Jump to content

Swan Song for NATO: The real cost of defeat in Afghanistan


Guest Gandalf Grey

Recommended Posts

Guest Gandalf Grey

Swan Song for NATO: The real cost of defeat in Afghanistan

 

By Mike Whitney

 

Created Feb 13 2008 - 11:48pm

 

 

It was supposed to be "the good war"; a war against terror; a war of

liberation. It was intended to fix the eyes of the world on America's state

of the art weaponry, its crack troops and its overwhelming firepower. It was

supposed to demonstrate-once and for all-- that the world's only superpower

could no longer be beaten or resisted; that Washington could deploy its

troops anywhere in the world and crush its adversaries at will.

 

Then everything went sideways. The war veered from the Pentagon's script.

The Taliban retreated, waited, regrouped and retaliated. They enlisted

support from the Pashtuns and the tribal leaders who could see that America

would never honor its commitments; that order would never be restored.

Operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity; just

occupation. Seven years have passed and Afghanistan is still ruled by

warlords and drug-merchants. Nothing has improved. The country is in

shambles and the government is a fraud. The humiliation of foreign

occupation persists while the killing goes on with no end in sight.

 

War is not foreign policy. It is slaughter. Seven years later; it's still

slaughter. The Taliban have taken over more than half of Afghanistan. They

have conducted military operations in the capital of Kabul. They're dug in

at Logar, Wardak and Ghazni and control vast swathes of territory in Zabul,

Helmand, Urzgan and Kandahar. Now they are getting ready to step-up

operations and mount a Spring offensive, which means the violence will only

intensify.

 

The Taliban's approach is methodical and deliberate. They've shown they can

survive the harshest conditions and still achieve tactical victories over a

better-equipped enemy. They are highly-motivated and believe their cause is

just. After all, they are not fighting to occupy a foreign nation; they're

fighting to defend their own country. That strengthens their resolve and

keeps morale high. When NATO and American troops leave Afghanistan; the

Taliban will remain, just as they did when the Russians left 20 years ago.

No difference. The US occupation will just be another footnote in the

country's tragic history.

 

The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US

troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a

soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people.

That probably won't change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that

"if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US

would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in

Afghanistan." Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the

ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical

level; victory is impossible.

 

The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up like

this:

 

"The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of

our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush

administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all....The US doesn't

want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no

excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic goals

in the region....After seven years, there is no peace, human rights,

democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering of

our people is increasing everyday. ...We believe that if the troops leave

Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their current

puzzlement and doubts...Afghanistan's freedom can only be achieved by Afghan

people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy

which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters

on the neck of our nation." (RAWA http://www.rawa.org [1])

 

Gradually, the Allies will see that Bush's war cannot be won and that

continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military solution

to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting

murkier all the time. This just adds to the growing sense of frustration.

 

Recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to cajole the allies into

sending more combat troops to fight in the south, but he met with stiff

resistance . He said:

 

"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the

magnitude of the direct threat to European security," Gates said. "We must

not become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and those

who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective

security, would in effect destroy the alliance."

 

But support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America's war, not

theirs. Europeans don't need to occupy foreign nations to meet their energy

needs. Their countries are prosperous and they can afford to buy for fuel on

the open market. Only America wants the war. It's all part of a geopolitical

"grand strategy" to project US power into the region to control its

resources. So far, there's no indication that the plan will succeed.

 

Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few years,

they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will

satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in Afghanistan

has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is using

the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control pipeline-routes

from the Caspian Basin and surround Russia and China with military bases.

Naturally, Putin would like to persuade Chancellor Angela Merkel to withdraw

German troops from Afghanistan so he could strike a blow against the US-led

alliance.

 

Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of

the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support

Washington's adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO will

disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall

apart. The cracks are already visible.

 

Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country will

become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. He says we are

fighting a "poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism which threatens to

become a global movement".

 

But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the

conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the

suffering of their people. A recent report by the United Nations Human

Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan has

fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down,

malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the

population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of people

have been internally displaced by the war.

 

Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's opium; more than any other

country. The booming drug trade is the direct result of the US invasion.

