Bad deal in Afghanistan, either way it turns out (updated)
If it turns out that 70 (or more) civilians were killed in a recent airstrike in western Afghanistan, then it is an indicator that the U.S.-led NATO command in Afghanistan is pursuing a flawed strategy. Coalition forces lack sufficient force projection on the ground, and it looks like there's an overreliance on air support. Afghanistan is 48% larger than Iraq and has 16% more people, yet the size of the NATO contingent is only around 60,000 and Afghan army isn't anywhere near as combat-ready as their Iraqi counterparts. With a resurgent Taliban, we don't have sufficient resources to mount an effective counterinsurgency campaign. It's not just that more troops are needed, more troops are needed to secure the populace, hold territory, build political and physical infrastructure, and figure out some way to deal with the opium trade.
But if it turns out that Afgahn government sources were wrong, and that only five civilians and 25 militants were killed in the recent airstrike, then it is also an indicator that the U.S.-led NATO command in Afghanistan is pursuing a flawed strategy. Why do I say this? Because it means that our information operations are substandard, and we're unable to override false narratives that are being put out. This is an ideological conflict every bit as much as a military conflict, and if we can't prevail on the mediafront, then it's not going to matter how and what we do on the battlefront.
The U.S. command is investigating the matter, but the incident is a lose-lose proposition for the NATO coalition and a poor example of how counterinsurgency warfare is being conducted.
[Update:] The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has investigated and, guess what, it's a bad deal:
"Investigations by UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) found convincing evidence, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, and others, that some 90 civilians were killed, including 60 children, 15 women and 15 men," U.N. Special Envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide said in a statement.
The U.S. is currently running the NATO operation in Afghanistan, and we're screwing it up. Badly. This has got to change.
--
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Bird Dog's blog
- Login or register to post comments
that the airstrike is an indicator of anything. Was the Dresden fire-bombing an indicator that the aerial assault of Germany was a 'flawed strategy'? Or that the US should have immediately ceased the war? Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki a 'lose-lose' proposition? Only if one believes, in the interest of moral hindsight half a century later, that sustaining mass casualties in prolonging a war is better than inflicting them. Or that one should immediately cease a war the moment any civilians are killed. Or are claimed to be killed.
- Login or register to post comments
)The success of the bombing strategy during WWII over Germany is seen in the crippling American bombing concentrating on transportation choke points and fuel supplies. These were usually carried out in the day time and were more risky than the raids carried out by the British. The British concentrated on bombing civilian targets with a view to terrorize and 'de-house.' It was hoped that the bombing would sap the German will to continue. This was not the case as German war production continued to improve and increase right until the last months of the war.
The Japanese were much more afraid of Stalin entering the war than the incineration of a few cities. You probably are unaware that while Nagasaki and Hiroshima were again bustling with vitality within months of the bombing, the four islands seized by the Red Army in that same period are still held to this day by Russia.
US has been more indiscriminate in the wars waged in Asia. Cambodia was bombed more heavily than any nation in history, and it would be another mistake to take this as a sign of a successful strategy.
I've noticed that many Americans seem to have a near magical faith in the efficacy of aerial bombardment. It obviously comes from WWII.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...are often saying the very same thing. See Bird's quote from above, where he says the war should be guided by:
a strategy that is population-centric instead of enemy-centric...
It's a shame you can't find common cause with one another...but you still see a police action rather than war, I think...
I find it interesting that my idea, really the Powell Doctrine, seems to have just fallen off the edge of the map...kerplunk, and swept under the table.
To quote myself since I'm not Powell...War should be of short duration, overwhelming force and brutality...the destruction of either the government or the society, as the case may be, and simply leave.
Rinse and repeat as needed.
Keep you powder dry and your men fresh.
I would suggest, Mickey, you have more in common with Bird Dog than myself.
Not that there's anythin` wrong with that.
Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I understand we have much in common. Probably the most important difference comes with respect to the Afghanistan government. They are not Taliban therefore they are acceptable and as good as can be expected, Bird Dog seems to be saying. My view is that this government is not worth fighting and dying over and the NATO mission is bound to fail on that account. If it comes down to a battle of attrition between some 40 million Pashtuns and NATO, we simply won't have the resolve or motivation to carry it through. The repeated blunders of air power only weaken us and strengthen them.
