Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who benefits from the war in Afghanistan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who benefits from the war in Afghanistan?

    Well I suggest that we discuss the issue from different angles no matter how fantastic and incredible they may sound.
    As a proper Chinese I do think that Japan surely benefits from it. You see itís an open secret that after WWII the japs were banned from having full-fledged Armed Forces, only the Ďde-balledí Self-Defense forces were allowed. However nowadays Tokyo tries its best to convince the world and primarily the USA that it really needs a normal army rather than the one it has now. And such hot spots are absolutely necessary for that purpose so as they could send their military somewhere! Itís said the **** even promise Washington to change all NATO troops except the American ones in ISAF if theyíre allowed to have the Armed Forces they want! Well... so that the flame of the conflict doesnít fade theyíre also constantly adding oil to it by meeting the Taliban leaders and giving them pieces of really hush-hush info. BTW these are not my wild guesses but real and genuine facts many times reported to American commanders. However thatís a different story...
    To be frank, I believe the japs are dealing not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan and maybe even somewhere else... Well thatís my point of view, now yours please...

  • #2
    Who are you?

    Comment


    • #3
      Dragonfly Reply

      Let me introduce you to Officer of Engineers. He is a retired Canadian lieutenant colonel of engineers. His gentle question regarding your identity is a not-so-subtle suggestion to get your azz up to the MEMBER INTRODUCTION thread and provide us with a proper brief about your background, interests, reasons for being here, etc.

      This is our home. You don't barge into another's home without introducing yourself. Please be so kind as to do so.

      It might assure you see the sun rise at WAB one more day.;)
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #4
        Steve, I'm thinking this is a bot.

        Comment


        • #5
          OoE Reply

          "Steve, I'm thinking this is a bot."

          Colonel,

          Then you know what must be done, sir.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #6
            it is a bot (his ip is listed in several spam-lists), and he is taken care of. And while the op is not much more then a flaimbait, Afghanistan is a serious topic which deserves to be discussed. If there is any interest here from our organic members to have one here the thread will stay open, otherwise it'll get locked.

            Comment


            • #7
              s a proper Chinese I do think that Japan surely benefits from it. You see it’s an open secret that after WWII the japs were banned from having full-fledged Armed Forces, only the ‘de-balled’ Self-Defense forces were allowed.
              Between them and the Juice one has to keep their eyes on them.
              To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

              Comment


              • #8
                Well this Gen is saying what the majority have known for years .


                Reuters



                The West is fighting a war against al Qaeda in which its forces can contain Islamic militancy but cannot achieve a conventional military victory, Britain's most senior officer was quoted as saying on Sunday.




                Chief of the Defence Staff General David Richards underlined Britain's aim to end its combat role in Afghanistan by 2014-15 but did not estimate how much longer after that coalition troops would need to support Afghan security forces.

                "First of all, you have to ask: 'Do we need to defeat it (Islamist militancy) in the sense of a clear cut victory?'" Richards told the Sunday Telegraph. "I would argue that it is unnecessary and would never be achieved."

                "But can we contain it to the point that our lives and our children's lives are led securely? I think we can."

                His comments are the latest from Western military leaders and politicians who have been paving the way for coalition forces to exit Afghanistan over the coming years, even though the Taliban remains a significant threat to security there.

                U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron hope to start bringing troops home next year.

                The general, who became head of Britain's armed forces last month, said the region should be stabilised before any withdrawal is completed.

                "We are equally clear that we have got to support the operation thereafter to make sure that our legacy is an enduring one," he said.

                Separately, Richards said he would back Prince Harry if the young royal wanted to return to the front line in Afghanistan but said Prince William should probably avoid the conflict.

                "I would advise ... that right now he shouldn't. He's not trained to go out there so it's actually a slightly academic issue," he said.

                "However, with Prince Harry, who spent 10 weeks in Helmand in 2008 and is known to be keen to return to the front line, it is a different matter."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Just why are we wasting time,money,and lives on these people



                  Nearly one in ten of the politicians who won a place in Afghanistan's parliament in a September poll have been disqualified for fraud, the country's election watchdog said Sunday.

                  The latest blow to a vote already plagued by allegations of widespread corruption comes a day after NATO wrapped up a major summit in Lisbon where Afghanistan topped the agenda, particularly an exit plan for foreign troops there.

                  Twenty-one candidates who had earned a winning number of votes in their district were banned, said Ahmad Zia Rafat, part of the five-person Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) panel. There are 249 seats in parliament.

