Afghan interpreters petition delivered to Cameron

[Jimbuna]

Absolutely disgraceful...these people have stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops and deserve better treatment than to be left stranded and targets for the Taliban.

It was done for the Gurkha's after all.


Campaigners have petitioned Downing Street to call for Afghan interpreters who worked with UK forces to be given the right to settle in Britain.
Sir Winston Churchill's great-grandson Alexander Perkins helped deliver the 60,000-signature petition.
Some interpreters have been offered resettlement in the UK, but campaigners want all staff treated equally.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23684980

[Tribesman]

How many decades did it take for the Gurkhas to get the right to reside?

[Skybird]

Same with the Afghans helping the Germans. Around 5000 translators and scouts cooperated with the Bundeswehr, it was written in a paper some weeks ago. I'm all for letting them and their close families (not the whole village clan) into Germany, if - what can be assumed in most cases, since they worked with the Germans - they are not holding fundamentalist views (which would be an unpardonable exclusion criterion, of course). But only the actual workers, brothers and sisters of the workers since they are at high risk also and are not older than a to-be-defined criterion age (they should be young enough to be able to integrate and adapt to life in Germany), the workers' wifes for obvious reasons, their children. Not more. Not the old parents, not aunts, uncles, siblings' marriage partners and their children - they have to make a tough decision. I know, and I'm sorry, but one has to define a criterion and a red line, and I want that criterion defined tight. So it is - for example - the translator, his wife, his kids, his brothers and sisters of same generation, period.

In the end, I am disagreeing with those saying that we owe this to them. We do not owe this to them, for our people went to their cursed country and tried to help THEM, and took risks for THEM - not th eother way around; and what these translators did was no service to Germany, but a service to their own country in an attempt to improve its' situation. I indeed see it as generosity from our side if nevertheless we welcome the active staff in Germany now: generosity, not a moral obligation. But I do not see why our social system should pay for their whole village clan, so to speak. And let'S be realistic: thes epeople coming to germany (if they are allowed in), will be social netto receivers, not netto payers. That's why I refuse their elders and parents, cousins and uncles and aunts and so many more.

I refuse your comparison with the Gurkhas, Jim. The Gurkhas fought in the name and for the British crown. You see my point.

[Jimbuna]

These translators weren't forced to participate Sky....like the Gurkhas before them, they made a choice.

[Skybird]

These translators weren't forced to participate Sky....like the Gurkhas before them, they made a choice.
Yes, they volunteered. However, the Gurkhas made a choice to fight for Britain, and to serve for Britain - that si why Britain owed to them. The interpreters made a choice to serve for Afghanistan's future. The Germans going there served Afghanistan'S future, or tried so. The interpreters did not decide for serving Germany. That is the difference between them and the Gurkhas.

You really cannot see that difference?

Anyhow, as I said, let's be generous and let them in if they are willing to integrate in Germany, okay. But them, and their immediate close family only. And I stick to it: it is no moral obligation of Germany to let them in, but a generous gesture. They did not serve Germany, but themselves, and Afghanistan. They are not like the Gurkhas.

[Jimbuna]

No problem...we agree to disagree but we are the same on one point...let them come to our respective countries.

[Skybird]

It might only be academic in this case, but still - it's just that I cannot understand you. I fail to see the parallel you draw between the Gurkhas and the Afghans there.

If an African guy would lend a hand to a British development worker in Africa, this hardly earns him the right for asylum in Britain - Britain came to the help or aid of that African country, so what claim has that country or guy to make against Britain for owing it/him something? But if a guy from Puerto Rico serves in the US armed forces for some time, that service is not for Puerto Rico but the US, and it - deservedly - earns him citizenship after some time. Obviously, both cases do not compare! The first example is about serving that African country, or one'S own interest to have a regular income. The second is about serving America. Two totally different motivations and view on things! Voluntariness is not a thing of interest in this, it has no relevance for this whole question. I am quite certain that many of those Afghan interpreters did not even sign in due to wanting to serve Afghanistan's future, but because of the money the get payed for their job. That is okay, no moral objection. It's just that this also is no argument to imply that Britain/Germany have the obligation to accept them in Europe now.

