The King of Malwand and I

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

HUTAL, Afghanistan (AP) — In the U.S. Army, Casey Thoreen is just a 30-year-old captain. Around here, he's known as the "King of Maiwand" district — testimony to the fact that without the young captain and a fat international wallet, local government here as in much of the insurgency-ravaged south could not function at all.

Setting up effective governments at the district level is key to U.S. strategy. U.S. officials hope that providing basic services will draw support away from the Taliban, especially here in the Islamist group's heartland of Kandahar province.

But in this dusty farming community 40 miles (60 kilometers) west of Kandahar, Thoreen has discovered that bolstering the authority of a district governor, who relies on him almost completely for financial resources and credibility, is a delicate balancing act. He also knows the effort is unsustainable without greater support from the central Afghan government in Kabul.

"We are putting a big gamble on this," Thoreen said. "Any of this stuff we're doing here, not just at our level but the $800 billion we have spent so far in the country, is contingent on the government being effective."

For now, Thoreen and Maiwand's district governor, Obaidullah Bawari, are working with what they have — which isn't much.

...

"Everything you see here is from the coalition forces," said Bawari, sweeping his hand toward the center of the district capital, Hutal, where the Army has paid for a new government headquarters, an agricultural center and various other projects.

It's a picture repeated across the country, including in the ethnic Pashtun heartland of southern Afghanistan, where opposition to the government and support for the Taliban run deep.

The Afghan government recently launched a new program backed by the U.S. to increase support to 80 key districts in the country, many of them in the south and east.

But Kandahar's provincial governor, Tooryalai Wesa, visited Maiwand for the first time recently and said he didn't have any additional resources to offer the district.

"That kind of blew my mind," said Thoreen, a West Point graduate from Seattle, Washington. "After nine years in Afghanistan we're still at this point."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/0...local-afghan-government-king/?test=latestnews

 

[Ishmael]

My opinion hasn't changed at all.

Get out of Afghanistan

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Mine either...




Quagmire

But, for the Democrats, it's the Wright war...

They were wishing for America to lose in Iraq (THROB) with ideas like Joe Biden's, partition, retreat, let Turkey, Syria, and Iran settle it. How many times did they pronounce a defeat? They wanted BAD things to happen to America (the Bush mission they voted for but didn't support and the troops they supported by daily making note of the body count and celebrating it as an "I told you so" moment) so they could win elections, and then they won an election on a bad thing happening (with their assistance from their friends in the financial community), just wasn't Iraq, which those of us who are sane kept pointing out was the cradle of civilization, unlike the grinder of armies known as Afghanistan...

 

[Byron In Exile]

My opinion hasn't changed at all.

Get out of Afghanistan

Great post.

And for those who are too lazy to click links:

The ongoing military actions in Afghanistan to remove whatever remnants of Al Queda and the Taliban should continue. But there is a group that are pointing to the failure of the forces involved in the creation of a government and a country. Perhaps they may be excused for not facing the reality of the situation for not having studied Afghan history and culture. I'm not an expert but I have found a few facts that may be of interest.

Afghanistan has been perpetually at war for the last 2,500 years. When not repelling Imperialist powers, they war with themselves.

Afghanistan is geographically situated across all of the major trade routes of old. And apparently of contemporary times as well. It's mountianous with poor infrastructure. This means that most of the peoples there have lived in isolation for centuries. Each valley and habitable area of the country has it's own tribe with it's own leadership. There are a few cities with some industry. But on the main the cities are ruled by the elite and the cops, whereas the countryside is province of the local tribal warlord. Government as we know it begins and ends at the city gates.

It is difficult for a Euro-centric culture to understand the culture of peoples, that except for their weapons, are barely into the stone age. The country side better qualifies as being in the hunter-gatherer stage of evolution

In times of plenty they make war on each other if there is no one else about to war against. In times of tribulation they survive.

