Before the 2004 elections, Bush claimed “Absolutely, we’re winning. Al Qaeda is on the run.”

We haven’t heard much about Afghanistan in the last several years. Election’s over, Osama bin forgotten, poppy fields are booming, and the Taliban, eradicated in 2001, is once again regaining power and influence. While Bush has been dithering in Iraq, the Taliban reestablished a foothold in the country and has strengthened their organization.



There has been a lot of discussion in the past here at about why Bush diverted attention from Osama bin Laden to attack Iraq. Maybe it's time to revisit the latest goings-on in Afghanistan.

Had the WoT focus remained on Afghanistan, would the Taliban have been able to gain a foothold in the country again, 6 years later?

Why hasn’t Musharaff been “taken to task”? Is the US giving Pakistan the kid glove treatment? Why or why not?

With US troops stretched thin, how will Bush deal with developments in Afghanistan?

Had the WoT focus remained on Afghanistan, would the Taliban have been able to gain a foothold in the country again, 6 years later?

That is hard to say- if we are talking about the current chickenhawks running the show- they are possibly the most inept group we have EVER had in office- so I am pretty sure they could screw it up no matter what

I think, had Kerry been elected, or Gore, we would have never gone into Iraq and most of the AlQuiada in Afghanistan would have been oblterated and we would be talking about global group hugs or something - seriously - I don't think this regime is qualified to really be dog catcher- so no, with GW in charge- I don't think we would be succesful against the Al Quaida in Afghanistan- the GW chickenhawks are just too incompetent.

Why hasn’t Musharaff been “taken to task”? Is the US giving Pakistan the kid glove treatment? Why or why not?

Because it wouldn't tak much to topple him if we did- to tip Pakistan over into an enemy- he has to be handled with kid gloves. No choice there.

With US troops stretched thin, how will Bush deal with developments in Afghanistan?



Bush? You have to be kidding me? ( I think you actually are DG- you big kidder!) - He won't, he doesn't, he doesn't have a clue. period.

Had the WoT focus remained on Afghanistan, would the Taliban have been able to gain a foothold in the country again, 6 years later?

I used to think that this was the case, but its since come to my attention that what really failed in Afghanistan was not the commitment of the western armed forces serving there, but rather the interest of the western media which seems to have come to the conclusion that because Iraq is the sexy news event of the decade, Afghanistan is therefore a non event and the WOT, for what it is, has forgotten all about Afghanistan.

This is not the case and never was. Our media only likes to make it seem so because its a grea way to bash GW Bush. The military commitment was always in place and a lot of our soldiers have served there with distinction. The fact that their commitment and sacrifice has gone largely ignored by the western media, and subsequently the western populace, is almost certainly the product of indifference in the media and ignorance in the populace.


Why hasn’t Musharaff been “taken to task”? Is the US giving Pakistan the kid glove treatment? Why or why not?

Most probably because Pervez Musharref cannot control the entirety of Pakistan and his western allies understand this even if the western media prefers to play fast and loose with the facts so that one day it appears that Musharref is a traitor, the next he is a lackey.

Pakistan is a large, over populated country, predominently Muslim and subsequently governed by a military dictatorship put in place to keep the Muslims from taking over. In this regard it is very similar to Turkey. In both cases, the USA is very unpopular, despite being an ally, and any criticism of the leadership of these country's undermines them and gives subsequent strength to the waiting Islamicists who would use these country's against the west of given half a chance. That is why Musharref is not 'taken to task'. They guy is already doing all he can to prevent his country becoming the new Iran.


With US troops stretched thin, how will Bush deal with developments in Afghanistan?

It may not be necessary to bring in more troops.... it remains to be seen how strong the Taliban really are.

Thats a bit of an odd take, isn't it? I mean you are correct, the media did focus far more of its attention on Iraq once that war started, though with reasonable yood reason given the controvercy surrounding the invasion and subsequent failures there.

But to blame the media for the disintigration in Afghanistan seems somewhat backwards. The media not responsible for the security of the nation, they do not make policy, nor is the US government a slave to the media (as they have proven). Furthermore at least part of the media attention on Iraq was questioning why the war was necessary when the US was already involved in a war.

The erorors or misjudgements of the media may be slight or strong, but either way one cannot blame them for deemphasising the War on Terror, committing the vast majority of US military strength away from Afghanistan, trying to disband the CIA group dedicated to hunting down Bin Laden, or ignoring the Afghan military commanders begging for more US troops and support. None of those decisions were taken by the media, nor does blame for the obvious results of these blunders lie with them.



Again, factually correct, but I'm not sure that it is relevant. Nobody is questioning the service of the men in Afghanistan or saying they didn't do their duty, and it is true that they and their efforts have been insufficiently covered by the western media. But I don't see how that affects the reality that the decisions regarding Afghanistan, Iraq and the WoT which led directly to the current situation were made by the CiC, not by the media.

That’s quite possibly the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. Do you really think the Bush administration takes action/doesn’t take action based on what the media covers or not? The media goes where the story is, and if there’s nothing (comparatively) going on in Afghanistan, and there are daily bombings and fighting in Iraq, then sure, they’re going to throw more assets to Iraq. But, as far back as 2004, the media was calling Afghanistan “The Forgotten War”. And if I remember correctly (and I can’t find a source, so maybe someone else remembers), the US pulled nearly all their embedded journalists out of Afghanistan.

Blaming the media for the administration’s lack of action is just silly.

Right... I wrote a long reply and my wonderful, newly updated IE failed to load it up. Great.

Suffice to say I can't be bothered to type that whole reply out again so I shall just stick to the basic outline of what I wrote. Vermillion and DaffyGrl. You have misunderstood what I wrote. I've reread it and I don't know why you've misunderstood it, but you have. I have not written that the media is responsible for the neglect of Afghanistan.

I have written that there is no neglect and never was. That the media likes to make out that Afghanistan is the forgotten half of the WOT but the truth is Afghanistan was never forgotten. It was in fact a success story so it never became news worthy.

The initial question of this thread is based on the (deliberate) misconception put about by the anti war crowd that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not. Six years down the line and Afghanistan is not only more stable than Iraq, but it still retains broad international support.