Yes, we agree to let them (and their very closest relatives only) in. It just is an intellectual "quarrel" I have with you over your strange comparison to the Gurkhas. The Gurkhas came to the explicit and dedicated service for Britain. The interpreters came to the service for Afghanistan's future (if they were idealists) or their own interest to have a job and have an income. They did not come to the service for Germany or Britain, quite the other way around - Germany and Britain came to the service of Afghanistan (or so they argue).

[Jimbuna]

I used Gurkha as an example because that was the first comparator that sprung to mind.

It would be the same for any national that helped our troops on the front line and as a consequence of our troops pulling out found themselves and their family in clear and present danger.

We are not talking of tens of thousands here in fact the number would probably be miniscule when considering the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

One other consideration should be the fact that these people usually have skills in addition to their bilingual capability.

[August]

I used Gurkha as an example because that was the first comparator that sprung to mind.

It would be the same for any national that helped our troops on the front line and as a consequence of our troops pulling out found themselves and their family in clear and present danger.

We are not talking of tens of thousands here in fact the number would probably be miniscule when considering the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

One other consideration should be the fact that these people usually have skills in addition to their bilingual capability.

This ^

[Skybird]

I used Gurkha as an example because that was the first comparator that sprung to mind.

It would be the same for any national that helped our troops on the front line and as a consequence of our troops pulling out found themselves and their family in clear and present danger.

We are not talking of tens of thousands here in fact the number would probably be miniscule when considering the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

One other consideration should be the fact that these people usually have skills in addition to their bilingual capability.
Still, the motivation is totally different. It is a difference whether you help foreign troops to help your country and you take risks over that, or you help foreign troops and take risks for their country. I talked, by chance, with two friends yesterday. They too see the difference. I fail to see why one c/would miss it.

But anyhow, nix für ungut. ;)

[Platapus]

So the next conflict that the Brits are involved in, will they be "shocked" when the local populace does not collaborate with them? :nope:

Not a very good message to send to the world.

"help us fight our enemies and when we are done, you are on your own"

[Skybird]

So the next conflict that the Brits are involved in, will they be "shocked" when the local populace does not collaborate with them? :nope:

Not a very good message to send to the world.

"help us fight our enemies and when we are done, you are on your own"

"Help us fight YOUR enemies." I corrected that for you.

The interpreters did not serve the crown or Germany's interest. The Brits and Germans where there to fight for Afghanistan's interests in the past years. It is only to be expected that if the locals see it like that as well, they give help and assistance. It is in their own intrest to help defending and recreating their country.

Thisa does in no way compare to foreigners fighting in the US army not for their home nations intewrest, but America'S and then gain citizenship, nor does it compare to the Gurkhas - who joined British forces to serve the British crown.

It is beyond me (and my friends) why you guys completely fail to see that difference.

Whether I assist you on behalf of your cause or on behalf of my own interest - how much more different can two motivations be, eh?

And the bad example set, Platapus, is not over the issue of asylum yes or no, but by the whole idiotic way Afghanistan war was handled for ten years now. America and Europe were too civilised as if they ever had a chance to really win this and to reward all their stupid claims and promises made for a bright and shiny future of Afghanistan.

[Tribesman]

So the next conflict that the Brits are involved in, will they be "shocked" when the local populace does not collaborate with them? :nope:

Not a very good message to send to the world.

"help us fight our enemies and when we are done, you are on your own"
Isn't that what happened to your translators in Vietnam?
Did many translators get shipped out of Iraq when your government pulled the troops out when they couldn't get Iran to give a decent SOFA deal?

It does seem like its par for the course to abandon the locals you recruit when the operation goes tits up.

[u crank]

"Help us fight YOUR enemies." I corrected that for you.

The interpreters did not serve the crown or Germany's interest. The Brits and Germans where there to fight for Afghanistan's interests in the past years. It is only to be expected that if the locals see it like that as well, they give help and assistance. It is in their own intrest to help defending and recreating their country.

What you are saying is true but...by their actions and service, how many German and British soldiers and civilians were spared death or injury? What's that worth?

Just a thought.

[soopaman2]

USA did the same thing to the doctor who helped us bag Bin Laden.

Pakistan's military and its main intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), saw things differently. After the ISI discovered that Afridi had visited Bin Laden's house just before the raid, its agents arrested him as he was driving home in Peshawar on May 23, and as they say in Pakistan, "he was disappeared." Afridi was taken to a secret prison, leaving unanswered the question of what exactly happened that day in Abbottabad.

Read More http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201301/doctor-cia-blood-of-bin-laden-january-2013#ixzz2cFya7Ahg
Welcome to the club!

