Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
Rambling, unscientific, and possibly inaccurate analysis from me as I try to keep up with news from Afghanistan:
It seems like the serious criticisms of the campaign increasingly fall into two main camps. The first, which I'll term the "humanitarian camp," which argues that we're losing because our approach is too military-oriented, hasn't embraced the necessity for long-term institutional and economic development, and doesn't provide the populace with the security and services it needs. These arguments generally come from IGO- and NGO-types who recommend reducing direct military involvement, increasing nonmilitary assistance, and (surprise) relying more on locally-based IGOs and NGOs to lead on development issues.
The other position, which I'll call the "not important camp," point out that al-Qaeda isn't really in Afghanistan anymore, argue that Afghanistan lacks intrinsic strategic importance, and emphasize the futility of "nation-building" in a country that doesn't seem to have much recent history of either nations or buildings. This camp generally recommends avoiding a large-scale troop commitment to Afghanistan while focusing on eliminating al-Qaeda through direct action (mainly drone strikes) and improving Pakistani security and governance capacity.
Keeping in mind that I've just glossed over some differences within these general categories, I've got a couple quick thoughts:
--First, these dueling critiques actually have interesting points of agreement. Both call for reducing the emphasis on ground troops in Afghanistan and on the general idea that we need to do a better job of letting the Afghans determine their own methods of governance.
--I find the existence of the humanitarian camp in this particular case interesting because it seemed so notably absent in the Iraq war. A "not important" camp tends to crop up for virtually every military engagement, but not every war generates a vocal group of humanitarians like Clare Lockhart or Sarah Chayes. The IGOs and NGOs were much more reluctant to get involved in Iraq. Afghanistan seemingly captured the humanitarian imagination in a way that Iraq never did. I suspect that has something to do with how the differences between how the United States entered Afghanistan and how it entered Iraq, but that's probably an incomplete explanation.
--In my view, both also tend to underestimate the danger posed by the Taliban. A common refrain I hear is that the Taliban has limited appeal, they're fragmented, the Afghans don't want them back, they're not that strong, etc. The humanitarian camp seems to think that IGOs and NGOs can effectively conduct reconstruction without more security by helping the population (a rather extreme take on "winning hearts and minds") while the "not important" camp seems to say, "Why are we wasting our time running around after a bunch of backward, bearded guerrillas who aren't a direct threat to us?" While the past isn't necessarily a predictor, I do think it's important to remember that between 1994-2001, the Taliban was able to take over nearly all of the country. Its leadership proved adept at exploiting Afghan disenchantment and religious symbolism to attract supporters, and at gaining the allegiance of numerous warlords to bolster its ranks. Once in power, it facilitated the expansion of violent extremist groups in other Central Asian countries. Obviously things have changed a lot since 2001, but if we were to withdraw combat troops I'm not sure what prevents that from happening again. The Taliban is not an unstoppable army of holy warriors and they may not directly attack the United States, but I don't think we should underestimate their ability to reassert themselves in a way that undermines regional security.
--Who thinks the Obama administration's current policy is a good idea? Stephen Biddle does, but in a very torturous, kind-of-sort-of-maybe way that suggests he himself isn't convinced of his arguments.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see of these critiques of U.S. Afghan strategy gets louder over the next few months.
Personally, if I was in Afghanistan, I'd be rooting for the Taliban. They might be harsh and unimaginative, but they've proven very resistant to corruption and they're predictable. This is a huge step up from the venal capricious mob they have now. As for women's rights - while I'm all in favor of it - how stupid it is to be concerned with their freedom to work etc when rape abounds. Even under the Taliban, I've got to be thinking that their position would be better overall. Not that I'm a fan of the Taliban, but you have to recognise the benefits they have to offer.
And yet another opinion Here from a regional expert. My inclusion of this tidbit does not necessarily sway me to his argument, (for lack of on scene knowledge). So what is it to be? One each from columns A, B and C? Is Obama's drop dead timeline (3 to 4 Friedman units) the real thing?
Ibn Muqawama:
The agreement on the need for reduced troop levels reflects the fact that military occupation will not create the political conditions the US desires. What prevents "just pull all of the soldiers out" from being a position anywhere close to mainstream are the twin delusions that we (the United States) have either a moral obligation to piss away blood and treasure and that it's in our interests to do so.
On the humanitarian camp: Any position founded on the assumption that humanitarian problems are any concern of the West, that intervention is desired, and that intervention can succeed in permanently alleviating those problems -- well, those positions can be safely dismissed very easily. No congruence with reality there.
On Taliban resurgence: In what ways would that threaten regional security? I'd really like to know. I'd also like to know how it (assuming we were withdrawn) would affect us in any way.
As for the Biddle article, just ugh... Check out the article linked in Johnny Rico's first post to that awful entry comparing a spat between rappers to insurgency warfare. If Biddle's assumptions were grounded anywhere close to reality I'd have something substantial to say.
The United States must look for a way out of the war in Afghanistan. There’s got to be an exit strategy. We must also overcome the 'trust deficit' we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where many believe that we are not a reliable long-term partner.
Which of my above statements reflect U.S. policy?
