Afghanistan

[2cents]

Think this might be the only footage existing of Mullah Omar (if it is indeed him):

 

[2cents]

Looks like he's actually dead, Taliban have announced a successor.

Why it's potentially bad news for al-Qaeda, and good news for ISIS:

he derived much of his authority from his self-appointed position as ‘Leader of the Faithful’—a title usually reserved for a caliph. As such, Mullah Omar received oaths of allegiance from both his own followers and from the many foreigners—including Usama bin Ladin—who came to Afghanistan before and during Taliban rule. Indeed, one of the arguments used by al-Qaeda against Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the so-called Islamic State, is that he cannot assume the position of Caliph because it is already occupied. Those who had already sworn allegiance to Mullah Omar were thus barred from revoking their oath and pledging allegiance to Baghdadi. If Mullah Omar is dead, these arguments clearly fall away.

The situation is particularly difficult for Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda, because he reaffirmed his loyalty to Mullah Omar as recently as last year, when he announced the formation of the new al-Qaeda branch in the Indian sub-continent. If Mullah Omar was already dead, it suggests that Zawahiri was either ignorant or duplicitous, neither of which will endear him to his followers. Al-Qaeda branches like Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria may now declare that they are released from their oath to Zawahiri as he no longer derives authority from Mullah Omar. There will certainly be considerable debate within extremist circles, where these matters are taken very seriously.

The big winner, therefore, may be the Islamic State. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has argued since the inception of his ‘Caliphate’ that Mullah Omar did not have the pedigree or the necessary credentials to challenge him. If he is dead, this will certainly be true.

http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-the-death-of-mullah-omar/

 

[Distracted Steward]

Well, scratch the legendary Jalaludin Haqqani. Also belated news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33740337

 

[Raoul]

Well, scratch the legendary Jalaludin Haqqani. Also belated news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33740337

Nice. Hek for the golden trifecta ?

 

[Distracted Steward]

Nice. Hek for the golden trifecta ?

Haha, that washed up clown must be about a hard winter away by now.

 

[Attila]

Think this might be the only footage existing of Mullah Omar (if it is indeed him):

Interesting video, thanks for sharing that. As the commentator says it does look like something from hundreds of years ago in how they kiss the rug. Very fascinating

 

[Distracted Steward]

@Uzz

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QZ09P20150830

It's not exactly a problem unique to American efforts.

 

[LeChuck]

@Uzz

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QZ09P20150830

It's not exactly a problem unique to American efforts.

I abhor all instances of this type of thing occurring, and just like the US in Afghanistan, there is no reason SA should be in Yemen and forcing this coalition to take part....if they're not prepared to do the same in Syria, or Gaza etc. People serve their own interests. My head isn't in the clouds thinking only combatants and soldiers die in wars. But it is overwhelmingly prevalent with the US seeing as we have around 14 years of evidence, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo Bay and soldiers going on rampages murdering villagers that there is a lack of empathy/care/whatever.

In fact, you can't really equate the two conflicts in any real sense. But I do take your point. And SA aren't innocent in this. And I've just noticed your longer post earlier (I don't know why I haven't seen it before), so I'll type up a response to that when I have the time.

 

[Distracted Steward]

I abhor all instances of this type of thing occurring, and just like the US in Afghanistan, there is no reason SA should be in Yemen and forcing this coalition to take part....if they're not prepared to do the same in Syria, or Gaza etc. People serve their own interests. My head isn't in the clouds thinking only combatants and soldiers die in wars. But it is overwhelmingly prevalent with the US seeing as we have around 14 years of evidence, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo Bay and soldiers going on rampages murdering villagers that there is a lack of empathy/care/whatever.

In fact, you can't really equate the two conflicts in any real sense. But I do take your point. And SA aren't innocent in this. And I've just noticed your longer post earlier (I don't know why I haven't seen it before), so I'll type up a response to that when I have the time.

I mean to point out that war is inherently chaotic, imprecise and tragic regardless of participants.

I look forward to what you have to say in response to my earlier post.