I should add that the notion of a war between western civilization and militant islam is poisonous nonsense.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...as one being often outside of the mainstream of at least American thought, yet seems to catch huge truths in the nets you cast.
Often, I rock back when reading you....cock my head to the right or left, nod slowly and really think about what you are saying.
So thanks...for your efforts.
Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Afghanistan isn't enemy territory and we don't operate in a pre Geneva Conventions world. Civilian deaths in an insurgency-counterinsurgency environment can be counterproductive. They were in Iraq, and fortunately we changed our strategy.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As you seem to imply the Dresden fire-bombing was pre Geneva. What year do you imagine the Geneva Conventions were signed?
By every account we killed many thousands of civilians in Iraq. It was a very successful strategy in our rapid conquest. It was only unsuccessful for AQI when they attempted to copy it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...remove Saddam from power so quickly? AQI copied us? When we did go on suicide bombing sprees? And here I was, all this time, thinking it was our military that pressed the Iraqi Army to the point of collapse and flight. Is it really your theory that our killing of Iraqi civilians helped the situation in Iraq?
The 4th Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. I'm pretty sure the Dresden firebombings happened prior to that. Pre 4th GC, there was the Hague Convention of 1907, which said little about protecting civilian populations. As I recall, the excessive civilian deaths in WWII spurred the GC to be enacted.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I expect such equivocation from others, but really, et tu?
The first Geneva Convention was signed sometime in the 19th Century, as I recall. And all subsequent to it dealt with civilian casualties--Germany's violation of this in Belgium was a major reason Britain declared war in WWI. Sheesh.
And only a minority of Iraqi civilian casualties have come from suicide attacks. The majority, as you well know, have been from mortar and machine gun fire, IEDs, and even executions.
And yes, a major part of the initial 'shock and awe' assault on Iraq--which was overwhelmingly successful--involved 'collateral' deaths. It was that. as much as anything, that convinced the Baathists we were serious. Rather than just pulling another Gulf War I-style attack.
I shouldn't really have to explain all this to you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The 4th GC is the only one that dealt directly with the treatment of civilians, and it was signed and ratified in '49. The 1st dealt with battlefield casualties, the 2nd with casualties at sea, and the 3rd with classifying and treating detainees. Those are the basic facts, K. I don't know why your hackles are up about this.
As for suicide attacks, the casualties were substantial, considering that the numbers of al Qaeda combatants were relatively small.
The Iraq invasion killed civilians, I don't deny that. But the numbers of civilians who died in the initial attack phase is in dispute, as is the number of excess civilian deaths from March 2003 to when the Lancet studies were published, and to this day.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )yes very successful and a very rapid conquest indeed.
Then what?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )n/t
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Documented civilian deaths before 1/1/03–5/1/03: 7,418
--Documented civilian deaths 5/2/03–today: 82,582
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We've not killed anyone since "mission accomplished" was announced?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )we started again once it became clear the Iraqis would resist the subsequent occupation.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There's where the comparison fails. If we are at war with all Afghanis then perhaps it would. But as we like to think that we share this fight with the government and people of that country, killing civilians and using Dresden or Japan as a guide certainly won't garner those "hearts and minds" we say we want.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Don't say we want 'hearts' or 'minds'. What we want is for other countries not to harbor and train entities that come to ours in order to kill and destroy.
It is you who are projecting metaphors.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Got a cite?
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I know plenty of Americans who want to turn the ME into a sheet of glass...just because it's so darned complicated and stuff. That doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.
But still, last time I looked, we were not at war with Afghanistan or it's civilians. And the government that harboured AQ has been overthrown.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and draw up a balance sheet - the true perpetrators, I mean, and I'm looking at it from the same perspective as Americans, seeing as collateral branches of the same organisation also attacked Parliament in Dec 2001, and have been randomly bombing civilians over here every year ever since.
Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan was launched in October 2001.
(i) the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan - happened to some extent, but these were allowed to relocate in Western Pakistan a few hundred miles east, and have continued with their activity.
