The taliban pre 2001 do not exist anymore. Its not a contest of “who’s more statist”- the point is the US is fighting Afghan civilians- and those are the only people they are really fighting in Afghanistan. I don’t buy this argument that “Well they’re really focusing on the ‘bad guys’ and not the innocent civilians”.
Lol like its funny to hear how “They blend in so easily with the civilian population”- that’s because they are the civilian population. Everyone has arms in afghanistan- that’s a normal part of their culture(hard not to when you’re constantly being invaded)- and the US labels everyone with arms a terrorist- a word that’s become synonymous with Taliban for some odd reason.
Its not like they wear uniforms or have a big sign on them that says “Taliban member here”. The word taliban also means “students”- so some Pashutn people can certainly say “We’re Taliban” and that is still a meanginless term when it comes to labeling the different groups fighting in the region. The biggest joke in the world is that the US is fighting people in Afghanistan that are hellbent on some sort of world dominance- probably the silliest thing in the world.
Why aren’t the bloods and crips labeled a terrorist organization and hellbent on world dominance? Because that’s also a silly idea.
The problem with politics is it’s never about what they say it’s about. 9/11 was just an exploitable opportunity to ram through the fascist policies and schemes they’ve been trying to pass for years. I recall watching poor halfwitted Dubya sitting up there boasting that every boogeyman the government has been antagonizing for years just happen to be the very same ones they need to go after again. Heck, he even babbled that drugs (but of course not the War on drugs) supports terrorism. Perhaps a more progressive neocon would blame trans-fat or a lack of climate change regulations.
Do you know the differences and simliarities between the tribes in afghanistan and pakistan? Have you actually been to one of the tribal regions in Pakistan and talked to anyone there? Most of the “Taliban” as they were- were killed during the US’s initial invasion removing them from power. Its no longer that same group of people. The only thing that you could use to tie the people who are fighting against the US now to the taliban is that they’re probably Muslim. The US is absolutely fighting Afghanis- not some foreign aliens.
Its hard to “know the differences” because of the language barrier, the chain of custody of information, the mutiple tribes and the fact that its hasnt been relevant to the conduct of my profession in almost three years. And I have never been to pakistan. Not that it will make any difference to you but th us military from 2001 doesnt exist anymore either, yet somehow we can still talk about their institutional pursuit of ideological goals. Across services, approximately 80 percent of first term enlisted personnel leave at their first opportunity, so the united states army in 2001 is not the united states army in 2005 is not the united states army in 2009. Furthermore the political leadership has changed multiple times, so I guess its not the us military anymore either.
the afghans I spoke to (through an interpreter) were able to make the distinction (between normal “afghan” tribe and taliban) as well, so I dont think I made it up.
actually I thought that you guys might have a more nuanced view of afghanistan, because it seems like they have done nothing but try and live in anarchy for thousands of years, but states and governments keep trying to impose a government on them. I suspect the whole reason for the taliban was that pakistan felt threatened by a stateless region and saw an opportunity to fix that problem. So its highly disconcerting to see supposed libertarians holding up totalitarian theocrats as “freedom fighters” just because they happen to be at war with totalitarian democrats.
as I alluded to above, I have been to afghanistan and I am superficially familiar with some of the history and situation. And I am certainly willing to be proven wrong. I would like to discuss the issue without being called all sorts of names because I appear to be misinformed.
as for your assertion that most of the refugees from madrassas were killed in the initial invasion, thats very interesting and I would like to see your source. I tried to find current taliban ideology but I think the only safe and reliable way would be to ask one of their ombudsmen in an isaf controlled area. But he would most likely tell you what he wanted you to hear.
And while we can debate the validity of my claims for weeks, I dont think I was out of line for thinking that the us military werent fighting hekmatyar when, guess what, while I was in afghanistan they werent fighting him.
The US has made two fatal mistakes in Afghanistan. First, they had no idea of the situation on the ground. The fact they picked a Tajik warlord from the Northern Alliance as their chief puppet means they understood very little even about the ethnical make-up of the country. Second, they have always lacked long term plans for Afghanistan. For example at the moment nobody knows what will happen after 2014. Over the course of the years we have been told we were in Afghanistan for the pipelines, for the mineral resources, to build military bases to “encircle” China etc. All these may have been valid points at some time but they surely weren’t part of a long term plan because there has never been a long term plan. Just like we were in Iraq “for the oil” and now PetroChina and Rosfnet are more deeply entrenched in Iraq than they have ever been while Saddam was in charge.