The much vaunted reappearance of the Taliban is no such thing. The Taliban were never defeated, they simply went away to Pakistan where the coalition forces couldn't touch them. Musa Qala has been in contention for over a year now. There is no sudden ressurgence.


edited to add (and because I just can't let it lie):

DaffyGrl, I have to say that your link is just an amazing example of the duplicitous nature of the left wing media...

And how is this any different from the White House?


This is a lie. Danish troops and organisations have been engaged in various reconstruction projects (and Iraq also) building hospitals, schools and all sorts of infrastructure. This article indicates nothing of this.


This is a portrait of Aghanistan as it has been for the past 1,000 years or more! Since when was building an entire new state out of nothing the criteria for success in Afghanistan?

As far as I can see, when Afganistan is stable with only 20,000 coalition troops whilst Iraq is a mess with 130,000, then that is not an indication of failure. That is an indication that the White House is right. Afghanistan is on the right track. It may be a long slow slog for the Afghani's, but thats their fate. Western billions is not going to buy them a brand new country, they have to build it themselves. All the coalition has to do is ensure they don't get overrun by the Islamicst fanatics again.

Says who?

This article was posted 2004... its now 2007 and the Taliban have yet to launch any major counter attack. Musa Qala is a side show compared to the main attraction of continued stability in the other 90% of Aghanistan but its given 100% of the media's attention. Why?

And yet they voted.

Since when did difficult = failure?

Who ever said it was going to be easy? If this is the standard of American reporting then I'm not surprised Time can get away with a shoddy article entitled 'Remember Afghanistan?' Remember it? Yes, I've never forgotten it, and neither have the troops stationed there or the coalition countries who are maintaining their presence at great cost! No one has ever forgotten Afghanistan and certainly not the left wing anti war crowd who have been shouting about how 'forgotten' Afghanistan is since the day Iraq was invaded.

That whole article is one long exersize in pushing blame for everything that is wrong with Afghanistan (and Iraq) on to the west in general and the Bush administration in particular. It is the usual self hatred line peddled so frequently these days in the west and for which I have no patience.

Ah, I understand your position now, indeed I misunderstood your initial comment. If you are wondering why all who followed misunderstood, it might have to do with the phrase: "what really failed in Afghanistan was not the commitment of the western armed forces serving there, but rather the interest of the western media". Whatever the reason, I see your point now.

However, I must disagree. The commanders on the ground in Afghanistan have been calling for more forces ever since the buildup to Iraq occurred.

2007: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...1&cset=true
2006: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/0...nato/index.html

Instead Bush jr has ceaseless cut the number of troops in Afghanistan. He Cut US force numbers in january 2006, and refused requests to increase troop levels several times, citing the need for troops in Iraq. You say there is no neglect, but that seems somewhat hard to relate to the facts: more and more of the country outside the main cities is falling under the control of Talibal-esque and allied warlords, attacks per day are rising, casualties are rising, civilian deaths are rising: and all this after the nation was all but pacified, and then every available troop was redirected to Iraq.

I would hardly call Afghanistan today a 'success story' as you have done. Yes it is more stable than Iraq, but if you are using Iraq as your benchmark then you know you have seriously slipped in realistic results. Yes it has broad international support, though what relevance that has is beyond me.




That's an interesting point of view. Suffice to say that the soldiers and commanders on the ground in Afghanistan do not agree with you. Nor, it would seem, does anyone else. Seems pretty unanimous that there IS a resurgence on the ground, the casualty figures say the same story...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1009/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061017-115520-8453r.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1635707.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06...er_x.htm?csp=34
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/articl...ticleid=2369809



I don't think anyone is accusing Moif of having forgotten Afghanistan, not the troops in Afghanistan. people accuse Bush jr of having forgotten the country, more accurately, deprioritised it in favour of Iraq, letting it slide back into Chaos, while pushing Iraq into Chaos. I don't think it is 'bad people pushing blame', I think it is realistic people laying blame where blame is deserved. Afghanistan was relatively pacified, and even at the time commanders were calling for more troops to keep the peace, to prevent a resurgence. They were ignored, the resurgence happened.

I mean seriously, are you actually asserting that everything on the ground in Afghanistan right now is fine? According to plan? No worse than a year ago, two years ago? Well since the answer to these questions HAS to be "No", then the next question is, 'Why'? Perhaps because Bush deprioritised the mission, put all his eggs into Iraq, ignored strategic please for help in Afghanistan, and all the worst case predictions came true.

Had the WoT focus remained on Afghanistan, would the Taliban have been able to gain a foothold in the country again, 6 years later?

I guess NATO is a failure, since Afghanistan is a NATO effort not a US solo mission. So much for those that called for a broader force in Iraq being the key to stability.

NATO has 32,000 troops in Afghanistan according to its website. The US has 26,000. Read into that what you will about how concerned the other NATO nations are with the ISAF's success in Afghanistan. George Bush does not control those deployments.

Why hasn’t Musharaff been “taken to task”? Is the US giving Pakistan the kid glove treatment? Why or why not?

Is Musharaff responsible for Afghanistan? I thought it was clear that he barely has control over Pakistan.

With US troops stretched thin, how will Bush deal with developments in Afghanistan?

Let's see, we've already added an additional 10-15% to our troop levels there. Most of last year we had 22-23000 soldiers there. Now it is 26,000.

It is crunch time, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And the US military is responding. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/09/news/afghan.php

Indeed, part of the blame rests on the NATO countries involved, most of whom also ignored calls for more troops. In particular countries who had available troops to send but chose not to. The US it top of that list of course, but next is probably France. All those people who rail away at France for imagined or invented slights, well here is a real situation where they failed to do their part.

Bush However, does control US deployments, and when he decided 26,000 would be 'plenty' and sent 150,000 or so into iraq instead after deprioritising the war on Terror, well that was his choice. And the consequences of his choice are his responsibility.


In Afghanistan there is blame to go around, no question. Only those nations who literally committed their utmost possible - like Canada - escape some part of that... But Bush Jr. bears the lion's share...

I agree but one angle that can be looked at is the fact these nations participating in Afghanistan, though not all might not want to support Iraq. If the U.S did not invade Iraq we would have a surplus of troops to use in Afghanistan, along with funds to crush the Taliban and bring justice for 9-11 while ridding the planet of some truly evil people.