No wonder they saw peoples heads off and put it on liveleak.

edit: this certainly breeds alot of discontent, and gives no reason for them to trust anyone.

[Skybird]

What you are saying is true but...by their actions and service, how many German and British soldiers and civilians were spared death or injury? What's that worth?

Just a thought.

Risks taken by the Allied and Afghans were risks taken on behalf of Afghanistans future. Maybe one could argue that it is different with the Americans who went. into Afghanistan for their own interest indeed (nine eleven). But Britain, Germany and other Europeans were not part of that start and the Americans even deliberately refused NATO assistance as long as they thought it would ne a walk in the woods only. When Nato finally was asked to join, Europeans engaged explicitly on behalf of Afghanistan's national interest, and the interest of its people. At least that is what is claimed until today.

[August]

Risks taken by the Allied and Afghans were risks taken on behalf of Afghanistans future. Maybe one could argue that it is different with the Americans who went. into Afghanistan for their own interest indeed (nine eleven). But Britain, Germany and other Europeans were not part of that start and the Americans even deliberately refused NATO assistance as long as they thought it would ne a walk in the woods only. When Nato finally was asked to join, Europeans engaged explicitly on behalf of Afghanistan's national interest, and the interest of its people. At least that is what is claimed until today.


The point remains Skybird. Would you see these people who have served our troops abandoned? Murdered along with their wives and children when we pull out?

[Jimbuna]

The point remains Skybird. Would you see these people who have served our troops abandoned? Murdered along with their wives and children when we pull out?

Wasting your time...absolutely no deviation..."I'm alright Jack".

[vienna]

The history of nations using indigenous people in other lands to advance their militray, political, imperialistic, capitalistic, religious, or any other motives and then abondoning them to their fates or reneging on the pledges to those who aided them is long and shameful. Here, in Los Angeles, there is a large Filipino community, some of whom served in WW2 as interpreters, armed combatant alogside the US force or who provide much need intel and covert services that greatly aided the war effort in the Pacific, saving many, many American and Allied lives in the process. They were made promises of full US citizenship and veteran's benfits as recognition of their valiant service in WW2 and for the service of many Filipinos in the US military in the years since 1895 when the US acquired control over the nation after the Spanish American War. A bill meant to enforce these promises was introduced in 1993 and every year since then; the bills have never made out of subcommittees in those 20 years that have pased. The Filipino veterans have really been more than patient and are now dying off in greater numbers, as are so many of our WW2 vets. The main obstacle to the passage of any bill has been from the Far Right, who are well known for beating the drums of war and intervention, but seem to fade away when it comes time to pay the bill. And, God forbid, that any of there progeny or others of their class should serve or spill blood in furtherence of the Right causes; especially when there are so many, like the Filipinos, who can be used up and then tossed aside...

The Filipinos are not alone, there quite a few others taken in by the US military and civilian leadership, in the past and the present. As recently as Vietnam: just look up the situation of the Hmong in Vietnam and Laos after the war and how, again, the US rather failed to live up to its obligations and promises regarding the Hmong and left them to the predations of the same enemy they helped us fight against....

Many, many nations have treated the indigenous people of other lands as 'diposaable' or 'forgettable', but it serves the US and other nations like the UK, ill to not take real steps to address the situation and do what is right. As someone earlier noted, what happens the next time we are faced with a conflict in another area of the world and really need the assistance and cooperation of the people in that country? Will they look at our "resume" and say "Seems like a really bad risk here..."


<O>

[Skybird]

The point remains Skybird. Would you see these people who have served our troops abandoned? Murdered along with their wives and children when we pull out?

Jim and me alreay agreed to get them out. I just limited it to the very closest family members only : wives, children, and I set conditions (willingness to fully integrate, no migration of net receivers to our social system). The issue were we differ is whether to see this asylum given is a moral obligation, or a gesture of generosity. You guys seem to agree it is a right they won by their working contract. I say it is no obligation of ours, but our good will only. My argument is that the decisive difference is the motivation aiming at serving Afghan interest, or Germany's interest. And the whole mission was run by Britain and Germny on behalf of Afghanistan's interest. Euope's self interest would have been to never go into Afghanistan in the first.

As I said, the arguments can be seen different for the American motivation to go into Afghanistan.

