Australian Politics Forum

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #135 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 11:57pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 11:25am:

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 10:50am:

You must yourselves realize the power of your country, and feed your eyes upon her from day to day, till love of her fills your hearts; and then, when all her greatness shall break upon you, you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer.

For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart.

These take as your model and, judging happiness to be the fruit of freedom and freedom of valour, never decline the dangers of war. For it is not the miserable that would most justly be unsparing of their lives; these have nothing to hope for: it is rather they to whom continued life may bring reverses as yet unknown, and to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences. And surely, to a man of spirit, the degradation of cowardice must be immeasurably more grievous than the unfelt death which strikes him in the midst of his strength and patriotism!

Marvellous stuff, old chap. Suharto? Mahatir? Lee Quan Yew?

Pericles, barbarian.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #136 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 3:30am

Karnal wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 12:04am:

Grey wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 10:11am:

Grey wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 10:08pm:

Quote:

Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency"

According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose.

Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

Not every rebellion - every conflict where you have the local population on side.

In WWII, the Amerikans had chewing gum and nylon stockings. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had rice and doctors.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban have one thing: the majority of them are Afghans.

For the Afghans, this is a question of nationalism. You'll never pin them down for long. They'll die defending themselves.

However, many Taliban cells are Pakistani. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been hostile to each other since the British were around. They are not united - far from it - but groups like Al Qaida and other militant Islamicists have staged a crusade out of regional rivalries and disputes.

This is how the Soviets were defeated. The battle for Afghanistan in the 1980s - along with Kashmir - was the genesis of militant Islam.

The West has not defeated these groups. Instead, locals have turned away from them. Al Qaida made themselves hated in Iraq. The Taliban aren't too popular either, but because they're locals they get support.

The Taliban don't give out gum and stockings. They provide security. In a country torn apart by invaders, warlords and tribal rivalries, the Taliban provide a form of order. It's a brutal form of justice, but many Afghanis prefer the devil they know.

Nobody wants to be ruled by religious zealots who behead people for dancing. Afghans are firstly people like all others. There is no 'Afghan nationalism', it's the Pashtun/talibs V the rest.

What's going to happen after the pull out is the re-emergence of the Northern Alliance with massive Russian support. Then it depends on whether there's a US president mad enough to bleed Americans dry to support the 'military-industrial complex' or whether there's a liberal who wont want a bar of Afghanistan.

In the latter case the Russians will back the NA with the Russian army and probably wont stop killing Talibs until they reach India. Great game over, USSR dead Long live the Putin Empire.

Grey, the Northern Alliance formed to defeat the USSR. They were funded by the CIA. Has Putin got anything to do with the former satelites? You'd think he learned something from Chechnya.

Still, anything's possible. I'm backing Pakistan, but you probably knew that much.

I have no idea how bad the Taliban were, but many Afghanis want them back. Go figure.

Afghanistan is not the West. And it is has some of the most brutal terrain in the world. The Khyber Pass is not rhyming slang for a rather dark part of the human anatomy for nothing. Many parts of Afghanistan are unreachable during Winter.

Hence the success of the Northern Alliance. The US supplied them by air.

The Taliban were stuck with mules. Alas, this is the future of Aghanistan after 2014.

Karnal the Khyber pass is a pass, a road. The Northern Alliance was formed after the Russian withdrawral to fight the Taliban and it's commander Massoud collected money where he could. His strongest connections were in France. The CIA funded the 'mujahideen' and operated from Pakistans tribal area. You can't support Pakistan. Pakistan is at war with itself. Which Pakistan do you support, the ISI, the government, the Taliban, Imran Khan? And support them to do what?

The Taliban are Islamofascists. Last week they beheaded 17 people for dancing. They're on a Jihad, they don't recognise borders. Russia will fight them because they have no option. Russia lost the first Chechnyan war. Yeltsin was in charge. The 2nd Chechnyan war under Putin was a resounding Russian victory.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #137 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:18am

True, Grey, the Northern Alliance was formed to defeat the Taliban. However, it was an alliance of leaders who had previously fought the Soviets.