Any time someone has to begin a comment with "I'm not a fan of the Taliban BUT..." there's good reason for it. Just an Australian might as well be Just a Taliban advocate. And I am sure the little girls gunned down by cowardly Taliban shit-sticks would agree with your analysis 100%!
Comment by Lee on July 17, 2009 - 10:01pm
"And I am sure the little girls gunned down by cowardly Taliban shit-sticks would agree with your analysis 100%!"
Then I guess that's the only verdict we have to go on from you on what he wrote.
"Probably unscientific?"
When's Exum get back?
Comment by Visitor on July 17, 2009 - 8:47pm
"What prevents "just pull all of the soldiers out" from being a position anywhere close to mainstream are the twin delusions that we (the United States) have either a moral obligation to piss away blood and treasure and that it's in our interests to do so."
Personally I don't see this. Particularly not in Afghanistan. Sure you can find these arguments made on op-eds, press conf, etc but it would appear that's just because these are the arguments you need to make because you can't say "hey we're having a war and it's not over yet so shut up" and get away with it.
I mean everyone here saw arguments for protecting the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds and whatever else in Iraq. Nobody was shifted from one position on Iraq to another. It was just filler. Nobody from the freaking NRO gave a flying fk about a Marsh Arab before during or after that. It was just a token bit of fluff to talk about because you can't get away with delivering the punchline without the setup. Something quite clearly repeated recently when the plight of the bashed up Iranian protester was championed by the same people who had been advocating for bombing campaigns of the country. Look at his bloody nose, we told you we should have bombed earlier.
I don't see these sentiments and causes holding much sway with the general population against the simple dynamic of the US going to war and it not having achieved what it set out to yet. Whether those goals are simply unachievable is irrelevant. Especially when you're talking about one administration taking over the other side's war. Who's gonna give that up and spend the next 40 years defending/paying for it ?
Instead, I think the most accurate argument for continued engagement of the US in any conflict was explained by Slim Charles here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzuHpzSURPo
These two schools aren't contradictory.
The humanitarian camp can exist in Afghanistan because most of the time in most of the country the Taliban et al ignore aid workers. You never know when you might bump into an insurgent whose not on side or kidnappers so foreigners should keep a low profile but generally their local staff can operate without too much danger. This ability to operate has nothing to do with security provided by NATO or ANSF as they can't possibly protect a medical clinic 24/7 stuck up a valley in Kunar.
The direct action school will be done whether there are large number of "population security" western forces or not. The real question is whether having FOBs and HQs filled with very expensive troops who don't kill the enemy, don't secure villages and don't build the society are worth it or are in fact counter-productive. I think the later as they add billions to the cost of the mission that could be used for development and/or reduce the cost of the war and the mounting public sentiment against it. Lots of troops also increase the chance of "doing harm" such as running aggressive convoy tactics and providing lower quality mentors to Afghan forces.
The third camp (and the right one in my opinion): You can't do much of anything until you have security, and you can't get security by handing out soccer balls to kids and building schools (not that R&S isn't needed, but that its a long term endeavor, and we need security in the short term or the American people - and Afghan people - will ensure we're not still in the country to see the long term). Though he overstates a bit for emphasis, I think Brigadier Kelly's article from Quadrant magazine posted over at SWJ is spot on.
Lee, I'm sure the little girls don't really know or care who it is that guns them down, whether it's a foreigner from the other side of the planet with a predator strike, or whether it's a foreigner from the next valley over with an AK-47.
"Personally, if I was in Afghanistan, I'd be rooting for the Taliban. They might be harsh and unimaginative, but they've proven very resistant to corruption and they're predictable."
Sure they are predictable. You can be sure they will flog or shoot you you when you try to send your kids to school, when you shave your beard, when you listen to music, when you make a kite for your son, when ... well, you get the drift ... And your wife might not exactly root for them either, unless she's a stay at home mum with a burka fetish anyway ...
You didn't happen to notice that in Pakistan (where the Gov is almost as corrupt and impredicable as in Afg) the population does NOT root for the Taliban? Instead, even in the tribal areas, they only got 5 % of the vorte in the last elections. Oh, and the hundreds of thousands of people that fled the Squat valley sure didn't do so due to their "roooting" for the Talibs ...
" I'm sure the little girls don't really know or care who it is that guns them down, whether it's a foreigner from the other side of the planet with a predator strike, or whether it's a foreigner from the next valley over with an AK-47."
But they might care that the Taliban might TRY to gun them down if they go to school, whereas the predator won't shoot at them when the operator sees that it's only little girls on their way to school. They will care that the Taliban will blow themselves up with kids around. A girl will care that it's retarded brother got recruited by them to blow himself up ...
Speaking for the "used car lot" camp, I'd say GiROA has the patina of ISAF support and the nations that contribute forces to ISAF, but beneath the paint job lies a similiar rusting wreck that nobody in their right mind would pay any money to drive off the lot. The major difference between the criminals in GiROA and the Taliban, HiG, Haqqani Network...(pick your insurgent group or warlord) is that I get the distinct feeling that the insurgents don't care about the patina and for some reason the Government does.
Here is a thought , just in passing, why are we rebuilding the nations that will eventually attack us again and again when we are currently 4 trillion dollars in debt and climbing?
