Afghan interpreters petition delivered to Cameron

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Sorry, couldn't pass up that opportunity.

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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.

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.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

Maybe we should have consulted with the Russians first.

Or the British before them

[August]

Originally Posted by u crank

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]

Originally Posted by August

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. Oh my!