 

[LeChuck]

I mean to point out that war is inherently chaotic, imprecise and tragic regardless of participants.

I look forward to what you have to say in response to my earlier post.

Fair enough and I take that on board, but to me the incidents with drones in particular seem more haphazard than they should, and the 'care' or empathy shown to the people isn't seen as important. There is no consideration of the consequences either. I mean, the evidence is overwhelming of innocents whose families are killed by drones and they then join the opposition. It's clearly not a strategy that works.

Why is the US is still in Afghanistan? What have they realistically achieved? By any quantifiable metric, the decision to go there and Iraq have been failures. There is nothing we can say that is a success. The Taliban are the biggest players in the opium trade now, pre 2001, they were making peanuts but since you guys have gone in, they are close to a $bn industry (along with Hezbollah), they still remain the champions of opposition in the region, and the nature of their hierarchy means they will endure. In fact, the Soviets tried to take the region, and they were kicked out, the British tried to do it 3 times and they were kicked out, what makes you think the US will succeed? That land won't ever be the way you want it to be. The ironic thing is that mujahideen are only doing what they were armed to do in the first place. It's actually quite poetic. What is the end game? You will never be able to eradicate the presence from this land. I mean democracies can be installed and the leaders will be puppets, but we'll just see similar instances to what we're seeing elsewhere in the ME.

 

[LeChuck]

14 Years After 9/11, the War on Terror Is Accomplishing Everything bin Laden Hoped It Would
Al Qaeda goaded us into doing what it had neither the resources nor the ability to do.
By
Tom Engelhardt
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

• 
  
  A Marine convoy in southern Afghanistan in 2008 (AP Photo/David Guttenfelder, File)
  
  Fourteen years later and do you even believe it? Did we actually live it? Are we still living it? And how improbable is that?
  
  TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.
  
  Fourteen years of wars, interventions, assassinations, torture, kidnappings, black sites, the growth of the American national security state to monumental proportions, and the spread of Islamic extremism across much of the Greater Middle East and Africa. Fourteen years of astronomical expense, bombing campaigns galore, and a military-first foreign policy of repeated defeats, disappointments, and disasters. Fourteen years of a culture of fear in America, of endless alarms and warnings, as well as dire predictions of terrorist attacks. Fourteen years of the burial of American democracy (or rather its recreation as a billionaire’s playground and a source of spectacle and entertainment but not governance). Fourteen years of the spread of secrecy, the classification of every document in sight, the fierce prosecution of whistleblowers, and a faith-basedurge to keep Americans “secure” by leaving them in the dark about what their government is doing. Fourteen years of the demobilization of the citizenry. Fourteen years of the rise of the warrior corporation, the transformation of war and intelligence gathering into profit-making activities, and the flocking of countless private contractors to the Pentagon, the NSA, the CIA, and too manyother parts of the national security state to keep track of. Fourteen years of our wars coming home in the form of PTSD, the militarization of the police, and the spread of war-zone technology like drones and stingrays to the “homeland.” Fourteen years of that un-American word “homeland.” Fourteen years of the expansion of surveillance of every kind and of the development of a global surveillance system whose reach—from foreign leaders to tribal groups in thebacklands of the planet—would have stunned those running the totalitarian states of the twentieth century. Fourteen years of the financial starvation of America’s infrastructure and still not a single mile of high-speed rail built anywhere in the country. Fourteen years in which to launch Afghan War 2.0, Iraq Wars 2.0 and 3.0, and Syria War 1.0. Fourteen years, that is, of the improbable made probable.
  
  Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters, $400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order. Think of it aswizardry from the theater of darkness. In the process, you did “change everything” or at least enough of everything to matter. Or rather, you goaded us into doing what you had neither the resources nor the ability to do. So let’s give credit where it’s due. Psychologically speaking, the 9/11 attacks represented precision targeting of a kind American leaders would only dream of in the years to follow. I have no idea how, but you clearly understood us so much better than we understood you or, for that matter, ourselves. You knew just which buttons of ours to push so that we would essentially carry out the rest of your plan for you. While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad, we followed the blueprints for your dreams and desires as if you had planned it and, in the process, made the world a significantly different (and significantly grimmer) place.
  