So here is my thought. Trying to stop Islamic terrorists is like trying to repair an earth dam. When it leaks through you can only patch it with more earth which mostly is washed away. It seems to me that in a general sense there are two types of Islamic agendas. One is to dominate and convert the world by force if needed, the other agenda is the one that say's "we wish to be Islamic in our own country, leave us alone and we will leave you alone" Unless we wish to really BE an empire, we can't really interfere with that countries wishes can we? If we can protect our own country from Islamic extremism, that should be our first concern. Our other concern should be to eliminate the possibility of one of these "madmen" from gaining nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. As someone already pointed out we are bankrupt. There are limits and we must now define them.
Comment by Positroll on July 18, 2009 - 11:37am
Sure they are predictable. You can be sure they will flog or shoot you you when you try to send your kids to school, when you shave your beard, when you listen to music, when you make a kite for your son, when ... well, you get the drift ... And your wife might not exactly root for them either, unless she's a stay at home mum with a burka fetish anyway .
This sounds like a persuasive rebuttal if you have forgotten that thing called Iraq. You know, where Saddam was a massive tool but you didn't fear the threat of random dismemberment or kidnapping when walking down the street.
Seriously, the principle of insurgents to provide population protection and stability is a pretty central tenant of COIN theory and more to the man's point, in Afghanistan the people have actually seen it in action. Ain't no post-Taliban governance where anyone's managed to achieve this, so your critique is a little odd. In particular, why on earth would you think burqas count for anything among a Muslim population where they were previously compulsory ?
Seriously, it's a persuasive first hand account of your thoughts as an Afghan woman, but not in any other context.
You didn't happen to notice that in Pakistan (where the Gov is almost as corrupt and impredicable as in Afg) the population does NOT root for the Taliban?
Let's say he did/didn't. Where's the relevance for this population who doesn't already know they can survive living under Taliban rule and have done that already. Your are basically arguing against supporting/accepting Taliban rule in a vacuum. Nobody's suggested that. The premise is if one ruler can provide population security and stability then they can appear to be a better alternative than the present rulers who can provide neither.
Instead, even in the tribal areas, they only got 5 % of the vorte in the last elections. Oh, and the hundreds of thousands of people that fled the Squat valley sure didn't do so due to their "roooting" for the Talibs ...
No, they were fleeing so that the side opposed to the Taliban wouldn't kill them. As i mentioned before, you can see an orphanage of Swat's children survivors and the sentiment is universal among those. They sing sonds in tribute to the Taliban for the fkn obvious reason that they weren't the guys who murdered their parents.
Comment by Sea Bee on July 18, 2009 - 7:15pm
It seems to me that in a general sense there are two types of Islamic agendas. One is to dominate and convert the world by force if needed...
It seems to me that there are 2 types of people on the intertubes who have opinions about Islam as whole in the context of current conflicts. Those who base their opinion on ridiculously implausible, BS propaganda and barely veiled racist claims and those who don't.
The Jews on the other hand of course want to subvert, dominate and enslave all other religions while using Christian children's blood in their cooking. Sure, there's no evidence to support that clearly racist/xenophobic/intolerant claim devoid from all reality, but then again so is the violent Islamic takeover of the planet. So let's call them equally valid and reasoned beliefs.
Robert Spencer, what would we do without you. I mean, apart from stoning women to death who wear 2 types of cloth and anyone who works on a Sunday.
Greetings from sunny Sardinia, w. a beer in my hand and 23 degrees in the ocean. A couple of points: Big difference between Af/Pak and Iraq is that the UN is involved in Af/Pak, and so there is some/ a lot of NGO presence as well. In Iraq, the UN was never really welcome and after the bombing they kind of disappeared, leaving the work to US contractors. (I dont know how that sit. is post surge?)
And from those who still see the effort at rebuilding as silly: Obama just announced a huge agricultural effort, a 100% boost. That meant that next year youll spend approx the cost of 1 week of fighting on agricultural rebuilding. Isnt that swell? Up from a 365/3.5 to a 365/7 ratio of expenditure. Woohoo. When you remember that propably 7/10 of this money gets plowed back into western economy instead of the local economy (because anything else would be socialism) then you start to see some of the points of contentment our social democratic NGO workers piss and moan about.
Now, back to the beach. Ciao!
(Oh, and Kilo, thankx for the Spencer-comment!)
Comment by Kilo on July 17, 2009 - 11:05pm
True, but the flipside of the Sorelian myth thing is that we can just as easily invent a reason to withdraw. Set up a plan with quantifiable goal posts, then juke the stats so we're "ready to withdraw" in a year or two. After that, if al-Qaida tries to set up base again (assuming the Taliban or anybody else lets them) hit them with drone strikes or special operators. As for the Taliban, we had a good working relationship with them prior to 2001 and there's no good reason why we can't resume that, provided it's kept on the down-low. Worst-case scenario is the Taliban succeeds at taking over the country, but that'll be a lot harder than in 94-96. And if they do, well, by that time nobody will remember that we were ever in Afghanistan.
That's if you want to go The Wire on the situation, heh.