                  "Due to irregularities, usage of fake votes and the influence of provincial officials, which created electoral fraud, we decided to disqualify votes in their favour," Rafat told a news conference in the Afghan capital.

                  Seven of those disqualified were sitting members of parliament, and one is a first cousin of President Hamid Karzai, who shares his surname. The rejected candidates will not be able to appeal, Rafat added.

                  Final results have still not been released more than two months after the September 18 poll, because of the sheer volume of complaints to investigate, but the disqualifications could pave the way for a conclusion of the election process.

                  The credibility of the eventual result will weigh heavily when U.S. President Barack Obama reviews his Afghan war strategy next month amid rising violence and sagging public support.

                  The ECC will pass the names to the Independent Election Commission which is tasked with announcing the new members of the wolesi jirga, or lower house of parliament.

                  "Based on our findings, the IEC should release the final results," Rafat said.

                  Complaints about fraud and vote rigging began before Afghans even went to the polls, although limited violence on the day meant it was initially hailed by Afghan officials as a success.

                  Civilian and military casualties this year have been the highest since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, despite the presence of around 150,000 foreign troops, and violence has spread to previously peaceful northern and western provinces.

                  Scores of candidates have alleged bribe-taking or fraud by election officials and called for a new poll. Some have warned that a parliament that does not take properly represent the country's various ethnicities would lead to instability.

                  There were over 6,000 complaints made to the ECC, and the IEC, which administered the vote, threw out as invalid almost a quarter of the 5.6 million votes it said had been cast.

                  The IEC is itself is also being investigated by the attorney general's office over election fraud.

                  FRAUD AROUND THE COUNTRY

                  The disqualified candidates came from all around the country -- including western Farah and Herat provinces, eastern Paktika, northern Badakhshan, central Wardak and southern Taliban heartlands Kandahar and Helmand.

                  They include at least two Karzai allies including his first cousin Ashmat Khalil Karzai, once ran a security company, and Haji Niaz Mohammad Lalai who is a former jihadi commander close to the President. Both had run in Kandahar.

                  The election went ahead despite a Taliban threat to disrupt it, but Western nations have been wary of dubbing it a success after last year's fraud-marred presidential ballot.

                  Donors who paid for the $149 million (93 million pounds) poll are less concerned about turnout or individual results for the 249 seats than the level of fraud committed.

                  Unsuccessful candidates warned that if the final makeup of parliament is heavily tainted by corruption, or does not offer proper representation for the country's different ethnicities, it could create resentment that will fuel instability.

                  "The mafia has taken over parliament, the ethnic representation of the this country is completely demolished," said Dawood Sultanzoy, an outspoken current member of parliament. He says many of his votes were unfairly disqualified and he currently does not expect to hold his seat.

                  "(This) can send hundreds of thousands of people into the arms of the insurgency," he added.
                  Last edited by tankie; 21 Nov 10,, 17:39.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    tankie, et al,

                    There is little to no question that the GEN Richards has the right understanding.
                    Originally posted by EXCERPTS: tankie View Post
                    The West is fighting a war against al Qaeda in which its forces can contain Islamic militancy but cannot achieve a conventional military victory, Britain's most senior officer (Chief of the Defence Staff General David Richards) was quoted as saying on Sunday.
                    (COMMENT)

                    I only wish our Generals would be as forthcoming. It would change the domestic dynamics.
                    Originally posted by EXCERPTS: tankie View Post
                    "We are equally clear that we have got to support the operation thereafter to make sure that our legacy is an enduring one," ... ... ... said Chief of the Defence Staff, General David Richards.

                    The general, who became head of Britain's armed forces last month, said the region should be stabilized before any withdrawal is completed.

                    "We are equally clear that we have got to support the operation thereafter to make sure that our legacy is an enduring one," he said.
                    (COMMENT)

                    Here is the hat trick. What is the difference between:
                    • "stabilized before any withdrawal is completed"
                    • "conventional military victory"
                      [Given That:]"but cannot achieve a conventional military victory"
                    • Does this mean some sort of "unconventional victory?"

                    On the one hand, GEN Richards says we "cannot achieve a conventional military victory;" but, on the other hand, we must "stabilized before any withdrawal is completed." I'm having a hard time visualizing what that looks like. No "victory" but "stabilized." In a conventional setting, that is some sort of Armistice or DMZ (a military draw). How do you do that in an environment like Afghanistan?

