Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)

[Infanteer]

Alright man, this discussion is getting WAY too intelectual for me.

Nice cop out; I'll take this as a sign that you are admitting that you are talking through your hat.

I don't see it as intellectual - you are making groundless statements that bear no resemblance to reality.  Put up or shut up.

 

[48Highlander]

A)  I don't much like arguing with people who go about slinging personal attacks without much provocation.

B)  I DEFFINITELY don't want to argue with you when you get into your "I'm the expert, I know everything, so y'all best STFU" mindset.

So I'm going to bow out before this gets any more ugly.  ok?

 

[Infanteer]

A)   I don't much like arguing with people who go about slinging personal attacks without much provocation.

B)   I DEFFINITELY don't want to argue with you when you get into your "I'm the expert, I know everything, so y'all best STFU" mindset.

So I'm going to bow out before this gets any more ugly.   ok?

Oh, okay - blame it all on me.  I'm not attacking you (I've yet to see any personal references), I've simply pointed out that your argument sucks.  You can accuse me of having an "I know everything mindset" but the fact is that you are making claims and you won't (or can't) substantiate them.  We generally prefer arguments to be factually and historically correct on these forums, so you can understand why you were questioned.

To spell it out clearly, you were challenged on your statements of:

Hardly.  There was no conflict in Afghanistan before we showed up,

...and:

Technicaly we helped start the conflict, so no, there WAS no conflict there before we showed up.

This doesn't have to "get ugly" - explain how these are true and quit deflecting the argument by playing the wounded bird because I challenged you.

 

[48Highlander]

Oh, ok, well if THAT is all I'm being challanged on, I've already admitted that it was an inaccurate statement.  Sure, there was conflict there before.  I didn't mean to suggest that the whole place had been one happy-happy hug-fest for all of recorded history, so I'm sorry if that's the impression you got.  What I was trying to get across is the idea that we didn't go there to help them settle their problems.  Since you don't seem to have a problem with that statement, I'm not sure why you're getting all worked up here.


And just for the record, the following DO count as personal attacks:

Here is some reading material since you have a tendency to pull history out of your ***.

WTF are you smoking?

I'm sure you are just making this up as you go.

 

[Infanteer]

Oh, ok, well if THAT is all I'm being challanged on, I've already admitted that it was an inaccurate statement.   Sure, there was conflict there before.

Okay - that's what I was looking for.  

What I was trying to get across is the idea that we didn't go there to help them settle their problems.

I think we did.  In a post 9/11 environment, we (especially the US) decided to quit allowing the ISI to drive Western policy on Afghanistan and we joined the Northern Alliance in helping them to win what was a decade long civil war in which the Taliban had arisen.  All of the reasons we are in Afghanistan were consequences of the proxy war started in the 1980's and never really stopped, so in essence we are there to help them settle their problems.  We aren't doing it in a neutral, blue-beret fashion though; we've picked a side that suits our interests.

And just for the record, the following DO count as personal attacks

Calling somebody an idiot because of a simple disagreement is a personal attack (which will be overlooked if provoked).  I never attacked you, I only questioned where you were getting your information from....  :-*

 

[48Highlander]

I think we did.  In a post 9/11 environment, we (especially the US) decided to quit allowing the ISI to drive Western policy on Afghanistan and we joined the Northern Alliance in helping them to win what was a decade long civil war in which the Taliban had arisen.  All of the reasons we are in Afghanistan were consequences of the proxy war started in the 1980's and never really stopped, so in essence we are there to help them settle their problems.  We aren't doing it in a neutral, blue-beret fashion though; we've picked a side that suits our interests.

That's....an interesting way of looking at it.  Did we go in to help the NA?  Or did we go in to kick the crap out of the Taliban, and invited the NA to help us do it?  End result is the same, but....

 

[Infanteer]

That's....an interesting way of looking at it.   Did we go in to help the NA?   Or did we go in to kick the crap out of the Taliban, and invited the NA to help us do it?   End result is the same, but....

If we were only interested in "kicking the crap out of the Taliban" then we would have been gone a long time ago - perhaps we wouldn't have even needed to go there in the first place.   By the time conventional US and Coalition Forces had arrived on the ground, the Northern Alliance (sans Masood) had largely driven the Taliban from Afghanstan.   The West contributed SF teams and airpower, but that shouldn't be seen as decisive (see the Biddle article I linked to earlier).   Up until about the 2000-2001 timeframe, we in the West largely supported the Taliban in an effort to see a unified government in Afghanistan.   It is only with the rise of Osama bin Laden that opinion gradually changed - after 9/11 we jumped onto a previously ignored Northern Alliance team and helped them win the fight.

We supported the Northern Alliance in creating the government you see today.   All the big figures in Afghanistan were anti-Taliban fighters before we even knew where Afghanistan was.   Hamid Karzai opposed the Taliban because the assassinated his father.   There are some anti-Taliban Pashtuns who opposed the Taliban along tribal lines.   Guys like Dostum and Ismail Khan opposed the Taliban on ethnic lines.