  Fourteen years later, we don’t even grasp what we did.
  
  Fourteen years later, the improbability of it all still staggers the imagination, starting with those vast shards of the World Trade Center in downtown Manhattan, the real-world equivalent of the Statue of Liberty sticking out of the sand in the original Planet of the Apes. With lower Manhattan still burning and the air acrid with destruction, they seemed like evidence of a culture that had undergone its own apocalyptic moment and come out the other side unrecognizably transformed. To believe the coverage of the time, Americans had experienced Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima combined. We were planet Earth’s ultimate victims and downtown New York was “Ground Zero,” a phrase previously reserved for places where nuclear explosions had occurred. We were instantly the world’s greatest victim and greatest survivor, and it was taken for granted that the world’s most fulfilling sense of revenge would be ours. 9/11 came to be seen as an assault on everything innocent and good and triumphant about us, the ultimate they-hate-our-freedoms moment and, Osama, it worked. You spooked this country into 14 years of giving any dumb or horrifying act or idea or law or intrusion into our lives or curtailment of our rights a get-out-of-jail-free pass. You loosed not just your dogs of war, but ours, which was exactly what you needed to bring chaos to the Muslim world.

Part 2 to follow.

 

[LeChuck]

Fourteen years later, let me remind you of just how totally improbable 9/11 was and how ragingly clueless we all were on that day. George W. Bush (and cohorts) couldn’t even take it in when, on August 6, 2001, the president was given a daily intelligence briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” The NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, which had many of the pieces of the bin Laden puzzle in their hands, still couldn’t imagine it. And believe me, even when it was happening, I could hardly grasp it. I was doing exercises in my bedroom with the TV going when I first heard the news of a plane hitting the World Trade Center and saw the initial shots of a smoking tower. And I remember my immediate thought: just like the B-25 that almost took out the Empire State Building back in 1945. Terrorists bringing down the World Trade Center? Please. Al-Qaeda? You must be kidding. Later, when two planes had struck in New York and another had taken out part of the Pentagon, and it was obvious that it wasn’t an accident, I had an even more ludicrous thought. It occurred to me that the unexpected vulnerability of Americans living in a land largely protected from the chaos so much of the world experiences might open us up to the pain of others in a new way. Dream on. All it opened us up to was bringing pain to others.

Fourteen years later, don’t you still find it improbable that George W. Bush and company used those murderous acts and the nearly 3,000 resulting deaths as an excuse to try to make the world theirs? It took them no time at all to decide to launch a “Global War on Terror” in up to 60 countries. It took them next to no time to begin dreaming of the establishment of a future Pax Americana in the Middle East, followed by the sort of global imperium that had previously been conjured up only by cackling bad guys in James Bond films. Don’t you find it strange, looking back, just how quickly 9/11 set their brains aflame? Don’t you find it curious that the Bush administration’s top officials were quite so infatuated by the US military? Doesn’t it still strike you as odd that they had such blind faith in that military’s supposedly limitless powers to do essentially anything and be “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known”? Don’t you still find it eerie that, amid the wreckage of the Pentagon, the initial orders our secretary of defense gave his aides were to come up with plans for striking Iraq, even though he was already convinced that Al Qaeda had launched the attack? (“‘Go massive,’ an aide’s notes quote him as saying. ‘Sweep it all up. Things related and not.’”) Don’t you think “and not” sums up the era to come? Don’t you find it curious that, in the rubble of those towers, plans not just to pay Osama bin Laden back, but to turn Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran—“Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran”—into American protectorates were already being imagined?

