Western involvement in Afghanistan

Ugh,

 

I was responding to your post not his.
You said 2006 It seems it was more like 2003...

 

I've corrected myself, dude.

 

This could go on forever, I think this happens when you try to defend someone else's view.

MAD

I assumed "yea i know" he meant from the Start of the war, "2001"

When I said NATO didn't take over "military operations" until 2006, maybe I should had been more specific and said "combat operations".But to say Afghanistan was a full NATO operation is still incorrect.

 

I knew mad was wrong. He is wrong. You are far more correct. I was responding to your post rather than his.

What do you think they were doing prior to 2006?

 

Some more than others, ever heard of Non-Combat Caveats??

90 per cent of casualties suffered by troops serving with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have come from just four countries: the US, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands.

 

Odon

Yes, you see I was actually interested in what was going on at the time and of course I was moderator here and involved daily in discussions on the issues.

No, I don’t know where your scepticism came from; I mean you know I’ve been here since 2001 because we’ve talked about that before and it is a Politics forum so…

My point is that in my opinion a citizen in a democracy should always take note of what is happening in politics and be informed about it because otherwise they could so easily be led astray. That is why debate is so important within a society.

I look at what is presented to me by politicians and get informed so that I can have an informed view on it. And of course people from all sides are going to try and sway you and of course media outlets are going to try and manipulate your viewpoint but hell that is what a free society is about.

If someone is only going to look at things a long time after the event then they’re not participating in their society they are just watching it retrospectively.
I love history and believe it has a lot to teach and it can give you a great insight into the present but it’s still the past not the present.

I like many others were opposed to the Iraq invasion because we looked at what was presented by the politicians and found it wanting (and we were proved right) and we tried to change our governments mind. It didn’t work and the results have been tragic but since then it has cost the ruling party dear.

*

So what conclusions did you come to?

“It was right”

LOL
OK that’s an answer, which in a strict sense is a conclusion but it wasn’t what I was hoping for when I asked you for your conclusions.

It’s rather ambiguous, meaning its open to a number of interpretations.

I mean are you saying that having viewed the evidence and considered what was done and what happened subsequently you have come to the conclusion that everything was fine and no mistakes were made and things turned out the best way they possibly could have?

The problem is that some of your previous comments would indicate you don’t think that at all.

So actually it’s not clear at all, in fact it’s rather opaque
As I’ve said I was in favour of intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but I, like many others, though that the policies of the US (and others) in relation to those countries was foolhardy at best and at times damned right stupid and in some cases very probably illegal.

So could you possibly clear up the ambiguity?

*
Maybe it would help if you told be what evidence you think I’ve presented.

So in your opinion what do you think I’ve presented about the neo-con’s and what about it do you think is weak and why?

You see it seems to me you’re saying ‘no’ - but not really explaining why you’re saying no.

*

Balbus - The problem is that they have a pro-western government that is corrupt and pampers to brutal warlords.

Odon - Really?

Balbus - Oh have you an alternative view?

Odon - I don't know. I don't know your POV.

This has me perplexed – I’ve stating very clearly my point of view - that Afghan governance is corrupt – several times since the start of this thread and you’ve only just stated that you’ve just re-read the whole thread but now you seem to be claiming that you still don’t know my point of view on the subject.

I hope you can appreciate why I might think you do not actually understand what I’m saying.

Anyway try reading -

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879167,00.html

 

I know you have been here a while.
That doesn't mean anything, really.
It doesn't mean you did or do any research.
It doesn't mean you studied anything in any detail.
What you said was rather cliched...it is a well worn argument.
I hoped you would have been around long enough to have heard what you had said has been said a lot...and it makes some people skeptical the other person is not just trotting out talking points.

I am very glad you are original.

You did presume certain things of me: swallowing what the admin' said, whole etc.
You were obviously making assumptions about me too.

I agree.
I was not the person I am now, back then.
I have learnt to be awake.
I am honest enough to say where I started to be awake, though.
I wouldn't try and make out I was something I was not.

The "we" part is the part that makes me think "you" trot out clichés.
It is not personal, it makes me think "you" have responses and "you" have no personal opinions.
Do you understand where my skepticism came from now?

Sometimes, it seems, the conclusion is the only thing that matters.
Take guy for e.g...he has heard my conclusion but has no desire to know my reasons why.
I apologise for treating you like guy.
I was also a little tired, too.

No, I have my concerns too.

You speak like a warmonger and a peace activist. It is rather bizarre. I like that about you. I'm probably the same.

That they were fixated about Iraq and they wanted to invade.
/end.
It is weak because you seem to present it as that they were fixated with something but have not provided a reason why.
The conclusion rather than the rationale, perhaps.

I must have missed the "several times" sorry. It seems I need to read the thread once more.

Yes. I do apologise for not articulating my reasons so well. Just leaving you with my conclusions. It isn't fair. I think I understand about 60%.

 

...are you suggesting all Nato troops were not in combat prior to 2006?

 

You'll have to understand, the House and the Senate had to pass the bills as well, since any new strategy prompt by the president that would include debt on the plan would turn into a bill and need to be voted by the house and Senate.

Since these two identities in government also have a multiple passage on who they represent it couldn't have just been (which is a very old out dated expressed classification of the word) "neo-con" which means Neo Conservative.

Although I haven't read more of the post up to this point. Balbus really needs to spit out what he wants to say, as mustering up some sort of elementary recess game in which red team apparently picks on blue team by calling them some sort of ridiculous name so the individual whom participates can feel more grander to his insignificant triumph but, for this erosional environment to occur on the hip forum we wouldn't be in the 5th grade and the only platform Balbus would be playing on is some sort of qualitative political ideal arena.

So much so that so many people have played before, in to this he can not masquerade around the subject he tries to smoke. No political idea or party has the right or the wrong way of doing things, if one team was so wrong in it's intentions their wouldn't be so many players on it.

After living through the mid 2000's here in the US haven't we grown tired of games? These silly little teams need to step a side so the real participation of total system change for the better through common sense and direction can begin.

In reality 'lib-con' all in all are both holding each others hands while greed and manipulation binds the strings.

 

By saying some more than others? How you got that out of

Is beyond me

What I'm saying is, even in 2010 "some*" NATO troops still haven't been in a "combat operation". And by the looks of things, never will.


Some, Germany,France,Spain and Italy are all holders of the "red card" which allows them to keep their troops out of the more dangerous areas of operation in Afghanistan.

 

I'm just questioning when nato troops entered combat. Just askin'

I know.

 

whenever i see this many war trolls talking i always seem to imagine sock puppets talking to each other

 

I thought we were all the same peson, guy.
You'll make up your mind one of these days.

 

Sorry Odon but that’s still ambiguous.
I mean what concerns did you have, why did you have them, what conclusions have you drawn from those concerns, what in your view could have been done differently?
Your reply doesn’t really clear things up it raises more than it answers.
*
So actually it’s not clear at all, in fact it’s rather opaque
As I’ve said I was in favour of intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but I, like many others, though that the policies of the US (and others) in relation to those countries was foolhardy at best and at times damned right stupid and in some cases very probably illegal.

Intervention does not necessarily equate to war in fact conflict should be the last resort, only undertaken after every other possibility is exhausted. I don’t think such a view could be described as that of a ‘warmonger’.
To me it is about the people involved, was the way the war conducted in Afghanistan in the best interests of the Afghanis? I think not, since it shoehorned the warlords back into power and resulted in a corrupt political system and allowed the Taliban a way back in.
And to me the problem with the Iraq invasion was that it was conducted mainly with US interests and neo-con ideology in mind rather than those of the Iraqi people, and that is why so many mistakes were made.
(Did you read Imperial life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Baghdads/dp/0747592896"]Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Baghdad's Green Zone: Amazon.co.uk: Rajiv Chandrasekaran: Books)

 

Odon

So in your opinion what do you think I’ve presented about the neo-con’s and what about it do you think is weak and why?

I’ve mentioned the neo-con think tank PNAC (Project for a New American Century) several times now, did you do any research on them? Did you read the letter to Clinton and the note those that signed it?

Letter to Clinton

It implicitly calls for the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, the reason being “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil” that could be at risk.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

*

Here are a number of PNAC articles urging action against Saddam from the founding of PNAC to 2001
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2001.htm

Including a very interesting one called 'Why Iraq' – that makes quiet a number of false allegations about a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

*

Here is the opening paragraph of the wiki article on PNAC

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

*

Ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on the issue -

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
*

 

I've read the letter to Clinton before.
I've read a lot from that site...
It's usually the evidence used to support certain notions.
I appreciate the thrust of their argument was to remove Saddam.
"This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts"...
...which pretty much covers all bases.
So, great, they wanted Saddam ousted.
It doesn't answer the point about the subsequent actions in Iraq.
Everything (it seems) you have said has been pre-fixed with: "Yeah, well, the neo-cons wanted that"
There isn't much within their published material that points to a particular strategy or goal if Saddam was removed.
They do not talk with a leadership tone but with comments about what was occurring, out of their influence (until 2005).

You said: "I think the hope was forward bases’ from which to threaten the US’s perceived enemies, Syria and above all Iran, which would also protect certain resources seen as vital to the US." Did this occur?

You do speak of the neo-cons in a negative manner, but their so-called agenda doesn't appear to be negative. They wanted outcomes that many wanted too: Peace and security. To a certain degree, your "agenda," it seems.
This is why I fail to appreciate what is so awful about them, or why I should have been concerned with the so-called neo-con influence.

I don't think you have articulated "The neo-con faction in control of the US government" argument very well.
It's as if: "Well, there were neo-cons in the admin'" covers it.
I'm sorry, it doesn't.

Are you seriously trying to tell me: " And, indeed, as visiting members of Congress and military reporters have repeatedly reported from Iraq, the military officers there know quite well that more troops are needed, not less." suddenly swung the US military/Nato etc into increasing troops into Iraq? Come on, that's a stretch.

Everything that occurs in Iraq takes months to come to fruition.
Attempting to attach what PNAC said with everything that occurred is weak, it just doesn't work, tbh.

"The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War." seems to be the conclusion. I need more evidence than that.

War should be the last resort.

The mere fact you did not rule out armed intervention makes you a warmonger.
I'm sorry, but you are one of the people guy talks about all the time.
No? well sorry, yes! He just won't admit it, because you are a mod...and perhaps better than others to skirt around the fact you support the war.
Like me, concerns over the implementation does not negate that fact.

You might want to respond to guy rather than ignoring him.
...are you "guy"...lol.

 

I wanted what it seemed all admins wanted for Iraq/Afganistan...: Peace and security. Everything that deviates from that is a bad thing.

I had your military concerns.

However, I do not buy into any negative info that deviates from the notion the best was being attempted.

 

The PNAC publication - Rebuilding Americas Defences a policy document that includes the idea of permanent bases in the Gulf Area, and since PNAC objectives included the removal of Saddam its not hard to guess where such bases might be placed.
And there did seem to be plans for post Saddam Iraq before 9/11.

*

Yes it began happening straight away
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

*

 

You’re thinking seems to be a bit black and white, for us or against us since you seem to be implying that if someone isn’t a total pacifist they must therefore be a warmonger.

Just because someone doesn’t rule out armed conflict completely does not mean they seek armed conflict.

No I did not support the invasion, was very active in opposing it because it seemed to be about the pursuit of US interests and a crackpot ideology rather than been about the best interests of the Iraqi people. A view that tragically I think in hindsight proved correct.

It also meant as I’ve said above that it meant Afghanistan was neglected.

To me the Iraq invasion was the wrong war, in the wrong place and for the wrong reasons.

*