"This sounds like a persuasive rebuttal if you have forgotten that thing called Iraq. "
Don't know what Iraq got to do with this, but let's see ...
"You know, where Saddam was a massive tool but you didn't fear the threat of random dismemberment or kidnapping when walking down the street."
U R kidding, right? You DO know about all those Sunnis killed because they were a danger to him? All the Shia slaughtered to keep the rest in line? About the Kurds that were gased and bombed in the hills (cf. the Talibans treatment of the Shia Hasara) ???
Seriously, the principle of insurgents to provide population protection and stability is a pretty central tenant of COIN theory and more to the man's point, in Afghanistan the people have actually seen it in action. Ain't no post-Taliban governance where anyone's managed to achieve this, so your critique is a little odd.
O.k., maybe my English got worse over the weekend but I have now clue what the heck you are talking about.
Are you saying Kabul under the Taliban was better governed as it is now ? Live for (Shia) Hasaras was more "predictable" under the boot of their Talib brethren? Kids dying in droves all over the country due to lack of (esp. female) doctors and sanitation did equal "stability" ? Widows forced into begging and prostitution to feed their children (due to the fact that they weren't allowed to work anymore) felt secure? Oh well, I'm sure all those people fleeing Afghanistan after the Talib took over did so because they didn't like security ...
You know, there have been quite some polls been taken in Afghanistan these last years. And even though I wouldn't trust them for the details, the genereal idea expressed by all of them was the same: While people were unimpressed with their own corrupt government, support for the Taliban and their peculiar form of "security" were way lower (5-15%, depending on the researcher and the area, compared to 40-60% for ISAF and the gov).
In particular, why on earth would you think burqas count for anything among a Muslim population where they were previously compulsory ?
1. But before the Taliban took over, they weren't "compulsory" in this sense. Neither in the north, nor with the Hasara, nor in the big cities. Sure, in some (esp. Pashtoun) areas they were part of tradition. But the thing is, before the Taliban came, in most places this decision was left to the families. Of course some of them didn't mind the Taliban imposing it for them, but the rest was pretty pissed of. Same with beards.
2. Funny you picked on this example and declined to prove me wrong on the others ...
None of this is to deny that improved government + security is extremely important in order to prevail in the mid and long term. However, that's because most Afghans are afraid of the Taliban and therefore sitting on the fence, and because some are angry that loved ones were killed during firefights. That a few Pashtoun farmers might have loved the "law and order" the Talibs brought and are nostalgic for it is a really small part of the problem (esp if one considers the fact that the Talibans original opposition was a bunch of infighting, pillaging warlords. Compared to them, sure the Taliban looked like a good deal. But if the point of comparison shifts to people who build schools for your children, bring electricity and doctors and build roads to the market, the deal pretty quickly sours).
P.S. Did you ever happen to watch the movie "kiterunner" ?
So are you painting me as a "racist"? and if so what is your proof? I said.....................................................
Comment by Sea Bee on July 18, 2009 - 7:15pm
So here is my thought. Trying to stop Islamic terrorists is like trying to repair an earth dam. When it leaks through you can only patch it with more earth which mostly is washed away. It seems to me that in a general sense there are two types of Islamic agendas. One is to dominate and convert the world by force if needed, the other agenda is the one that say's "we wish to be Islamic in our own country, leave us alone and we will leave you alone" Unless we wish to really BE an empire, we can't really interfere with that countries wishes can we? If we can protect our own country from Islamic extremism, that should be our first concern. Our other concern should be to eliminate the possibility of one of these "madmen" from gaining nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. As someone already pointed out we are bankrupt. There are limits and we must now define them.
WTF?
One is to dominate and convert the world by force if needed, the other agenda is the one that say's "we wish to be Islamic in our own country, leave us alone and we will leave you alone"
What part of " "we wish to be Islamic in our own country, leave us alone and we will leave you alone" Did you fail to understand?
"They might be harsh and unimaginative, but they've proven very resistant to corruption and they're predictable."
I think your correct to an extent. They would not have existed without the Civil War. For many Pashtuns they were a welcome break from the factional fighting that broke out in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. I don't believe you can extend that argument past the south however. Afghanistan is too diverse for the Taliban to enjoy broad appeal even if they bring peace and security.
The Taliban will never bring peace and security. They are absolutists. That's a fact.
Kilo:
Now let me paint you with a broad brush: Either you are a 1) world class moron, or 2) Islamic... or perhaps 3) a world-class Islamic moron (I figure door #3)
Problem with your incoherent nonsense is that you know nothing of what you speak. The Invitation or Dawa gives the non-Muslims three options: Convert, pay alms, or die.
That's it.
Its not "BS propaganda".
Robert Spencer didn't make it up.
It's not "racist".
it's in the Qur'an.
Either you need to have someone clue you in as to what you have been missing, or you need to hone your taqqiya as it is a bit too obvious.
If you think that Sea Bee is painting the Umma with a broad stroke, something that many do - he is. But in this case, he isn't that far off. If Christians were finding religious inspiration for beheadings, crucifixions, and raping little girls in the Bible - and you said there were two camps in the Christian church, those who carried out Jesus' commands and those who didn't, you'd be right. There are the Muslims like Osama bin Laden who follow the Qur'an, and there are the many others who don't - and live peaceful coexistence in civil societies.
