Its time to bomb iran - inspections and sanctions will never work

[Tashah]

Mullah Omar - the titular head of the Taliban government - refused to extradite bin-Laden. Omar cited the tribal law of Pashtunwali which demands hospitality to a guest. What he ignored and neglected to mention is that there is a time-limit on hospitality offered a guest under Pashtunwali tribal law.

 

[donsutherland1]

Fair enough but imo the war in Afghanistan was a show of American rage which has resulted in a far worse situation.

Alexa,

IMO, the war in Afghanistan was a necessary defensive war. The Taliban was not serious about extraditing Bin Laden and those who worked with him so that they could be held accountable for their acts of terrorism. That the planning behind the war, particularly with respect to the post-Taliban transition, ignored the country's history and structure is a different matter.

Anyway my main argument is, and always has been, that if this had been left to the Afghans, with help if they asked, likelihood is that it would have been resolved long ago and Afghanistan would now be living under a secular democracy. I truly believe that.

Given Afghanistan's culture, highly decentralized structure, tribal/ethnic rivalries, I don't believe Afghanistan would have been a secular democracy. The institutions, traditions, and experience with secularism simply didn't exist. In addition, there were no revolutionary leaders who were dedicated to secularism and who commanded widespread influence.

 

[alexa]

Wow. Cannot disagree more.

Too many irreconcilable (and some fanatic) religious factions and too many tribal factions with allegiances that change with every new day, were and are just two of the huge obstacles facing those who would see a secular democracy in Afghanistan without strong external assistance. Even with external assistance, there is a non-trivial risk that such will make the situation worse rather than better.

Which is the very reason that the US should have listened to Abdul Haq many times.

1. They should have listened to him when he warned them in the 1980's as soon as they started funding the people who would become Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

2. They should have listened to him when he told them that Afghanistan could topple the Taliban through it's own actions, that the country wanted rid of them.

3. They should have listened to him when he told them the situation of Bin Laden when he was escaping to Pakistan

4. They should have responded to his calls when he was in danger and not have allowed him to be murdered by the Taliban.

Regarding 2. and 4. Abdul Haq had never supported the Taliban. They made his flesh crawl. He was a man who did not judge another by his tribe and had a genuinely spiritual nature. He was possibly the one person who had survived the whole situation from resistance to the Soviets to the US invasion with integrity. This was recognised and because of this he was a powerful unifying personality. Prior to the US invasion he had been inundated by people saying they wanted the end of the Taliban and once the time was right just let them know. Abdul Haq knew that bombing and killing of civilians would be the very thing which would be most likely to send people back to the Taliban. That is why he asked the US to not invade and to give him and other Afghans the chance to do the work.

Abdul Haq wanted a democratic secular Afghanistan. Although he expressed no desire to be leader, he almost certainly would have become so instead of Kazai....and that is where point 4 comes in. By leaving him to die, the US removed the one person who had the ability to unite the tribes of Afghanistan. They removed the person who could be trusted to unite Afghans under a genuine secular democracy. In other words had the US been determined to invade Afghanistan, if it had made sure he was kept alive, the likelihood of a unified secular democratic Afghanistan was still there.

But they did not. They left him to die and what they did instead of allowing the Afghans to free their own country was to enlist another terrorist type organisation, The Northern Alliance, hated by Afghans.

RAWA wants a democratic secular Afghanistan. Listen to one of them tell the story.

YouTube - Grit TV: A Voice from RAWA: Zoya on Afghanistan (Part1/2)

Please listen to that before you reply.

 

[donsutherland1]

RAWA wants a democratic secular Afghanistan.

RAWA is an organization I admire. Unfortunately, RAWA faces enormous barriers.

 

[oldreliable67]

We should have done this; we ought to have done that; we would have been better off...woulda, coulda, shoulda...

Hindsight is always useful, isn't it? And there is always someone who knows/knew better than those who were in charge at the time and had to make difficult decisions with imperfect information.

"...the Northern Alliance, hated by Afghans.": See what I mean? The Northern Alliance was not hated by all Afghans, only those with whom they were rivals for power and influence (Massoud was killed by members of which group? And why?). Remember the groups that came and went as allies of the Northern Alliance? In Afghanistan, when an alliance has served its purpose, or if a better deal can be made with another faction (perhaps someone you were fighting yesterday), allegiances are switched.

Perhaps that is too extreme. There are groups that have been opponents for generations and will likely never reconcile. Which only adds to the problem in its own way.

Agree that RAWA is impressive. I have always felt that the women of Afghanistan, if empowered, would move things along sharply and in the right direction.

 

[alexa]

We should have done this; we ought to have done that; we would have been better off...woulda, coulda, shoulda...

Hindsight is always useful, isn't it? And there is always someone who knows/knew better than those who were in charge at the time and had to make difficult decisions with imperfect information.

To you it is hindsight. It allows you to keep your prejudices to blame the other. What I am saying is that a lot of this was done with full knowledge, not hindsight.

"...the Northern Alliance, hated by Afghans.": See what I mean? The Northern Alliance was not hated by all Afghans, only those with whom they were rivals for power and influence (Massoud was killed by members of which group? And why?). Remember the groups that came and went as allies of the Northern Alliance? In Afghanistan, when an alliance has served its purpose, or if a better deal can be made with another faction (perhaps someone you were fighting yesterday), allegiances are switched.

You simply show here your lack of knowledge on the subject and the reality that you did not listen to the tape where RAWA say that although they didn't want the invasion on another level Afghan's hoped it would help towards the liberation of their country and that this hope was dashed when they discovered that the US were coming in with the Northern Alliance.