So if the rest of the world takes up slack for Afghanistan, I would then be able to say that such nations would be indirectly supporting the conflict in Iraq, so maybe they are no so bad overall for the decisions they made in that regard.

It was bad strategy and management again to blame for this, though you wont hear that part mentioned enough actually...

Vermillion.

Can you point to any major military operation where the commanders didn't want more troops? I'm afraid I can't read the 2007 link since it requires a registration and I have no wish to register, but the 2006 article quotes an officer asking for an additional 2,000 troops.


Hence the word 'was'. Do you actually read my posts or do you just read 'between the lines'?


And where have I used Iraq as a benchmark Vermillion?

I don't use benchmarks for such things as warfare. There is no such thing. Every war and armed conflict is unique and this is something people tend to forget. What works in one place at one time will rarely work else where. The comparison of Afghanistan to Iraq is one of a simple observation that whilst violence has always continued in Afghanistan, the enemy has not been defeated, the military effort there has still managed to maintain a level of stability that Afghanistan has not seen in a long time. Iraq is the other half of the so called War on Terror and that is the sole reason why it is used as a comparison.

Regardless of Iraq, six years of military domination and relative peace in Afghanistan speak for themselves.


And you even provided six links, repeating the same message to back up your point. Unfortunately, reading these links only encourages my low opinion of the media. This link in particular indicates to me a selective interpretation but which can be found in all the articles you've linked to. A General Karl Eikenberry is quoted as warning of a Taliban resurgence, yet read what he actually says, then check the date of the article and what you get confirms the story which is largely unreported by the western media, that the Taliban took advantage of a deal done with local tribesmen. The Coalition forces withdrew from various parts of Helmand because the locals claimed they no longer needed western support. A deal with tribal elders ended with the Taliban returning into the vacuum and arresting and executing most of those same elders which meant the coalition forces had to retake the region.

This information was made readily available to the Danish public via the Danish military's news site, but I never saw it mentioned any where else. Danish troops were in Musa Qala fighting Taliban skirmishers a year ago, but that was never reported either. The main Danish media didn't bother to report anything at all from Afghanistan until the rendition scandal resurfaced and accusations of Danish troops 'cooperating with US troops in torturing innocent AFghani's' led socialist politicians to call for Danish troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. (Didn't happen)

My point is that the so called insurgency is nothing new. Keeping the Taliban at bay has been an ongoing problem for the coalition forces. There never was a time when Afghanistan was suddenly liberated and everything was 'just peachy'. Our media likes to paint such a picture because it allows them to make a dark comparison in contrast. By claiming things are getting worse, they can portray the US government, and its western lackey's as 'the bad guys'. The incompetent, evil, neo con, imperialist war mongers who are of course to blame for all the worlds ills, so be sure to vote to the left in the next election.

Its a lie. Afghanistan is a difficult problem that cannot be solved simply by 'nation building'. Such a quaint and ridiculous contention is the stuff the media thrives on, quoting useless but BIG numbers, so many millions and billions spent, but all without context or accounting, and the public love it, because they think its means something. It doesn't. As I said, all wars are unique, and a billion dollars in one conflict can bring you victory where as in another it means nothing what so ever. Success in Afghanistan is not something which can be bought, it is not so easily measured, but success is there. The country is not in the hands of the Taliban, but in the elected government. Order is difficult to maintain, but as I asked earlier, since when did difficult equate to defeat?


Afghanistan was never at peace. There has not been peace in Afghanistan since the first humans arrived there. It is a nation whose culture has been warlike for a hundred generations.


Came true? You quote a few generals asking for more troops and that equates to worst case predictions coming true?

The wost case predictions would be see NATO being defeated in Afghanistan and the country being overrun by Islamicists. Has that happened Vermillion?

No it has not. What has actually happened is the Islamicst have tried to recreate Iraq in Afghanistan and have failed. Where as Iraqi's internal socio-political power structure has been easy to ignite into inter-tribal warfare, Afghanistan has retained its internal social equilibrium.

Trying to argue that western troops, or GW Bush is responsible for the set of affairs in Afghanistan today is dishonest. Afghanistan is the way Afghanistan has always been and NATO's success is measured in the length of time Afghanistan remains independent of outside interference from Islamisct morons who use suicide bombs as a social political tool. If we are to believe the weight of western journalism however, our failure is measured by any and every example of violence that takes place in Afghanistan. No matter who kills whom, its always our fault because GW Bush is an incompetent who is wasting away the liberation of Afghanistan... any time soon.

Frankly, I've been reading about how Afghanistan is on the verge of failure since even before Iraq was invaded and I've yet to see it happen. What I have seen however is a whole lot of articles like the ones you posted quoting people like General Karl Eikenberry and using a lot of BIG numbers to hammer home what an abject failure its all been, or soon to become.

Speaking of General Karl Eikenberry though, here he is again look:
Link.

Good old CNN. Always ready and able to put the worst possible spin on anything that might indicate success for western forces. The title of that article is 'Afghan civilians stop terror attack at U.S. base', but naturally such glad tidings must be tempered with a reminder of how the whole show is heading for disaster.

OK, so it 'was' a sucess story... and is no longer. Which is my entire point. I don't even know what you are arguing here Moif, are you saying that the resurgence of the taliban was completely inevitable and nothing could have been done to stop it, even if Bush jr had heeded the warnings of his commanders on the ground and deployed the needed troops?

If that is your point, then its quite an assertion, and I have to say i would like to see some evidence of this 'inevitability'. And generals or troops in Afghanistan who agree with your unusual point of view would be a start.




That would be where you said: "The initial question of this thread is based on the (deliberate) misconception put about by the anti war crowd that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not. Six years down the line and Afghanistan is not only more stable than Iraq, but it still retains broad international support."

If the best thing you can say about its stability is that it is 'more stable than Iraq', then thats reaching pretty low for a benchmark.




Well, five and a bit actually, but who's counting. And that five and a bit has not been five and a bit years of peace and stability, it has been maybe three.

Still, your point is that the three years of relative peace speak for themselves, and I agree. So why then does the destabilising situation and increasing violence there currently NOT speak for itself? It seems a bit pointless to point to past temporary stability as a measure of sucess if the stability has ended in increasing and worsening violence. If you declare the peace then = sucess, then by the same definition, lack of peace now = failure.