And the whole moral relativism thing is a bit overused.
But I am sure that Robert Spencer will be pleased to find out that abu Muqawama's pet cock holster holds him in such high regard.
Comment by Positroll on July 19, 2009 - 11:46am
"U R kidding, right? You DO know about all those Sunnis killed because they were a danger to him? All the Shia slaughtered to keep the rest in line? About the Kurds that were gased and bombed in the hills (cf. the Talibans treatment of the Shia Hasara) ??? "
Yes, yes I do. Do you know that all of these were surpassed by the numbers killed in the post-invasion period where anywhere up to 3000 were being killed per month, not for being any particular sect, but just for being outdooors ? Well you do now.
You also haven't put much thought into the difference between these 2 scenarios visa vi the mindset of the population and what they'll accept in terms of a ruling party who can provide security.
You think you'd accept a tyrannical ruler quicker if I started bombing Baptists in your neighbourhood, or just random people ?
Which of these 2 scenarios impacts your psyche to a greater degree ?
"O.k., maybe my English got worse over the weekend but I have now clue what the heck you are talking about.
Are you saying Kabul under the Taliban was better governed as it is now ?
No, simply that it was under the Taliban. More to the point, it was governed without the threat to the public that now exists. Either you disagree with this or you don't. You don't. Hence, when someone cites that threat -- defined as a pretty big piece of any population-intimidating insurgent's goal for winning -- then this isn't something to be dismissed out of hand. Especially not with anecdotes about how bad the guys in charge used to be.
The bad guys still in charge around the world kind of testify to this. As do the 1980s-90s Kurds and Shia in Iraq. You mentioned later on that you realise refugees fleeing the country count for something. Those numbers too testify to what I'm saying.
Now I don't believe the public is better off under the Taliban, nor that there is such threat to the public now to sway them, nor that there is any imminent threat of that occurring. However, this doesn't change the fact that what you've written here is myopic.
The public of Afghanistan hasn't outright rejected the US presence, the government they're supporting and switched support to the Taliban due to the number of civilians killed. Do you believe this means there is no amount of civilians you could kill which could change that ? Answer yes and I'll take your word that this is your honest, thought out opinion rather than a just kneejerk sentiment. If not, then you agree with what he wrote, you just differ in opinion as to the likelyhood.
A situation no amount of raping and orphaning and burqarising from the previous decade changes, since the deaths, corruption and lack of governance are future tense. Today you can ignore the faults of the Afghan government because the Taliban are not a viable replacement. That situation persisting is either assured or it isn't.
Kids dying in droves... lack of (esp. female) doctors... Widows forced... Oh well, I'm sure all those people fleeing Afghanistan after the Talib took over did so because they didn't like security ...
As am I. You seem to have screwed up that bit of sarcasm and just made it an accurate assessment.
You know, there have been quite some polls been taken in Afghanistan these last years.
Yes there have. While they're still (as recent as you can get em) showing broad popular support for the US and central govt, they've been heading south for the duration. What do you believe that is due if not the factors you are mocking here ?
Think the actions of the Taliban in the 90s is still to blame or that it's irrelevant and of no concern to the side who isn't the Taliban ?
Seriously, I could blame Bush for the bailouts and Sotamayor being nominated if this would make it any clearer.
1. But before the Taliban took over, they weren't "compulsory" in this sense.
That's not the point. If I told you that you had to wear a sombrero for the next 10 years to avoid getting killed, you did and survived and then in year 11 you faced the threat of getting killed at random for a whole bevy of other reasons, how do you feel about the sombrero crowd coming back into power in year 12 if all the other factors go away ?
Funny you picked on this example and declined to prove me wrong on the others ...
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. We're not yet discussing the same topic.....
None of this is to deny that improved government + security is extremely important in order to prevail in the mid and long term.
...... and now we are. And it would appear we don't disagree.
P.S. Did you ever happen to watch the movie "kiterunner" ?
Better than "Osama", not as good as "Kandahar".
Now let me paint you with a broad brush: Either you are a 1) world class moron, or 2) Islamic... or perhaps 3) a world-class Islamic moron (I figure door #3)
Not the best way to open a post in which you go on to agree with what I wrote, repeatedly. Tends to be ironic rather than insulting.
Problem with your incoherent nonsense is that you know nothing of what you speak. The Invitation or Dawa gives the non-Muslims three options: Convert, pay alms, or die. That's it. Its not "BS propaganda".
Nor is it what we were speaking of. No, the BS propaganda was the insinuation that this in any way represents the agenda of Islam. You know, like what we were discussing in relation to 1/3rd of the world's population. I take it from your avoidance of addressing that, that you concur that this on the other hand is complete and utter bullshit.
Perhaps you thought Sea biscuit here read a passage in the Quran and decided for herself that this was in fact a realistic portrayal of the agenda of Muslims the world over. Perhaps you think that's a more likely scenario than he/she being influenced by some nonsense someone wrote, with a clear and undeniable agenda.
You know, like all the Arabs who read the Torah to get their opinions of Jews instead of those more popular published accounts of the Jewish agenda.