Bush has created the world's largest narco-colony. Is that success?

 

Presently, there are no plans to remove the warlords or improve the lives of

ordinary Afghans. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in

Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is

today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghans now

understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the

occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.

 

There's no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all.

The administration thought the Taliban would see America's high-tech,

laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they're back. And

now we are embroiled in an "unwinnable" war with a tenacious enemy that

grows stronger by the day.

 

Eventually, the Europeans will see the futility of the war and leave. And

that will be the end of NATO.

 

_______

Mike Whitney

 

 

 

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

 

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jerry Okamura

Same question as Iraq. Is success in Afghanistan important or is it not

important, and why?

 

"Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:47b5d076$1$14652$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

> Swan Song for NATO: The real cost of defeat in Afghanistan

>

> By Mike Whitney

>

> Created Feb 13 2008 - 11:48pm

>

>

> It was supposed to be "the good war"; a war against terror; a war of

> liberation. It was intended to fix the eyes of the world on America's

> state

> of the art weaponry, its crack troops and its overwhelming firepower. It

> was

> supposed to demonstrate-once and for all-- that the world's only

> superpower

> could no longer be beaten or resisted; that Washington could deploy its

> troops anywhere in the world and crush its adversaries at will.

>

> Then everything went sideways. The war veered from the Pentagon's script.

> The Taliban retreated, waited, regrouped and retaliated. They enlisted

> support from the Pashtuns and the tribal leaders who could see that

> America

> would never honor its commitments; that order would never be restored.

> Operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity; just

> occupation. Seven years have passed and Afghanistan is still ruled by

> warlords and drug-merchants. Nothing has improved. The country is in

> shambles and the government is a fraud. The humiliation of foreign

> occupation persists while the killing goes on with no end in sight.

>

> War is not foreign policy. It is slaughter. Seven years later; it's still

> slaughter. The Taliban have taken over more than half of Afghanistan. They

> have conducted military operations in the capital of Kabul. They're dug in

> at Logar, Wardak and Ghazni and control vast swathes of territory in

> Zabul,

> Helmand, Urzgan and Kandahar. Now they are getting ready to step-up

> operations and mount a Spring offensive, which means the violence will

> only

> intensify.

>

> The Taliban's approach is methodical and deliberate. They've shown they

> can

> survive the harshest conditions and still achieve tactical victories over

> a

> better-equipped enemy. They are highly-motivated and believe their cause

> is

> just. After all, they are not fighting to occupy a foreign nation; they're

> fighting to defend their own country. That strengthens their resolve and

> keeps morale high. When NATO and American troops leave Afghanistan; the

> Taliban will remain, just as they did when the Russians left 20 years ago.

> No difference. The US occupation will just be another footnote in the

> country's tragic history.

>

> The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US

> troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a

> soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people.

> That probably won't change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that

> "if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US

> would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in

> Afghanistan." Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the

> ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical

> level; victory is impossible.

>

> The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the

> Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up

> like

> this:

>

> "The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of

> our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush

> administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all....The US

> doesn't

> want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no

> excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic

> goals

> in the region....After seven years, there is no peace, human rights,

> democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering

> of

> our people is increasing everyday. ...We believe that if the troops leave

> Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their

> current

> puzzlement and doubts...Afghanistan's freedom can only be achieved by

> Afghan

> people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong

> policy

> which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their

> masters

> on the neck of our nation." (RAWA http://www.rawa.org [1])

>

> Gradually, the Allies will see that Bush's war cannot be won and that

> continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military

> solution

> to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting

> murkier all the time. This just adds to the growing sense of frustration.

>

> Recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to cajole the allies into

> sending more combat troops to fight in the south, but he met with stiff

> resistance . He said:

>

> "I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the

> magnitude of the direct threat to European security," Gates said. "We must

> not become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and

> those

> who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective

> security, would in effect destroy the alliance."

>

> But support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America's war, not

> theirs. Europeans don't need to occupy foreign nations to meet their

> energy

> needs. Their countries are prosperous and they can afford to buy for fuel

> on

> the open market. Only America wants the war. It's all part of a

> geopolitical

> "grand strategy" to project US power into the region to control its

> resources. So far, there's no indication that the plan will succeed.