You need to make up your mind. In the same post earlier you were arguing that Afghanistan used to be a sucess, and pointed to its stability to bolster your argument. Now you are arguing that it never was pacified at all, and the insurgency was always boiling away. Which is it? Was it a sucess, or not? is it now failing, or not? (failing is a better word than failure, as failure implies an end state.)




But they ARE getting worse. You just said so yourself. Please make up your mind as to your position on this issue. If the situation IS deteriorating, then the media is not making anything up, just reporting the situation. And since the people on the ground are blaming the worsening on the lack of support from the president (and other NATO nations, as Amplord aid) it is hardly irresponsible of the media to report what those people in a position to know are saying.




The problem with statements like this is that they take the extreme opposite of what you accuse the media of doing. Following arguments like yours, therefore NOTHING that happens is at all the fault of the nation that invaded and tried to pacify the state, ever. You can always look at the worsening situation and claim 'oh its always like that, nothing is Bush's fault'. And that logic is just as faulty as the logic you are asserting is used by the media.




Nice dodge. But please answer the question. Are you saying that things on the ground are fine, the worsening was predicted by Bush and there was nothing he could do about it?




No, trying to pretend that Bush has NO responsibility for Afghanistan and that the generals who all called for help claiming this would happen, and have benn proven right, are wrong is dishonest.


What ARE you arguing for, exactly?

How quickly we forget what a true cesspool was during the rule of the Taliban. How quickly we forget that the Soviet army had equal troubles bringing peace to the tribes of Afghanistan and how it was Islamicists that added fuel to the fire to force their withdrawal.

Although the Soviets had between 80,000 and 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, they were never able to establish much control outside of Kabul and the vast majority of the country escaped government control. The Soviets lost over 14,000 men in the nine year occupation there (most due to disease). The Soviets had almost half a million sick or wounded. By that "benchmark" the US and NATO coalition troops are doing heroes' work.

There has been a surge of troop deployment by the US in Afghanistan. How can anyone sit here and claim it has been forgotten? I think we've concluded by now that occupying a country with an Islamic resistance is difficult.

Perhaps we should adopt the tactics that Saddam Hussein used to quell his religious opponents? Let's face reality: the enemy is emboldened by our kid's gloves tactics. They are driven by religion to a fanatical level in many cases. We have failed to convince them that Allah does not favor their cause and so they fight on.

It is the same in any war: you never win by killing every single enemy. You win by taking away their will to fight. The enemy has done a magnificent job of doing just that for many in this country. This conflict with Islamicists is on the edge of a knife. We either commit ourselves to victory or we resign ourselves to defeat. We won't convince them to stop fighting by giving them stuff, however. We must adopt tougher tactics if we are to crush the will of the enemy.

Sure you do Vermillion, you can read. You just don't like what I'm saying so your using your usual tactic of breaking down your opponents argument and twisting each byte to mean something it doesn't.


It is not my point. You are the one who has made this point, not I.


But I never said that. You are the one who brought up the idea of a benchmark, not I. I was addressing DaffyGrl's initial question regarding the WoT which for better or worse, encompasses two distinctly diferent conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan. Comparing these int he context of DG's question is not in any way evidence of a 'benchmark'. Again, this is you arguing against a point you've made, apparently by read between the lines. Again.


And here we go again. moif makes a point. Vermillion takes the point and runs with it, replacing it with his own point and then starts up an argument with the point he has made as if it were moifs. And as for who is counting? Well obviously you are.

The stability has not ended. More deaths does not automatically indicate a loss of stability. It could mean many different things, for example, it could be the last dying spasm of the Taliban, or it could be due to an internal Afghani conflict which has nothing to do with the coalition forces, or it could be a spike in violence, as we've seen before, that drops away again.

It may be a rise in violence that indicates a growing level of instability, but this is Afghanistan we are talking about Vermillion. Please indicate to me which period of previous stability you think we are losing, because I have not seen any such thing prior to the current situation (and by that I mean, the situation since the Taliban were kicked out of power)


It is both as I've already tried to make perfectly clear. Stability in Afghanistan is not the same as stability in Canada. You don't seem to want to grasp this point (which doesn't surprise me) but its not a difficult concept to understand. As I already said, Afghanistan is the way Afghanistan has always been and NATO's success is measured in the length of time Afghanistan remains independent of outside interference, especially from those Islamisct's who are camped out in Pakistan and hell bent on returning when ever they can.


I've just written three posts explaining that it is not 'getting worse' Vermillion. That in fact Afghanistan has seen a lot of spikes in violence, that the conflict has been ongoing, that the nature of stability in Afghanistan is relative to Afghanistan and not else where and that the 'upsurge' is most probably only significant to theose who wish to see it as a clear sign of a deteriorating situation and who talk of GW Bush as bearing responsibility for it.


Please address the points I make and stop interjecting your own interpretations of what I've written. I'm not stupid Vermillion, I've seen you do this before and I'm not going to fall for it. My points are clear enough. Address them or not, but spare me the nit picking disguised as debate.


If, if, if.

As for the people on the ground, a couple of generals (out of how many?) have asked for more troops, as they have been for years and have been quoted in the media. Big deal. Show me the conflict where this didn't happen! Danish commanders have also asked for more troops, but they have been told to make do with what they have, because thats all there is. In reply they have accepted this and gotten on with the job.


Yet another shining example of Vermillion arguing a point moif didn't make. I have never, ever, claimed 'nothing is GW Bush's fault'.

And what I have said is the truth. Afghanistan is a country that has always seen war and internal conflict. This is not the same as saying that nothing that happens is at all the fault of the nationS that have invaded. It is merely an observation that in Afghanistan, things are not so easily explained as say, in Canada or Denmark.


It is not a dodge for I have done nothing but answer that question Vermillion. That you choose to ignore the answers and spend your time answering your own, fabricated in my name, is your own choosing.


Well, for what its worth GW Bush is directly responsible for Afghanistan since he ordered it to be invaded. He is also responsible for the democratic elections held there, the stability, as relative to Afghanistan's culture and history and for the ousting of the Taliban which made all these possible.

