Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Afghanistan brewing up

[Woolen Horde]

Goddamnit, now we know what that Quick Reaction Force that got shot down was reacting to. A US recon team came under fire and requested backup. The two MH-47's were dispatched to assist them, one of them is shot down and 16 killed, which is the big news.

Well, turns out that the recon team that came under fire hasn't been heard from since they called for help, which means they are missing and unaccounted for. Taliban says they've executed seven people on the ground, which is a bit small for a Special Forces A-Team, but about right for a small recon team.

We have never focused fully on Afghanistan, and as a result of doing a half-assed job there, things are starting to get alarming. Violence is ebbing back up, and the Taliban are regaining footholds. And now this.

[wildpokerman]

Bah we have our oil pipeline deal already. That's what we went in for anyway right?

[Linoleum]

We have never focused fully on Afghanistan, and as a result of doing a half-assed job there, things are starting to get alarming. Violence is ebbing back up, and the Taliban are regaining footholds. And now this.

Profoundly disagree. Most of Afghanistan is in the stone-age, the incident you are referencing took place in a remote region at a 10,000ft altitude. The US has a very significant presence considering the incredible logistical challenges.

[AttAdude]

We have never focused fully on Afghanistan, and as a result of doing a half-assed job there, things are starting to get alarming. Violence is ebbing back up, and the Taliban are regaining footholds. And now this.

Profoundly disagree. Most of Afghanistan is in the stone-age, the incident you are referencing took place in a remote region at a 10,000ft altitude. The US has a very significant presence considering the incredible logistical challenges. we have a significant presence? in afghanistan? Are you sure about that. I hate to be one of those guys who screams for a source, but id love to see one on that. As i understood it one of the few things Moore actualy got right in his hypeumentary was that our presence in Afghanistan was around the size of the police force in New York City. Thats an honest question. i really dont know for sure.

[Woolen Horde]

We have never extended the security bubble around Kabul to the rest of the country, there simply haven't been the numbers to do so. Karzai is presdient of Kabul, basically. His influence dies the further you get away from the capitol.

We yanked out the best Special Forces teams immediately after Kabul fell so they could be tasked to preparing for Iraq, where most of them have been stuck since. Now, to explain, the Army basically divides the Special Forces into regions. The Middle East teams specialized in the Middle East, and they got all the language training and cultural training, etc. When they got yanked form Afghanistan, the Pacific teams who were specialized for Asia (ie. Korea, China, etc) got sent in. Now, these are still elite soldiers, but we sent the best troops for the situation to Iraq.

It was only last year that they started putting a few of the teams back for the hunt for Bin Laden. But the pressure has been to keep most of them in Iraq because of the insurgency.

[AttAdude]

We have never extended the security bubble around Kabul to the rest of the country, there simply haven't been the numbers to do so. Karzai is presdient of Kabul, basically. His influence dies the further you get away from the capitol.

We yanked out the best Special Forces teams immediately after Kabul fell so they could be tasked to preparing for Iraq, where most of them have been stuck since. Now, to explain, the Army basically divides the Special Forces into regions. The Middle East teams specialized in the Middle East, and they got all the language training and cultural training, etc. When they got yanked form Afghanistan, the Pacific teams who were specialized for Asia (ie. Korea, China, etc) got sent in. Now, these are still elite soldiers, but we sent the best troops for the situation to Iraq.

It was only last year that they started putting a few of the teams back for the hunt for Bin Laden. But the pressure has been to keep most of them in Iraq because of the insurgency.

That makes sense excpet for one thing, and thanx for the explanation by the way. The one question that nags me, and im sure alot of other people is why did we not have that security bubble in place at least before Iraq. Im not going to argue the merits of either of them, instead im looking for plausable reasons from the other side as it where. You said we did not have the bubble because we lack the numbers, but would the number not have been there before Iraq?

[Troy S Goodfellow]

That makes sense excpet for one thing, and thanx for the explanation by the way. The one question that nags me, and im sure alot of other people is why did we not have that security bubble in place at least before Iraq. Im not going to argue the merits of either of them, instead im looking for plausable reasons from the other side as it where. You said we did not have the bubble because we lack the numbers, but would the number not have been there before Iraq?

Overoptimism, I think. Remember that the Afghan War went really smoothly. The warlords were on our side, they were pretty co-operative in the near term and I think that the Defense Department (and maybe State, as well) thought that the warlords would willingly sign on to a national government that would erode their autonomy out of national spirit. The Afghan Defense Minister was (is?) an independent military force of his own, but this never seemed to be an obstacle to his participation in government - at least when it left him alone.

This proved wrong, of course. But in the Wonderland of wishful thinking that a lot of administration experts were immersed in, it probably didn't seem a bad bet.

Question for anyone who knows: Has Afghanistan ever had a strong national government?

Troy

[AttAdude]

That makes sense excpet for one thing, and thanx for the explanation by the way. The one question that nags me, and im sure alot of other people is why did we not have that security bubble in place at least before Iraq. Im not going to argue the merits of either of them, instead im looking for plausable reasons from the other side as it where. You said we did not have the bubble because we lack the numbers, but would the number not have been there before Iraq?

Overoptimism, I think. Remember that the Afghan War went really smoothly. The warlords were on our side, they were pretty co-operative in the near term and I think that the Defense Department (and maybe State, as well) thought that the warlords would willingly sign on to a national government that would erode their autonomy out of national spirit. The Afghan Defense Minister was (is?) an independent military force of his own, but this never seemed to be an obstacle to his participation in government - at least when it left him alone.