Right now the only plan has become to somehow proclaim victory and get out of there. The costs of maintaining a single soldier there are simply staggering, both politically and economically. And God only knows how much money has been literally flushed down the drain trying to “build a nation”. Again this withdrawal is part of ever changing medium-term plans in Washington: right now the proponents of “limited intervention” are on a meteoric rise after their success in ousting Khadafi in Lybia while the “nation builders” are in full retreat due to their dismal failure in Iraq. With both tight money and the need to keep large garrisons in such places as Germany and Korea “nation building” is becoming less and less fashionable.
Syria is the proving ground for the “limited intervention” people. It’s a much tougher nut to crack than Lybia. While President Assad is a tyrant, he is far more moderate than Khadafi, his father or Mubarak ever were. While not exactly beloved by most of his people he’s seen as a much better alternative than a Saudi-backed religious extremist or a US-installed military strongman. There are disturbing reports the “Syrian resistance” is actually made up of foreign mercenaries and CIA hirelings with the British military providing C3I. While it was easy to find disaffected people in Lybia (after all Khadafi favored his own clan and allied tribes at everybody else’s expenses) apparently President Assad is a better equilibrist and managed to find a way to balance his power. Much more critically Assad has pampered his army while Khadafi allowed it to become rife with dissent. The Syrian military isn’t defecting in droves as we were led to believe. I also find myself wondering at the need of all the propaganda and truth-building about Syria… after all there is no peace movement to speak of anymore and nobody asked my consent when it was time send troops to Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia etc.
Concerning the two underlined passages:
Depending on the extent to which you think “nations” at this point in world history are an illusion, and that ruling class is international, the fact that Americans have gotten little if anything in exchange for the cost of the Afghan War might not be a sign of incompetence. Generally speaking, imperialism is a losing proposition for the imperial nation as a whole, but the State and its cronies reap all of the benefits while the people pay all the costs, and so it’s not a losing proposition for the former. Likewise, it could be that the purpose of American involvement in Afghanistan is to benefit various non-American interests, if we suppose that those non-American interests and the American government are controlled by the same international ruling class, and so the Afghan war might not be a losing proposition for them. Worth considering. At times it’s incredibly obvious that conflicts between nations are as much a farce as conflicts between Republicans and Democrats; other times, they put on a good show and it’s hard to say whether it’s a farce or not.
You can say that again! Call me crazy, but the “Arab Spring” reminds me of the “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Republics, for which American “pro-democracy” NGOs were instrumental. Matter of fact, don’t we have some American employees of one of these wonderful philanthropic organizations (rolls eyes) being held prisoner in Egypt on espionage charges or some such as we speak?
Altogether, 43 people face trials over illegally operating in Egypt and receiving funds from abroad without permission from Egyptian authorities for their human rights and pro-democracy groups. Egypt charges that they fund and support anti-government protests. The groups deny that.
According to the English language Wikipedia. According to a recent Post article the Afghan death toll is 100,000, though I don’t know how much of that would have been caused by the US.
I am pretty sure I handled that above, but the US Military Dictatorship pre 2001 doesnt exist anymore, the Dallas Cowboys pre 2001 dont exist anymore, the Boston Celtics pre 2001 dont exist anymore, Guns n Roses pre2001 dont even exist anymore…how is any of this relevant? Maybe since we feel like making snarky comments, I should just unload a few more…who was the idiot who said “taliban” meant “students”? It is the dual form (not singular, not plural) of the word talib, and actually only refers to the actual taliban theocratic militia organization, not any random set consisting of exactly two talibs. However I always envisioned them as the guys in that famous picture with the rpk and the rpg, except in silhouette form, running away right as I was asking the questions. So who is going to explain how deobandi is the same as pushtunwali? I think that was an equivocation that I was being insulted for rejecting. Blah blah bla, war on civilians, its funny because I was infantry and I spent a ridiculous amount of time rehearsing rules of engagement that, if you dismiss the notion of trespassing, bear a pretty close resemblance to the non-aggression principle. We also gave away a crap ton of stuff, and as a philosopher, I am aware that unconditional charity can do more harm than good…lets just say the intent was not to do harm. Whatever, believe what you want, we shouldnt be there, goodnight.