Fourteen years later, how probable was it that the countrythen universally considered the planet’s “sole superpower,” openly challenged only by tiny numbers of jihadist extremists, with a military better funded than the next 10to 13 forces combined (most of whom were allies anyway), and whose technological skills were, as they say, to die for would win no wars, defeat no enemies, and successfully complete no occupations? What were the odds? If, on September 12, 2001, someone had given you half-reasonable odds on a US military winning streak in the Greater Middle East, don’t tell me you wouldn’t have slapped some money on the table.

Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that the US military has been unable to extricate itself from Iraq and Afghanistan, its two major wars of this century, despite having officially left one of those countries in 2011 (only tohead back again in the late summer of 2014) and having endlessly announced the conclusion of its operations in the other (only to ratchet them up again)?

Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that Washington’s post-9/11 policies in the Middle East helped lead to the establishment of the Islamic State’s “caliphate” in parts of fractured Iraq and Syria and to a movement of almost unparalleled extremism that has successfully “franchised” itself out from Libya to Nigeria to Afghanistan? If, on September 12, 2001, you had predicted such a possibility, who wouldn’t have thought you mad?

Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that the United States has gone into the business of robotic assassination big time; that (despite Watergate-era legal prohibitions on such acts), we are now the Terminators of Planet Earth, not its John Connors; that the president is openly and proudly anassassin-in-chief with his own global “kill list”; that we have endlessly targeted the backlands of the planet with our (Grim) Reaper and Predator (thank youHollywood!) drones armed with Hellfire missiles; and that Washington has regularly knocked off women and children while searching for militant leaders and their generic followers? And don’t you find it odd that all of this has been done in the name of wiping out the terrorists and their movements, despite the fact that wherever our drones strike, those movements seem to gain in strength and power?

leaders and “lieutenants” of militant groups have visibly promoted, not blunted, the spread of Islamic extremism; and that, despite this, Washington has generally not recalibrated its actions in any meaningful way?

Part 3 to follow.

 

[LeChuck]

Fourteen years later, isn’t it possible to think of 9/11 as a mass grave into which significant aspects of American life as we knew it have been shoveled? Of course, the changes that came, especially those reinforcing the most oppressive aspects of state power, didn’t arrive out of the blue like those hijacked planes. Who, after all, could dismiss the size and power of the national security state and the military-industrial complex before those 19 men with box cutters arrived on the scene? Who could deny that, packed into the Patriot Act (passed largely unread by Congress in October 2001) was a wish list of pre-9/11 law enforcementand right-wing hobbyhorses? Who could deny that the top officials of the Bush administration and their neocon supporters had long been thinking about how to leverage “U.S. military supremacy” into a Pax Americana–style new world order or that they had been dreaming of “a new Pearl Harbor” which might speed up the process? It was, however, only thanks to Osama bin Laden, that they—and we—were shuttled into the most improbable of all centuries, the 21st.

Fourteen years later, the 9/11 attacks and the thousands of innocents killed represent international criminality and immorality of the first order. On that, Americans are clear, but—most improbable of all—no one in Washington has yet taken the slightest responsibility for blowing a hole through the Middle East, loosing mayhem across significant swathes of the planet, or helping release the forces that would create the first true terrorist state of modern history; nor has anyone in any official capacity taken responsibility for creating the conditions that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, possibly amillion or more people, turned many in the Greater Middle East into internal or external refugees, destroyed nations, and brought unbelievable pain to countless human beings. In these years, no act—not of torture, nor murder, nor the illegal offshore imprisonment of innocent people, nor death delivered from the air or the ground, nor the slaughter of wedding parties, nor the killing of children—has blunted the sense among Americans that we live in an “exceptional” and “indispensable” country of staggering goodness and innocence.

Fourteen years later, how improbable is that?

 

[Distracted Steward]

@Uzz I didn't see the alert to your response. I'll check it out tomorrow with fresh eyes.

 

[RedDevil@84]

I dont understand why the author expects US govt to take up any responsibility for the mess created all over the world. They are perfectly content with trying to kill innocents and create new terrorist organizations.

 

[LeChuck]

@Uzz I didn't see the alert to your response. I'll check it out tomorrow with fresh eyes.