(ii) the capture of al-Qaeda leaders - the main perpetrators stay at large. In addition, sympathsisers and close active warlord collaborators such as Jalauddin Haqqani and especially Abdur Rasool Sayyaf not only remain at large but have received Afghan Government encouragement and US funding after 9/11. Especially with regard to Abdul Sayyaf - the man who invited Usama bin Laden to Afghanistan, mentored Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, betrayed Ahmed Shah Massoud to the Taliban - managed adroitly to change colours after 9/11 and is now being regarded as the saviour of Afghanistan!
This is an extreme example of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.
(iii) the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan, which have not decreased but rather gone the other way.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )suggestion that anyone wants to "immediately end" the war in Afghanistan. BD's diary, plain as day, is arguing for a change in tactics, not an end to the fighting.
Killing people is not a sign of progress.
--Killing people is not a sign of progress.
Killing people is not a sign of progress.
Killing people is not a sign of progress.
Killing people is not a sign of progress.
etc.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )To more special ops and 'intelligence' missiosn on the ground. Which will result in more American deaths in order to hypothetically insure fewer Aghan one.
Which is a bigger 'load of bunk' to my mind.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would be the way I'd vote in nearly all cases.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We put more troops on the ground, more troops out of FOBs and into combat outposts, more troops patrolling the streets, and more troops embedded with indigenous forces. The result was a dramatic decline in both civilian and military casualties, and the strategy should get at least partial credit for it.
If you haven't, check out what the Marines are doing in Helmand province. They've taken some hits initially, but a strategy that is population-centric instead of enemy-centric is much more workable, especially since we are guests there.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The blast walls in Baghdad had EVERYTHING to do with it.
Now we've built Sunni and Shiite ghettos in Baghdad. That's our solution? Keeping marauding gangs on their own turf?
C'mon, this COIN stuff is just Joe Hollywood nonsense. We man the gates in and out of those ghettos, just like the Israelis. We've pacified nothing.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...because they pertain directly to clearing territory and holding it.
Your use of the term "ghetto" is hyperbolic and inaccurate. They're designed to keep militant Islamists out, not residents in.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Therefore they are ghettos. Nothing hyperbolic about it. The militias are still there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Guess we can't quite build walls in the Hindu Kush. Here's the stats
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that Afghan civilian deaths are worth less than those of American soldiers is doomed to fail and actually more likely to make things even worse than they already are. Either we do it right or we don't do it at all.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )himself made the accusation. It wasn't, like, some unnamed government source.
Whatever the US Army Inquiry might say, it is difficult, if not impossible, for NATO to flatly contradict the statement of the Government of Afghanistan which is their ally.
- Login or register to post comments
)that we can attempt to have some sort of limited success in Iraq or Afghanistan, but not both.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
)nt
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well done! With a little more effort, you could get the trifecta!
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )read the other recent threads..
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How is this an ideological conflict?
What ideology do you share with Karzai and the warlords?
I think, Bird Dog, if you would confront these questions with brutal honesty, you would change your tune on these matters.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
)...between western civilization and militant Islamism? The Taliban harbored al Qaeda, and many of it members share the share ideology and militancy. The warlords aren't a whole lot better, but so often in foreign policy you choose the lesser evil, no? Karzai is a supremely challenging position in Afghanistan, and I think he's done about as well as could be expected.
BTW, your insult that I don't confront questions with honesty, brutal or otherwise, is just that.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't mean to insult you, but look more closely into the question of 'western civilization vs. militant islam.' I think this is what you need to scrutinize because it's hokum. Imagine yourself born and raised in Afghanistan. You're almost certainly a muslim. A foreign army invades and you fight them. This does not make you a militant islamist, but a 'freedom fighter' in the parlance of the Reagan era. Put yourself in their shoes, if you can bear the equivalence of the notion, even for a moment.
I'm not denying that the islamists are a problem. If you want to question al qaeda members who are suspected of participating in criminal activities, by all means hunt them down and arrest them. Either that or just exterminate the whole of Afghanistan - every man jack of them. These half measures - bombing wedding parties etc - are only driving people into more and more extreme positions.