The Russians went into Afghanistan, the latest of many foriegn powers going back for centuries, for two reasons. They intended to bring themselves one step closer to access to the Indian Ocean and they wanted a buffer zone between themselves and the rising Islamic Fundamentalist movement growing in Iran. Their method of doing this was to attack and hold the cities, especially the capital, thereby declaring victory in the Euro-centric manner. And if they had been dealing with an advanced culture it would have worked. The made a huge mistake as it turns out.

Everyone wants the Afghans, and the Afghans want to be left alone. Especially in the country side.

Nation builders in Afghanistan are doomed to failure, as are any invader. Short of genocide the Afghans will do as they've done for centuries. Make war, make babies, and generally ignore the rest of the world.

My thoughts are simply that we should:

1. Get out as soon as is practically possible.

2. NOT participate in any UN effort at nation building.

3. Support the Afghani's in repelling any other foriegn invader that may want to take advantage.

Ishmael

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Yeah, pretty much. No one likes to read history or think about what it can tell us.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You just have to love it that those who were more than willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely are more than willing to abandon Afghanistan...

So much for the wailing and gnashing of teeth about leaving Iraq like Vietnam..

B-b-b-but Afghanistan is different. Those people are still in the stone age, hunter gatherers that aren't worth our time. Right Ish? But dumping our military and untold billions into the sands of Iraq, totally worth it.


It was never about the people of Afghanistan or Iraq, or vengeance on those who aided and abetted the people who planned and carried out the horrific attacks on 9/11 for the far right.

It's obvious what it was about, given the attitude displayed toward the people of Afghanistan, those "unevolved, backward hunter gatherer savages only barely beyond the level of our stone-age cavemen predecessors" (as Ish described them), nor was it about the constantly evolving reasons pitched about for the invasion of Iraq.

What does Afghanistan lack that Iraq had in abundance? Readily available natural resources. But it wasn't about that.

 

[Byron In Exile]

So much for the wailing and gnashing of teeth about leaving Iraq like Vietnam..

So, you think the US should have stayed in Vietnam?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yeah, pretty much. No one likes to read history or think about what it can tell us.

Everything is impossible, historically.
Until it happens.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So, you think the US should have stayed in Vietnam?

Do you have an actual question or are you going to continue with the stupid ones?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Do you have an actual question or are you going to continue with the stupid ones?

I don't know.

It probably depends on when you're going to stop making stupid statements.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Everything is impossible, historically.
Until it happens.

Which wasn't the point - which you missed.



You are also wrong about Afghanistan's resources.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Uhhh...


Obama, the great negotiator and uniter ignored the elected government of Afghanistan, decided not to negotiate with the Taliban and decided to hunt them down because they were responsible for 9-11, while ignoring the fact that AL Qaeda had moved on like cockroaches in the night.

So now we ARE in Vietnam, taking war to the natives in support of a non-popular regime outside of Kabul...

But as hard as you opposed Bush, now you're going to blindly support Barack, no matter the issue, no matter the finger-in-the-wind stance of the day.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Which wasn't the point - which you missed.



You are also wrong about Afghanistan's resources.

Maybe he's referring to the opium...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Maybe he's referring to the opium...

That's what I definitely am referring to. If you are cynical and follow the money trails, where could you make that highway paved with gold lead next?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's what I definitely am referring to. If you are cynical and follow the money trails, where could you make that highway paved with gold lead next?

I don't know, I'm just riding through the desert on a horse with no name...




Are we talking alchemy? Gold lead? AuPb? Pb->Au?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Which wasn't the point - which you missed.



You are also wrong about Afghanistan's resources.

You're right, Afghanistan has a very good source of natural resources, illegal drug trade in the form of opium.

That's just like oil in a great many ways, highly addictive, the producer controls supply and therefore price, and should be just as legal. However, it's not legal, and therefore not a legitimate source of revenue while oil is.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Uhhh...


Obama, the great negotiator and uniter ignored the elected government of Afghanistan, decided not to negotiate with the Taliban and decided to hunt them down because they were responsible for 9-11, while ignoring the fact that AL Qaeda had moved on like cockroaches in the night.

So now we ARE in Vietnam, taking war to the natives in support of a non-popular regime outside of Kabul...