>

> Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few

> years,

> they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will

> satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in

> Afghanistan

> has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is

> using

> the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control

> pipeline-routes

> from the Caspian Basin and surround Russia and China with military bases.

> Naturally, Putin would like to persuade Chancellor Angela Merkel to

> withdraw

> German troops from Afghanistan so he could strike a blow against the

> US-led

> alliance.

>

> Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of

> the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support

> Washington's adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO

> will

> disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall

> apart. The cracks are already visible.

>

> Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country

> will

> become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. He says we are

> fighting a "poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism which threatens to

> become a global movement".

>

> But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the

> conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the

> suffering of their people. A recent report by the United Nations Human

> Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan

> has

> fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down,

> malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the

> population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of

> people

> have been internally displaced by the war.

>

> Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's opium; more than any other

> country. The booming drug trade is the direct result of the US invasion.

> Bush has created the world's largest narco-colony. Is that success?

>

> Presently, there are no plans to remove the warlords or improve the lives

> of

> ordinary Afghans. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in

> Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is

> today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghans now

> understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the

> occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.

>

> There's no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all.

> The administration thought the Taliban would see America's high-tech,

> laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they're back.

> And

> now we are embroiled in an "unwinnable" war with a tenacious enemy that

> grows stronger by the day.

>

> Eventually, the Europeans will see the futility of the war and leave. And

> that will be the end of NATO.

>

> _______

> Mike Whitney

>

>

>

> --

> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

> available to advance understanding of

> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

> I

> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

>

> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

> suffering deeply in spirit,

> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are

> at

> stake."

> -Thomas Jefferson

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:06:08 -1000, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>Same question as Iraq. Is success in Afghanistan important or is it not

>important, and why?

 

That 'success' is the destruction of the USA, to you, isn't it, bushkultie.

>"Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

>news:47b5d076$1$14652$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>> Swan Song for NATO: The real cost of defeat in Afghanistan

>>

>> By Mike Whitney

>>

>> Created Feb 13 2008 - 11:48pm

>>

>>

>> It was supposed to be "the good war"; a war against terror; a war of

>> liberation. It was intended to fix the eyes of the world on America's

>> state

>> of the art weaponry, its crack troops and its overwhelming firepower. It

>> was

>> supposed to demonstrate-once and for all-- that the world's only

>> superpower

>> could no longer be beaten or resisted; that Washington could deploy its

>> troops anywhere in the world and crush its adversaries at will.

>>

>> Then everything went sideways. The war veered from the Pentagon's script.

>> The Taliban retreated, waited, regrouped and retaliated. They enlisted

>> support from the Pashtuns and the tribal leaders who could see that

>> America

>> would never honor its commitments; that order would never be restored.

>> Operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity; just

>> occupation. Seven years have passed and Afghanistan is still ruled by

>> warlords and drug-merchants. Nothing has improved. The country is in

>> shambles and the government is a fraud. The humiliation of foreign

>> occupation persists while the killing goes on with no end in sight.

>>

>> War is not foreign policy. It is slaughter. Seven years later; it's still

>> slaughter. The Taliban have taken over more than half of Afghanistan. They

>> have conducted military operations in the capital of Kabul. They're dug in

>> at Logar, Wardak and Ghazni and control vast swathes of territory in

>> Zabul,

>> Helmand, Urzgan and Kandahar. Now they are getting ready to step-up

>> operations and mount a Spring offensive, which means the violence will

>> only

>> intensify.

>>

>> The Taliban's approach is methodical and deliberate. They've shown they

>> can

>> survive the harshest conditions and still achieve tactical victories over

>> a

>> better-equipped enemy. They are highly-motivated and believe their cause

>> is

>> just. After all, they are not fighting to occupy a foreign nation; they're

>> fighting to defend their own country. That strengthens their resolve and

>> keeps morale high. When NATO and American troops leave Afghanistan; the

>> Taliban will remain, just as they did when the Russians left 20 years ago.