The Taleban are not people I'd typically defend, but it looks like after some 7 years of conflict I have to point out some painful facts. The Arab Afghans (al qaeda) were brought to Afghanistan and funded and trained by Saudi, Pakistani and Western intelligence services. The Taleban repeatedly tried to offer bin Laden to the US but was spurned. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and USA and were carried out by Arabs.
These fanatical muslims have never had success or popular support. They've been routed in Egypt and Algeria. The only place where they have gained a foothold have been places that have been the playing field of superpower conflicts, like Afghanistan, or extreme US meddling like Iran or these days, Iraq. This simple fact alone should give you second thoughts about the wisdom of your waging a war against muslims.
Iran, the other militant islamics, were also spurned by the US, seemingly for no better reason than the Americans are still licking their wounded pride over that embassy kerfuffle some 30 years ago.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I didn't say "militant Islam", I said militant Islamism. There is a gaping difference between the two concepts.
As for my putting myself in a Talibaner's shoes, what makes you think I haven't done that exercise? Has it ever occurred to you that we can contemplate the same set of facts yet come to different analyses and conclusions? Consider the Talibaner, whom I've just mentally inserted my feet into his Reeboks. Pre-9/11, we took control of the levers of power yet only three nations recognized our government. We allowed al Qaeda foreigners to take root and let them run terrorist training camps and plan attacks abroad. We tried to implement a harsh brand of sharia law on the populace, with the approving nods of our al Qaeda guests. We did not offer to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. Ever. Somalia did that, some time in the 1990s, and Bill Clinton refused the offer. After 9/11, when the U.S. demanded that we turn bin Laden over to them, we refused, as we did on all prior extradition requests. To this day, we have alliances with al Qaeda and similar groups. Here's another fact. Khalid Sheik Mohammed master-minded the 9/11 attacks, and at least some of the 19 hijackers trained in Afghanistan (including Atta), all with the tacit acceptance of my Taliban leaders.
You know, as a Talibaner, maybe I should ask why I'm such a pariah in the international community, maybe confront some questions with brutal honesty as it pertains to my beliefs and acts. Maybe I should ask myself--with brutal honesty--if suicide bombings are an honorable way to fight insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Maybe I should ask with brutal honesty if killing fellow Afghan citizens--both civilian and military--is a way to effect change.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sorry, I don't understand the gaping difference. The link you provided earlier did not work. I don't think anyone would argue that suicide attacks are an honourable way of conducting warfare.
This article is about the role of the US and Pakistani intelligence services in the creation of the Taliban:
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."
Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.
Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."
Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm
This is about western intelligence agencies refusal to accept Sudan's Bin Laden file. There are so many occasions where the west has balked on taking action against Bin Laden, it isn't even funny, whether in Dubai, Sudan, Brazil, Afghanistan or wherever:
Security chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic repeatedly turned down the chance to acquire a vast intelligence database on Osama bin Laden and more than 200 leading members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network in the years leading up to the 11 September attacks, an Observer investigation has revealed.
They were offered thick files, with photographs and detailed biographies of many of his principal cadres, and vital information about al-Qaeda's financial interests in many parts of the globe.
On two separate occasions, they were given an opportunity to extradite or interview key bin Laden operatives who had been arrested in Africa because they appeared to be planning terrorist atrocities.
None of the offers, made regularly from the start of 1995, was taken up. One senior CIA source admitted last night: 'This represents the worst single intelligence failure in this whole terrible business. It is the key to the whole thing right now. It is reasonable to say that had we had this data we may have had a better chance of preventing the attacks.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.afghanistan2
After the embassy bombings in Africa, the Taliban conducted an enquiry. Bin Laden was found not guilty by the Taliban:
The man the USA has declared enemy No 1 is “a man without sin,” Afghanistan’s hard line Islamic Taliban militia declared on Friday, saying that the case against Osama bin Laden was closed.
A three-week inquiry headed by Afghanistan’s Chief Justice Noor Mohammed Saqib into allegations that Laden is waging a war of terror against the USA ended today.
“It’s over and America has not presented any evidence,” Saqib said in an interview at the Supreme Court building in the Afghan capital.
