Progress in Afghanistan

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Clearly the Afghanistan mission is having problems. Afghanistan has never been easy to conquer and pacify.

Afghan history has been bloody. Alexander the Great moved through the area and allegedly fought a battle near what is now Kandahar. Genghis Khan's invasion and subjugation of the area in the early 1200s marked the last time Afghanistan was conquered.

Czarist Russia and Britain vied for control of Afghanistan throughout the 19th century because its strategic location made it a key to the control of India. Both suffered defeats.

The British occupied Kabul in 1838, but worsening resistance led them to quit in January 1842. Given a pledge of safe passage, the British commander led about 700 Britons -- soldiers, wives and children -- 3,800 Indian troops, and more than 12,000 camp followers from the city. The trek through a snow-covered mountain pass to safety would become a 90-mile death march. Only one man emerged alive.
In the 20th century, Afghanistan humbled the Soviet Union. Seeking to prop up their communist satellite in the country, the Soviets invaded in 1979. In a 10-year effort, hundreds of thousands died. The United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others supplied and trained the anti- Soviet mujahidin forces. In 1989, the Soviets were forced to leave...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09192001_200109193.html

This article describes what our forces are facing in Afghanistan:

Oct 25, 2006
Gross stupidity in Afghanistan
By Ajai Sahni

The US-led coalition is unambiguously losing the war in Afghanistan, and it is important, at this stage, to reiterate the obvious, that is, precisely why the war was undertaken in the first instance: because of September 11, 2001, because of the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, and because of the assessment that the Taliban regime there had provided safe haven and operational facilitation to al-Qaeda for its planning and execution of the multiple and catastrophic strikes in the United States. The war was not merely punitive, it was intended to be preventive. It has proved a failure on both counts.

As with all the pertinent leaderships confronted with the possibility, if not imminence, of defeat, saving face has become infinitely more important than the original objectives of this war. It is useful to emphasize here that this was not a war of conquest, or even of "liberation" (despite the rhetoric of "Enduring Freedom"), but of defense. Its principal objective was to deny a base for future September 11s to be strategized, planned and executed.

But the Taliban and al-Qaeda have survived - albeit somewhat damaged - and, if current trends persist, will soon have the freedom, the power and the required setting to plan out their next wave of attacks against the West. And Western - particularly US - leaderships are squarely to blame for this. US diplomat Alberto Fernandez has spoken scathingly of the "stupidity in Iraq", but the stupidity in Afghanistan is far more manifest, and was considerably the more avoidable.

Warning of the dangers of defeat, Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, the United Kingdom's former chief of the defense staff, noted, "I think we've lost the ability to think strategically." General David Richards, a British officer commanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops in Afghanistan, noted the "upsurge of violence along the eastern border with Pakistan" and warned that the situation was approaching a tipping point where a majority of Afghans would switch their allegiance to the resurgent Taliban if there were no visible improvements over the coming six months.

The outgoing British commander, Brigadier Ed Butler, described Taliban operations in Afghanistan as "more ferocious than anything in Iraq", and reports suggest that the Taliban were operating in battalion-sized units of 400 men, equipped with "excellent weapons and field equipment"...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ25Df01.html

Part of the problem is a recent deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in Northern Pakistan:

Taliban attacks double after Pakistan's deal with militants

Afghan offensives add weight to safe haven fear Relations between Karzai and Musharraf hit new low

Declan Walsh in Kabul
Friday September 29, 2006
The Guardian


Taliban attacks along Afghanistan's southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.
Pakistan's military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.

A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a "twofold, in some cases threefold" increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5,...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1883737,00.html
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
When did the Canadian army become more powerful than the Russian army? Did I miss the memo?
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
39
Petawawa Ontario
No one said it would be easy. You know I think the generals in the states, usally are Westpoint...they have to take Millitary History, Iam sure they have learned about Afganistan.....and I bet some have even been around when the russians where their...I think we knew what we were getting into.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
We are there on a rebuilding mission? Magically what we rebuild won't be used or abused by the Taliban? At least we don't need to build them a soccer stadium.
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
39
Petawawa Ontario
We are there on a rebuilding mission? Magically what we rebuild won't be used or abused by the Taliban? At least we don't need to build them a soccer stadium.
Rebuilding Mission....? I dont know why people assume we are on "rebuilding mission" Our Mission was to oust the Taliban, create a New government, make the people safe Keep the Taliban out and then rebuild. So far we are doing more fo the keep the taliban out, so we can rebuild, but it was nevver Labeld a Rebuilding Mission.
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
Eastsidescotian has already seen that this is not a winnable mission. Karzai is never going to have control of the whole country he is not powerful enough, the Taliban just keep coming back like the energizer bunny, and therefore we will not rebuild until they are defeated which wouldn't happen.

Therefore maybe in ten, twenty years the U.S and others will pull out because not only aren't they good strategists with regards to 'terrorism' wars, the people will just get too tired pumping in humanitarian dollars when it is actually going to the military mission.