He is not however responsible for the actions of his enemies, such as decapitating teachers heads or blowing up girls schools, carrying out suicide attacks or killing tribal elders. These are the actions of the enemy and the enemy bears the responsibility for them.

I do not like GW Bush at all, I think he is a lousy president, but I am not so dishonest as to sit here and claim he is responsible for all the bad things which happened in Afghanistan (or Iraq). I do not hate the man as you appear to do, thus my vision is not clouded to the degree where by I must make him responsible for the actions of Muslim terrorists. Furthermore I resent the implication that because I am not willing to accept your doom and gloom conclusion, apparently based on nothing more substantial than a few media reports of a sudden insurgency, that I must therefore be defending GW Bush. I am not. I am defending the job done in Afghanistan by my countries soldiers. I do not choose to belittle their fine work simply because you have a bee in your bonnett about GW Bush.

Afghanistan is, and always was, a very difficult place and to do what they have done thus far, is a credit to the NATO soldiers who must all operate with one hand tied behind their back because people like you are apparently willing to toss aside all they have achieved if only it makes a good argument against GW Bush.

And spare me the talk of defending the troops against GW Bush's indifference. The non American troops wouldn't even be there he was as indifferent as you make out. Danish soldiers are not deployed to serve as American toys. They are in Afghanistan to help the people of Afghanistan build their nation to be strong enough so they don't need any outside help. Whether or not this can actually be done remains to be seen, but if it can't then it will be because of the culture of the place and not because GW Bush, or any other American president cut back on a few thousand troops.


Honesty.

Firstly, and let me be clear about this Moif: I'm sure you didn't notice, but I was going out of my way to be civil and deal only in points of debate, not rising to your little childish asides and typical baiting. Almost every one of the points you derided as 'me twisting, or me changing, or me distorting, was nothing of the kind. I assume you had a bad day yesterday, and hopefully today, if you choose to carry on the debate you will do so with a modicum of civility.

By the way, even if I WAS guilty of 'twisting points' then apparently I am in good company, as you amply demonstrate throughout your post.




No, not at all. In fact my 'evil tactic' was to say exactly what I meant, in that case that I seriously didn't know what you were arguing for. You have slightly cleared that up in this last post, but my confusion was well warranted, and well explained, and well justified. You chose it as an opportunity to make personal attacks, as you did throughout the post. If my 'typical' is supposedly breaking down an opponent's argument, I guess you have shown us what your 'typical' is now, haven't you?




Really? Then I return to my confusion again. For in this post as well you speak of the inevitability of violence, the universal cycle of violence in the past of Afghanistan, and Bush jr not being responsible for the actions of his enemies, and so on. You made this point several times in fact, so it seems to me that the above is exactly the point you are trying to make: that the recent upsurge in violence was inevitable and has nothing to do with the action or inaction of Bush Jr. It seems pretty straight forwardly your point in fact.




I'm sorry, this isn't reading between the lines, this is reading the exact text of your post. I will post it AGFAIN in case you have forgotten:

"The initial question of this thread is based on the (deliberate) misconception put about by the anti war crowd that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not. Six years down the line and Afghanistan is not only more stable than Iraq, but it still retains broad international support.

Seems pretty clear to me, "the war has not been neglected, as one can see by the fact that the nation is more stable than Iraq, and it still has international support". If you now disagree with your earlier comment then just retract it, but don't blame me for inventing a statement that YOU made clear as day. Don't take false umbrage at my 'reading between the lines' when I am asking you about your exact words, copied exactly from your post. I'm sorry if your own words displease you now, but don't take it out on me.




Wow Moif, you are so desperate to take umbrage at anything, so eager to act persecuted that you are going of at anything. You little diatribe has NOTHING in common with my comment. I corrected your factual error, then agreed with the basis of your point, thats EXACTLY and ALL of what I did above. Where on earth did you diving me 'twisting your words' or using some sneaky 'vermillionesque' tactic? You were factually wrong on time, I corrected it. Do you disagree? Are you still going to insist that since the US invasion there has been 6 years of peace in Afghanistan? Can you point to an error in my post? Or is this just you taking an opportunity for an invented cheap shot?




OK, now we get back to the debate, here at least you decided to actually answer one of my points as opposed to inventing some fictional insult from them.

Yes, you are correct, the upsurge of violence COULD just be a short term spasm, it could be the dying gasp of the taliban. Do you have any evidence that it is either of these?

It also COULD be a resurgence of organised resistance and insurgency based on a combination of insufficient troops on the ground to keep the peace, the limited authority of the Afghan government outside the cities, and the rebuilding of the taliban in warlord strongholds around the country as well as in bases in Pakistan. Interestingly this is what the generals on the ground are SAYING it is, and have been warning will happen, so forgive me if I think that last is MORE likely than your rather optimistic, unevidenced assertions about what the current upsurge 'could' be.

IF in fact everyone except you is correct, and this is a major upsurge in violence, (which the soldiers on the ground believe it is) AND if this Upsurge could have been prevented by deploying sufficient troops in Afghanistan when they were asked for (which the men on the ground say it could) then we have a situation where Bush could have, and was counselled to, take action to stabilise Afghanistan, and chose instead to deprioritise it in favour of Iraq, and the consequences belong to him, and in part to other NATO nations which could have done more and didn't.

You keep dismissing the pleas of the men and generals on the ground by saying 'generals always want more men'. Well, thats not actually true, but even if they DID, you are using that as an exuse to dismiss their please now?


Let me put it this way: The media and generals on the ground in Afghanistan, not just US generals by the way, have been calling Afghanistan a forgotten war, saying it has been deprioritised (as has the WoT) and unless more troops were committed, the country would slip into Chaos. No such action was taken and Now it seems LIKELY that this is happening. This is just a coincidence to you? Or is it POSSIBLE that the media was reporting the truth, and their predictions have come true?

I will happily admit that if (as you optimistically predicted) this turns out to be a temporary blip, or a dying gasp of violence then you will have been right and I will have been wrong. Will YOU admit that if this does NOT turn out to be temporary or a dying gasp, that YOU were wrong?

Or will you just try to blame it on me and my evil tactics of making you look wrong with your own words?