“Without any evidence, Laden is a man without sin ... he is a free man,” he said Laden has been living in Afghanistan for years with the permission of the Taliban, who control most of the country.
A US court has indicted Laden in connection with the August 7 bombings of the two US embassies in East Africa that killed 224 persons. Two weeks ago, Washington offered a $ 5 million reward for the capture of Laden, something the Taliban said was tantamount to encouraging terrorist activity inside their war-shattered country.
Mr Saqib said he waited in vain in this cavernous office, stark but for a large ornately carved wooden desk and a bouquet of brightly coloured plastic flowers, for American officials to provide evidence of Laden’s involvement in terrorist activity.
“It is their shame that they have been silent,” said Mr Saqib.
America is wrong about Laden ... Anything that happens now anywhere in the world they blame Osama, but the reality is in the proof and they have not given us any”.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98nov21/world.htm#3
Here is one account of Taliban's spurned offers of friendship and cooperation against the fanatics:
A senior Taliban official said he approached U.S. representatives three years ago for help in replacing the hard-line Islamic leadership but was told Washington was leery of becoming involved in internal Afghan politics, the former official said yesterday.
Mullah Mohammed Khaksar, a former Taliban intelligence chief and later Afghan deputy interior minister, said he met with U.S. diplomats Gregory Marchese and J. Peter McIllwain in Peshawar, Pakistan, in April 1999 and told them he wanted to oust Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar because of his support for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-02/06-10-02/a02wn014.htm
Here is another:
More than a year ago it became clear to any casual reader of news from Afghanistan that there was growing opposition to the Taliban. The resistance came not just from the Northern Alliance, but from villagers and fighters throughout the country, especially in southern Pashtun areas. This ought to have been a clear signal that the Taliban were vulnerable, and that the opposition could play a critical role in bringing them down. It should have led the CIA to engage with grass-roots opposition, to support and nurture people like Abdul Haq, a commander who last week was caught and executed by the Taliban.
Unfortunately no such effort was made. And therein lies a scandalous, tragic story of bureaucratic incompetence with profound implications for our national security in the years ahead.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001406
All this should at least make you question the western civilization against the muslims characterization.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Islam.
Islamism.
The former is the religion, the latter is the political ideology. The militant vein of the political ideology is the central issue. We aren't at war with Islam, and I never said that western civilization is at war against Islam. The following sentence of yours borders on a smear:
All this should at least make you question the western civilization against the muslims characterization.
I didn't make that characterization. You are the one mischaracterizing what I wrote.
As for what Selig Harrison has to say, what's your point? During the Cold War, we chose the lesser evil, the greater evil being imperialist communist Russia. Our mistake was abdicating our involvement in Afghanistan after the Russians withdrew, but it doesn't mean we endorsed or supported or accepted the manner in which Afghan leaders degraded the situation.
Your second link affirms what I said above. It was Sudan that offered up bin Laden, not the Taliban. Your point is what?
As for your link re the Taliban "inquiry", the Taliban wasn't a recognized government and they didn't offer bin Laden up your extradition. The U.S. asked for his extradition, but instead he was tried for his crimes before a sharia court. Your previous sentence, "the Taleban repeatedly tried to offer bin Laden to the US but was spurned," is factually false.
The Taliban had their own reasons for demanding proof before kicking Osama out. They feared their government would fall (they claimed) if they did such an unpopular thing (cite). They offered a joint meeting with Afghan and Saudi scholars as religious CYA for removing Osama from Afghanistan, but the Saudis refused. Since the U.S. wasn't interested in keeping the Taliban in power, and since the Taliban wasn't interested in taking steps to join the international community, the matter became closed. All in all, they made one conditional offer, with strings attached, and the sincerity of their offer is highly questionable, especially considering that whack job Mullah Omar was in power.