It's not my response pal. It's an article that I thought was pretty good. I've been too lazy for that response lately.

 

[Distracted Steward]

@Uzz

I get the emotion in your posts in this thread, but I really can't pick out the core argument. Maybe if you would answer what I asked you before it would clear up for me:

Honest questions: what in your opinion do you think we are up against [in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan]? How do you propose we better deal with it?

 

[LeChuck]

@Distracted Steward - I was in the middle of typing up a long ass reply on a Word doc (still might) and I came across this video on the anniversary of 9/11. It basically sums up my criticisms in a more coherent and eloquent way. So - what do you think? What has the US done in Afghanistan (and Iraq)? Do you think the US have helped those regions or made it worse? What do you think of the appalling human rights record in their subsequent intrusions into the country? Why are there so many drone civilian deaths? What is the end game?

 

[Distracted Steward]

@Distracted Steward - I was in the middle of typing up a long ass reply on a Word doc (still might) and I came across this video on the anniversary of 9/11. It basically sums up my criticisms in a more coherent and eloquent way. So - what do you think? What has the US done in Afghanistan (and Iraq)? Do you think the US have helped those regions or made it worse? What do you think of the appalling human rights record in their subsequent intrusions into the country? Why are there so many drone civilian deaths? What is the end game?

I'll watch it tonight when I get to broadband. I'll answer (maybe in a new thread), but I was hoping you'd answer my two questions specific to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'll gladly scope out to answer your questions, but I am genuinely curious as to what your answers would be given your claimed experience in the NWFP.

 

[LeChuck]

@Uzz

I get the emotion in your posts in this thread, but I really can't pick out the core argument. Maybe if you would answer what I asked you before it would clear up for me:

I'll watch it tonight when I get to broadband. I'll answer (maybe in a new thread), but I was hoping you'd answer my two questions specific to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'll gladly scope out to answer your questions, but I am genuinely curious as to what your answers would be given your claimed experience in the NWFP.

The only solution to deal with this problem is negotiating with the Taliban. Tbh, I don't know why after 14 years of endless violence and civilian deaths this hasn't been considered. Going back to what I said earlier, the people in the that land will never subside under a foreign force. The Soviets tried it, the Brits tried it (x3), and you've tried it, and the net result is the same/similar. I mean - as I've said many times before, what has the US realistically achieved in the 14 years since they've been there? If anything the problem is worse. The Taliban sit at the head of a £bn opium business. If anything, the situation has gone backwards. And on top of all this provocation by the US/Pak forces, the Taliban are resorting to even more brutal tactics like killing army officers' children.

The only viable solution is to negotiate with the Taliban. You're dealing with people who have been fighting off foreign invaders for...well their whole lives. It's arrogance to think it'll be different just because the U.S. are there. I personally think a solution where the U.S. would have less presence in the region, and the Taliban and the Afghan gov't can work on a Sharia compliant form of governance is the way forward. The intricacies of how this would actually be in practice, I don't know. And obviously, there need to be severe consequences for any further terrorist activities committed by the T and AQ in the region.

But I don't think the US has made any tangible benefit to being there for 14 years other than destabilising the region and exarcebating the problem. Also, the appalling human rights record, and civilian deaths due to drones or the like, just makes me think that you don't care as long as you get those 'bearded crazies' at any cost...which is something you'll never accomplish.

Edit: Please excuse the jumpy nature of that post - was typing it up from my phone on the tube so it's a bit scrambled.

 

[Adisa]

This is a new low.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Distracted Steward]

This is a new low.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is a preamble to a return to the 1992 - 2001 civil war. No one is in charge at the field level. Chaos begets chaos; in chaos violence only escalates. This will only accelerate when the factions turn on each other.

The real horrors of the Afghan civil war stopped only because of the invasion. Some factions backed the current government, some opposed it. Either way it brought about a mostly bi-polar conflict.

The intervention only suspended the civil war. The underlying causes remain, and it will resume soon enough.

When it does we will see more horrors like this...