Robert Spencer didn't make it up. It's not "racist". it's in the Qur'an.
No kidding moron. Did you miss the part where Christians stone women to death for mixing fabrics or are you just fkn slow.
Either "it's in the Bible" makes a more persuasive case that the Christian agenda can be divided into those who do/don't want to kill women for the most petty of reasons or it doesn't.
Either you need to have someone clue you in as to what you have been missing, or you need to hone your taqqiya as it is a bit too obvious.
I've gotta say, it's not as fun as when the 9/11 truthers used to call me a CIA agent, but what can you do. Small minds, they do love their baseless conspiracy theories.
FWIW though, I guess my taqqiya stylin is positively ninja nowdays, what with me applauding the way Israelis bomb Palestinians. Fkn fruitcake.
If you think that Sea Bee is painting the Umma with a broad stroke, something that many do - he is.
Well, way to fk that up, moron. Bravo.
But in this case, he isn't that far off. If Christians were finding religious inspiration for beheadings, crucifixions, and raping little girls in the Bible....
....we'd be talking about a history of these deeds that made Islam look like the newbie it is. BTW you forgot slavery.
- and you said there were two camps in the Christian church, those who carried out Jesus' commands and those who didn't, you'd be right.
That was the point. But thanks for putting us through this for no apparent purpose.
But I am sure that Robert Spencer will be pleased to find out that abu Muqawama's pet cock holster holds him in such high regard.
LOL, way to project their pal. One of us certainly believes that an author we read cares deeply about things written on the intertubes and that his readers share a personal relationship with him. You gonna call him now or haven't you worked up the courage to ask for his number yet ?
Comment by Visitor on July 19, 2009 - 9:56pm
"The Taliban will never bring peace and security. They are absolutists. That's a fact."
Except they did bring peace and security to pretty much all of the country, coming out a full blown civil war.
On the other hand, their being absolutists is why the option to negotiate anything isn't really an option.
And just to avoid more wasting more space:
"Negotiate with insurgents who use terrorist tactics????"
"Iraq. FFS, pay attention"
Oh God, are we back among the dhimmies again, the lapdogs of Al Quaeda like Robert Spencer and his ilk? Robert Spencer propably gets a pension from Al Quaeda, as does his fellow flunkie slike Pam Geller and my own very special Fjordman. They basically want the same as Al QUaeda: A world where muslims are separated into two groups: Actual fighting jihadis and cowardly supporters of said jihadis. Spencers maxim is that there is no moderate islam, and that islam is a fascistic construct, bent on world domination, sort of the Dark Side of the Force who will not rest till all is conquered. And Fjordman is hot on the Eurabia thesis, accusing all those hardworking immigrants from the 70s of being a part of a conspiracy to take control over Europe for the Jews, sorry muslims through their cunning ways. Al Quaeda sends the same story, but with a opposite twang, that those presumabli silent supporters are weaklings who need to reclaim their manhood and stand up and fight to go back to the stone age.
Spencer and his friends are clear rightwing lunatics, just like Al Quaeda, and unfortunately nobody seems to be willing to fight them seriously, in Europe they are gaining much traction. Its a fckin disgrace. In Norway we have assclowns who try to tie collective discrimination of muslims to the war effort, as a political tool. My fckin God, Ive been in the papers about it.
(But Kilo, united as we are in our hatred for Spencer, your assertion of Taleban being generally popular is a bit of mark. They were more like the least of two evils from what I have read, better to get your head chopped by law than chopped for fun. Our beloved general Dostum used to run over folks with a tank as execution. Hard to beat that, even for the Talebs.)
Well at least you know you suck at this.
"Except they did bring peace and security to pretty much all of the country"
Let it suffice to say that my definitions of "peace and security" isn't in line with the one used by you and the Taliban. On the other hand, as the Taliban definition is in line with the one used in Poland in the early 1940s, I'm pretty happy about that fact (yes, I know, I'm violating one of Abu Ms golden rules here; as luck has it, he's on holidays ... ). Personally I'd rather agree with Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
What's more important, allmost all non - Pashtouns and even many Pashtouns disagreed with your definition, too. That's why a few hundred special forces + some B 52 could basically throw them out of the country after 9/11.
P.S. Not sure why you keep bothering me with Iraq. Me being German, there is nothing to be gained by trying to put me on a guilt trip in this regard ... BTW, while I was against the Iraq war basically from the beginning because I thought the result would not be worth the effort, I might start to consider it worth the losses in case it leads to a successfull revolution in Iran. Especially considering that a full blown civil war + genocide a la Bosnia or Ruanda after a "natural" death of Saddam would have been more or less a sure bet in my book. Bush made it happen sooner and maybe even less bloody (which doesn't excuse the poor handling of the first part of the war, though; but then the German efforts in Afghanistan leave some things to be desired, too ...).
The humanitarinas....ahh God love them. They continually strive for such a perfect world. It gives such a purpose for their lives. But alas their convictions blind side them with their purpose. It would be so easy to be lulled into a never ending slog of purpose for the Afgan people. There is such a reason, an easy explanation for us to be there until god forbid they become a bastion of consumerism as much as ourselves. But I digress.