I'm not sure what your point is about Khaksar approaching a U.S. diplomat re the Taliban. The U.S. didn't have a policy that urged regime change. But either way, the U.S. loses. We do nothing and the Taliban stays in power, or we help Khaksar overthrow a regime and we're running dog imperialists, a charge which would be made by your fellow-traveling socialist friends. In retrospect, maybe we should have been more involved in removing the Taliban regime. Clinton certainly passed on the idea, and Bush was only eight months into his administration before the 9/11 attacks.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm sorry you didn't get the point of my previous post. I'll try again, but a little more succinctly. The relationship between US intelligence and bin Laden and the hard-liner Islamists is long and undisputed. There is no reason to believe it ended with the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan. There is a consistent pattern of actions or inactions that strengthened the Islamists at the expense of more moderate factions or members. Not only in Tora Bora, but in Sudan, Dubai and elsewhere. I think it's facile to explain it away as cold war necessities. If you're looking for anything more clear-cut and unequivocal that than, then you're out of luck. Neither the US nor the Taliban speaks or spoke with one voice.
The offers to give up bin Laden in exchange for international recognition were vague and never set in stone. The most comprehensive reporting is in this Leftish organ:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html
I don't think adherence to the niceties of international law or worry about hurting the feelings of socialists explain the lack of interest in pursuing bin Laden in Afghanistan or anywhere else.
If the US is not interested in pursuing bin Laden, what is NATO doing in Afghanistan?
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The longtime relationship between the CIA, bin Laden and other Islamists is very much in dispute. After the Soviets withdrew, "the US and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there" (cite). If anything, the U.S. should have remained in Afghanistan but we bailed out of there when the mission was completed.
Concerning the alleged relationship between US intelligence and bin Laden, it's conspiracy theory:
Which says something about the competence of the CIA. It's easier and more plausible to acribe it to incompetence than some sinister plot.
There is no reason to believe it ended with the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan.
You can believe what you want, but this isn't a faith-based site. When you produce actual evidence or information from credible sources, then perhaps we can have a conversation about it.
I don't know what to think about Kabir Mohabbat. There is no evidence other than his own statements in that America-hating socialist rag, and in that one CBS report. It looks like the State Department lost their trust in him after he talked to that CBS reporter, or maybe they didn't have much trust in him to begin with. Also, we don't know--and can't know--whether the Taliban's purported offer was made in good faith. When that Taliban met with the State Department in '98, they had plenty of strings attached, which seems to be how the Taliban operated. Another thing. Mohabbat said he had a copy of a letter from the U.S. apologizing to the Taliban, but he didn't show it to Cockburn. Why? Also, he comes off as a bit of a flake re this:
Why would he be offered Karzai's role when he already had a falling out with Khalilzad? Finally, why is Counterpunch the only media outlet that had this story? No one else on the planet followed up on the interview, from what I could tell.
If the US is not interested in pursuing bin Laden, what is NATO doing in Afghanistan?
Please tell us what our national interest is in not capturing or killing bin Laden. Your question is rhetorical anyway because bin Laden and the rest of the al Qaeda leadership is in Pakistan, a politically unstable nation that has an arsenal of atomic bombs.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's quite understandable that the US government had no relation to bin Laden and others. I believe that much of the hands on work was conducted through Saudi and Pakistani surrogates. The CIA would be interested in bin Laden not because of any need for money on his part, but for his wealth of contacts among the 'Arab Afghans.' An intelligence asset in other words, and perhaps a customer for arms deals.
I don't see why you have such difficulty believing that the Taliban was willing to trade bin Laden in exchange for recognition and financial aid etc. It's plausible to me that at least some of the Taliban were not keen on turning their nation into a base for attacking other countries. There is another instance where the 'moderate' foreign minister made similar tentative initiatives at handing over bin Laden. We can pull these apart but the important thing to note about them is that there doesn't appear to have been any effort in developing the offers into something more acceptable to the US. They seem to have been dismissed out of hand.
Why has no other media outlet followed up on that story, even to dispute it? I don't know. Lack of interest? It interests me but then I have many interests that I've never seen covered by the likes of CNN.
Your question about the national interest is difficult. How did bin Laden manage to escape from Tora Bora? That's how he ended up in Pakistan, probably through the action of the Pakistani secret service and inaction of everyone else. Seems to follow a pattern which goes back years.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Clinton did try to go after OBL: he certainly had better luck with the embassy bombers than Bush had with the Taliban. When Clinton went after OBL with cruise missiles, the Republicans rose with one accord to scream Wag the Dog. Clinton did as much as his mandate allowed. He wasn't perfect, but he knew the limits of the possible.