>> No difference. The US occupation will just be another footnote in the

>> country's tragic history.

>>

>> The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US

>> troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a

>> soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people.

>> That probably won't change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that

>> "if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US

>> would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in

>> Afghanistan." Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the

>> ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical

>> level; victory is impossible.

>>

>> The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the

>> Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up

>> like

>> this:

>>

>> "The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of

>> our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush

>> administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all....The US

>> doesn't

>> want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no

>> excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic

>> goals

>> in the region....After seven years, there is no peace, human rights,

>> democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering

>> of

>> our people is increasing everyday. ...We believe that if the troops leave

>> Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their

>> current

>> puzzlement and doubts...Afghanistan's freedom can only be achieved by

>> Afghan

>> people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong

>> policy

>> which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their

>> masters

>> on the neck of our nation." (RAWA http://www.rawa.org [1])

>>

>> Gradually, the Allies will see that Bush's war cannot be won and that

>> continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military

>> solution

>> to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting

>> murkier all the time. This just adds to the growing sense of frustration.

>>

>> Recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to cajole the allies into

>> sending more combat troops to fight in the south, but he met with stiff

>> resistance . He said:

>>

>> "I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the

>> magnitude of the direct threat to European security," Gates said. "We must

>> not become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and

>> those

>> who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective

>> security, would in effect destroy the alliance."

>>

>> But support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America's war, not

>> theirs. Europeans don't need to occupy foreign nations to meet their

>> energy

>> needs. Their countries are prosperous and they can afford to buy for fuel

>> on

>> the open market. Only America wants the war. It's all part of a

>> geopolitical

>> "grand strategy" to project US power into the region to control its

>> resources. So far, there's no indication that the plan will succeed.

>>

>> Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few

>> years,

>> they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will

>> satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in

>> Afghanistan

>> has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is

>> using

>> the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control

>> pipeline-routes

>> from the Caspian Basin and surround Russia and China with military bases.

>> Naturally, Putin would like to persuade Chancellor Angela Merkel to

>> withdraw

>> German troops from Afghanistan so he could strike a blow against the

>> US-led

>> alliance.

>>

>> Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of

>> the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support

>> Washington's adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO

>> will

>> disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall

>> apart. The cracks are already visible.

>>

>> Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country

>> will

>> become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. He says we are

>> fighting a "poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism which threatens to

>> become a global movement".

>>

>> But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the

>> conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the

>> suffering of their people. A recent report by the United Nations Human

>> Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan

>> has

>> fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down,

>> malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the

>> population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of

>> people

>> have been internally displaced by the war.

>>

>> Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's opium; more than any other

>> country. The booming drug trade is the direct result of the US invasion.

>> Bush has created the world's largest narco-colony. Is that success?

>>

>> Presently, there are no plans to remove the warlords or improve the lives

>> of

>> ordinary Afghans. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in

>> Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is

>> today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghans now

>> understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the

>> occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.

>>

>> There's no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all.

>> The administration thought the Taliban would see America's high-tech,

>> laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they're back.

>> And

>> now we are embroiled in an "unwinnable" war with a tenacious enemy that

>> grows stronger by the day.

>>

>> Eventually, the Europeans will see the futility of the war and leave. And

>> that will be the end of NATO.

>>

>> _______

>> Mike Whitney

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

>> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

>> available to advance understanding of

>> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

>> I

>> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

>> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

>> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

>>

>> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

>> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

>> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

>> suffering deeply in spirit,

>> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

>> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

>> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

>> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are

>> at

>> stake."

>> -Thomas Jefferson

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jerry Okamura

" US " wrote in message news:kd8jr3517km5fhlv0r9j9954n6t2mo9oba@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:06:08 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>

>>Same question as Iraq. Is success in Afghanistan important or is it not

>>important, and why?

>

> That 'success' is the destruction of the USA, to you, isn't it,

> bushkultie.

>

Still not answering the question asked. But I will show you the courtesy

you chose not to show me. The answer to your question is, how will

"success" result in the destrutcion of the USA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:16:17 -1000, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>Still not answering ...