This proved wrong, of course. But in the Wonderland of wishful thinking that a lot of administration experts were immersed in, it probably didn't seem a bad bet.

Question for anyone who knows: Has Afghanistan ever had a strong national government?

TroyI love it when people are able to talk with out being mean to each other. Thanks. I guess i never really knew what was going on there. That part of the war on terror is like a blind spot in the mirror for me. I never really heard anything about it except that kabul fell and the taliban was defeated.

[Linoleum]

We have never extended the security bubble around Kabul to the rest of the country, there simply haven't been the numbers to do so. Karzai is presdient of Kabul, basically. His influence dies the further you get away from the capitol.

Outside of Kabul you barely have a country to speak of. No amount of manpower is going to overcome that in the short term.

When they got yanked form Afghanistan, the Pacific teams who were specialized for Asia (ie. Korea, China, etc) got sent in. Now, these are still elite soldiers, but we sent the best troops for the situation to Iraq.

A valid argument, but considering the law of diminishing returns and the difficulties of moving operations into Pakistan, I'm not convinced this crippled operational capability.

[XtienMurawski]

I like puppies.

-Amanpour

[croman]

Anybody know what the NATO presence is still like there? If Afghanistan heats up I'm thinking our piddly troop numbers will at least be upped somewhat by the NATO forces. And if they're not to high, I can see requesting a larger NATO presence in Afghanistan being MUCH easier than getting even a tiny Iraqi one.

[snowmyr]

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

[Toddy]

As an aside, those numbers change regularly, as does the nation in charge. Canada, for instance, had over 2,000 troops in Afghanistan last year or the year before.

[Nellie]

Question for anyone who knows: Has Afghanistan ever had a strong national government?


The Taleban?

[Brian Rucker]

I believe there was a monarchy before the political struggles that led to the Soviet invasion. The old king's still alive and played a part at the meeting that "elected" Karzai as the transitional ruler. I seem to recall hearing many older Afghanis on various programs refer to those years as very good times. Perhaps just in contrast to everything that followed but Kabul and many other cities, I've seen the photographs, and they were remarkably impressive urban areas complete with colleges, gardens and palaces like you wouldn't believe.

I'd assume the political situation must have been relatively stable at that point.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I believe there was a monarchy before the political struggles that led to the Soviet invasion. The old king's still alive and played a part at the meeting that "elected" Karzai as the transitional ruler. I seem to recall hearing many older Afghanis on various programs refer to those years as very good times. Perhaps just in contrast to everything that followed but Kabul and many other cities, I've seen the photographs, and they were remarkably impressive urban areas complete with colleges, gardens and palaces like you wouldn't believe.

I'd assume the political situation must have been relatively stable at that point.

I suspected that they had had a stable national government before. Thanks for reminding me about the king and his reservoir of esteem. IIRC, he was pretty crucial in the post-war environment.

I'm just curious as to how strong the monarchy was. Did the king have to deal with powerful regional governors, like Karzai has to? Was the national army the only security game in town?

There seems to be a lot of pressure and expectation for Karzai to set up a strong executive power, but I just wonder if the national political culture is for something more devolved, something like a confederation of feudal warlords.

(A house full of history books and not one on Central Asia.)

Troy

[Tim Partlett]

The King's reign ended in the early 70s. Prior to that his long-term close friendship with the Soviet Union resulted in massive investment in infrastructure for the country, especially in terms of petroleum facilities and research. The capital became filled with those kinds of buildings typical of post-war Russia and East Europe. These were way better than the shanty towns typical of that region. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the kind of thing you saw in those pictures, as it has often been commented on that the state of Afghanistan before the coup of 1978 was better than it ever had been before or since.

One of the things about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that is often overlooked because of all the propaganda of the time is that the governments for the previous decades had all been either Communist or very pro-Communist. When the Soviets sent troops they did so by invitation from the country's prime minister. The Mujahedin that we labeled as freedom fighters were actually the rebels who had taken over the city of Herat and were even less interested in freedom, human rights and democracy than the goverment they were rebelling against.

It was basically a civil war between the secularist Communists, who had introduced women's rights to the country for the first time only years earlier, and a disorganised bunch of bandits and fundamentalist Muslims. When the Mujahedin finally forced the Soviets out, with much thanks to the CIA, the result was a country so lawless and vile that the Taleban appeared as saviors. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Communist or Monarchist governments, but there are worse, and the Mujahedin were just that.

[Brian Rucker]

KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 21 - This year is already the deadliest for American soldiers in Afghanistan since the war of 2001, and the violence is likely to intensify before the nation's legislative elections on Sept. 18.

Four soldiers were killed Sunday, meaning that 13 have been killed in August alone. Sixty-five Americans have been killed this year.
A senior security official said Al Qaeda was paying renewed attention to the country this year.

More money is coming in, probably from Arab countries, and a unit of Qaeda fighters has returned to the region from Iraq to teach local fighters an unspecified "new tactic they learned in Iraq," one security official said, explaining that he could not be identified because of the clandestine nature of his work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/international/asia/22afghan.html

[playingwithknives]

More money is coming in, probably from Arab countries, and a unit of Qaeda fighters has returned to the region from Iraq to teach local fighters an unspecified "new tactic they learned in Iraq," one security official said, explaining that he could not be identified because of the clandestine nature of his work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/international/asia/22afghan.html


I wonder what that is. I doubt its in the Afghani psyche to take part in suicide attacks. Unlike most arab's and western muslims, these guys are real warriors, and capable of winning. Its just as well the Taleban remnant are in a minority. Everyone was fighting the russians, this is different.