The Northern Alliance had been so brutal in Afghanistan that at first people were hopeful the Taliban might offer something constructive and I am talking about a brutality that you could not imagine.

Al illustration of that brutality was in evidence when we saw the group of people - do not remember the number but it was in the 10's , possibly up to 200 people killed, shot with their hands behind their backs while in the custody of Northern Alliance and US soldiers. You may possibly remember the incident because it is the one where they bring out a US citizen having heard he can speak English and are telling him he can either get help from the red cross or not. He will get help if he talks and not if he does not. I seem to remember the man saying he could either live or die on whether he spoke though the BBC deliberately cut this on it's news to the general public and pretended he was just being told he would get help if he spoke. These people had been fighting hard against the Americans and an American had been killed. We later heard that they had been found shot with their hands tied behind their backs. (The US citizen was taken into custody and tried in the US. )

Perhaps that is too extreme. There are groups that have been opponents for generations and will likely never reconcile. Which only adds to the problem in its own way.

and who has made Afghanistan like this. The US is one of the key players through it's funding of fanatics, people who believed in killing Afghans who did not believe the same as them. That was what appalled Abdul Haq when they arrived. You should learn some history and take some responsibility for what you have done. The US was not the only country involved in this. Other countries too wanted to play football with the Afghans but for a country like the US not to have supported the people who believed in democracy and even during the Soviet era turn a blind eye to them being killed, which you will find RAWA attests, stinks. That they further at the juncture of 9/11 did not support with to the full, the democratic leaders left in Afghanistan but choose instead one of the most criminal blood thirsty hated groups has to say something. Simply it was wrong.

Regarding Abdul Haq at every stage in the long saga from the time the US started funding the fanatics, he gave honest information and warnings.

Agree that RAWA is impressive. I have always felt that the women of Afghanistan, if empowered, would move things along sharply and in the right direction.

I suggest you let go of this useless lip service and have a good look around their site, listen at last to the recording I presented, and see what they have to say.

I suggest you also have a look at this


http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...b44-11dd-8c1f-275b8445d07d/asa110091995en.pdf

 

[oldreliable67]

To you it is hindsight. It allows you to keep your prejudices to blame the other. What I am saying is that a lot of this was done with full knowledge, not hindsight.

Yep. Your screed is largely hindsight. And whatever prejudices I have were developed after extensive reading on the topics of terrorism, al Qaeda, Afghanistan et al. Oh, and being on the 96th floor of 2 WTC in Feb '93 and the 48th floor on 9/11 might have had a little something to do with the motivation to do so. I was learning who to blame and it wasn't "the other," whatever that means.

Note that nowhere did I assert that we did everything exactly right. Mistakes were made, no doubt about it. But, like I used to tell my trainees when they asked me, as they always did, about what it was like to be in the jungles in Vietnam, "To fully appreciate, you had to be there. Nobody can really tell you about it."

You have your prejudices based on your set of experiences; I have mine. You have your opinions; I have mine. Thats why we have vanilla and chocolate. Lets move on.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Oh, and being on the 96th floor of 2 WTC in Feb '93 and the 48th floor on 9/11 might have had a little something to do with the motivation to do so.

Save us your credentials, they don't mean anything.

 

[donsutherland1]

Save us your credentials, they don't mean anything.

Oldreliable67 was citing some of the factors that influenced his thinking. In general, people's experiences are relevant in shaping their perspectives. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt's having traveled widely was one of the experiences that shaped his worldview. To argue that such experiences "don't mean anything" miss the point.

 

[ObamaYoMoma]

Mullah Omar - the titular head of the Taliban government - refused to extradite bin-Laden. Omar cited the tribal law of Pashtunwali which demands hospitality to a guest. What he ignored and neglected to mention is that there is a time-limit on hospitality offered a guest under Pashtunwali tribal law.

The way I heard it is when Mullah Omar confronted OBL regarding the attacks, OBL lied to his face and claimed he wasn’t responsible.

In addition, Sharia trumps all tribal law and international law in any event, as Allah’s law is supreme. Nevertheless, it was a strategic mistake to go after the Taliban because Mullah Omar refused to do what any other Islamic leader would naturally do, and if the administration had anyone in the administration that understood Islam to consult, they could have easily found that out.

The mission in Afghanistan should have been limited only to the eradication of OBL and AQ in retaliation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and nothing else. It was a monumental strategic mistake to jump into the middle of a jihad by siding with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, which like the Taliban was also Sharia compliant, and to occupy Afghanistan for the reason we did. Not to mention that because the occupation was based on absurd and false assumptions, it was preordained that Afghanistan would turn into an unmitigated disaster like Iraq did as well.

 

[Hoplite]

Oldreliable67 was citing some of the factors that influenced his thinking. In general, people's experiences are relevant in shaping their perspectives. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt's having traveled widely was one of the experiences that shaped his worldview. To argue that such experiences "don't mean anything" miss the point.

Actually Khayembii is right. You can talk about your experiences that shape your views all you want, but that doesnt prevent you from having a bass-ackwards view of things. People are free to have whatever opinions they wish, but they need to be aware that they may very well be WRONG regardless of their experiences.

 

[Tashah]

In addition, Sharia trumps all tribal law and international law in any event, as Allah’s law is supreme.

Sharia law doesn't trump Pashtunwali in the frontier provinces of Pakistan and many parts of eastern/southern Afghanistan. There is constant tension between the Taliban and the Pashtun tribes over this disagreement.