I do not observe your distinction between Islam and Islamism, though I understand what you're driving at, and generally approve of it.
Though this is only anecdotal observation, I'm not sure our mistake was abdicating our involvement in Afghanistan after the Russians withdrew. Our failure was Pakistan: they had kept the CIA from direct involvement in Pashtun society, FATA etc.. While our eyes were on the Russians in Afghanistan, the Pak regime was developing nuclear weapons and oppressing the Pashtuns. You are correct in every factual observation, but I was involved with refugee work and resettlement during that time. A few Pashtuns did make it to the USA, not many, but I knew a few. Their opinion, at the time, led me to believe Pakistan was trying to create a vassal state in Afghanistan, and the Taliban were their puppets.
The USA is still at wits' end with the Pakistan regime, currently collapsing into an ugly collection of factions, not much different than Iraq in my opinion. Though our battle seems to be with the Taliban, and they are a deadly enemy, our war will go horribly awry if Pakistan's factions feud among themselves, as our war in Iraq went sideways after the Samarra bombing.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think we can both agree that neither Clinton nor Bush did enough to get bin Laden pre-9/11.
But we'll continue to disagree about the exquisite timing of Clinton's missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan. The fact that the factory in Sudan did in fact manufacture aspirin tells me he rushed the intelligence.
As to the Pashtuns, my mental framework isn't fully formed on the issue, but I did run across an interesting site this AM (actually, re-ran across) that was informative. In his critique of Selig Harrison, Foust said quite a bit about Pashtun society and history. On a different topic, he had a pretty good smackdown of Michael Totten.
Concerning Pakistan, I don't know if they're collapsing, but there's plenty of disarray.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I will agree that the Republican Party as an institution did everything in its power to prevent Clinton from attempting to get bin Laden pre-9/11, though.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...the GOP prevented Clinton from getting bin Laden when he was in Sudan, or what the GOP did to obstruct his extradition from Afghanistan.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You wouldn't believe either me or any sources I post, so why should I put time and energy into it?
The information is out there. There are books a'plenty on the subject. If you choose not to know it, that's your decision and I'm not going to affect it.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You've rarely answered any of my previous questions. You made the assertion, so it should be incumbent on you to back up what you assert. That's how it works, or at least that's how it should work.
Your statement: "...the Republican Party as an institution did everything in its power to prevent Clinton from attempting to get bin Laden pre-9/11."
My response: "Tell me how."
Your response so far: Bluster.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You call a lot of things I say a lot of things. A few of them are true.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Show me your good faith and answer the question, then perhaps you'd actually find out how I would respond to your evidence.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or just admitted that you can't. This isn't a place where many people get fooled by someone talking through his hat.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )over here
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but it doesn't support PM's assertion.
Oh, and I wouldn't trust Bill Clinton to tell the truth about what Dick Clarke did or didn't do, just like I wouldn't trust Bill Clinton to tell the truth about much of anything else. In Clarke's own words:
And there's more.
If I had to choose between Slippery Dick and Slick Willie, I'll take the former.
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in his statements on his experiences in the Bush Administration:
The Bush administration - all lies, from top to bottom.
ps - make sure your tags match before posting
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Not when you're there to throw out a bunch of tangential crap.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )enabled in large part justified by the events of 9/11 is hardly tangential, it's about as central to the discussion of National Security policy during the Bush Presidency as it gets.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and the putative Republican opposition. The Repubs screamed Wag the Dog, that's true enough, but they weren't the spanner in the gears while Clinton was Commander in Chief. Clinton couldn't get troops into Afghanistan for reasons he would describe in my link.
The Repubs would attempt to shift blame to Clinton after 9/11, and to his credit, Clinton did admit his shortcomings, such as they were. But Clinton did try to get OBL. If anyone's to blame, it seems like CIA under Tenet and the FBI on the domestic front just couldn't get with the plan.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It seems foolish to blame a political party for the failure to arrest bin Laden.
