http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF14Ag01.html
Didn’t we fight a war in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban?
Now we find we can’t control the area? Perhaps it’s a sign of things to come in Iraq?
Not really.
We fought a war to rid afghanistan of the terrorist training camps. The taliban refused to hand over the terrorists but then they didn’t have much choice really. Osama and his crew brought in a lot of of money so the taliban depended on them. So we had to get rid of the taliban in order to get rid of the terrorists.
We didn’t have a problem with the taliban. The taliban are not al qaeda. We may not have liked the taliban much but that’s just because we have a different world view to them. We wouldn’t have got rid of them if they hadn’t been protecting al Q camps.
We only got rid of them when people under their protection started attacking other countries ie america.
We weren’t out to get the taliban per se, indeed some former taliban leaders have been given political asylum in the UK. Essentially, the message is: we don’t give a fuck what religion you are just don’t attack us or we’ll obliterate you.
The Taliban are pretty much the same thing they always were - a faction of fundamentalist nuts. They and/or their supporters are causing trouble for the current govenment, and to some degree probably always will. Of course, right now the situation there isn’t great at all, hopefully it will improve a lot, soon.
Which apparently was not quite a success either, since they appear to be regrouping and reforming within Afghanistan. The terrorists are less centralized in terms of leadership and location now, but this is probably a mixed bag.
AFAIK, we have barely secured the area of Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is under the sway of warlords et al.
That’s as far as I know, too.
Yes but the warlords are not under the spell (and the financial control) of al Q like the taliban were. The warlords have their own agendas (as they always have had in Afghanistan).
As long as their agenda is “consolidate control over this area of the country” and not “attack America and her allies” then they will probably be left alone.
For a while anyway.
What makes you think this? I don’t have any info one way or another, so I’d like to know.
The west of Afghanistan, Herat etc, is shia. Iranian influenced. Al q are sunni. The taliban killed thousands of shia - the hezari.
North Afghanistan are where the Northern alliance came from, the Uzbeks etc. They have no love for the taliban.
South Afghanistan, kandahar etc is the taliban stronghold. They are influenced by the loons in north Pakistan.
Kabul is a weird mix of all the above. It’s a weird mix but strangely it turns out to be a pretty cool place. Go figure.
Overall, Afghanistan is a huge mountainous country full of different tribes. There’s warlords here and warlords there, uniting the country will be a monumental task but not impossible since Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has at least historically been one country.
All Afghans are proud to be Afghan. There is something that unites them. Don’t ask me what, you would need to ask an Afghan.
I think Afghanistan could be one country but they need to establish a national army and a national law that everyone agrees to obey. It will take a lot of unpleasant negotiation with the warlords etc but I think it is possible.
The way that they can be united is through money. There are only three ways Afghanistan can make money - drugs, tourism and oil.
We need to give them a big cut of the Caspian Sea pipeline that will need to go through their country. We need to promote peace so that tourists will return and lastly we need to allow them to produce drugs. The drugs thing goes against our moral western sensibilities but we need to overcome this until they can find a different crop to grow that we want to buy.
They don’t want to grow drugs, it goes against islam but they don’t have much choice out there.
The tourism could be huge though, it’s a beautiful country, the Hindu kush, the himalaya etc and the people are basically very friendly and welcoming.
This is sort of a catch 22. IIRC, people are reluctant to invest in the pipeline because Afghanistan is so unstable.
No, the US are negotiating with members of the Northern Alliance, also savage killers. They’re just our savage killers.
“We are negotiating with the Taliban???”
Considering we’re also giving safe haven to terrorists in Iraq, why is this a surprise?
As Anahita said, they’re just our savage killers…
Well, now that Afghanistan is back as number 1 heroin exporter I consider that a serious attack on my country.
And I don’t for one second believe this is happening without the active connivance of these freedom loving warlords.
Who cares if they are making heroin/opium? Nobody buys that unless they really want to. They would not be producing it if there was not a market for it.
Part of the selling of the invasion was the way the Taliban treated people, especially women.
What’s the real story on this alleged pipeline? Some anti-war folks claimed that the pipeline was the real reason we attacked Afghanistan. Some pro-war folks claimed that the pipeline was never a serious concept, because of mountainous terrain and because there were better alternatives for transporting oil.
Is this pipeline something that seriously might be built?
Well, forgive me for being a human being but I damn well care thank you very much. As for the second point - care to cite any evidence that oppression of women outside the remit of the Mayor of Kabul has changed significantly?
I don’t know that it has or has not. I know that the US government and US media have tried to make us thing everything has improved over there, simply because that was some of the criteria used to justify our military actions.
What does being a human being have to do with adults choosing to buy heroin with their own money?
Well, if you have to ask such a dumb question there’s no point answering is there.
Count me as another person who doesn’t mind if Afghans grow poppies and harvest the chemicals therein. Oddly enough, I’m also a human being just like you. Would you like to explain the paradox?
Sure, there is no point if you are not capable of explaining your previous statement in written English. Otherwise, there is a point to answering.