As for the not important camp...well quite frankly Im beginning to believe more and more that perhaps their argument has more merit. Things at home in the US are looking more bleak and are repeatedly begging the question what is the point? You can drag the proverbial horse to water but there is no way to make it drink. Granted this is simplistic but considering the costs both in human lives and our problems at home...why must we continue such a heavy presence in an area so fundametally flawed on so many different levels?
The discussion of the two camps certainly brings consideration to compromise. But just as a drone strike may swing opinion against the US, so too will the death of a captured soldier to strengthen the resolve of the two camps in their convictions.
"I might start to consider it worth the losses..." etc.
Purely hypothetical, obviously - but that's an interesting point I hadn't heard before.
Most of the arguments for or against "Iraq is f#$k'd now" or "not worth it" assume or imply some sort of (usually undefined) other-state had we taken some (usually unsaid) other-course. Acknowledging the spectrum of possibilities, while certainly "just" a thought exercise, seems also the only intellectually honest approach.
If I've muddied the waters, apologies. In short: three cheers for your final paragraph.
This is the worst thread in the history of abu muqawama.
Okay, I'll bite. Now that it has that requisite condemnation, what more does it need?
http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/07/video-of-american-pow-in-afghanista...
"The humanitarinas....ahh God love them. They continually strive for such a perfect world. It gives such a purpose for their lives."
Oh moan and sigh. Yeah, them damn pinko humanitarians striving for perfection in a fallen world, sad suckers dreaming of world peace and flowers to the children. And all the muslims ready to eat and kill them (in that order). I agree with you Wayne Z, this may be the worst thread in quite a long time, possibly since the Dont Ask, Dont tell-thread wich featured screes of homosexual angst. Must be the summer holidays...?
With the possibility of insulting G. Gentile, who I respect, ever since we went into a dual-opposition discussion on COIndinistas vs- COINtras, this blog has been spiralling downwards, because dual position arguments basically come down to just that, folks trying to bash each other over the head with premade positions. Instead of discussing how to integrate the various positions into reality, instead of dicussing to what extent civil NGOs and military PRT work is compatible, instead of pointing out problems and suggesting solutions, etc, it now all falls down into position bashing: "humanitarians" vs. "militants", as if there are clearly defined arguments made from either camp, and its a choice between them. Either youre a hippy, a cut and runner or youre a nuker. The only person who has tried to draw some middleground has been SNLI and even that attempt seemed to me not really enthusiastic, but rather war-weary. Wich in itself is interesting. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".
Folks, the slog in Afghanistan has just started according to the politicos. Its Iraq 2006 again, and you/we have to do it all over. Its strange to see folks who were deep in the middle of it three years ago now pissing and moaning, instead of trying to apply that knowledge won through blood and sweat to a new scenario. Instead of falling into this dualistic discussion-club crap, give me some discussions on practical parameters. Give me some list of problems and possible solutions, give me some real technical stuff to chew on, so that I may apply my little brain to thinking about solutions and problems. Dont give me this "We are fighting an ideology" shit out of the 50s where the red menace was presented as a unified front. Show me where the fuckups have been and what possibilities there are of rectifying them. Is anyone creating schools for afghan buerocrats? Are there any serious agricultural reforms coming? Any change in the chains of command? Any real effort to do the right thing in Swat, w. the refugees? Any suggestions for changes in the ANA rotation system? Im still kind of shocked as to the extent the republicans at Blackfive changed their position on "respect the POTUS" at the moment Barack the magic negro took command. Any thoughts on that? And how widespread is the hatred for him in the rest of the armed forces? Thats the kind of shit I want to read about.
As to the question of cutting and running now, thats just as silly now as it was in Iraq 2006, if for nothing else because of the log-train needing to unwind over a period of two years. What is the log-sit these days? To what extent is the capacity at its maximum already? Give me some info, dammit, not this generalistic muddle of generalized positions. Argh.
Now, for the beach.
so fnord - you and your antizionist mates causing trouble again?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/20/israel_turns_on_itself?...
"And how widespread is the hatred for him in the rest of the armed forces? Thats the kind of shit I want to read about."
The answer would disappoint you. No excitement there. There was on the day after the elections (mostly positive) - but much of that faded when it turned out "change" looks a lot like last year. Personally I saw that three times previously in my career. Seriously, the guys in my neighborhood aren't packing for their next little trip with any more or less enthusiasm than for the last one.
I think the worst thing any would say about him is "we'll see". I'm sure there are folks at one extreme end of the bell curve whose opinions might run to "hate" but the vast majority just ain't political. Passionate discussions run to music, sports, movies - politics falls pretty far down the list. That's partly because of The Rules and partly because that's true of most of the larger society of which the military is a still something of a microcosm.
It pains me to write that in response to you're request for something other than "generalistic muddle of generalized positions" but I think I've summed it up accurately from my personal experience.
But here's a more risible restatement: any reports of significant discontent are the widely exaggerated ravings of delusional outsiders with questionable motives.
Here's something.
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/Tactical_Directive_090706.p...
Anybody working up there? This could be worth a post of it's own...