But as hard as you opposed Bush, now you're going to blindly support Barack, no matter the issue, no matter the finger-in-the-wind stance of the day.

So your opinion is that since Afghanistan is "just like Vietnam" that we should get the fuck out of dodge, just like we did there.

You must not remember the mantra of the people who blamed our inability to win in Vietnam on those who just wanted to get out. They "made us lose".. Just ask your good buddy old pal Vetteman his opinion on those who lost his war for him.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I don't know.

It probably depends on when you're going to stop making stupid statements.

You're right, its incredibly stupid for the "right" to be comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam, and advocating the exact same "stragery" that they tried to beat "liberals" over the head with for "losing the war in Vietnam".

If not for those Panty waists, we would have won!

But Afghanistan is the same as Vietnam.. Yet the same strategy that was berated there is now the best option.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So your opinion is that since Afghanistan is "just like Vietnam" that we should get the fuck out of dodge, just like we did there.

You must not remember the mantra of the people who blamed our inability to win in Vietnam on those who just wanted to get out. They "made us lose".. Just ask your good buddy old pal Vetteman his opinion on those who lost his war for him.

At the end I did in that I supported Karzai in opposing the Bush doctrine and opening a dialog and negotiations with the Taliban because you will never defeat them and they never would have come to power if our Congress had not pulled the rug out from the Afghan's feet at the moment of victory in order to save money.

The Democrats were all saying as soon as Bush went into Iraq that he took his eye off the right war.

I would have supported Obama had he followed the path of negotiation and reaching out to our enemies, but alas, the Democratic rhetoric about hunting down and killing Osama as the benchmark of success seems to have painted him into a corner where if he pursued the rational course, he would, of course, look like a hypocrite and his party too.

You guys on the Left just ascribe and demonize instead of trying to think.

Throb wasn't here for the Afghan invasion, I said his party (See his join date, unless he finally wants to cop to being 70/30 and having a mental meltdown). Throb went straight to Iraq, which we all know he was opposed to even though his party voted for it. How many times do I have to quote myself?

Originally Posted by Frisco_Slug_Esq
Yeah, and you wanted the war too* dumbass...

In fact, the Friday Night before the Saturday Morning liberation of Afghanistan, your party's leaders took to the airways to bash Bush for doing nothing about the Taliban and how they would already be kicking ass and taking names if they were in charge of the war effort.
_____

Obama cannot continue to defend the cities while rocketing the hills, he's only going to give them reason to come down and blow shit up in retaliation.



* Now, it's up to Throb to show me where he came out against The Invasion of Afghanistan, because that was what I was clearly talking about, not Iraq, and if I remember right, he would have had to have been in the 10% of America opposed to going in and kicking some Taliban ass and killing bin Laden.

He also needs to answer Vette's challenge before he goes around flinging the gauntlet like some wounded kitten.

No, I said he's going to be denounced no matter what he does, he's a most polarizing figure (I submit, on purpose) and yes, as soon as Karzai popped off with his desire to have talks with the Taliban Bush and Obama should have supported that effort, the only way you're going to achieve stability is for the Taliban to understand as long as they stay in the hills, we're going to stop coming after them. Our generals are calling for more troops for the mission, but what the bloody hell, the Soviets threw a million man army at the problem and got the end of their Empire, I don't see us doing any better with the military Obama decried all through the campaign as as tired, demoralized, suicidal, and broken (a real modern-day Hobbes!).

Removing them from power for supporting al Qaeda was a proper punishment, but now we risk the punishment of a conqueror would-be led by a man with no stomach for what it takes to actually win the fight.

No, I'm not. I said so way back.

No, it's not my solution as per my first answer, it's the ONLY solution if your response is a military response.

Which is why Obama will fail. He's taking half-assed measures to look tough because he painted himself into a verbal corner by blasting Bush for taking his eyes off the right war and invading Iraq, a war he assured us that had already been lost...

FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT!

End the drone attacks, it's a cowardly way to face a 13th century warrior and kills innocents for no reason what-so-ever thusly stoking the desire for Badal (revenge).

