Afghanistan

[gvidas]

Also from the "written-beautifully-but-(not-that-it's-unique-or-anything)-possibly-of-a-specific-viewpoint" dept., have any of you been reading In These Deserts: War Stories From Afghanistan?

I always appreciate being reminded how many different ways there are to live in any given place. This from the most recent --

There was no flight the next day, or the day after that. It was all happening like the air coordinator said. I called the two Afghan National Police officers on my Roshan phone and told them to be at the gate at 8 a.m. the next day. We were speaking in Pashto, and when I hung up, one of the soldiers asked me, “God damn, sir! How many times you been deployed?” I told him this was my first, but that I had gone native.

A female lieutenant spoke from an office behind me: “That was you? I thought one of them had gotten in here.”

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

??? need a better link.. don't see that story.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-24/w...ai?_s=PM:WORLD

[gvidas]

First time in a while I've read an article about Afghanistan that made me feel good.

Enlisting Allah, Brian Mockenhaupt/The Atlantic

SOON AFTER HE DEPLOYED to southern Afghanistan this spring, Lieutenant Commander Nathan Solomon, a Navy chaplain, learned of a disconcerting and persistent belief among the locals in northern Marja: the Afghan soldiers stationed there weren’t Muslim. The Taliban had convinced many in this stretch of Helmand province that the Afghan soldiers—most of whom were from northern and eastern Afghanistan and spoke Dari instead of Pashto, the local language—were nearly as foreign as the U.S. marines patrolling alongside them.

Solomon and his Afghan liaison, Abdul Khabir, a mullah and an army captain, suggested that installing audio speakers at the joint patrol bases to announce the five-times-daily Muslim call to prayer might help. The first speakers brought quick results. “We didn’t know they pray like we do,” one man told a joint patrol of marines and Afghan soldiers. “It makes us trust them more, knowing we all share the same faith.”

[classicman]

Here you go

New US envoy to Afghanistan: No rush for the exits

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press – 3 days ago

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The new U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan said Monday that the United States is not rushing to leave the country and cautioned that what happens in the months ahead will have far-reaching effects across the globe.

Ryan Crocker takes over as America's top diplomat in Afghanistan as President Barack Obama begins withdrawing some of the 33,000 American reinforcements he sent in December 2009 as part of an effort to reverse the Taliban's momentum. Some Republican lawmakers called the withdrawal plan too risky, saying it did not leave enough coalition troops in the country to deal a decisive blow to the insurgency.

Speaking after being sworn in at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Crocker tried to allay Afghan fears about Obama's plan to bring 10,000 U.S. troops home by year's end, as many as 23,000 more by September 2012 and a formal end to the combat mission by the end of 2014.

"We must proceed carefully," he said. "There will be no rush for the exits. The way we do this in the months ahead will have consequences far beyond Afghanistan and far in the future."

He said the U.S. was wrong to withdraw support from Afghanistan in the early 1990s, but stressed the U.S. had no interest in having permanent bases in the nation.

Many Afghans felt abandoned by the U.S. after 1989, when the Soviet Union withdrew its army from Afghanistan and U.S. support to mujahedeen fighters battling the Soviets dried up. Afghanistan then sank into years of brutal civil war, which was followed by the rise of the Taliban, al-Qaida's use of Afghanistan as a sanctuary and the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The coming year will be critical in setting the right glide path," Crocker told hundreds of embassy employees, diplomats and military leaders gathered outdoors in a red tent where a light breeze tempered the morning heat.

Crocker, who has held top diplomatic postings in Iraq, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria and Lebanon, submitted his credentials to Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a ceremony at the presidential palace later Monday.

He came out of retirement to replace Karl Eikenberry, who left Afghanistan earlier this month.

Crocker has served in Afghanistan before, reopening the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in 2002, after the fall of the Taliban. He also helped bury a piece of the World Trade Center, which was toppled during the Sept. 11 attacks, at the base of a flagpole on the embassy grounds.

"We will never forget and 10 years on, I'm here to join all of you in doing our utmost to ensure that such an attack never happens again," said Crocker, who recalled being in New York on Sept. 11 and watching the twin towers collapse.

He acknowledged that many citizens of troop-contributing nations, including the United States, were weary of the war.

"My answer to that is to remind those who say 'We should be done' of the incalculable, long-term effects and costs of getting it wrong" in Afghanistan, he said. "We owe nothing less to the next generation of Afghans, Americans and others not to repeat the mistakes of 20 years ago."

He said it also was imperative to allay the fears of Afghans who believe that the gradual transfer of security responsibility to Afghan forces means the international community is ready to make a hasty retreat. In recent days, Afghan security forces have taken the lead for securing seven areas of the nation. By 2014, they are to be in charge across the country, allowing foreign combat troops to either leave or take on supportive roles.

"Beyond 2014 — even when Afghans have transitioned to a full security lead — I'm confident that we and the international community will be in a position to work with Afghanistan to prevent any forcible return of the Taliban to power," he said. "Those days are gone."

The Taliban on Monday claimed they shot down a U.S.-led coalition helicopter that crashed in eastern Afghanistan. The coalition said it was investigating the cause of the crash.

NATO said rescue forces came under fire from insurgents but safely moved all crew and passengers to a nearby base by early morning.

Kunar provincial spokesman Safiullah Wasifullah Wasify said the helicopter went down before dawn in Kunar's remote mountainous Chapa Dara district. He said that his report showed it was shot down by a rocket.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said that troops were dropping out of the helicopter for an assault on militant fighters when the helicopter was targeted.