And yes, like the future vacuum you describe, the Northern Alliance were also from outside or from the stateless frontier areas: Tajik, Uzbek and some Hazara. They were no Pashtuns, the traditional rulers of Afghanistan - hence the elevation of Karzai.

Many of the Taliban today are also from the stateless frontier and porous border areas of Pakistan. What do you think of this dynamic? The US strategy was to attempt to establish a strong, multicultural parliament. A state. A rule of law. However, the ancient laws and alliances of Afghanistan seem compelled - as if by forces of nature itself - to destroy any idea of a state.

It's partly geographical, it's partly tribal, it's a complete lack of the most basic infrastructure. It's a lot of things. Without the most basic functions of statehood - taxes, customs, courts, police - Afghanistan will never develop. Without development, it will never be secure.

As an anarchist, what do you think of this idea?

Back to top

IP Logged

Avram Horowitz

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3153
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #138 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:36am

Karnal wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 12:04am:

Grey wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 10:11am:

Grey wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2012 at 10:08pm:

Quote:

Karnal - "you cant beat an insurgency"

According to Karnal every rebellion is successful. What a load of crap. What IS true is that you can't win wars - somebody has to agree to lose.

Winning takes resolve, superior force and better organisation. If you have those things the other side loses, no matter who they are. We ought to have those things and if we don't we need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

Not every rebellion - every conflict where you have the local population on side.

In WWII, the Amerikans had chewing gum and nylon stockings. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had rice and doctors.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban have one thing: the majority of them are Afghans.

For the Afghans, this is a question of nationalism. You'll never pin them down for long. They'll die defending themselves.

However, many Taliban cells are Pakistani. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been hostile to each other since the British were around. They are not united - far from it - but groups like Al Qaida and other militant Islamicists have staged a crusade out of regional rivalries and disputes.

This is how the Soviets were defeated. The battle for Afghanistan in the 1980s - along with Kashmir - was the genesis of militant Islam.

The West has not defeated these groups. Instead, locals have turned away from them. Al Qaida made themselves hated in Iraq. The Taliban aren't too popular either, but because they're locals they get support.

The Taliban don't give out gum and stockings. They provide security. In a country torn apart by invaders, warlords and tribal rivalries, the Taliban provide a form of order. It's a brutal form of justice, but many Afghanis prefer the devil they know.

Nobody wants to be ruled by religious zealots who behead people for dancing. Afghans are firstly people like all others. There is no 'Afghan nationalism', it's the Pashtun/talibs V the rest.

What's going to happen after the pull out is the re-emergence of the Northern Alliance with massive Russian support. Then it depends on whether there's a US president mad enough to bleed Americans dry to support the 'military-industrial complex' or whether there's a liberal who wont want a bar of Afghanistan.

In the latter case the Russians will back the NA with the Russian army and probably wont stop killing Talibs until they reach India. Great game over, USSR dead Long live the Putin Empire.

Grey, the Northern Alliance formed to defeat the USSR. They were funded by the CIA. Has Putin got anything to do with the former satelites? You'd think he learned something from Chechnya.

Still, anything's possible. I'm backing Pakistan, but you probably knew that much.
I have no idea how bad the Taliban were, but many Afghanis want them back. Go figure.

Afghanistan is not the West. And it is has some of the most brutal terrain in the world. The Khyber Pass is not rhyming slang for a rather dark part of the human anatomy for nothing. Many parts of Afghanistan are unreachable during Winter.

Hence the success of the Northern Alliance. The US supplied them by air.

The Taliban were stuck with mules. Alas, this is the future of Aghanistan after 2014.

I dont understand that point.
Why are you backing Pakistan?

They are as much part of the problem as the other nations in this region.

What benefit to you guys from Australian perspective is there for you to back Pakistan?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #139 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:05pm

It is not because I am a Pakistani Bastard, Avram, no. It is not because Pakistan are number one at cricket, or make marvellous linens, or cook wonderful curries for all Mother England to eat.

It is, quite simply, because Pakistan is next door to Afghanistan. There is no benefit. It is just the way things are.

The problem with people is they always look at things in their own interest. They say this is how it should be. This is what I want. This is the team I support.