Well I think that's patently false. You have written posts providing somewhat unlikely assertions about what the violence could be, that it COULD be just a temporary blip and mean nothing at all. You sound very much like Rumsfeld a couple years back who claimed the Iraqi insurgency was in its dying throes and would not last 6 months. I have admitted that IF your unlikely prediction about the nature of the escalation comes true, you will be correct and much of the doomsaying will have been inaccurate.

But you seem to literally be the only person who thinks that. Everyone in the defence and intelligence community has been predicting this upsurge, and seem to think it is far more serious than you would assert. Jane's defence states it is a "well orchestrated campaign of escalation violence resulting from the power vacuum left by insufficient NATO troops." Nato spokesman in Afghanistan Mark Laity stated openly that the upsurge was a predictable result of leaving the entire south of the country as 'ungoverned space'. The surge started in spring 2006 (By the way, the other reason i speak to this is because at the time, Canadian forces occupied the front line and were reporting back constantly about the deteriorating situation and increasing casualties) and has grown since then.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=...rticleid=272814
http://geo.channel4.com/news/special-repor...age.jsp?id=4607
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...518-rferl04.htm
http://news.bostonherald.com/international...rticleid=177619

You quite literally seem to be the only person who believes there is no upsurge in violence.





Again with this. You clearly contradicted yourself, and I asked for clarification. I got this in response. To paraphrase, 'spare me the false-victimhood as a way of avoiding points disguised as debate'.




OH NO> You don't get to walk away from THAT one. Your entire premise is based on the fact that you believe (with nothing to support this assertion I should add) that there is no real upsurge, or alternatively, you believe the current upsurge (which you denied a moment ago) is just temporary or a blip in violence or a dying gasp from the taliban. Given the zero support you have for these somewhat implausible scenarios, and the pretty clear indications that this upsurge is something larger, more organised and more dangerous than you choose to believe, i think the above If is vitally important. IF you are wrong in your unevidenced, unsupported optimism that these attacks are just a temporary dying blip, then that means you are also wrong about your assertions of media incompetence, in fact all they are doing is reporting what is going on, and what the people in the military in Afghanistan have to say about what is going on.




Yet another example of you pretending to be the victim by inventing comments, falsifying my statements and pretending umbrage. I never claimed you DID say 'nothing is Bush's fault'. I said that your logic and your statements, that everything bad in Afghanistan is inevitable and a cycle of history, neatly exculpates everyone for any wrongdoing in this operation. By that logic, increased violence can always be blamed on those damn violent Afghans, and never on the actions or inactions of the occupying power who allowed this to happen despite being told that it WOULD happen if they did not act to prevent it. Stop whining about being picked on by big, bad vermillion. Stand up and defend your own words.

Nobody has ever claimed this would be easy (words you put into my mouth) or that the security situation is the same as Canada or denmark (words you put into my mouth) or any of the other things you ascribed to me while complaining about my twisting your words. Yes, Afghanistan is a nasty place, given. But things are going wrong there, things that were predicted to go wrong, things that Bush jr was told were going to go wrong unless he acted: he did not, and they are going wrong. maybe, as you say, its just an irrelevant blip, in which case I am wrong. But find me anyone other than Bill O'Rilley who thinks that there is no upsurge in violence, like you do. Fine me a SINGLE man, from any nation, in Afghanistan, who thinks there is no upsurge. Even the Afghan president has acknowledged the upsurge in violence coming out of the areas in the south outside Afghan and US control. So why are you arguing with him?

Or are you now going to claim you never said there was no upsurge, and get all maudlin about how I keep twisting your words?





Yes, I agree. Bush (as well as the other NATO countries) are responsible for all that. We agree 100%. So if this stability is now falling apart, if violence is returning because of insufficient troops, if the taliban has been allowed to rebuild in the south of the country because they are no longer a military priority to Bush jr, he EQUALLY bears responsibility for that. Especially if this situation was predicted and he was warned about it, and chose to ignore it.




(Laugh) yeah, Moif. I twist YOUR words and misrepresent YOUR positions. Thanks for completely sabotaging your own martyr complex with those absurd and obviously false deliberate misinterpretations of my position. Why not take that extra step and call me a traitor because I obviously ioppose the men in uniform in Afghanistan?

I have actually stated specifically and openly that nobody is blaming the men and women in Afghanistan, lest you forget the Canadians have been bearing the brunt of the fighting for a while, I am well aware of their efforts and the cost they are paying. You asserting that me admonishing Bush for not supporting or giving the troops the men and equipment they BEGGED for to do their job = me insulting and belittling the troops is pure hogwash and you know it. You spent the first 3/4 of your post playing the martyr, then totally destroyed the credibility of that entire sentiment with those last badly chosen dishonest words.




Guffaw

I am not concerned with your notions of self regard Vermillion. As for 'childish', I have merely asked you to stop twisting my points so I have to end up defending arguments I haven't made. If that is childish, then consider me immature.

Note for the record that my initial post was about the topic on hand, where as your own was about nit picking what I had written. That as usual, you began by agreeing with me but ever so slowly changed the emphasis until it meant something else and now, after several posts we two have yet again reached the totally off topic, tit for tat, essay legth posts which you seem to yearn for. Alas I have neither the time nor the interest in dancing this dance with you again so I shall cut to your actual point and be done with it.


Perhaps I do sound like Rumsfeld to you but the irony is, I have reached my perspective because for six years now I have been listening to how Afghanistan was about to 'explode into violence within the next few months because the Americans have neglected it'. At first I was concerned, I believed what I read in the media and argued accordingly here and else where. I bought the story about how the US military was about to melt down within the next few months also, and how Iran would be let off the hook because GW Bush had frittered away the troops. Then a year went by and another and I began to realise that there was something wrong witht my percpetion. It didn't tally either with the Danish military accounts of what was happening in Afghanistan, or with the actual events that were being reported (as opposed to personal interpretations). Another couple of years have gone by since now and I'm still not convinced that the 'insurgency' is an actually insurgency and not just the natural state of affairs in Afghanistan.
I am not 'doing a Rumsfeld' here and saying 'things will get better' either. Where did I write that? What I'm saying is that I do not believe NATO has neglected Afghanistan.

I already explained this in a previous post.


'Everyone' in the defence and intelligence community also told me Saddam Hussein had WMD's. The politicians said it also.