[Platapus]

The good news is that there is no way our adversaries could use how we treat our collaborators in some sort of anti-US/UK propaganda. No. That would be wrong of them. :nope:

Talk about a gift that keeps on giving.... for the wrong side.

[u crank]

The point remains Skybird. Would you see these people who have served our troops abandoned? Murdered along with their wives and children when we pull out?

I'm ashamed to say my country let these people down as well. Sayed Shah Sharifi, a former combat interpreter for Canadian Forces finally made it to Canada but not without a struggle. His family members he left behind were targets for the Taliban.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/21/afghan_interpreters_family_killed_by_taliban_near_ kandahar.html

That's shameful. I would much rather see people and their families that we trusted with our lives come to my country than some of the questionable ones we do let in.

Jim and me already agreed to get them out. I just limited it to the very closest family members only : wives, children, and I set conditions (willingness to fully integrate, no migration of net receivers to our social system). The issue were we differ is whether to see this asylum given is a moral obligation, or a gesture of generosity.

Noted.

I say it is our moral and human obligation to help those we know will be punished for helping us. My opinion only.

[Skybird]

I say it is our moral and human obligation to help those we know will be punished for helping us. My opinion only.

Morals meet reality. Following your logic, you would need to get out a good share of their population and almost all of their women and girls.

It is desirable if no women anywhere would need to live under Islamic slavery, yes. It's just beyond our reach to achieve that.

then there is the issue of Coptian Christians in Egypt. Christian minorities in Turkey. Islamic discrimination of non-islamic minorities is so widespread that practically it exists everywhere in the Islamic word. from Marocco to Pakistan, from Indonesia to Nigeria.

If you want to safe them all from Islam, you would need to launch a global counter-jihad, so to speak. And by doing that, messing up your finances even more than they already are. And the historic patriarchalism and the corrupted regimes throughout the Islamic world you still would not have defeated by that even if you were victorious in wiping out Islam alone. :)

Are you fit enough and ready to carry the whole world on your shoulder, Neo-Atlas?

[u crank]

Morals meet reality. Following your logic, you would need to get out a good share of their population and almost all of their women and girls.


If you want to safe them all from Islam, you would need to launch a global counter-jihad, so to speak. And by doing that, messing up your finances even more than they already are. And the historic patriarchalism and the corrupted regimes throughout the Islamic world you still would not have defeated by that even if you were victorious in wiping out Islam alone. :)

Are you fit enough and ready to carry the whole world on your shoulder, Neo-Atlas?

Come on man you know that's not what I meant although your sentiment is good. I clearly said 'those who helped us' in Afghanistan. We can't save them all but we could save the ones that will be in the most danger. The ones we owe at least our consideration for the position they are in.

From the Toronto Star article I posted.

Last year “anti-government elements,” as the United Nations calls them, killed or injured 1,077 Afghans in a terrifying campaign of targeted killings.
And they are stepping up the pace of assassinations. In the first four months of 2013, preliminary figures show a 46 per cent rise in targeted killings compared with the same period last year, said Georgette Gagnon, representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Afghanistan.


My guess is that it will only get worse. All countries that employed Afghan civilians should do their best to get at least the people that are being threatened and their families out. Seems like the decent thing to do.

[Skybird]

I un derstood you very well. I just put the finger into a moral wound there that we tend to constantly agree in the West. We went there and thought we could bypass the laws of nature,l so to speak. Make it all good with just good will of ours. Then we relaised that it took more. And that it will take much more than we now are willing to give an d invest. We would need not just years but decades more to change that place FOR THEM. We cannot do that. They have to do it themselves, or they don'T. That is evolution growing from themselves. We cannot bring them revolution.

Now, when the troops have left, the girls going to school in some parts are at risk. The women already have lost most of the "improvements" that the media became enthusiastic if not even hysteric about to report in 2002. The truck drivers. The loaders. The many people doing this or that job for the foreign troops, in the camps.

Then the old bills. Family set against family, using the opportunity to settle an old bill or a recent dispute by reporting the other to the Tlaiban once they have taken over.

Then the village leaders and elder that in some parts allowed girls schools. Vaccination campaigns. Cooperated with the foreigner a bit. Or just got bribed and took the money. Maybe sometimes meaning honest game, often placed double game.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions being potentially at risk once the troops have left.