But the world doesn't work that way, isn't it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Avram Horowitz Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3153 Australia Gender:	Re: Afghanistan Reply #140 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:07pm People's Republic of China is next door to Afghanistan. So is Iran, Tajikistan too. Are you backing these guys? I am simply asking why you as a Aussie are backing Pakistan? I don't understand the comment or why.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #141 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:12pm

But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose.

I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure.

Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win?

It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant.

Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Avram Horowitz

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3153
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #142 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:20pm

Oh I thought your comment was you supported Pakistan and wished them to succeed in the region - I couldnt understand why as a Aussie it would be a benefit to you for Pakistan to succeed.

If you think they will then that is different.

I personally do not believe a conflict in Afghanistan is winnable for anyone.

It is a hostile rough terrain - I know grey thinks it is not - but the people i listen to are people who have fought there.
I have met 2 UK soldiers who have been there. The older Russian guy who lives near my parents home in Haifa - he served in the Soviet Army and he told me it is the toughest place on earth with fearless people who frightened the Red Army.

I think the best that can be done is to make sure the ability of the Taliban to train and provide cover for terrorists who then aim to attack the Western world is the focus.

To win a war in Afghanistan is impossible, they will fight until the last person.

Technically you can win the war - but the social principles of western countries will prevent them from taking the action to do this - which is carpet bomb the country and remove the threat from the sky.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #143 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:35pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

True, Grey, the Northern Alliance was formed to defeat the Taliban. However, it was an alliance of leaders who had previously fought the Soviets.

And yes, like the future vacuum you describe, the Northern Alliance were also from outside or from the stateless frontier areas: Tajik, Uzbek and some Hazara. They were no Pashtuns, the traditional rulers of Afghanistan - hence the elevation of Karzai.

Many of the Taliban today are also from the stateless frontier and porous border areas of Pakistan. What do you think of this dynamic? The US strategy was to attempt to establish a strong, multicultural parliament. A state. A rule of law. However, the ancient laws and alliances of Afghanistan seem compelled - as if by forces of nature itself - to destroy any idea of a state.

It's partly geographical, it's partly tribal, it's a complete lack of the most basic infrastructure. It's a lot of things. Without the most basic functions of statehood - taxes, customs, courts, police - Afghanistan will never develop. Without development, it will never be secure.

As an anarchist, what do you think of this idea?

well for a start it wasn't so long ago that Germany, even England, was split geograpically and tribally into competeing fiefdoms. India too of course. That doesn't make a case for such a small 'a' anarchy (chaos) to be regarded as the default position.

America's stated objective was to defeat the lunatic Talib's and do some nation building. Having achieved its first objective it dropped the ball to go and make a war in Iraq. As you will no doubt recall America was run by an idiot at the time.

As an Anarchist (ie being concerned with the structures of economy and power) ... Look, Anarchism comes out of defficiencies in the equations of the modern nation state. It's not applicable to the stoneage. Maybe if Anarchic principles of democracy and conflict resolution were in operation in other nations then it could be used as an example and template for Afghans to co-operate without murdering each other. But Anarchism is the future not the past.

As I've said before there's a world I'd like to live in and the world I do. There is no Anarchist manifesto, other than basic structural ideas. I personally might favour a complete halt to human expansion into the natural world or an overhaul of our criminal justice system. But those are just my personal views I'd bring to the table. But in Anarchism the table is what matters. The table is round, the chairs are equal, agreement is sacred.

Afghanistan is back in the days of church power and the church is running an inquisition that even Spanish Catholics would've found heavy handed, maybe.

Quote:

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: ... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit

I find it unconscionable to leave a population under the rule of such nutters in the modern world.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #144 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:43pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose.

I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure.

Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win?

It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant.

Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it.

I'm not backing Russia. I find the scenario I outlined 'prossible'. I would much rather the UN puts some teeth in and restored Afghanistan to the nationhood it enjoyed before the USSR and USA made it their football.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Avram Horowitz

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3153
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #145 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:53pm

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose.

I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure.

Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win?

It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant.

Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it.