 

You can't answer for yourself, but it's obvious.

 

You hate Americans, as you're a mere bushfilth.

 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:06:08 -1000, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>Same question as Iraq. Is success in Afghanistan important or is it not

>important, and why?

 

That 'success' is the destruction of the USA, to you, isn't it, bushkultie.

>"Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

>news:47b5d076$1$14652$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>> Swan Song for NATO: The real cost of defeat in Afghanistan

>>

>> By Mike Whitney

>>

>> Created Feb 13 2008 - 11:48pm

>>

>>

>> It was supposed to be "the good war"; a war against terror; a war of

>> liberation. It was intended to fix the eyes of the world on America's

>> state

>> of the art weaponry, its crack troops and its overwhelming firepower. It

>> was

>> supposed to demonstrate-once and for all-- that the world's only

>> superpower

>> could no longer be beaten or resisted; that Washington could deploy its

>> troops anywhere in the world and crush its adversaries at will.

>>

>> Then everything went sideways. The war veered from the Pentagon's script.

>> The Taliban retreated, waited, regrouped and retaliated. They enlisted

>> support from the Pashtuns and the tribal leaders who could see that

>> America

>> would never honor its commitments; that order would never be restored.

>> Operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity; just

>> occupation. Seven years have passed and Afghanistan is still ruled by

>> warlords and drug-merchants. Nothing has improved. The country is in

>> shambles and the government is a fraud. The humiliation of foreign

>> occupation persists while the killing goes on with no end in sight.

>>

>> War is not foreign policy. It is slaughter. Seven years later; it's still

>> slaughter. The Taliban have taken over more than half of Afghanistan. They

>> have conducted military operations in the capital of Kabul. They're dug in

>> at Logar, Wardak and Ghazni and control vast swathes of territory in

>> Zabul,

>> Helmand, Urzgan and Kandahar. Now they are getting ready to step-up

>> operations and mount a Spring offensive, which means the violence will

>> only

>> intensify.

>>

>> The Taliban's approach is methodical and deliberate. They've shown they

>> can

>> survive the harshest conditions and still achieve tactical victories over

>> a

>> better-equipped enemy. They are highly-motivated and believe their cause

>> is

>> just. After all, they are not fighting to occupy a foreign nation; they're

>> fighting to defend their own country. That strengthens their resolve and

>> keeps morale high. When NATO and American troops leave Afghanistan; the

>> Taliban will remain, just as they did when the Russians left 20 years ago.

>> No difference. The US occupation will just be another footnote in the

>> country's tragic history.

>>

>> The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US

>> troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a

>> soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people.

>> That probably won't change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that

>> "if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US

>> would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in

>> Afghanistan." Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the

>> ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical

>> level; victory is impossible.

>>

>> The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the

>> Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up

>> like

>> this:

>>

>> "The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of

>> our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush

>> administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all....The US

>> doesn't

>> want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no

>> excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic

>> goals

>> in the region....After seven years, there is no peace, human rights,

>> democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering

>> of

>> our people is increasing everyday. ...We believe that if the troops leave

>> Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their

>> current

>> puzzlement and doubts...Afghanistan's freedom can only be achieved by

>> Afghan

>> people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong

>> policy

>> which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their

>> masters

>> on the neck of our nation." (RAWA http://www.rawa.org [1])

>>

>> Gradually, the Allies will see that Bush's war cannot be won and that

>> continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military

>> solution

>> to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting

>> murkier all the time. This just adds to the growing sense of frustration.

>>

>> Recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to cajole the allies into

>> sending more combat troops to fight in the south, but he met with stiff

>> resistance . He said:

>>

>> "I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the

>> magnitude of the direct threat to European security," Gates said. "We must

>> not become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and

>> those

>> who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective

>> security, would in effect destroy the alliance."

>>

>> But support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America's war, not

>> theirs. Europeans don't need to occupy foreign nations to meet their

>> energy

>> needs. Their countries are prosperous and they can afford to buy for fuel

>> on

>> the open market. Only America wants the war. It's all part of a

>> geopolitical

>> "grand strategy" to project US power into the region to control its

>> resources. So far, there's no indication that the plan will succeed.