 

[botond]

i know this is old stuff but i just saw it recently and if someone did not see it already its well worth the time

 

[milemuncher777]

Kunduz has fallen.

Can a more knowledgable person in regards to Afghan situation tell whether Taliban have capacity to hold it on ?

 

[Distracted Steward]

Kunduz has fallen.

Can a more knowledgable person in regards to Afghan situation tell whether Taliban have capacity to hold it on ?

The jury is still out on that one. If the Taliban & Co consolidate control of the surrounding countryside and the main roads from the West and South, they've got a shot.

Reports are the Taliban force is 1/4 to 1/2 foreign fighters. They are under the Taliban flag for now, but will they remain cohesive against a counter offensive? Getting a cohesive grasp on what they've just taken is going to take more real time coordination than they've shown.

The Afghan National Army is stretched thin--enough so it struggled to retake two districts in Kunduz in the summer. With no airlift capability--or even air assult capability--it remains to be seen of they can shift forces in numbers sufficient to make a difference.

Taking back Kunduz will be hard unless the ANA counter-offensive quickly threatens to encircle the city. That'd likely trigger a withdrawal with winter approaching. If it becomes a fight in the streets of Kunduz with the countryside split, all bets are off. It'd be the first of its kind in Afghanistan since 1998.

 

[MTF]

The only solution to deal with this problem is negotiating with the Taliban. Tbh, I don't know why after 14 years of endless violence and civilian deaths this hasn't been considered. Going back to what I said earlier, the people in the that land will never subside under a foreign force. The Soviets tried it, the Brits tried it (x3), and you've tried it, and the net result is the same/similar. I mean - as I've said many times before, what has the US realistically achieved in the 14 years since they've been there? If anything the problem is worse. The Taliban sit at the head of a £bn opium business. If anything, the situation has gone backwards. And on top of all this provocation by the US/Pak forces, the Taliban are resorting to even more brutal tactics like killing army officers' children.

The only viable solution is to negotiate with the Taliban. You're dealing with people who have been fighting off foreign invaders for...well their whole lives. It's arrogance to think it'll be different just because the U.S. are there. I personally think a solution where the U.S. would have less presence in the region, and the Taliban and the Afghan gov't can work on a Sharia compliant form of governance is the way forward. The intricacies of how this would actually be in practice, I don't know. And obviously, there need to be severe consequences for any further terrorist activities committed by the T and AQ in the region.

But I don't think the US has made any tangible benefit to being there for 14 years other than destabilising the region and exarcebating the problem. Also, the appalling human rights record, and civilian deaths due to drones or the like, just makes me think that you don't care as long as you get those 'bearded crazies' at any cost...which is something you'll never accomplish.

Edit: Please excuse the jumpy nature of that post - was typing it up from my phone on the tube so it's a bit scrambled.

Negotiating with the Taliban has always been considered, even from the very beginning. http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...america-had-never-invaded-afghanistan/385026/

As far as I understand, but without following the conflict in careful detail, haven't there been at least two rounds of negotiation between the Afghan government and the Taliban, hosted by Qatar? But conflict negotiations are always sketchy, with each side looking to be in the most favorable position militarily before going into them.

I don't think that the current version of the Taliban can coexist with secular Afghan government, they seem too determined to seize power. And I don't think the US is willing to leave Karzai out to hang either, not to secure a deal with the Taliban, which I don't think they trust.

As for the tangible benefit, I think you're missing one thing: has the US been targeted by another major attack? Of the small attempted attacks how many have originated from Afghanistan or Tribal Pak? Just the Times Square attempt IIRC.

At great cost in terms of treasure and lives, the US has achieved security from terrorist attacks originating from the region. There seems to be some truth that when under pressure, spending a large portion of their time evading their own deaths, terrorists are less active and effective in conducting attacks on the other side of the globe. You can't fault the US if that policy yields results in the #1 priority of states.