I'm not backing Russia. I find the scenario I outlined 'prossible'. I would much rather the UN puts some teeth in and restored Afghanistan to the nationhood it enjoyed before the USSR and USA made it their football.

it is a unwinnable hostile terrain - grey you can pour 3,000,000 men into afghanistan and the tribal leaders will send them coming back to you in body bags by thousands.

They are a formidable opponent.

I have served in the army and I am always a man who gives credit to bravery when they are on the other side and the Afghans are the most battle hard men on this world.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #146 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:59pm

Yes, Avram, I agree with you. Carpet-bombing the entire country will not achieve any political or military objectives.

The Taliban WILL come to power after 2014. It does not matter if we like them or not. We will need to do business with them.

Therefore, it would make sense to deal with the Taliban as early as possible. It would make sense to pay the most friendly men in the Taliban, to bring them into the fold.

The Taliban is the vortex of military power in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, all power indeed comes from the barrel of a gun. But the Taliban is not unified. It contains ex-Mujaheddin, ex-warlords, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtuns, Pakistanis, all.

And yes, it even contains friends of Karzai's.

The continued erosion of the state in Afghanistan from the exile of the king to the Soviet invasion through to the Amerikan invasion means that leadership must come from somewhere. The current parliament is just a funnel for foreign aid dollars into the hands of Karzai's friends.

Alas, the Taliban is the real source of power in Afghanistan. The trick will be to make friends and, if possible, exclude the fundamentalist knuckleheads.

Still, Australia has no regional interest in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's sponsored terror cells - the ones that are left - have little interest in Australia. Any threat to Australia comes from South East Asia, but even this is relatively minor.

The future security threats to Australia are regional food security, energy security, climate problems, and cyber attack.

Economically, we're in the region with the most economic growth in the world, so although recession is a general fear, it's not a known security threat - as it is in Africa, Europe, the US and Central America.

The War On Terror is a uniquely Amerikan phenomenon relating to their economic and waning geopolitical interests. It was a momentary distraction.

The real future threat to Australia will be the regional demand for oil and other sources of energy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #147 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:03pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

But Avram, how can I back anyone? I don't have an army, and even if I did, I know they would lose.

I'm not backing Pakistan. I'm putting my money on them. Same with China. Grey says Russia - I'm not so sure.

Should we vote for our favourite political party? Or should we bet on who will win?

It is a democratik question. Before we had democraky, we had only our prayers that the next ruler would not be a tyrant.

Now we KNOW the next ruler will corrupt and useless. It is just the way things are, isn't it.

I'm not backing Russia. I find the scenario I outlined 'prossible'. I would much rather the UN puts some teeth in and restored Afghanistan to the nationhood it enjoyed before the USSR and USA made it their football.

it is a unwinnable hostile terrain - grey you can pour 3,000,000 men into afghanistan and the tribal leaders will send them coming back to you in body bags by thousands.

They are a formidable opponent.

I have served in the army and I am always a man who gives credit to bravery when they are on the other side and the Afghans are the most battle hard men on this world.

Always a reliable mythologist AH. Australia has lost 39 men so far, many from accidents that could've occured training in the Gibson desert, most others from those brave battle hard Talib warriors planting IRD's. Get a grip.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #148 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:11pm

Quote:

Yes, Avram, I agree with you.

That doesn't surprise me, you are both talking tosh.

No war has ever been won by carpet bombing, because there's really no such thing. Infantry has to take and hold ground. Of course the Taliban pose no direct threat to Australian security. The Talibs are a tumour in the body of humanity. They need cutting out.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Afghanistan
Reply #149 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 1:23pm

Grey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

... Look, Anarchism comes out of defficiencies in the equations of the modern nation state. It's not applicable to the stoneage.

And that's the problem here, isn't it. The difference with England and Germany and India is that all those former principalities and kingdoms united to form nations. In each case, there was a determined period of nationalism.

In economically failed states, there's little national pride, and this often creates an exodus. Either that, or civil war.

Afghanistan is not united ethnically or linguistically - this has been one of Karzai's impossible tasks: to unite a disparate people under a national banner.

This can't possibly happen without physical infrastructure such as adequate roads. You can't unite people without physical - and economic - mechanisms to do so.

Back to top

IP Logged