@Fnord
"But Kilo ... your assertion of Taleban being generally popular is a bit of mark. They were more like the least of two evils from what I have read, better to get your head chopped by law than chopped for fun. Our beloved general Dostum used to run over folks with a tank as execution. Hard to beat that, even for the Talebs.)"
I wasn't discussing popular, more tolerated. I don't even claim they're tolerated now to any wide degree, just that this is their endgame and it can't be dismissed as a possibility/primary threat on the grounds of their atrocities, particularly those in the past. In fact, the opposite is true.Them being capable of subduing a population to the point where these types of abuses don't result in them being overthrown is an argument for why they are capable of retaking that position.
As for them vs the opposition back then, well military dominance had more to do with who won out. The social justice element to their kit probably didn't hurt either. I don't believe I've ever read any non-military account of life under the opposing forces (Nth Alliance excluded, although they don't really count), but I can't imagine they brought the same level of guns-to-garbage coverage the Taliban did. Blah... I have no info about that.
This strikes me as noteworthy/odd.
Taliban launch a series of simultaneous attacks on 4 Afghan sites in 2 cities, including coordinated teams of gunman, RPGs and suicide bombers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8160604.stm
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21Mfo...
Good targets, but the result ? 8 dead militants, 6 govt forces and 2 of the attackers were wearing Burqas.
Can I claim that this both suggests that they are advancing the sophistication of their target selection and complexity of their attacks.... while completely sucking at it ?
"Three militants, meanwhile, tried to attack a U.S. base in a second eastern city at nearly the same time."
Yeah, how'd that turn out ?
Seriously, unless there's some rouge cell activity going on here, this would appear to suggest whoever is planning major activities has NFI what they are doing.
May or may not be relevant and no aspersions intended, but interesting nevertheless:
"Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force."
From "Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right wing myth." Harpers 2006
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080
Comment by Positroll on July 20, 2009 - 1:08pm
>>""Except they did bring peace and security to pretty much all of the country""
>>""Let it suffice to say that my definitions of "peace and security" isn't in line with the one used by you and the Taliban. On the other hand, as the Taliban definition is in line with the one used in Poland in the early 1940s, I'm pretty happy about that fact""
Yeah, that's the point though. It's not about whether it was positive, it's whether it was good enough to get into and then hold onto power. It was. We know that this kind of shitkicking the population can keep you in power in Afghanistan. This lesson can be visually represented by a photograph of Robert Mugabe and his moustache.
>>"What's more important, allmost all non - Pashtouns and even many Pashtouns disagreed with your definition, too.""
No, none of them disagree with me that the Taliban were in power prior to 9/11 and that they were able to maintain this power via brutalising/intimidating the population via all the elements you cite. You don't either.
>>That's why a few hundred special forces + some B 52 could basically throw them out of the country after 9/11.
Er.... no. Otherwise the B52s etc wouldn't have been necessary. You can't claim that the Taliban couldn't hold onto power doing what they did to the citizens for as long as they did by citing the fact they were only removed from power when the superpower got involved. That's what proves the opposite case.
>>"Not sure why you keep bothering me with Iraq."
Because it's a much more clear-cut, well understood and played out insugency situation and therefor has more readily understood Xs that I can refer to. No guilt trips involved. Although now that you mention it, Germany could stand to pony up a few more troops for a NATO effort.
"[The Taliban] were able to maintain this power via brutalising/intimidating the population "
I agree. However, in my book, "brutalising/intimidating" simply does not equal "peace and security" as something Afghans look back to as an admirable state of affairs, or as something ISAF should try to reintroduce ... (the Pakistanis seem to try this approach in some areas, though)
"Er.... no."
Er ... yes. considering the Taliban had lots of support from the Pakistani army / ISI, too ...
Maybe a less politically charged example might help you understand my point:
With early (military) support from the French government, the "Republican" (socialist, communist, anarchist) forces could have easily won the Spanish civil war and impose their point of view. That does nothing to show whether the Spanish people prefered the "peace and security" offered by the Francistas (supported by Germany and Italy) over the version offered by the lefties ...
"does not equal "peace and security" as something Afghans look back to as an admirable state of affairs"
Not as opposed to the current state of violence, no. This however is a secondary consideration to the fact that they already took over the country once, without a popularity contest vote. Once they did, the imposition of this state of affairs, far less acceptable in that present, persisted. This has occurred again in significant areas of the country.
In the areas they control in Afghanistan right now, popularity isn't the dominant factor. Subversion to their intimidation is. I call this "tolerance" because I can't be fked thinking up a better word. But it is what it is. Most importantly though, it exists where strong/competant alternative rule doesn't. That is the issue and why the Afghan govt not being the Talban isn't going to be enough.
In any event, I don't think either of us are shifting on this. So let's move on to Xbox360 vs PS3 instead.
Why haven't there been new posts in days? What's going on? Is this blog going away?
"In any event, I don't think either of us are shifting on this. "
At least we agree on the practical side of things: More and better government is needed in Afg.
"So let's move on to Xbox360 vs PS3 instead."
Baaad idea, since I haven't got either of them and prefer to play games on my PC (Civilization!).
Why spend money on a computer you only can use for games ?
Add your comment