That is why I am so pedantic over the original issue. We cannot take them all, and obviously we cannot take over their country and make it better for them. It is beyond out will, beyond our means, and beyond our fiscal capacity, with tlaibvan and local traditions being too strong. We have a netto migration into our social system from Muslim countries already, Muslim migrants cost our social systems more, than they pay back into it later on. They are very different in these regards,m than migration groups from other places.

I do not want to set precedents that we cannot afford. They now talk so much about those interpreters. But the point is for every interpreter we give asylum, there are a hundred Afghans more that morally we then also would have the obligation to let in, because they are not less at risk then these interpreters.

And again, I do not consider the job of the interprters as a service they did on behalf of Germany, but on behalf of their own country, or their own job and incom,e interest. Why that should create a moral obligation for us, is beyond me. That'S why I said to Jim: for mere generosity and humane reasons, get those two thousand interpreters out, with their wifes and kids, but no further family. An obligation they cclaim we have to them, I do not see there. We went there to their help, not the other way around. Ifd the Afghans would not have cooperated a bit, it wopuld have been to their own disadvanatge over the time the troops were there, becasue then the troops would have find it even harder to do something regharding the population.

I refuse to accept a beggar's claim that when I give him something I next have an obligation to give him even more. That may sound not sentimental enough for some, and not romantic. But I am not a too sentimental person by nature. And in the end, I know whose money gets payed and payed and payed more over all this. Ours. what was the status of our tax rates, and the debt levels, and the status of our nation's fiscal systems last time we checked them, how many times our nations GDPs have our implcit debt burdens climbed to already? Can we really afford adventures like this Afghan enterprise?

There is an economic basis to everything. Even to the afghanistan war. Even to being generous or not to asylum seekers. We should make sure that those we let in contribute more than what gets payed out to them. That demands certain education levels. That demands minimum health levels. That demands integration willingness.

To socially thinking people, that may sound rude. But it is the hard fact of life. Nothing is for free, somebody has to pay the bills. I refuse to bypass my head just because my heart wants to wallow in warm feelings. Warm feelings get you nowhere. Calm minds doing cool calculations - that was what would have been needed before Iraq, and Afghanistan. See where the lack of that attitude has led both adventures: two strategic defeats, disappointed illusions, broken promises, and another human tragedy waiting to unfold.

[u crank]

I understood you very well. I just put the finger into a moral wound there that we tend to constantly agree in the West. We went there and thought we could bypass the laws of nature,l so to speak. Make it all good with just good will of ours.

The truth is we intervened in a five year old civil war with the excuse that some of the participants were involved in a terrorist attack on the United States. Turns out that none of the participants were Afghan citizens or members of the Taliban. Oops.

We would need not just years but decades more to change that place FOR THEM. We cannot do that. They have to do it themselves, or they don't. That is evolution growing from themselves. We cannot bring them revolution.

Agreed. Completely. If anything we, U.S. and NATO have set that possibility back indefinitely.

Then the old bills. Family set against family, using the opportunity to settle an old bill or a recent dispute by reporting the other to the Tlaiban once they have taken over.

Yes there will be revenge. It is a way of life in any lawless society. In a tribal one like Afghanistan it is a certainty.

That is why I am so pedantic over the original issue. We cannot take them all, and obviously we cannot take over their country and make it better for them.

Right on both accounts. But we could take some. Some is better than none.

And again, I do not consider the job of the interpreters as a service they did on behalf of Germany, but on behalf of their own country, or their own job and incom,e interest. Why that should create a moral obligation for us, is beyond me.

Hmm... We did invade their country and turn it into a full scale battle ground for twelve years. Obligation....maybe just a little.

That'S why I said to Jim: for mere generosity and humane reasons, get those two thousand interpreters out, with their wifes and kids, but no further family.

That is the very least we could and should do.

But I am not a too sentimental person by nature.

I noticed that. :har:

Sorry, couldn't pass up that opportunity.:oops:

Can we really afford adventures like this Afghan enterprise?

Calm minds doing cool calculations - that was what would have been needed before Iraq, and Afghanistan. See where the lack of that attitude has led both adventures: two strategic defeats, disappointed illusions, broken promises, and another human tragedy waiting to unfold.

Agreed. Especially the strategic part. Were there any that were achievable?

[Skybird]

The truth is we intervened in a five year old civil war with the excuse that some of the participants were involved in a terrorist attack on the United States.

