Obama's War on Afghanistan

Don't worry about that. Afghanistan is really dangerous and not a nice place to spend time in. Iraq was pretty safe and luxurious, as is Israel. Journalists report mainly from safe and luxurious places and tend to report civilian casualties only when they don't like the people who can be blamed for them.

In Obama's case I am sure the media will pretty much ignore civilian casualties. They certainly won't show a running total all the time, with "studies" making up more.

I pretty much agree with your analysis though. Not sure what Obama wants to achieve in Afghanistan

Like you I too am a little puzzled about what exactly Obama wants in the Af-Pak region. Peace cannot be had given the ethnic mis there and the fact that both pakistan and Afghanistan are so artificial in their identity, that both have started imploding. I feel that Paktunising the Taliban is the only solution .

(What is "Paktunising"?)

I think Obama is trying to prove that he is not a pacifist unwilling to fight for anything but was really just opposed to the Iraq war.

Or maybe he has a personal interest in exactly that war, like George Bush did in Iraq. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It just means that he thinks that focusing on that front will achieve something.

However, I am wondering what that could be. Even if he is successful and achieves total victory in Afghanistan, what would change? Al-Qaeda have cells everywhere, not just Afghanistan. And attacks like 911 can be planned anywhere. The base in Afghanistan is not vital for that.

Now that Bush is gone, so are any anti-war protests and virtually all the war coverage. Obama is enjoying his free hand because of the love affair the media has with him. The hypocrisy and opacity of this administration and its surrogates, on this matter is shameful. Nothing will be done unless things spiral out to the point it can no longer be hidden. When the Obama/media honeymoon does end, it will be ugly.

THE STAKES IN aF-pAK REGION ARE TOO GREAT FOR A vIETNAM KIND OF EXIT. The Taliban cannot be militarily defeated, unless there is a radical shift in strategy.

The radical Islam came into the region as a response to Soviet invasion and we have seen the consequences of the Reagan policy of supporting the so-called Mujahudeen. Now there is no need to rehash the old arguments. What need to be done is promote Paktun nationalism so that the Taliban get therte own state consisting of the tribal regions of Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. Once they have there own state to run they will be quiet. There is no sense in looking at the TALIBAN issue from both an Afghn perspective and a Pak perspective.

Radical Islam pre-dates the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by a few centuries. While it is true the conflict put the weapons needed to enforce their ideas after hostilities with Russia ended, the problem wasn't the support during the conflict it was the lack of engagement after the fighting ended. Expect more of this type of policy as this administration is all about the live and let live attitude.

This administration has a difficult time promoting free and fair elections in Iran. Do you really expect them to promote anything in any region? IMO the best that can be hoped for is to keep the Taliban out long enough for the Afghans to get stronger and decide that they don't want a harsh government controlling them (yeah, tough row to hoe, I know). It will either be a long drawn out affair or a cut and run, both political trouble spots for a party that wants to retain power in 2012.

The "radical Muslims" who fought the Soviets later fought on the coalition's side against the Taliban in 2001. They were the Northern Alliance who had fought the Taliban during the 90s when the US hadn't cared about Afghanistan any more.

Bahu is perhaps confusing them with the Taliban who were in Quran "schools" in Pakistan during the war against the Soviet Union.

The world media, especially the US so-called mainstream media, have a willful aversion to noticing.  Part of the protect-BO-with-all-means-possible program.

i'm no longer sure what comprises the "mainstream media" but over the past couple months all three major tv network evening news reports have broadcast far more critical than favorable reports about both the prosecution of war in afghanistan and its consequences.  the only large daily newspaper i read regularly--the la times--publishes several pieces a day authored by its combat correspondents as well as several editorial/opinion articles per week.  since march i haven't seen any that were favorable, much less anything close to supportive of obama's efforts to date.  

what's different is this: there are no huge revelations because it's pretty much all out in the open--not enough resultant shouting to distract some of yall's attention away from them blathering oracles of am radio.

in fact, there's nothing much to distinguish the obama war in afghanistan from the bush war in afghanistan--other than diminished paranoiad obsession with secrecy and more troops. no wonder there's no progress and higher body counts. 

yall wanna bitch about war and afghanistan, direct to those who abandoned the place after the soviets pulled out and/or those who abandoned afghanistan as quickly as they could in 2002.

every dollar we mighta spent rebuilding the place then woulda saved hundreds well be spending over the next who knows how many years in the future.

so yer sayin mullah omar poked his eye out while rocking & roting at the madrasa in wahziristan?