In the west, meanwhile, an Italian paratrooper was killed in an insurgent attack and two wounded Monday, officials said. Forty-one Italian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since the country first sent troops in 2004.

The latest death brings to 44 the number of international service members killed in Afghanistan this month.

Also Monday, Britain's Defense Ministry said five children were injured Saturday when an Apache helicopter opened fire on suspected insurgents in southern Helmand province.

Officials said insurgents had been positively identified, and the five children were in an adjoining field. The children were being treated at a coalition medical facility.

The British Defense Ministry said it was reviewing the incident and the provincial government was being kept informed.

[BigV]

where's teh part about an eight year old boy being hung?

[BigV]

those aren't militants. those are simple brutal criminals. that is nothing like a political statement, or a military action. hanging the son of a police officer for not being given a police vehicle is just criminal. The response to such crimes should be from the law enforcement part of the government--not the military, though in Afghanistan, there is considerable overlap there.

it is a terrible tragic story, but not about a military situation, just about cruel fucking criminals.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

those aren't militants...

You know this how?

...those are simple brutal criminals. that is nothing like a political statement, or a military action.

It is certainly a statement of violence common to an insurgency, terrorize the population to see things and do things your way.

hanging the son of a police officer for not being given a police vehicle is just criminal.

No, it is a common terroristic tactic used to influence those in the immediate area. The Nazi's did the same thing in WWll.

The response to such crimes should be from the law enforcement part of the government--not the military, though in Afghanistan, there is considerable overlap there.

What do you do when there is no such structure? What do you do when there is no such "law enforcement"?

it is a terrible tragic story, but not about a military situation, just about cruel fucking criminals.

It is absolutely a military situation. A situation that our troops and the troops of other nations in support of the action encounter on a regular basis. So maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[BigV]

are you saying it is a military situation because it is in Afghanistan? Cause, what happens in Afghanistan is ... military-y?

If this happened in say, Los Angeles or Atlanta, some people killed the son of a cop, cause the cop wouldn't cooperate with these people, would that be a military situation? I don't think so and I sincerely doubt you'd say so.

I'm not a military expert, but I do know that there's a lot of influence that a name has. What something is called frames the discussion and the response. If you call it a crime, then the response is law enforcement. If you call it a militant action, then the response is a military one.

What do you do if there is no (effective) law enforcement? At the risk of mixing my metaphors here, if the answer you have is a hammer, your problems look like nails. But what is the cause and what is the effect? Does the hanging itself constitute an act of war? Or is it the location, the circumstance, the actors, the responders that make it one?

...

I think the right response here is a military one. Not because kidnapping and murder are acts of war, but because the military is the only hammer there to crush worthless fuckers like this.

[gvidas]

It's definitely a salient point. I think the more finessed answer is, you use the military to create a system of justice. Because, ultimately, the problem with a military solution is that people can look at it and say: but that isn't just.

Michael Yon's two most recent actual dispatches (albeit hard to find amongst his book promoting and etc) were about just this:

Rule of Law

Left of Bang

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by gvidas

It's definitely a salient point. I think the more finessed answer is, you use the military to create a system of justice. Because, ultimately, the problem with a military solution is that people can look at it and say: but that isn't just.

Michael Yon's two most recent actual dispatches (albeit hard to find amongst his book promoting and etc) were about just this:

Rule of Law

Left of Bang

Yon is where I heard about it first, from his FB page.

[TheMercenary]

Not a good day...

Chopper crash kills 31 U.S. troops, 7 Afghans

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7157351.story

[SatelliteHead]

Biggest problem is people don't understand Afghanistan.

Afghanistan isn't part of the middle east. It's part of South Asia. It was the gateway on the silk road - the most important trading route between Europe, Middle East, India and China back in the ancient days.

History has shown no country can truly rule it and that it is a heavily cultured and intense region. In the 70s' before Russia attacked them, they were very modern, but to protect the country a lot of radical and conservative Muslims came to the country to fight the Russians and ended up staying long after to reshape it into their own religious paradise.

[ZenGum]

Including that Saudi chap, what was his name? Tall chap, lots of money, educated in Switzerland. Ended up a recluse, I think...

[TheMercenary]

I like this point of view. May provide a realistic exit strategy.

The American debate on Afghanistan seems to be framed by two diametrically opposed definitions of success. One says that we have effectively won the war already—that the death of Osama bin Laden and the increase in targeted drone attacks have achieved the goal of preventing transnational terrorists from once again using sanctuaries in Afghanistan to attack the United States. The other view holds that success is impossible—that the goal of a stable Afghan government in control of its own territory is beyond our reach.

Enlarge Image

Getty images
Look to Colombia, where the U.S. helped the government in Bogota achieve success short of complete victory.

Both views lead to the same result: a premature abandonment of Afghanistan that could return it to the control of the Taliban and allow al Qaeda and other extremists to regain sanctuaries. Even targeted drone strikes would be much less effective without the human intelligence needed to support them.

But there is an alternative: the"Colombia standard" of success. It's probably unrealistic to think that the Afghan government can completely control Afghan territory by 2014 or even some later date. But, like the Colombian government, it could achieve success short of complete victory.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...sj_share_email

[Griff]

I don't know how realistic it is and it really looks like a permanent relationship. Hasn't FARC really just turned into a narco operation more concerned with production and transport rather than holding any ground permanently? Not the same thing as religious extremists who'd like to make the world over. I may be overly skeptical because of destruction Wolfowitz has done to our country/planet.