America did. Euriopean NATO countries offere dtheir assistance in a bid for prevemjting a full scale war and settling the issue by non-martialö nation building, but america said "No, this show we run all alone". Not before the stakes were raised, the Tlaioban camke back in force and America relaised thast with Afghjanistan AND Iraq it had bit off more than it could chew the Americans suddenly wanted help from NATO, and under US command of course. At that point however Europeans should have said No, for they were planned to just bear the conseqeunces of the mistakes and stuoid errors made by Bush'S gang aft5er underestmating Afghanistan and havign shifted forces out of the coutnry and toward Iraq. Friendship does not mean one is obligated to show soldiarity for the stupidity and irresoknisiblity of th eother.

And anyway: what does "friendship" means between nations, Europe and the US? I never believed in friendship between nations. The current NSA revelations just once again proves that assessment right. Friends would not really spy on each others economies and try to steal business secrets and product technologies. There might be friendships between individual people of different nations. But never between nations themselves.


Turns out that none of the participants were Afghan citizens or members of the Taliban. Oops.
They gave them shelter and actively protected them. That is the same. Fly with the crows, get shot with the crows. Different to Iraq, I can understand the American reaction after 9/11 as far as Afghanistan is concerned. It's just that I would have done it differently, and that there would not have been any Iraq war with me, but a full scale war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and a stay in Afghanistan in full force instead of destracting resources for Iraq. If I had my way, there either would be no Afghanistan and Pakistan anymore - or some hundred thousand extremists and Taliban woulöd be dead by now and their structures in the region shattered and their bases and retreat areas destroyed. NO MATTER WHAT. But one is so very much concerned with giving war a civilised face. That's why one is loosing them. Wars are not won be deescalating the effort, but by escalating the effort . Bitter, certainly not nice - but true. If one is not ready to agree with that, one better does not support a decision for war, for defeat is almost certain. There is no such thing like civilised war.

[Tribesman]

If I had my way, there either would be no Afghanistan and Pakistan anymore - or some hundred thousand extremists and Taliban woulöd be dead by now and their structures in the region shattered and their bases and retreat areas destroyed. NO MATTER WHAT.
Its been a while, but now we see again how Skybird is completely insane, with a CAPSLOCK too.
Breivik would be so proud of you and your dreams of genocide.:doh:

[u crank]

America did. Euriopean NATO countries offere dtheir assistance in a bid for prevemjting a full scale war and settling the issue by non-martialö nation building, but america said "No, this show we run all alone". Not before the stakes were raised, the Tlaioban camke back in force and America relaised thast with Afghjanistan AND Iraq it had bit off more than it could chew the Americans suddenly wanted help from NATO, and under US command of course.

Yes there is some truth to that. But NATO nations were probably involved without public knowledge. In Sean M. Maloney's book Enduring the Freedom he claims that members of Joint Task Force 2, Canada's elite special operations force were in Afghanistan in early October 2001 without the Prime Minister's permission. Hmm..?

Task Force K-Bar operated in Afghanistan from October 2001 to April 2002. It had members from U.S., Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark. This was before the NATO deployment in 2003.

At that point however Europeans should have said No,

Good in theory and hindsight but at the time not practical.

They gave them shelter and actively protected them. That is the same. Fly with the crows, get shot with the crows.

Yea it's true they were there and the Taliban was giving them shelter. But was it worth getting involved in a twelve year long war that cost trillions of dollars, thousands of casualties and undoubtedly increased the resolve of Jihadists worldwide? I for one do not think the pay off and the price add up. As I said we have probably made the situation worse. We will probably see in the near future. I would not want to be a citizen of Afghanistan.

[Skybird]

Yea it's true they were there and the Taliban was giving them shelter. But was it worth getting involved in a twelve year long war that cost trillions of dollars, thousands of casualties and undoubtedly increased the resolve of Jihadists worldwide?

Were 3000 murdered Americans not worth to launch a war against those committing the deed, planning it - and those suzppoortiung, hiding them, giving them, shelter? If 9/11 was no reason to kill those doing the deed, what ever then would be a reason?

Different from that question is the way the war was run.