>>

>> Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few

>> years,

>> they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will

>> satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in

>> Afghanistan

>> has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is

>> using

>> the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control

>> pipeline-routes

>> from the Caspian Basin and surround Russia and China with military bases.

>> Naturally, Putin would like to persuade Chancellor Angela Merkel to

>> withdraw

>> German troops from Afghanistan so he could strike a blow against the

>> US-led

>> alliance.

>>

>> Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of

>> the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support

>> Washington's adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO

>> will

>> disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall

>> apart. The cracks are already visible.

>>

>> Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country

>> will

>> become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. He says we are

>> fighting a "poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism which threatens to

>> become a global movement".

>>

>> But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the

>> conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the

>> suffering of their people. A recent report by the United Nations Human

>> Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan

>> has

>> fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down,

>> malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the

>> population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of

>> people

>> have been internally displaced by the war.

>>

>> Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's opium; more than any other

>> country. The booming drug trade is the direct result of the US invasion.

>> Bush has created the world's largest narco-colony. Is that success?

>>

>> Presently, there are no plans to remove the warlords or improve the lives

>> of

>> ordinary Afghans. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in

>> Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is

>> today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghans now

>> understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the

>> occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.

>>

>> There's no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all.

>> The administration thought the Taliban would see America's high-tech,

>> laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they're back.

>> And

>> now we are embroiled in an "unwinnable" war with a tenacious enemy that

>> grows stronger by the day.

>>

>> Eventually, the Europeans will see the futility of the war and leave. And

>> that will be the end of NATO.

>>

>> _______

>> Mike Whitney

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

>> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

>> available to advance understanding of

>> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

>> I

>> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

>> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

>> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

>>

>> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

>> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

>> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

>> suffering deeply in spirit,

>> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

>> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

>> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

>> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are

>> at

>> stake."

>> -Thomas Jefferson

>>

>>

>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dust4slugs

On Feb 18, 12:16 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>

wrote:

> " US " wrote in messagenews:kd8jr3517km5fhlv0r9j9954n6t2mo9oba@4ax.com...

> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:06:08 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

> > <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>

> >>Same question as Iraq. Is success in Afghanistan important or is it not

> >>important, and why?

>

> > That 'success' is the destruction of the USA, to you, isn't it,

> > bushkultie.

>

> Still not answering the question asked. But I will show you the courtesy

> you chose not to show me. The answer to your question is, how will

> "success" result in the destrutcion of the USA?

 

Why should anyone answer your question, Jerry? It is the same question

you have posed over and over again to no end. With your every post

being about winning the war is the right thing to do. DUH! But at

every turn are unable to give any specifics of how to win it (even if

you did it wouldn't mean jack shit because you are not in charge,

Jerry, get it! This and the FACT your DREAMS of grandeur don't mean

squat, General Jerry Okamura. Wow, that does have a nice ring to it

though, lol).

 

If you had taken the time to read the article you would have noticed

Afghanistan is undermanned, hence the war is un-winnable using current

methods (a hint for you Jerry un-winnable doesn't mean success). Plus

when it is taken into account that the entire military is in the same

condition, one need not hesitate to assume the obvious. But as usual

the obviousness of the situation escapes you. Question 4U General? Do

you routinely play with plastic army men Jerry, and think Wal Mart is

your supply depot for replacements. Then you are a Republican Jerry.

 

As for the destruction of America, it will come from with in if the

same political policies continue. I could sit here and spout Liberal

politics and say to you they are right, because they are. I could also

sit here and do the same with Rightwing politics and say they are

right because on many levels they are. When politics leads to such

obvious hatred toward others of your own countrymen the shit will

eventually hit the fan. This as no country can survive such a deep

division amongst themselves and continue (one need but look at the

posts that occur here everyday, to see the futility of it all).

 

There is only one thing America has to look forward to and that is a

new president who is truly a decider and is not a divider. As yet I

don't see one on the horizon, do you Jerry? If not then we all lose in

the end, and there can be no measure of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...