You said this is a stability op, which is correct - we are there to ensure that the fruits of a Northern Alliance victory do not go to waste (as victory over the communists did a decade ago).  We needed to sort out Afghanistans problems because they had become our problem.   We are very much there to help the NA as they were friendly to our interests of rooting out Al Qa'ida and stemming the spread of militant Sunni Islam to Central Asia (which is why Russia, Iran and China also happen to support the Northern Alliance).   Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF and the ongoing counterinsurgency are merely chapters in a long struggle.

 

[Britney Spears]

Hey 48th:



and guess who's on the cover?

 

[McG]

That's....an interesting way of looking at it.  Did we go in to help the NA?  Or did we go in to kick the crap out of the Taliban, and invited the NA to help us do it?  End result is the same, but....

If we were only interested in "kicking the crap out of the Taliban" then we would have been gone a long time ago - perhaps we wouldn't have even needed to go there in the first place.

We went into Afghanistan to defeat the head of AQ and the TB that was protecting it.  We are are still there to support the Afghani people to rebuild their government & its institutions.  If we did not stay to do this, the TB would have scurried back in on our departure like cockroaches when the lights go out.  We did not stay to hand the country to the Northern Alliance; we are still there to ensure that the "crap" remains permanently kicked out of the TB.

 

[Infanteer]

We did not stay to hand the country to the Northern Alliance

But that's what we essentially did, and that's why the Insurgency continues to simmer to the South, no?

From here

There are, essentially, three enemy forces operating against the Afghan government and its Coalition partners. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) organization, still seeking to influence the brokerage of power in Kabul, operates from areas east of the city and still mounts usually ineffective attacks on ISAF, OEF, and Afghan National Army forces in the capital. Taliban military formations have been completely reduced by OEF operating methods and appear to have shifted from guerilla warfare to pinprick terrorist attacks, usually in ethnically Pashtun areas in the southeast. Al Qaeda provides training and equipment to both HIG and the Taliban. Additionally, al Qaeda mounts its own limited raids on Coalition forces located on the border with Pakistan. These raids appear to employ the well-equipped remnants of al Qaeda’s “conventional” formations which worked with the Taliban prior to 2001. Unlike HIG and al Qaeda, the Taliban are still trying to create a parallel government to garner popular support in Pashtun areas with the aim of retaking the country. At this point, the synergy of HIG, the Taliban, and al Qaeda has been unable to significantly influence the direction that the Afghan people are taking under the Karzai government.6

It is fairly obvious that Hekmatyar, the Taliban and Al Qa'ida Brigade 55 are not participating in Afghanistans government - these were the opponents of the Northern Alliance prior to 9/11.  It was the Northern Alliance who reaped the benefit of Western intervention, allowing them to take the reigns of the state while folks like Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar were sent packing.

Sure, we may call the badguys cockroaches and think that there is some sort of moral victory to be achieved with voting, but we need to remember who is at the head of the pyramid in an Afghan society that still runs off of tribalism and ethnicity - we traded bad dudes like Mullah Omar for bad dudes like this guy, who aren't really much better; they are just more friendly to our interests for the time being.

 

[Infanteer]

1) We are not occupying Afghanistan - we are supporting the Afghan government - that is a huge difference from the Colonial activities of the British and the actions of the USSR.

Technically, that's what the Soviets were doing - they went in to support a friendly regime.  Even after they pulled out in 1989, Najibullah continued to govern, sparking warlords like Dostum and Hekmatyar to keep fighting for control.  In our case, we have friendly regime as well (in a non-purjorative sense); only this time it happens to be a democratic one.  The Brits tended to do the same after the occupation thing didn't work out.

 

[McG]

Technically, that's what the Soviets were doing - they went in to support a friendly regime. 

How much freedom did the Soviets give the Afghanis to define that regime in thier own terms?  We have even given the Afghanis the option to replace the top guy in a national election.

 

[Infanteer]

How much freedom did the Soviets give the Afghanis to define that regime in thier own terms?  We have even given the Afghanis the option to replace the top guy in a national election.

The conduct and end-state achieved is irrelevant - the Soviets were backing the Karmal/Najibullah government which existed before they invaded and after they left (1978-1992).  We are doing the same.  The fact that we are propping up a desirable government (to us; I'm willing to bet the Taliban or a significant chunk of Pakistan sees it as desirable) doesn't change the fact that we are supporting an Afghan government that serves our interests both in terms of humanitarian ideals and security.  The strings on the puppet may be much looser than when the Kremlin was there, but I fail to see a difference in what we are doing and what the Soviets did in political terms.

 

[KevinB]

Please tell me you've been on a bender buddy?

  Last time I looked we are not dropping butterfly mines or exterminating villages that harbour anti-government fighters...
We obey Afghan laws - and act in support of a lawfully established govvernment.

  I'm not going to say we are Mother Terressa - but the USSR's politcal rationale for occupying Afghan is not consistant with the support both politcally and militarily of the Coalition.

 

[enfield]

Equating the political actions is not the same as equating the ways and means - the politics may be the same, but the morals are not. I don't believe Infanteer is suggesting the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan is morally the same as the Soviet occupation, but the grand political scheme is similar.

I dislike the idea that we somehow act above the real politik that has run the world for 5,000 years; That somehow in 2006 Canada and our allies operate on some plateau of righteousness in our motivations. I think an in-depth examination of what NATO/US are doing in Afghanistan could bear a lot of similarities to the campaigns Britain waged there a century ago - local governments, colonial troops, moral authority, political interest, etc (including the colourful military features of regulars, local troops, irregulars, special operations, spies, mercenaries, PMCs, and CIMIC) - or a dozen other colonial frontiers, going back to Macedon.

 

[Infanteer]

Last time I looked we are not dropping butterfly mines or exterminating villages that harbour anti-government fighters...
We obey Afghan laws - and act in support of a lawfully established govvernment.

Again Kev, conduct and endstate is irrelevant to the comparion - I was looking at the two in political terms and not moral ones.  The Soviets were in country backing a friendly government and we are in country backing a friendly government.  Nothing more.

I, like Enfield, drew an issue with the occupation/support dichotomy that tried to set OEF/ISAF up as something unique.

 

[Gunner]

The Soviets were in country backing a friendly government and we are in country backing a friendly government. 

Soviets backed a puppet regime.  We were backing an internationally agreed upon leader to lead a failed state to stability and we are now backing a democratically elected leader and parliament. 

Large difference from a moral and international perspective.

 

[Infanteer]

Soviets backed a puppet regime.

Well, the only thing that kept Karzai around for the first few years was Western military forces, so you can't really lump the "prop up" on the Soviets.  As I said before, the strings were tighter with the Kremlin, but that is only shades of the same colour.  Remember, Najibullah's government was able to survive 3 or so years after the Soviet Union departed.  As well his predecessor Karmal, despite coming to power with backing from the Soviets, managed to run a de facto recognized government for a few years before the Soviets intervened.

Just because we didn't like the:

A) Soviets
B) Afghan Communist Regime that was in bed with the Soviets

Doesn't change the fact that politically, then and now were the same in political terms (supporting a friendly government).  I can't call the Soviet invasion a true occupation as their was a semblence of an Afghan government, a semblence of an Aghan military and a group of Afghanis who supported the Communist faction - just like we see now with OEF/ISAF.

 

[meni0n]

The west didn't exactly back the taliban but was waiting for them to mature to a more moderate muslim regime as Saudi Arabia did. Funny thing is, Afghanis enjoyed more personal freedom under Soviet backed governement ( women could go to school, work and not wear burkhas ), yet that governement was evil but when the taliban introduced all of the human rights restictions, there were very mild objections coming from the white house, canada or any other western country. Just goes to show you, foreign policy is always ruled by self-interests and thinking otherwise that we're good and pure and out to save the world is just living in a magical world.

 

[Gunner]

Well, the only thing that kept Karzai around for the first few years was Western military forces, so you can't really lump the "prop up" on the Soviets.  As I said before, the strings were tighter with the Kremlin, but that is only shades of the same colour. 

Infanteer, that is a pretty tenuous argument trying to lump the Soviet installed regime against Karzai and a UN sponsored, internationally approved, stability process commencing in December 2001, the Loyal Jurga in 2002, and democratic nationwide Presidential election in October 2004 and Parliamentary elections earlier this year.  Shades?  Difference is black and white.

Remember, Najibullah's government was able to survive 3 or so years after the Soviet Union departed.

Remember, the Soviet Union continued massive support to Najibullah's government.

Immediately after the Soviet departure, Najibullah pulled down the façade of shared government. He declared an emergency, removed Sharq and the other non-party ministers from the cabinet. The Soviet Union responded with a flood of military and economic supplies. Sufficient food and fuel were made available for the next two difficult winters.

Much of the military equipment belonging to Soviet units evacuating Eastern Europe was shipped to Afghanistan. Assured adequate supplies, the Afghan Air Force, which had developed tactics minimizing the threat from Stinger missiles, now deterred mass attacks against the cities. Medium-range missiles, particularly the Scud, were successfully launched from Kabul in the defense of Jalalabad, 145 kilometres miles away.

Victory at Jalalabad dramatically revived the morale of the Kabul government. Its army proved able to fight effectively alongside the already hardened troops of the Soviet-trained special security forces. Defections decreased dramatically when it became apparent that the resistance was in disarray, with no capability for a quick victory.

Soviet support reached a value of $3 billion a year in 1990. Kabul had achieved a stalemate which exposed the mujahedin's weaknesses, political and military. Najibullah's government survived for another two years. Eventually divisions within his own ranks, including the defection of General Abdul Rashid Dostam fatally weakened the government's resolve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah

Just because we didn't like the:
A) Soviets
B) Afghan Communist Regime that was in bed with the Soviets

True, we (or Ronald Reagon and the US) didn't like the Soviet's, but neither did most of the Afghani's.

Doesn't change the fact that politically, then and now were the same in political terms (supporting a friendly government).  I can't call the Soviet invasion a true occupation as their was a semblence of an Afghan government, a semblence of an Aghan military and a group of Afghanis who supported the Communist faction - just like we see now with OEF/ISAF.

I don't agree with your assessment.  If you were comparing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the US in Iraq it would be a much clearer analogy.

Cheers,