As you say, blame would probably be better placed on the FBI or CIA. Where I disagree is the reason you give that "they just couldn't get with the plan." The idea that government is monolithic and speaks with one voice, and government's left hand knows what its right hand is up to, this will lead to error.
I doubt that anyone will agree with me here at the Forvm, but intelligence agencies often employ shady characters, and even criminals as 'assets' and even go as far as to divert or confound attempts by law enforcement to bring them to justice. I don't deny they had a plan, it just may not have been the same as that of Clinton or even Tenet. The fact that the American secret services operated at one step remove through Pakistani or Saudi surrogates not only makes makes misunderstandings more likely but allows more scope for the wicked or those with personal agendas to game an already murky system. I know all of this speculation crosses some kind of red line in the USA, but I thought I'd throw it in for the hell of it.
Congrats on not getting sucked to far into idiotic partisan bickering though.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the Republicans opposed Clinton on every single thing he did. Let's not forget the Republican quotes about Bosnia, which magically were reversed once Bush got elected. Sanctimonious hypocrites, every one of them. The perfect example of party over country.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There was partisan opposition re Bosnia, but Republicans were divided, primarily because there was a sizeable bloc that believed the commander-in-chief had a constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy and that the Congressional role is for funding and oversight. If there were overwhelming Republican opposition, Clinton wouldn't have had the appropriations to execute his policy. Second, the GOP had legitimate concerns about an open-ended commitment of US peacekeeping forces under UN auspices on foreign soil, and they also had legitimate concerns about Clinton's ability to oversee such an operation, especially after the disaster that he presided over in Somalia. Once committed to the operation, and since the operation was passably working and no American soldiers' lives were at appreciable risk, Bush's choice was to pull the plug and risk a deteriorating situation or keep it going.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But after the embassy bombings and the USS Cole disaster, the Repubs were seriously angry, too. I put up the link to Clinton waxing wroth at the right wing post-hoc smearing of his attempts to get OBL. Nowhere in there do I see him blaming the Repubs for blocking his initiatives.
Yes, insofar as Clinton got much guff and slanging over Bosnia, you're right. As much as it pains me to take BD's talmudically tiny point, the Repubs weren't opposed to Clinton going after OBL while Clinton was in office.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )suggesting there's not a lot of "there" there. Plus, as some libs here say whenever I mention Al Gore, what's so bad about hypocrisy? %^>
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and the hypocrisy and Clinton hatred behind them instead of dismissing them. There's plenty of Senators and Representatives in that list.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Some of them are (or were) significant people; others, not. If that's "plenty", OK. As many as there were, say, Democrats shouting that Saddam has WMDs and needed to be taken out? Maybe.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I would argue the Republicans during that period were not exactly helpful, but I don't think even Clinton would say they stopped him from prosecuting the war on terror. Chalabi was hard at work in the late 90s, rounding up support for the war against Saddam at the expense of Al Qaeda. In a curious way, the Clinton administration's failure to get OBL in the second term was a dress rehearsal for the War on Terror. Clinton was saddled with the Iraq Embargo, policing the Gulf, when it could have been better occupied elsewhere.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )during the transition and ignored much of what they heard from government intelligence agencies prior to 9/11. Thus compounding the national security vulnerabilities they helped create with their earlier partisans hounding of Clinton. Not that Bill doesn't deserve to share a high degree of blame for the ramifications of his actions in the oral office.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Great mimicry.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would be closer to the truth than anything you might hear from the other side of the isle, unless you're questioning him about services rendered to him by female staff in the oral office.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )(which is considerable here IMO), particularly when you apply it as a blanket to "the other side of the isle" (good one on "isle" BTW). You're limiting your endorsement of Clinton's veracity (vs mendacity) to comments relating to bin Laden, AQ aand the like, right?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )not pertaining to personal matters that led to certain legal difficulties he incurred while in office.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and his repeated statements about the thread Saddam posed to this country? Do we get to include stuff he's said since leaving office, too?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just so long as you aren't going all Brooks on me and laying some sort of trap I might stumble into. But I don't believe Clinton ever actually counseled pulling on the Saddam thread (good one) in quite the manner that the Boy King did.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )