Paul Salopek, in today’s Chicago Tribune, says:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0111060231nov06.story
And I put the newspaper down and went, “Huh?” I must’ve missed something in a big way. We’re not giving them any bullets for their guns? 
Why not?
[taking newspaper with me back down to bottom of mine shaft]
We’re letting the Russians do that.
In my limited understanding, I wonder if our glorious leaders have decided to avoid any future problems from arming current friends who may turn out to be future foes.
I understand that there was some concern over the Taliban having access to US arms supplied to the Mujaheddin to fight the Soviets (although this seems to have been an unfounded worry so far). If, as some news sources are suggesting, the Northern Alliance aren’t entirely welcomed by all groups in Afghanistan then maybe we’re worried about them becoming trouble in the future.
<Please nobody start defending U.S. policy.>
Do you really want to arm some more Afghan factions. I seem to recall that the USA armed Afghans, including the Taliban, against the Russians. Should you take the risk of having another future regime using your own weapons against you?
d
For one thing, according to Ashcroft, ammunition has been dropped. The US is wary of dropping large amounts of equipment for a few reasons. For one thing, its difficult to ensure where its going to land, and that it will not fall into the wrong hands. It’s my understanding that they were having this problem with the food packets (people hoarding them, that kind of thing). Secondly, the Northern Alliance is essentially just another military group plotting a coup, just as the Taliban was before it. If we drop a bunch of tanks, guns, etc, and the Northern Alliance takes over, what then? We may well end up having to fight them 10 years down the line, if it isn’t handled tactfully.
A short summary of the Northern Alliance can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1552000/1552994.stm
In essence, the Alliance is a collective term for everyone with an axe to grind with the Taliban. The only thing that holds them together (if one can describe them as being “together” at all) is a common enemy. They do not have common goals past the overthrow of the Taliban.
Some of them, in fact, do NOT support the US position in this matter and would shoot AT any US soldiers they saw in Afghanistan.
Some of them used to run the country, which they did so ineptly that the majority of the people decided that the repressive Taliban was a better alternative.
In short, the Northern Alliance is part of the problem, not part of the solution 8-). Our short term policy seems to be to help them enough to annoy the Taliban without helping them enough to actually succeed. Our long term policy in Afghanistan appears to be either non-existant or top secret, as no one ever talks about it…
–jack
Okay, well, my understanding of the situation was all off, I guess. This is my punishment for relying on Boondocks and Sylvia for my “current events” update every day. 
My admittedly imperfect understanding was that it was like Vietnam all over again, only this time the Northern guys were the Good Guys, and that we were not only sending food packets to their compatriots, but that we were also giving them lots of bullets for their guns.
And I had the idea from somewhere that we were trucking it in from Uzbekistan. Or somewhere. Karachistan? Anyway, that we were trucking it in over the mountains, so having airdropped tanks fall into the wrong hands (which still sounds like a bad 1930s Lionel Atwill movie, I’m sorry–“this formula must never fall into the wrong hands…”) wouldn’t be a problem.
[taking the Rand McNally World Atlas with me back down to the bottom of the mine shaft]
And I put the newspaper down and went, “Huh?” I must’ve missed something in a big way. We’re not giving them any bullets for their guns?
Why not?
[/QUOTE]
That quote is just plain wrong. Doesn’t the Chicago Tribune have any editors?
We have provided ammo and some (unspecified) equipment. Possibly those nifty new uniforms as well.
This was covered in today’s Pentagon briefing (and today was not the first time that it’s been confirmed).
There are many reasons. One is that the N Alliance is a very loose term. Anyone can claim to belong to the club. Those people have little allegiance to anything but themselves and if you give them ammo or anything else, you lose control. Quite likely they’ll turn around and sell it to the best bidder… and it turns out our friend, uncle Usama, has some cash these people would like to have. If they don’t sell it now they may have it tomorrow to use for thir own ends. Right now the US is afraid of being shot at with Stinger missiles.
Furthermore. Pakistan, a key ally, has said in no uncertain terms they do not want the Northern Alliance to take over leaving the Pashtun (who make up the majority of the country) out. This is not as simple as just helping one group against the other. In reality we do not like any of the groups there. Finding a way to install a stable government there is going to be a nightmare.
On the Today show this morning, there was a piece on the Northern Allliance, and there was a specific quote somewhere along the lines of “…with their new uniforms and weapons supplied by the U.S…”. I don’t remember the exact wording, but it definitely said that we were giving them armaments as well as other supplies.
DDGoose’s second post is correct, from what I’ve read and seen on TV. The Alliance is being supplied with ammo by road. Reluctantly and belatedly, for reasons already noted. Since the goal is to rid the county of the Taliban, other considerations must temporarily be put aside.
Although some of the Taliban leaders were Mujahideen (=“holy warriors” who fought against the Soviet occupation), the Taliban itself was not formed until after the Afghan-Soviet War was over. Furthermore, many of the Taliban’s rank and file are kids who were born in refugee camps and such, and never saw the Soviets.
Also, one point I have seen made in news reports is that the N.A. uses a lot of leftover Soviet-era hardware, so it sort of makes sense that Russia might take the lead (even if Russia doesn’t do it all) in supplying them with weapons, spare parts, and ammunition.
the other concern that Rumsfeld has about indiscriminately handing out arms is that the arms could just be sold off.
Rumsfeld Press Briefing 11/1/01
Forget about not wanting to face your own weapons in 10 years, the US doesn’t want to face their own weapons next week!
Well, sheesh, :rolleyes: I guess I’m done here. I was up in the Reading Room this evening, doing an in-depth study of the inside pages of today’s Tribune, and came across this, buried in an article in the middle of page 5.
http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0111060308nov06.story?coll=chi-printnews-hed
So, I guess the answer to the OP is, “Paul Salopek is an idiot”.
Either that, or it’s, “The Chicago Tribune editorial staff was too busy covering the Nepalese guy who nearly got on a plane out at O’Hare with mace, a stun gun, and 7 knives, to worry about nitpicky factual details in a foreign correspondent’s report”.
And the damnedst thing is, it’s right next to Salopek’s column. Geez. :rolleyes:
Thanx, anyway, to everybody who participated in this thread. 
I think we should send Andrew Dice Clay over to sort it out.
It’s not as crazy as it sounds, he could meet with the various factions, Use the F-word a lot, tell some raunchy jokes that demean women, then pick the person he thinks could lead the best coalition government.
Any math book will tell you:
To Consolidate Factions, use the Lewdest Comedy Nominator.
I know I posted this before, in MPSIMS, but I didn’t receive any death threats, so I assumed no one saw it.