As it turns out though not every one is predicting the orchestrated campaign of escalating violence resulting from the power vacuum left by insufficient NATO troops. Some people are saying that a counter attack will happen regardless of how many NATO troops are in Afghanistan, others that the country can never be pacified into a stable country and it will implode the moment the troops leave anyway, with or without the Taliban or al qaeda. A few are even saying Afghanistan is on the right track. They may even all be right.

For my own part, I see Afghanistan as a tough nut to crack and have never had any doubt that a counter attack would come sooner or later. The Muslim fanatics want their pleasure haven back and they are prepared to wait no matter how long it takes. The only thing that will stop them is the strength and determination of the Afghan people not the coffers of the United States.

As for the Canadian soldiers in the front lines, give them the tools to do the job. They are your soldiers, not GW Bush's. Its no good whining about him not giving your soldiers the backing they need when the USA is already the largest contingent in the country. If your not prepared, as a country, to pay for your own defence then thats your problem and its not like Canada can't afford to increase its military spending to provide cover for its own foreign policy decisions.
I think I can sum up your whole perspective in one sentence Vermillion: Its all a mess and its all GW Bush's fault.

Maybe I'm mistaken about you though, maybe you do accept some level of Canadian responsibility for what has taken place.
Your country's government appears to think differently than you do. The fact that Canada's military is still in Afghanistan for example, underlines my point, that Afghanistan has not been neglected and the troops there are not being defeated by a 'sudden insurgency' or a lack of support from the president of the USA.

Frankly, I'm more concerned by the lack of support from other NATO 'allies'.


This was never my point, it is merely the bone of contention you have chosen to chew upon. My point, as I made clear, as I said in my first post, was that Afghanistan has not been neglected by any one but the media, that DG's question was based on a false assumption that NATO was failing Afghanistan.

Moif you've raised an excellent point and perhaps Vermillion can address it. He's quick to comment on American issues but what about things Canadian?

Why aren't the Canadians ramping things up in Afghanistan if it's (according to Vermillion) become such a mess? Where is their troop surge? Where is their LEADERSHIP? Where is their advocacy of increased military spending? Where is their increase in commitment on the home front instead of just being another whining voice in the anti-US-war wilderness? And why aren't YOU, Vermillion, putting on your uniform and slinging that Enfield (or whatever the heck Canadians use these days for rifles) over your shoulder and humping on over to Afghanistan to help in the war on terror???

Or, are you content to accept the security that the USA has given your country (since its inception) while at the same time you feel compelled to criticize our nation's every decision related to our security?

EDITED


Edited to remove inflammatory comments - Jaime

So let's get a few things straight: it is the Canadian Expeditionary Force that is bearing the brunt of the fighting (they are stationed in the south) but it is George Bush's fault that they are not winning and can't control the countryside? There are 2,500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and 26,000 Americans. Canada has lost 44 soldiers, the US has lost 368 and the US is not doing enough?

How does everything devolve into a blame game?

The Canadians are doing what they can. The Americans are doing what they can. Like it or not, the situation is what it is. The US has committed additional troops to Afghanistan in recent months. In fact, the additional deployment equals the entire deployment of Canada. So spare me the notion that the US has dropped the ball here. As we all realize, nobody is going to lend assistance in Iraq (aside from the British). We can at least hold out hope that someone will step up in Afghanistan. It is a NATO mission, let's keep that in mind.

I do not mean to pick on Canadians. Of course they have provided those troops. But what of the French and the Germans? Where is their commitment to this NATO mission?

As both moif and I have pointed out, Afghanistan has been a battlefield for a very long time. How much order can we expect? How much violence is an upsurge and how much is business as usual? How can we blame GWB for an uptick in violence when it is the Islamicists that are bombing schools? How can we say that GWB has "forgotten" Afghanistan after he just sent more troops there?

Yes, I did misunderstand your original statement (and btw, your derision was unnecessary), but that doesn’t change my opinion of your hypothesis.... I don’t believe Afghanistan was ever a “success story”, except in the very early days when allied forces were aggressively seeking out OBL and routing the Taliban. If you have an infestation of rats, chasing them out of the house will suffice for a while, but they are bound to return, and in this case, they did.

My god, you sound more like lordhelmet every day. The link was merely an example of the use of the term as early as 2004. The article may or may not be relevant today, three years later.

As for those who blame NATO, I can’t say it much better than Vermillion


Plus this: NATO has only been responsible for the security of Afghanistan since July 2006. The US was there for years prior to that. The Bush administration let the situation deteriorate and then dumped the whole mess in NATO’s lap. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but there are those who seem to think the Bush administration is blameless. How is it other countries’ responsibility to clean up the mess caused by the escalation of violence and diversion of forces to Iraq, anyway?

Diverting focus from Afghanistan to go off on a tangent in Iraq is what is most responsible for the deterioration of the Afghani situation. In addition, I don’t think enough attention has been paid to Pakistan’s role in the region. Pakistan is allowing the Taliban to work from their country, and the Bush administration has done nothing about it, except opine about how the border is like the “wild west”.

Hmm, maybe that only applies if you aren't Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?


lordhelmet, maybe you'd like to address the debate questions, instead of just attacking people's nationality? Just a thought.

Where is the derision?


Well, thats what it is to be in the middle ground. Since I don't subscribe to political ideology I get accused of all sorts of things. Those on the right accuse me of being a soft hearted, left wing anti American, those on the left accuse me of being childish, a war monger or starting to sound like lordhelmet. I suppose your point is thats its a bad thing to 'sound like lordhelmet', which would make your comment derisive, no?

I assume this is not meant for me then since I have blamed NATO?. On the contrary, I think NATO has done an excellent job in Afghanistan and I include the USA in that conclusion since the USA is also a member of NATO. I have every confidence in NATO's ability to defeat the Taliban providing the member states of NATO, and not just the USA, meet their commitments and provide their full support against those who would destabilize Afghanistan and return it to the rule of the intolerant.


I'm sorry but I don't see where this whole idea of a 'mess' comes from. Its this perception that I take issue with. I've seen a lot of people talking about the conflict in Afghanistan as heading for disaster, but I'm still waiting to see it unfold. I agree there has been an increase in violence in Afghanistan. I disagree this is a sign that Afghanistan has been 'neglected'.