Therefore, equal Taliban win, because they have the capacity and knowhow to wait out the U.S and NATO like they have done to so many other powers.

Karzai is just a U.S satelitte power like the communist leadership in Kabul was to the Soviet Union.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
The Terrorists Jihad Muslims want North Americans' to loose confidence in there troops and thus paint murky pictures of full of centuries old information and other dreary mis-information.

When we embarked on the War against Nazi Germany, we faced greater obstacles than this. Here is some truth to shed light on a situation that is making progress. It is not an easy task to enter a war that was declared on North America by these fanatics, but regardless it is underway and we need to support our troops and have faith in these efforts.

Here is the truth-
Canadians hand reins to Dutch in Afghanistan


Sue Bailey, Canadian Press

Published: Sunday, October 29, 2006 KANDAHAR, Afghanistan --

After more than eight months in the kind of high-stress zone that tries tough souls, Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser is about to hand over command in southern Afghanistan.

It's a rotational change of guard Wednesday that will see Dutch Maj.-Gen. Ton Van Loon take over as NATO leader in the South.

Fraser will soon head home to Edmonton and his wife Poppie, their two sons and an aging Akita dog named Seiko.

"This environment is more dangerous than I've ever seen anywhere else in the world," he said in a parting interview with The Canadian Press.

"Over here, everybody is a target. The Taliban respects nobody. A reporter, the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN, military, Afghan. Everybody is an equal target of opportunity for them."
From Cyprus to the height of Bosnia's ugly civil war, Fraser has seen nothing in 26 years and seven missions that equals southern Afghanistan.

Still, he thinks the situation in Kandahar is misconstrued.

"Security is probably the most over-used, ill-defined word in the lexicon in this country.

"There's tens and hundreds of thousands of people going about living their lives downtown. And that place is just bustling," he said of the ramshackle sprawl of vegetable vendors and low-rise buildings near the main military base at Kandahar Airfield.

"Suicide attacks are a concern," he says. "The Taliban have gone and demonstrated complete disregard for attacking the people. Because what they're attacking is success."

Few women are seen on Kandahar streets even in full veils, and local Afghans who welcome foreigners describe growing intimidation and fear.

"I don't agree with that assessment," Fraser says. "A lot of those people don't get out of their houses. What they have is a perception. Eight months ago, Kandahar city wasn't as busy as it is now.
"You've got to put it into context."

Forty-two Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in Afghanistan since 2002. Since March, Fraser has watched 34 times as members of his military family were honoured and sent home in caskets.
There's no shortage of debate -- some of it stingingly critical -- about mounting troop and civilian death tolls, the slow pace of reconstruction and the prospects of success against those who would revert Afghanistan to a repressive terrorist incubator.

Fraser's optimism is steadfast.
Afghan police and security forces are being built from nothing, he says.

Several provincial governors have restored enough law and order to move on to budgets, education "and other issues that any governor or provincial premier would have to deal with."

North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops are advancing into parts of the country that were virtual no-go zones even a year ago, he says. The list includes Spin Boldak, a notoriously cut-throat border conduit for smugglers, mercenaries and suicide bombers who move from Pakistan into Afghanistan all but unimpeded.
"We are making progress," Fraser says. "That's a good news story. That's an expansion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's footprint."

Holding that ground ultimately depends on whether military leaders can help deliver enough locally driven development. How better to convince Afghans to shun a growing anti-government insurgency than to offer new health clinics, schools and credit for new businesses?

Too many Afghans, though, are still waiting five years after a resurgent Taliban was defeated. It doesn't help that many people have lost faith in a widely corrupt Afghan government that doubles as a bastion for former warlords accused of vicious abuses.

Further complicating Canada's aid efforts is the refusal of several international agencies to work in the South. CARE and World Vision are among those who say the military's foray into road building, well digging and school projects has blurred the line between unarmed aid workers and combat troops.

They want soldiers to stick with security.
Fraser calls that "Old Think."

"The new reality is we're all working complementary to each other in an environment that is dangerous.

"These people deserve nothing less than our international community's 100-per-cent commitment to provide them hope and opportunity in a safe environment.

"It's worth it," he says. "And this is do-able. But it comes at a cost."
© Canadian Press 2006​

this is another example of the truth, rather than the nonsense that implies it is a lost hope, the war was declared on us and we are answering, the fight is difficult, it is harsh, however more than ever we need to recognize the significant changes that are taking place. It is a well known fact that lasting change is implemented over time with respect to the people, and the culture. We are making progress and doing a great job. If you want to help, write to our troops and let them know you support them.
 
Last edited:

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I regularly send an Email to the troops, they are doing their damn best in horrible conditions. What more can we ask of them.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
I agree, and since our country was founded on such courage and sacrific it is hard to fathom how threads like this get started in the first place by those that are into discouragement and false information.

What a bunch of garbage, and it reflects pure stupidity and ignorance...
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
39
Petawawa Ontario
I agree, and since our country was founded on such courage and sacrific it is hard to fathom how threads like this get started in the first place by those that are into discouragement and false information.

What a bunch of garbage, and it reflects pure stupidity and ignorance...
We agree? Odd.

But yes Bang on
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
agree, and since our country was founded on such courage and sacrific it is hard to fathom how threads like this get started in the first place by those that are into discouragement and false information.

What a bunch of garbage, and it reflects pure stupidity and ignorance...


Ah can't the idiot come up with something to come back instead of little personal attacks.

I've got an idea chum, grab a uniform and head to Afghanistan. You probably wouldn't last two seconds (in the uniform).
 
Last edited:

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
39
Petawawa Ontario


Ah can't the idiot come up with something to come back instead of little personal attacks.

I've got an idea chum, grab a uniform and head to Afghanistan. You probably wouldn't last two seconds.
seems like thats 2 seconds than what we would estimate for you.

Though to comment wasnt directed to me I take offense. I have Joined the army and go away on the 20th for Basic. I didnt join to die or be killed or Kill, I have joined to support my brothers and sisters who are there before me, and to serve my country. Wishing someone death isnt nice
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
According to the Christian Bible combat isn't necessary in order to win a conflict as per Pslam 81:13-15. Therefore, those of you who worship the "Prince of Peace" need not do battle nor should those governments that proclaim themselves Christian.
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
The Hypocrisy by a few Liberals on here is a joke, they wouldn't have a damn thing to say against the Mission if the Liberals were still in power, since that's not the case it's open season on the Military's Mission showing disrespect to every man&woman serving in the Canadian Armed Forces trying to spin the Mission into more Anti-American bashing..
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
So now l have an infraction because l called articles stupid and ignorant...hmmmm l think l will review the posts and count how many times researcher has told me a dumb ass, idiot, and hmmm, on the first day l was told to go to hell....let's be fair in who is getting a infraction here kreskin!!!!
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I agree, and since our country was founded on such courage and sacrific it is hard to fathom how threads like this get started in the first place by those that are into discouragement and false information.

What a bunch of garbage, and it reflects pure stupidity and ignorance...

I made these statements in the first post.

Clearly the Afghanistan mission is having problems. Afghanistan has never been easy to conquer and pacify....

This article describes what our forces are facing in Afghanistan...

Part of the problem is a recent deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in Northern Pakistan...

Where is the discouragement and false information? I never said anything against the mission. Some of you assume that sine I am against war crimes in Iraq and Lebanon, I must therefore oppose the Afghanistan mission. These conflicts are different.

The Afghanistan mission, unlike Iraq and Lebanon is not a war crime. It was approved by the UNSC, NATO and the Liberal government at the time, which held a majority of seats in Parliament. It's purpose isn't to destroy civilian infrastructure and kill civilians in support of Israel's war to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Palestinians like Lebanon. Afghanistan was not about non-existant WMDs and links to al-Qaeda like Iraq. Afghanistan was a response to 9/11. If the west had stayed true to this objective, we might have retained the support of many Muslims and Arabs who now support our adversaries.

At the time Canada committed itself to Afghanistan, a majority of Canadians supported the mission. We should not back out of commitments just because we are taking casualties.

Yes the mission in Afghanistan changed. It started out as a combat mission then evolved to a peacekeeeping mission and now has reverted back to a combat mission.

Here are some links to how Canada became involved in Afghanistan:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050804/afghanistan_timeline_050804/20060807/

Canada should be in Afghanistan. We made a commitment to see that war through to the end and we are bound by that commitment. But our soldiers should not be sent there until they have the best training and are armed with the best equipment. It doesn't make sense to take a sword to a gun fight. My first post referenced a story claiming that our adversaries in Afghanistan are armed with "excellent weapons and field equipment". Here is what our soldiers are up against:

http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=1208

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/irans-rpg-surprise/index.php

Its not that Iran is arming insurgents directly. But Iranian produced weapons are ending up in the hands of Afghanistan militants. (So are weapons made by the US Russia and China...). My point was these are the weapons our soldiers are facing and we should give them what they need to deal effectively with these threats.

Rebuilding infrastructure vulnerable to destruction doesn't make sense at least until peace exists. The priority has to be to bring the conflict to an end. Canada isn't strong enough to do this by ourselves and we need our allies.

If the US hadn't started another war in Iraq and instead focused on Afghanistan this war would have been over by now. Instead American war crimes in Iraq have served to re-invigorate opposition to foreign forces in Afghanistan.

I see smuggling as the main problem. Opium is smuggled out of Afghanistan and traded for weapons which are smuggled back into Afghanistan. The key to winning this conflict is shutting down this trade.

This war can only be won by taking on the smugglers, most of whom are probably militants. That's why the world should buy Afghanistan's entire opium production directly from the farmers who grow it.

Also in the news. Pakistan's agreement with semi-autonomous tribes near the Afghanistan border apparently does not include militant training camps.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061030.wpakistan1030/BNStory/International/home
 
Last edited: