Canadian, British troops launch Taliban offensive:

[Technosoul]

The Ladan operations have produced terrorist acts of war in the USA and in a number of other countries as well. The number one objective is to attack them back and to gain total victory so that his cult can no longer become an active threat to us and the rest of the world.

Irag was not a war on the terrorists that represent a real threat on America, Canada, England, and others. For many ages however England has always backed our Presidents and Amreica and so they did so when Bush missled us into a war in Irag. Now they, like most informed Ameircans, know that that the war in Irag had nothing to do with a war on the terrorists which are based in Afganistan areas. Being they had the wisdom to pull out of an unjustified war in Irag they now have more resources to send to Afganistan where the real fight is happening. We did not go to war in Afganistan to "save their citizens" or to "rebuild their country" but rather to wipe out the terrorists who are based in that country. Canada has added to the list the "drug lords". However part of winning the war once in for all is to get the population of Afganistan on our side so they do not also join the terrorist efforts - this is done by providing them with safe neighborhoods and by helping them overcome poverty related problems. Congress should place our troops under the command of Canada and with NATO so that our Commander and Chief does not also scew up the new war surge in Afganistan. Hmm, guess they cannot do that under law however?

[Praxius]

Quote by: fushigi You obviously haven't spent much time as an insurgent......

And let me guess.... you have?

Since the invasion, the Taliban has had zero concern with winning the hearts and minds of the people. They want to remove any semblance of law, order, and stability in order to make the occupying forces and the current regime look incompetent.

And they are failing so far.

Only when NATO gives up on this Sysiphean mission in Afghanistan, concedes and pulls out, will the Taliban start worrying about what the Afghanis "respond well to."

So..... you want NATO to give up on something the US started? That really shows you people in the US have your priorities shoved up your arse if that's the case...... you better educate yourself.

And please stop preaching as if you're the expert on insurgents..... If you really were, you wouldn't be calling the Taliban insurgents in the first place..... insurgents are in Iraq. The Taliban are pushed to the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and are not intwined in the communities of Afghanistan which are in control by the NATO forces. The Taliban were the former government that ran Afghanistan, and now they are not..... the situation doesn't merit the use of "Insurgency" ~ Western media has twisted the term to suit whatever they like it to.

[Gods_Mercenary]

So where do you think insurgents come from? holes in the ground? the insurgents must be appealing to the people not only to be viable but to get more insurgents.

[fushigi]

Quote by: fushigi Since the invasion, the Taliban has had zero concern with winning the hearts and minds of the people. They want to remove any semblance of law, order, and stability in order to make the occupying forces and the current regime look incompetent.

Quote by: Praxius And they are failing so far.

Would you call the NATO operations in Afghanistan so far successful? Have they provided stability and security for Afghans? Please provide a source to show they have. From where I'm sitting, Afghanistan looks like a warlord paradise. NATO's only true achievements have been in Kabul, and even there green zones are few and assassinations are many.

Quote by: fushigi Only when NATO gives up on this Sysiphean mission in Afghanistan, concedes and pulls out, will the Taliban start worrying about what the Afghanis "respond well to."

Quote by: Praxius So..... you want NATO to give up on something the US started? That really shows you people in the US have your priorities shoved up your arse if that's the case...... you better educate yourself.

Not sure where you came to this conclusion. Please read my statement again. In no way does it support any kind of withdrawal. In fact, I believe we need a stronger foreign military presence in Afghanistan if we ever want to provide citizens the stability that leads to political and economic development. Unfortunately, with our armies stretched thin, lack of domestic support for expensive, sustained operations, and the lack of any critical resource in Afghanistan to prompt interest, I'd say that's a non-starter.

Therefore I predict that NATO will withdraw before security is established in Afghanistan, which is a shame.

Quote by: Praxius And please stop preaching as if you're the expert on insurgents..... If you really were, you wouldn't be calling the Taliban insurgents in the first place..... insurgents are in Iraq. The Taliban are pushed to the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and are not intwined in the communities of Afghanistan which are in control by the NATO forces. The Taliban were the former government that ran Afghanistan, and now they are not..... the situation doesn't merit the use of "Insurgency" ~ Western media has twisted the term to suit whatever they like it to.

Did you read my previous posts? I'm not an expert on insurgency, but I have a close friend in Afghanistan who is. He's a conflict specialist for USAID who's training soldiers in how to eliminate the root causes of conflict in the insurgency, and he sent me a document I read called FM 3-24 (it's available online, just do a quick google.)

Quote by: FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency Handbook Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02). Counterinsurgency is those political, economic, military, paramilitary, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat an insurgency (JP 1-02).

Sounds applicable to what's going on in Afghanistan. It's not just the "western media" that's calling it an insurgency, the USAF calls it such too. But if you want to take them on, be my guest...

[fushigi]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary So where do you think insurgents come from? holes in the ground? the insurgents must be appealing to the people not only to be viable but to get more insurgents.

Of course, an insurgency has to have grassroots support to continue. Fighters need food, shelter, information, and many other resources to make continued operations possible. However, as I don't see the Taliban providing any kinds of benefits to the Afghanis (please provide any source stating otherwise), I'd say the way they're "appealing to the people" is through terror and threats, which was their systematic method during their reign.

Also, remember that much of the Taliban were actually Pakistanis or dislocated Afghanis that had been living as refugees in Pakistan as a result of the nearly twenty years of conflict that started with the Soviet invasion in 1979.

[Praxius]

I don't really considder the Taliban as an insurgent group though.... they were the political power for a while and were pushed out, and now they are trying to get back in..... in Iraq, you had a leader and an organization, both were taken out, and now these factions who live in Iraq formed and began organizations of removing the new government that is in place, which to me falls under Insergents more then the Taliban do.

While the Taliban have similarities to insurgents, and as of recent news reports, they are begining to adapt their tatics to those seen in Iraq, but I don't see them as insurgents..... just an ousted government power that hasn't been defeated yet.

Our news and culture identifies them as Militants
Militant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure where you came to this conclusion. Please read my statement again.

^

Only when NATO gives up on this Sysiphean mission in Afghanistan, concedes and pulls out, will the Taliban start worrying about what the Afghanis "respond well to."

Sounded to me like you were implying that they should.

Would you call the NATO operations in Afghanistan so far successful? Have they provided stability and security for Afghans? Please provide a source to show they have. From where I'm sitting, Afghanistan looks like a warlord paradise. NATO's only true achievements have been in Kabul, and even there green zones are few and assassinations are many.

Since you asked for information:

CTV.ca | Afghanistan: A timeline of Canadian involvement post-9/11

CTV.ca | CTV News, Shows and Sports - Canadian Television

CBC News In Depth: Afghanistan
^ This link has a basic run down of the Canadian involvement, both military and reconstruction.

The other two are more of a timeline and list of new reports that relate to Afghanistan.

Other Canadian missions in Afghanistan included: Heavy weapons cantonment: Helping the Afghan government collect, store and decommission 10,000 heavy weapons left over from decades of war, including artillery, tanks and rocket launchers. Demining: Foreign Affairs says Canada has helped clear about one third of the estimated 10 million to 15 million mines in Afghanistan. Microloans: Money from Canada has been used to provide microloans to more than 140,000 people in Afghanistan, 89 per cent of the clients are women. Training: Canada also has a role in training the Afghan police and army. A group of Canadian Forces instructors were in Kabul to train members of the Afghan National Army. That unit remained in Kabul while the rest of the Canadian contingent moved south to Kandahar. Canadian troops are also training Afghan soldiers in Kandahar and the RCMP has a commitment to train Afghan police officers. The Department of National Defence has also admitted that Canada's secret special forces, Joint Task Force Two, has been operating alongside the American and other special forces units in Afghanistan but no details have ever been released. In May 2006, members of Parliament voted to keep Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan for two years longer than previously planned, amid rumours that Canada could take over leadership of the NATO mission there in 2008.

NATO Topics - Afghanistan

http://www.mediaright.ca/pics/natomap.jpg
^ Link to a large JPG map of what's up..... aprox. 3/4 of the country is in control for the most part (minus a few suicide bombers here and there.... but it's far better then it used to be) ~ And the current mission in the topic is to move more east into the provinces that are not in control..... so far it's been bread and butter fighting the Taliban.

-------------

Basically, imo, Afghanistan is coming along very well, all things considdered, compared to Iraq..... while Iraq is in a world of shit, instead of spreading the jobs both ways, why not finish Afghanistan, get it secure, and then focus on Iraq? Afghanistan should have been delt with in the first place..... why pull out of Afghanistan if the progress and potiential is there, compared to the chaos in Iraq, which appears to have no end?

I'm not trying to pick at anybody's views here.... I just don't understand where some people are coming from.

[Praxius]

Here is some new information as of today in how the troops are viewing the progress in Afghanistan:

The ChronicleHerald.ca

Gen. Rick Hillier said over the past few months the Panjwaii district west of Kandahar city has been transformed from a dark, deserted battleground into a vibrant community. Hillier said thousands of families have now moved back into the district and people are once again leaving their lights on at night. "I think we have turned the corner," Hillier said following a visit with Canadian troops in the area. "People are rebuilding. "We saw new grape huts. We saw walls being repaired, vineyards being put back into operation, roads being built." Panjwaii was a bloody battleground last year as Canadian troops fought to drive Taliban insurgents away. Despite the progress, Hillier said Canadians are still needed in the area for security reasons and development projects.

..... well I'll be damned.... they called them insurgents, lol.

[Praxius]

Also, somewhat related:

Australia may send more troops to Afghanistan

[fushigi]

Praxius, you and I seem to be on the same side of the argument. I would love to see a stable, developing Afghanistan, and it seems now that the US has basically washed its hands of the country, it'll be up to states more concerned with development - like Canada - to step in and finish the job. (That map you linked to is encouraging - at least we have forward bases in most of the country. Now we just need some more troops so we can actually run them.)

You'll forgive me if I'm still a bit "half-empty" in my view of how things are going in Afghanistan:

the Human Development Index ranks Afghanistan at 173 out of 178 countries worldwide and its MDG indicators are below the majority of Sub-Saharan African countries. There are only two countries with lower poverty indices than Afghanistan, where the majority of the population lives below the poverty line – 70 percent. The percentage of Afghans with access to safe drinking water source is one of the lowest in the world – 23 percent – while just 12 percent of the population have access to adequate sanitation. As a result, preventable diseases remain prevalent. The depth of poverty in Afghanistan is reflected consistently in all human development indicators, revealing a mosaic of a nation in need of sustained assistance. Not surprisingly, therefore, Afghanistan has been identified as a global priority for addressing the Millennium Development Goals. Since the Bonn Agreement was signed in December 2001, UNDP has delivered more than US$600 million of assistance to Afghanistan.

There you have it. $600 million invested since 2001. Can you imagine the possibilities if more was invested in security and development operations? What has the US spent so far in Iraq? Half a trillion? Our TOTAL reconstruction aid to Afghanistan so far has been $14 billion, less than 3% of what we've spent accomplishing worse than nothing in Iraq.

But I'd say you've changed my view on how "Sisyphean" Afghanistan's prospects are. Thus far, my view on the country's been very US-centric. Maybe with the Canadians and Brits taking an actual interest in the country, things will eventually turn around.

[Praxius]

Thanks... it's good to hear you got some information.... I have been tapping into US media and I hardly hear anything in regards to Afghanistan there.... which is kinda weird to me.....

Here in Canada, it's usually the #1 news..... infact last week I believe, a guy from my home town was shot..... Friendly fire I am told... in his tent.... so something's up there..... but it came out right away.... every Canadian troop killed is noted on the news and they all get a little biography, along with when they are flying home, when's the burials, etc etc.....

While I noticed in the US, they list a number of troops killed and that's pretty much it..... it's kinda sad really..... they're taking out the human aspect of the war.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Praxius Thanks... it's good to hear you got some information.... I have been tapping into US media and I hardly hear anything in regards to Afghanistan there.... which is kinda weird to me..... Here in Canada, it's usually the #1 news..... infact last week I believe, a guy from my home town was shot..... Friendly fire I am told... in his tent.... so something's up there..... but it came out right away.... every Canadian troop killed is noted on the news and they all get a little biography, along with when they are flying home, when's the burials, etc etc..... While I noticed in the US, they list a number of troops killed and that's pretty much it..... it's kinda sad really..... they're taking out the human aspect of the war.

Yeah I noticed that, Canadian soldiers are treated like actual individual human beings in the press, I really respect that. Of course, Canadian support for the war effort has declined to 44%, but compare that to the US - 67% favor a deadline for exiting Iraq. Perhaps having enough respect to treat your citizens like adults, as the Canadian government/media is doing, and telling them the truth so they can make up their own minds about something, isn't the end of the world.

[Nono]

I don't share fushigi's or Prax's sanguine view about the feasibility of improving the situation in Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun.

For one thing, the Taliban (and fighting involving NATO) are confined to one corner of the country, yet the whole place is rife with disaffection at rampant corruption. And the West is seen by the populace as complicit with the offenders (often drug-running, populace-terrorizing warlords).

Writing in The New Statesman, the British journalist Kate Clark recently quoted an Afghan aid worker in the north of the country (no Taliban there, just the rancid remnants of the Northern Alliance): "If we had a resistance movement to join, there would be an insurgency here as well." Instead, what they have is a sort of mafia war.

fushigi put his finger on the problem: "From where I'm sitting, Afghanistan looks like a warlord paradise. NATO's only true achievements have been in Kabul, and even there green zones are few and assassinations are many."

Afghanistan just doesn't sound like a viable political unit, and rather than pissing around with Kabul and a government whose writ doesn't run down the street let alone across the country, the West (NATO, whoever) would be better off dealing with the place as the patchwork it is.

[Praxius]

Well there are a lot of schools, roads, villages, rebuilt, there is also a project to repair.... a frig what was it..... some dam or water works thing.... jobs are coming out, and farmers are gradually being converted from opium and marijuana (should keep the weed crops though.) to corn, wheat and other sources.

Speaking of maijuana.... I don't suppose you guys heard last year when the Canadian troops were up against 10 foot high marijuana fields? Let me see if I can dig it up.....

Troops battle 10-foot marijuana plants - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

This made me laugh....

"We tried burning them with white phosphorus — it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel — it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said. Even successful incineration had its drawbacks. "A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly. One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana.'"

[fushigi]

Quote by: Nono I don't share fushigi's or Prax's sanguine view about the feasibility of improving the situation in Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun. For one thing, the Taliban (and fighting involving NATO) are confined to one corner of the country, yet the whole place is rife with disaffection at rampant corruption. And the West is seen by the populace as complicit with the offenders (often drug-running, populace-terrorizing warlords).

I agree the outlook is more than bleak, but it wouldn't be the first time some semblance of central authority united a warlord-run country. Afghanistan today looks much like pre-Northern Expedition China, mid-1920s or so.

It also wouldn't be the first time Afghanistan united. The Taliban managed to get over 90% of the country to tacitly accept their authority, but as with China in the KMT, the violence that was necessary to accomplish that goal was abhorrent. Personally, I'm not sure if real stability can be established in such a situation, where elements like Geneva Convention restrictions, a free press, and foreign policy-makers/constituents with waning interest all hamstring military objectives to centralize governance.

[Praxius]

Well another positive is that a good % of our troops are currently training the Afghan Army and doing a lot of joint operations with them, much like the US in Iraq..... also we have some of our RCMP (Ryoal Canadian Mounted Police: AKA - Mounties) which are kinda a slight level up from local police forces..... anywho, they're training the Afghan Police.... Places that have been taken control of by NATO and secured, checkpoints, police departments, schools, and gradually government positions.... there are Canadian funds going over to civilians who wish to start businesses.... I think... a.... let me remember...

frig... like a trust fund thing.....

Canada’s New Government substantially boosts support to development efforts in Afghanistan

^ It's from the Conservatives site, so it's of course biased towards them... but the information is true for the amount of money going directly to the country.... of course how much of that is skimmed from their government much like what's happening in Iraq, remains to be accuratly seen.

Our troops were intensly trained on public relations with the locals, and there's a lot of the ol'skool WWII trading goods, like toys, rations, tools, helping build homes destroyed in battles, etc.... they try hard to give them a face to those who are there, and to let them know that they're not there to occupy, but to push out the enemy, reconstruct their homes and let them live their lives.....

The % of Canadians opposed to the war in Af. has also been studied and most really are not aware of what's really going on over there.... for some reason, it's like a clouded mystery.... somewhat like how little is reported in the US... perhaps they watch more US news then Canadian, or none at all....

And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to spout any propaganda or the sort.... for once something is actually working..... sometimes it's hard to believe, lol.

[Nono]

Quote by: fushigi The Taliban managed to get over 90% of the country to tacitly accept their authority, but as with China in the KMT, the violence that was necessary to accomplish that goal was abhorrent.

Yes, Chiang Kai-shek and Mullah Omar are at about the same level morally speaking. That said, much of Afghanistan welcomed the Taliban after years of catastrophic fighting between rival warlords, including the Western media's darling Commander Massoud, who helped shell Kabul all to rat shit.

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax ... our RCMP (Ryoal Canadian Mounted Police: AKA - Mounties) which are kinda a slight level up from local police forces.....

Commanded by Corporal Renfrew.

Our troops were intensly trained on public relations with the locals, and there's a lot of the ol'skool WWII trading goods, like toys, rations, tools, helping build homes destroyed in battles, etc....

That's the thing. The Afghans can't be defeated militarily. But they can probably be bought, which should have been the approach from the beginning.