Very well, I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to know what course of action you advocate with regards to Pakistan. What exactly is it you suppose could be done that is not already being done?


edited for spelling

This is the reverse of the multi-national argument that has used in Iraq. If only we had insisted on a more multinational force, everything would be peachy keen in Iraq.

Of course, there have been many nations in Afghanistan since the outset. Let's not misrepresent the situation. The US has always had the largest force, but it has never been the only force. There has been an uptick since 2006, but I won't correlate the two. Are you saying the US was doing a better job than NATO has done since?

I'm not clear on what you are saying here. The US has sent more troops now that things seem to be escalating. It has done so in Iraq and it has done so in Afghanistan. Recall that the Russians had around 100,000 troops there to no avail. More troops is not always the answer.



Again, we cannot deal in what ifs. We can only deal with what the situation is. Second guessing won't help.



I guess bombing runs inside Pakistan don't count. Khalid Sheik Mohommad was captured in Pakistan. I think the President fully realizes that there are big problems in Pakistan. Much of the rough country in Pakistan, like Afghanistan, is not controlled by the government. Thus it is not controlled by Musharraf. Musharraf has prevented the US from bringing troops into his country. However, that may be wise since we see that troop presence alone does not quell the violence. In fact, it may spark more.

Musharaff is in a difficult position. He is surrounded by Islamicists. Of that we have no doubt. He needs to try to keep them in line as much as possible, while retaining good relations with the US. A balancing act.

Well, I think I showed explicity in my last post that not only was that accusation completely false, but that you were in fact far more guilty of that exact same supposed crime than I am. I'm happy to let it stand as that. Your rationalisations as to why you made the deliberate choice to make your responses hostile, sggressive and belittling in an otherwise civil debate do not interest me.




Well I never reads such reports. I read the media claiming that Afghanistan was taking a back seat to Bush's Iraq Crusade, and that the commanders on the ground were begging for more troops, and that if they did not receive them things would escalate and the taliban would start to restablish itself in the south then spread. This is exactly what has happened.

To be honest Moif, you keep referring to 'media reports' claiming that afghanistan was due to explode in a few months, and it is these anonymous reports upon which you base your entire disdain for the media. Given that I certainly never saw any such reports, I think it is not unreasonable of me to ask you to back up your unlikely assertions. Please cite a media report from 2002 or 2003, or even 2004, saying the country was going to explode into violence in a few months. Please provide some basis for you blaming the hysterical media for all this. You have hung your entire point on the media playing chicken-little, the media distorting, the media dictating policy: why don't you give us an example of this out-of-control media boondoggle you keep asserting exists?



Yes, and I cited about a half dozen examples of people on the ground saying the exact opposite. Here we come to your unevidenced assertion number 2: 'there is no upsurge in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan has NOT been neglected'. This is, if you will forgive me, even more unlikely than your last one, and so I ask the same thing.

I have provided quite a few examples of people, in the military, in the US, even the Afghan president himself, stating the opposite of your assertions. perhaps, if you want to be taken seriously, you could back up your point? can you find ANYONE with any first hand knowledge in Afghanistan, or anyone in a genuine position of authority to know, who agrees with your unique assertion? Given its counter-intuitive nature, I don't think its unreasonable to ask you to back it up or withdraw it.




Ah, that old chestnut: "All the experts were wrong once before (even though that is not actually true) therefore all the experts are wrong this time as well". Forgive me if I don't take your unevidenced word for it. You certainly would not take mine...



Who? I'd like to see that source please. I'd like to know who on the ground in Iraq, or in a position of power who would know, agrees with you that this upsurge in violence you alternate between accepting and denying is inevitable and no number of increased troops could prevent it.




Hey, this is amusing, remember back a while ago when you were accusing me of putting words into your mouth and twisting your points? Ahhh, irony...

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

Lordhelmet:



I have said this before, and I say it in all respect... it would REALLY help you if you did just the tiniest iota of research before posting, it would prevent you from making comments like the above that are obviously factually wrong, and would help you look a bit less out of your depth.

To answer your question: The Canadians HAVE been ramping things up in Afghanistan, but I guess you didn't bother to check that: Canadians HAVE been increasing troops and equipment in Afghanistan, they even brought out their heavy armour for the first time since Korea, but I guess you didn't bother to check that: Canadians are in the middle of a substantial increase in military spending from the latest government, the largest since the cold war, but I guess you didn't bother to check that...




Riiiight... Again with the 'you doing research = you not looking silly' point. I could give you a crash course in Canadian history if you like, but it would be off topic and a waste. Suffice to say there is SOME validity in saying the US has assisted Canadian security since about 1949, and little to none before that. 'Since its inception?' I mean come on LH, are you that unclear on North American history?



Thank you Jamie...



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


Amlord:



Firstly, your numbers show that in fact, per capita canada has commited the same number of troops as the US, and per capita canada has taken more casualties. Just for some perspective.

And yes, America is doing what it can, Considering Bush jr made the decision to deprioritise Afghanistan and the WoT in favour of Iraq.. That has been my point all along. Its not that he is deliberately holding things back from Afghanistan, he is sending what is left after he takes care of his REAL priority, invading Iraq. It was HIS choice to invade Iraq, and HIS choice to deprioritise the war on terror. I am astonished at all the people here who believe he should not be held accountable for the results of that decision.

As i have stated, that responsibility is shared by other nations which had the capacity to commit more to Afghanistan, and chose not to, France being the best example of that.


PS Good to see you Amlord, have not seen you around in a while...

The intimation that I couldn’t possibly misinterpreted what you had to say (implying that I’m a simpleton for having done so?) No matter. Off topic and not important.

No, it was an observation of the similarities. Lordhelmet's frequent response is to attack anything perceived as left wing. That’s a fact.

Maybe it’s just that ca-razy liberal media, but there has been a significant uptick in violence in Afghanistan. You don’t see a problem with the fact that violence is now at pre-2001 levels, even with [pick your country]’s presence for 5 years?



Something more than Condolleeza wringing her hands and saying that “she’s disappointed in them”. I'm not a diplomat, or a high-level government official. I am merely a citizen of this country wondering why we threaten countries who "harbor terrorists" - except in certain situations. It smacks of hypocrisy and flat-out lies.