One thing I wish hadn't happened was the Iraq War. Amongst many negative effects, one was that it took the focus and resources away from Afghanistan and Pakistan as early as the first half of 2002, 6 months into the conflict. When the US refocused in 2008 it was war-weary, both Karzai and Pakistan's government felt differently... I wonder what could've been achieved if full attention and resources had been focused on Afghanistan at a time when most parties involved were more collaborative.

 

[2cents]

The jury is still out on that one. If the Taliban & Co consolidate control of the surrounding countryside and the main roads from the West and South, they've got a shot.

Just been looking at the map of Afghanistan, Kunduz appears to lie far away from the Taliban's heartland in the east and south - I was always under the impression that the northern areas around Mazar were safe from the Taliban's range? Is Kunduz a special exception, or do I have this all wrong?

 

[Distracted Steward]

Just been looking at the map of Afghanistan, Kunduz appears to lie far away from the Taliban's heartland in the east and south - I was always under the impression that the northern areas around Mazar were safe from the Taliban's range? Is Kunduz a special exception, or do I have this all wrong?

Kunduz is an exception. You are right about it being outside of the Taliban heartlands in the south and east.

Also, the north has long been taken for granted. It was never the bleeding wound that the Pashtun heartland has been. Mazar-i-Sharif is different and safe until the insurgency moves to mobile warfare.

Kunduz is surrounded by pockets of Pashtun that sympathize with the Taliban. That part of Northern Afghanistan is ethnically checked, and that makes for rivalry and deep mistrust. That's provided infiltration routes, support zones, and eventually staging pads to take over districts in the province.

As for the Taliban itself, it's kind of wild west for them in Kunduz. It's not the somewhat rank and file of the South or Haqqani east. A lot of the fighters are from Pakistani frontier provinces or Central Asia (namely Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan). So, while it's not a purely Taliban force, it's working for now. They have the manpower and coordinated the assult on Kunduz surprisingly well.

 

[Raoul]

Also worth mentioning is that the Taliban have been quite active in many traditionally non Taliban perceived areas like in the north, probably in search of softer targets in lieu of the pressure they were receiving in Helmand, Kandahar, Kunar, Laghman etc

 

[LeChuck]

@Distracted Steward - were you going to get back to me re my earlier posts?

 

[Distracted Steward]

@Distracted Steward - were you going to get back to me re my earlier posts?

Yes.

 

[Manchester_Man]

Civilian deaths,terrorism, corrupt government,tribes conflicts - they still exist as before invasion. The only thing they have done is build few schools and roads or women go to work and school. Positive propaganda, nothing else!

Ah democracy at its best, enjoy.

 

[berbatrick]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-staff-killed-in-afghanistan-hospital-bombing

Three Médecins Sans Frontières staff killed in suspected US airstrike on Afghan hospital

MSF say 30 staff are still unaccounted for after the attack in the war-torn city of Kunduz as the US admits an airstrike may have caused ‘collateral damage’

 

[MUFAN79]

Frequent excuse of collateral damage. Well done idiots.
Sad news. Utterly tragic.

 

[LeChuck]

Pats on backs all around, chaps.

 

[Raoul]

Pats on backs all around, chaps.

What would you propose for a solution in Afghanistan ?

 

[Mozza]

What would you propose for a solution in Afghanistan ?

Blow up bad guys, not blow up good guys. What would propose changes with regards to Americas use of force to prevent idiocy like this happening again?

 

[Raoul]

Blow up bad guys, not blow up good guys. What would propose changes with regards to Americas use of force to prevent idiocy like this happening again?

No shit sherlock. Unfortunately the very nature of war guarantees that innocent people die.

 

[Mozza]

No shit sherlock. Unfortunately the very nature of war guarantees that innocent people die.

Here comes the weasel words. Thats exactly what I expected you to post. You don't give a shit how many die whilst America goes adventurimg through the middle east

 

[Raoul]

Here comes the weasel words. Thats exactly what I expected you to post. You don't give a shit how many die whilst America goes adventurimg through the middle east

How many wars have been fought without civilian deaths ? Try thinking things through a bit before bestowing us with your half thought out mobile phone text speak.