The Taliban's general reputation for "bravery" (they often "fight" against unarmed women) would suggest that that could be the case.

However, "mullah" Omar indeed fought the Soviets, like some other future Taliban.

However, the Taliban as a group were, as the name suggests ("talib" and an Indo-European plural "-an") students in Pakistan. They did not emerge as a group fighting in Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets, only afterwards; although some of their number did fight the Soviets as part of other groups.

The UK supported the Italians in World War I. Many of those Italians later became fascists (and probably were followers of that ideology during World War I already) but that doesn't mean that the UK supported the Nazis.

Just as I have been warning the war in Afghanistan is getting worse by the day especially after the Kunduz incident. The Germans cannot with thei baggage of Holocaust and War Crimes live down Kunduz.

While I don't think the Germans committed a war crime at all, it is true that the German military is completely useless in combat scenario because Germany still identifies with World War 2 Germany.

And Afghanistan seems to be getting worse indeed...

Just as I have been saying, the Obama Administration is just unable to decide on the course of action. While an Iraq like "surge" will put 30,000 extrat troops in Afgahinstan and UK will contribute 0nly 1000, the US soldiers will bear the brunt of the war in terms of casualities. However, the political objective of this surge is not cleart. At least Bush II stated that the purpose was to hold territory and prop up the government/regime in Baghdad. Karzai is so universally disliked and his legitimacy suspect that all of Pentagon troops cannot put humpty-dumpty together again. The US must seriously think of gathering the Pastun tribes of Afgahnistan and Pakistan and make a homeland for the Paktuns the end objective, Taliban type militancy will dissolve in a blaze of tribal warfare.

I agree, this is getting worse. And Obama doesn't seem to know what he is doing.

Even if we "win" in Afghanistan, it isn't clear what we would have gained. The country likely never will be a democracy (or a country).

But a homeland for the Pashtuns... I don't know. Do they even see themselves as a nation rather than tribes?

I think a renwed Afghani kingdom might work. Let's look for whomever would hold the title and see if he can be accepted by all the people and peoples of Afghanistan. Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan, was the closest thing Afghanistan had to a unifying government. Maybe we should look into that angle.

Democracy is great but irrelevant in a non-urban society.

Hmmm, seems that not that long ago Bahu was a big fan of Obama, at least according to his own posts.

Is he admitting now that he was wrong (as usual)?

The recent issue with General McChrystan leading to his dismissal by the President was almost predicted by me a year back.

And what would that be?  I read the entire thread (I was on leave a year ago when you first wrote it), but I did not see any reference to McChrystal.  It is related to your thread, but the removal of McChrystal really has nothing to do with your intent.  As you correctly pointed out a year ago, Obama is very clueless on what he wants to do and accomplish in Afghanistan beyond his 30 second sound bites (which are for purely political consumption and are meaningless in the greater strategy).

Almost predicted, DG, not actually predicted.

Like I am ALMOST a millionaire?

guess you should wash your finger before using it to scan lines while reading the screen--or maybe you should clean the surface more frequently--cuz it appears as if your pointer musta slipped down 2 lines causing you to miss this (quoted from the original post).

kb & Bahu must be drinking from the same laced cup.  The counter-insurgency strategy had nothing to do with McChrystal's resignation.  But I guess that's close enough to almost.  In the same sense that blue is almost orange.

I am only an observer of what happens in the world of statecraft and am not a either a diplomat or even in the Intelligence srevice. I apply my knowledge to the problem at hand and try to make some predictions based on trends. This is the only way one can study politics. I have no crystal ball to see the future.

My only [point was to argue that there is potentila for a falling out between the C-in C and the field commander. This is what I mean when I say "almost predicted".

The withdrawal from Afghanistan will only mean a return of the Taliban and this is no prediction. IT IS A CERTAINITY.

Guess I should have spoken in single syllables for the bee pee.  I did not see any reference to the mcChrystal dismissal (since that was what Bahu was talking about in his resurrection post) in the original article.  Oh, sorry bee pee, I used multi syllable words again.  I know your head is about to explode from your incompetence.

????

in fact, i totally disagree with bahu's statement as quoted and only pointed it out because dr douche claimed there was no mention of mcchrystal whatsoever in bahu's original article.  there very clearly is and was despite the bad dr's idiotic attempt to cover his sorry ass:

that being the case, why make any mention of when bahu's article was first posted?