However, Iraq was a war of desire that was intended ten years in advance (I feel uncomfortable to call that ammount of dilletantism and naivety by which Bush assumed to be able to run the show, "planning the war" - obviously the Bush administration dig out the old neocon intention only without turning that intention into a proper war plan. Not only unscrupulous gangsters they were, but incompetent unscrupulous gangster). Afghanistan was a war of need that came unforseen and surprising, America had to react to 9/11, else it could have said goodbye to its claim to be a big nation and having a say in global things. An empire cannot afford to not react to an attack and provocation the scale of 9/11. I have never criticised the US for having gone to war in Afghanistan over the Al Quaeda leaders hiding there. I only criticised the US for the way they ran the event, and over Iraq in general.

[u crank]

Were 3000 murdered Americans not worth to launch a war against those committing the deed, planning it - and those suzppoortiung, hiding them, giving them, shelter? If 9/11 was no reason to kill those doing the deed, what ever then would be a reason?

I'm not arguing that point. The U.S. would of course want to get those responsible. The very fact that when Bin Laden was located and eliminated by a very small force is evidence that an all out boots on the ground campaign was unnecessary. The fact that he was in another country is more evidence. The fact that much of the top leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been eliminated by drone and air strikes , much of it again in another country is more evidence. The fact that very little of lasting value has been accomplished in the war zone is more evidence. The fact that this piece of God forsaken real estate will be back in the hands of the Taliban in a few years is more evidence that the war, that type of war, was a strategic mistake.

Maybe we should have consulted with the Russians first.

[Jimbuna]

Maybe we should have consulted with the Russians first.

Or the British before them :03:

[August]

The very fact that when Bin Laden was located and eliminated by a very small force is evidence that an all out boots on the ground campaign was unnecessary.


I'd say that without that ground campaign the small force raid would never have occurred. First to eject bin laden from his Tora Bora stronghold and then as a base from which to mount the raid.

[u crank]

I'd say that without that ground campaign the small force raid would never have occurred. First to eject bin laden from his Tora Bora stronghold and then as a base from which to mount the raid.

That's a good point August, but where there is a will there is a way. Once they knew where he was there was probably more than one option to eliminate him. Also the U.S. military was still operating out of bases in Pakistan at the time, May 2011.

[Skybird]

Initially there was little ground activity involved by reguzlar US armed forces. The campaign that discplaed Al Quaeda and Mullah Omar from Afghanbistan and into Pakistan, was for the most an air-based camoaign with special forces on the ground for intel, training the Mujaheddin, and target ID. AQ and MO then evaded into Pakistan and took support by the Pakistani secret servicew ISI, until the day Bin Laden was killed.

I personally would have left any idea of nation building in Afghanistan out of the effort, but would have shifted the centre of the war from Afghanistan to the place sin Pakiustan where AQ and the Taliban were finding shelter. And again, I would have focussed on using air-borne and not so much ground resources. With drone warfare unfolding more and more over the past ten years, that would have been the weapon of choice, together with ELINT, HUMINT, special forces.

I would have never considered to try changing Afghanistan into something different. What has been done, will get lost over the next couple of years. The little progress here and there, will get lost. The place is not worth the life of a single Westernb soldier.

And the big bad enemy in the region is Pakistan anyway.

Of course, a shifting of focus and resources form Afghanistan would not have happened with me, too. Because there would not hjave been an Iraq war - maybe later for very good reasons emerging in the years since 2003 which may have become significant. But that is speculation. For the lies given to the public, and for the (planned) profit interests of American companies associated with Cheney, Bush, Carlyle group and Halliburton and so on - no invasion would have happened.

Israel is trying since long time to close ties and military relations with India. Last time I read ab out it they are doing fine. America should follow that example. That would be a move against China, and Pakistan, and Northkorea. Skip Pakistan from the buddy list.

American relations with certain gulf states also need serious reconsidering. One tgries to dance with friends and enemies at the same time, and one tries to dance on the parties of Israel's enemies and it's more neutral diplomatic partners at the same time. The American egg-dance in the ME is unique, absurd, hilarious and one of the biggest jokes in modern history. I really believe Washington has no clue at all about the whole region, and never had. The latest visit of McCain and the other senator in Egypt, and some of their "comments" quoted in the press, really had me laughing loud, and I mean that, don't type that just as a phrase: I was laughing loud. Not to forget Obama'S fantastic Cairo speech to the Islamic world. :har: Oh my!

[Skybird]

That's a good point August, but where there is a will there is a way. Once they knew where he was there was probably more than one option to eliminate him. Also the U.S. military was still operating out of bases in Pakistan at the time, May 2011.

They believed to know where he was several times. And every time they were wrong or he escaped. Tora Bora bombardment just being the most famous example for trying to kill Bin Laden.

