ruled the Shia majority under Saddam). This is a state of affairs to Iran's liking. They want the Americans out of Iraq so they can consolidate their influence, but it is not in their interest to unleash hell. (Unless they become backed too far into a corner).

Here's a for instance. The following is a report on the violence from yesterday:

http://tinyurl.com/3cfb4v

From the article:

"On Sunday, at least 34 people were killed in Baghdad in another day punctuated by car bombings and suicide vest attacks on civilian targets of the kind that the two-month-old security crackdown has so far been unable to restrain.
All six bombs that caused fatalities were detonated in predominantly Shiite areas, which have been the persistent target of Sunni militant bombing attacks."


Notice the political action of the Shia (Shia = Shiite) and the violent action of the Sunnis. All of the suicide bombers yesterday were Sunnis killing people in Shia neighbourhoods. This is par for the course, and Iran is not involved in killing its own brethren.

[RandFan]

Sorry RandFan...I have to continue to be pedantic :)

Most of the insurgents in Iraq are most definitely not being trained by Iran. Iran has influence over the Shia militias like Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and the Shia religious leaders like Ali al-Sistani. But these are not the insurgents. Iran has been showing restraint in how it exercises its influence in Iraq. if it set the Shia militias loose on the occupying forces, all hell would break loose. Al-Sistani has in fact been one of the relatively moderate voices post-invasion.

The Shias in Iraq are in ascendance now after decades of repression under Saddam's regime. (The Sunni minority ruled the Shia majority under Saddam). This is a state of affairs to Iran's liking. They want the Americans out of Iraq so they can consolidate their influence, but it is not in their interest to unleash hell. (Unless they become backed too far into a corner).

Here's a for instance. The following is a report on the violence from yesterday:

http://tinyurl.com/3cfb4v

From the article:

"On Sunday, at least 34 people were killed in Baghdad in another day punctuated by car bombings and suicide vest attacks on civilian targets of the kind that the two-month-old security crackdown has so far been unable to restrain.
All six bombs that caused fatalities were detonated in predominantly Shiite areas, which have been the persistent target of Sunni militant bombing attacks."


Notice the political action of the Shia (Shia = Shiite) and the violent action of the Sunnis. All of the suicide bombers yesterday were Sunnis killing people in Shia neighbourhoods. This is par for the course, and Iran is not involved in killing its own brethren.Fair enough. I stand corrected.