THEN:

Listen to Karzai, engage in talks with the Taliban, come to an agreement, and bring the troops back to Iraq and leave them there until it's time to bring the legions in from Japan and Germany too...



Finally commission a Peace Mosque of Saudi-like magnificence in recognition of the devastation wrought by the West over the course of the last century and by way of apology for not supporting them when they defeated the Soviet at great national sacrifice and place it where Taliban influence meets Kabul's influence.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=667668&highlight=Quagmire

 

[rosco rathbone]

But what about the Pakistani nukes, "taking the fight to the terrorists" and all that shit?


Anyhow, all I have to say about this king business is "the horror, the horror".

 

[Byron In Exile]

You're right, its incredibly stupid for the "right" to be comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam, and advocating the exact same "stragery" that they tried to beat "liberals" over the head with for "losing the war in Vietnam".

If not for those Panty waists, we would have won!

But Afghanistan is the same as Vietnam.. Yet the same strategy that was berated there is now the best option.

Here's where we're different:

You care about WHO is right, I care about WHAT is right.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=667668&highlight=Quagmire

"Just like Vietnam"..

So your opinion is that we should have negotiated with the North Vietnamese and withdrawn there as opposed to berating the withdrawal from South Vietnam as "pusillanimous", to use Vetteman's favorite descriptor, and caused us to "lose"? Since Afghanistan and Vietnam are the same and that's the course of action you back in Afghanistan.

So withdrawal from Vietnam = bad
But withdrawal from Afghanistan = good
But they're the same!

Careful Cap'n, your little partisan petticoat is showing.

Now before you start ascribing a position to me I'll let you know what I think about the whole situation.

I think we broke Afghanistan as surely as we did Iraq when we invaded and it's our responsibility to put it back together as best we can. We shouldn't bow to the Taliban's influence there any more than we should have to the Baathists left in Iraq after we deposed Saddam and completely dismantled the government. The entire point of going into Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power just as (at least one of the myriad reasons given) the reason given for invading Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein (which wasn't the actual reason, I'll get into that later). We set up an interim government in Afghanistan, then promptly pulled nearly all of our support to wander off into another war.

If you're going to play "Bull in a china shop" then you're responsible for the damage you cause. We broke it, we bought it.

But don't fool yourself into thinking that we're going to form any lasting democracy in either place. The system of government is simply a foreign concept to the Iraqi and Afghan people. All we can hope to do is get a somewhat stable government in place and prop them up until they can govern themselves. When we leave, no matter how long we stay, that government will likely topple and be replaced by one the people are more familiar with. We can only hope it's less oppressive than the one we removed without the consent or request of the people whose country we overran with our military.

The difference between the two is easy to discern. Afghanistan was where the impetus for the War on Terror™ originated, the planning and backing of the attacks on 9/11. We had every reason to go into Afghanistan to root out those who were responsible for that. Iraq was chosen as the battleground for several reasons, deposing Saddam Hussein wasn't really it so much as we needed a theater that was more hospitable to the type of War on Terror™ we wanted to fight, and the fantasy that Iraq was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks and that their oil deposits would help to pay for the "War on Terror™" was sold to the American people. Saddam provided an excuse to declare victory in Afghanistan and move our War on Terror™ to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and in the process made it Grand Central for terrorist groups that had little to no foothold in the area previously. Face facts, the very last thing a secular dictator wants or needs is a bunch of religious fanatic terrorists running around in his very tightly controlled little country. Because being a secular dictator, he's a target.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Here's where we're different:

You care about WHO is right, I care about WHAT is right.

You know very little about what I think Byron, that much is very obvious.

Perhaps it's time for another liquor run? Are they open yet? They do sell on Sundays there don't they or do you stock up on Saturday night?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Saying we broke Afghanistan is like saying Nero's fiddle cause the fire due to friction...



Remember the Russians?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Perhaps it's time for another liquor run? Are they open yet? They do sell on Sundays there don't they or do you stock up on Saturday night?

Let's deal with the ad hominem first: you're obviously out of ammo.

You know very little about what I think Byron, that much is very obvious.

All I know is what you post, which tends to indicate that you think very little at all.