I have no doubt that there never was an order to catch him, but to find and kill him. Nothing was more unpleasant than the image of Bin Laden's lawyer playing the fiddle of the legal system up and down and back and forth.

If they would have been able to hit him earlier, I have no doubt they would have done it.

[August]

They believed to know where he was several times. And every time they were wrong or he escaped. Tora Bora bombardment just being the most famous example for trying to kill Bin Laden.

I have no doubt that there never was an order to catch him, but to find and kill him. Nothing was more unpleasant than the image of Bin Laden's lawyer playing the fiddle of the legal system up and down and back and forth.

If they would have been able to hit him earlier, I have no doubt they would have done it.

The order as I recall was either to capture or kill bin laden, depending on which one was most feasible at the time.

A Special Forces assault into Tora Bora or any defended area would have been extremely risky with a very low chance of success, so it made sense to bomb the crap out of it and hope to bury him. A secret and relatively undefended hideout over the border in Pakistan on the other hand dictates a commando raid that can get in and out quickly.

That's why it happened the way it did.

[Skybird]

I do not complain about Tora Bora, so you must not defend it.

On the order to capture him dead or alive, you may believe what they tell you it it makes you feel like being in the "right" team that way. I say that the theatre scene they play on stage for the public, and the real commands (that maybe even never are given in wording or writing but nevertheless are clear in what they mean and intend), are two very different things. In this case, and in so many others as well. Bin Laden was never to be captured alive, never. The mission was hunt, find, kill. And again, I do not complain about that.

[August]

I do not complain about Tora Bora, so you must not defend it.

On the order to capture him dead or alive, you may believe what they tell you it it makes you feel like being in the "right" team that way. I say that the theatre scene they play on stage for the public, and the real commands (that maybe even never are given in wording or writing but nevertheless are clear in what they mean and intend), are two very different things. In this case, and in so many others as well. Bin Laden was never to be captured alive, never. The mission was hunt, find, kill. And again, I do not complain about that.

Well that's just your opinion Sky, you have no proof that this was indeed US policy. Not beliefs or feelings, just fact.

[Skybird]

You onl yhave headlines from papers saying "our glorious and honest authorities have ruled/said/claimed that..."

Believing that is naivety.

Your country could not have had any interest in making a years-long law-show with Bin Laden. Just look how hilarious it has become with all the implications around Guantanamo. There also was a strong message to be sent to the bad boys in the world: another reason to assume there never was the inention to get Bin Laden alive, but to hit him. Then, a member of the specail forces participating in the raid released a book some months ago in which he revealed what he claims is his knowledge of the operation: he said: there never was the intention to catch him, but to kill him.

Stop to blindly trust so submissively in your leaders just because they claim something for the cameras and are higher in the hierarchy than you are. America is not any less a misinformed and manipulated place and people, like Germany or Europe. You are being manipulated and lied to the same like we are. A president is no saint. He is the highest rankling manipulator in charge. Paper is patient, ink does never complain. Check for where the interests of actors lead you - that means so much more than what they claim in the media what they want. Have you still nothing learned from Vietnam Watergate, Bush and Iraq, and the many more less popular revelations about how the game is run? Lie and know you are being lied to, betray and know that you get betrayed - that is the real name of the political game.

[Jimbuna]

The chances are there may well have been an order to kill rather than capture and then have to put up with the ensuing legal circus on the world stage but I doubt we'll ever find out the truth.

The fact remains, Bin Laden is gone for good and with him gone there is a lot of justice and closure for those he was instrumental in killing....good riddance to bad rubbish!!

[August]

Stop to blindly trust so submissively in your leaders.

Oh and I should believe you Skybird? What makes you an authority?

[Skybird]

You should not believe anything, anyone. You should consider to add 1 and 1 together yourself instead of just taking the calculation result of somebody else for granted.

Especially if that somebody can only count from now to the next election.

[August]

You should not believe anything, anyone. You should consider to add 1 and 1 together yourself instead of just taking the calculation result of somebody else for granted.

Especially if that somebody can only count from now to the next election.


Well I have added 1 and 1 together, with my superior knowledge of both my country and it's military and the result I get is that you are talking out of your 4th point of contact.

[Skybird]

You will repeat history, since you refuse to learn from it.

[August]

Repeat bin Ladens death? Unlikely.