                    Is that what Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, in his talks with the Taliban, is working toward? Is President Karzai, in order to stabilize the country, going to give-up part of Afghanistan to the Taliban, and creating a new state?

                    Most Respectfully,
                    R

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Who benefits, when a war is taking place, between two parties? Both the parties suffer, but each party sees it's own quantum of suffering as more than that of the opposing party. Who suffered more, during the Second World War, the Axis, or the Allies? During the Vietnam War? During the wars between India and Pakistan? I admire the soldier, but I hate his profession. I would rather there be super-soldiers, who never have to fight any war. I suppose, I should feel guilty, because I am interested in the many facets of war. What I understand about this is, that conflict is inevitable, and one party in a conflict, wants to gain an advantage over the other, through the conflict. This causes the conflict to deepen. We are in conflict within nations, societies, and families, today. Should we be?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        AdityaMookerjee, et al,
                        Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
                        We are in conflict within nations, societies, and families, today.
                        • Should we be?
                        (BLUF)

                        NO!

                        But that is a logical answer, not based in the reality of the human mental variable.
                        The type of "Conflict," which we are discussing, is war (armed conflict) between two or more belligerents that have simultaneous but incompatible agendas and interests, for which diplomatic efforts have failed to resolve in a peaceful outcome.
                        Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
                        Who benefits, when a war is taking place, between two parties?
                        (COMMENT)

                        This is a trick question. Who benefits:
                        • From the outcome of the war.
                        • From the profits during the war.


                        "When a war is taking place:" Seldom do any of the participants (parties to the conflict), usually governments, benefit financially. There may be other types of benefits derived between cultures or systems in common cause. The value of a bond between nations. So it depends on the value and type of benefit we are talking about in this context. One can generally say that "Arms Dealers" (both conventional open source and underground dealerships) tend to recognize the first profits in the immediate short-term. This is particularly true when state actors engage non-state actors.

                        In terms of state actors, it again depends on the decision making process. During a conflict there is the potential for the credibility of a nation(s) to rise in terms of its character, honor, integrity and compassion; as well as in recognition of military prowess.
                        Rational Assessment:
                        • War is an outcome in which at least one party to the conflict has made a cost-benefit analysis (CB:A) that they will achieve their desired position within the benefit range that is equal to, or greater than, the "total probable (or estimated) liabilities associated with the conflict. In the simplest of terms: B>=(p)L
                        • The opposition makes a similar CB:A in the decision process to capitulate or fight. Is the defense of the position within the benefit range that is equal to, or greater than, the "total probable (or estimated) liabilities associated with the conflict.
                        • Before surrendering, at least one party to the conflict must reassess the continued costs and projected outcomes to determine the viability of the ongoing struggle.

                        Irrational Assessment:
                        Again, there are CB:A's performed; but they are not necessarily concerned with the diplomatic discussions; but rather on a hidden agenda.
                        • Tangible benefits: Immediately obvious and measurable investment returns.
                        • Intangible benefit: Not immediately obvious and/or measurable, but critical ideologically or conceptually and tied directly to the conflict winner.
                        • Indeterminate Agenda: Not consistent with or using reason.
                        • Fundamentalist Agenda: Essential to a set idea which cannot be compromised.
                        • Imperative to Continuation: An intangible valued beyond measure.
                        Most Respectfully,
                        R

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Perhaps, one does not measure loss, in any capacity, before loss is measured. I do not compare Obama to Hitler, but Obama is finding out, that it is very difficult to estimate the outcome of war. In my estimation, the 'War on Terror' was won, not long after it was started. If The Americans had made a hasty withdrawal, would the Taliban have found it so easy to come back? If so, why? NATO has stayed back on it's own accord, even after crushing the militants in Afghanistan. I believe, that there is a blood feud on the part of the Pashtuns, against the United States, and Pakistan. The United States did not understand, that an attack on a Pashtun tribes person, is seen as an attack on the whole tribe. I do not know, how many Pashtun's feel a blood feud towards Pakistan, and the United States, especially after the Pakistan Army attack on 'Khyber Pakhtunwa', the new Pakistani name for the North West Frontier Province. The Pashtoon's are perhaps responsible for the many bomb blasts in Pakistan. The West may see them as being a commodity to be purchased, but they are very loyal to their own people. Pakistan will never control Afghanistan, again. They may have to cede 'Khyber Pakhtunwa', to Afghanistan, to get peace in return from the Pakhtoons. How else can the Pakistan government make peace with the Pashtoons(Pakhtoons)?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            AdityaMookerjee, et al,
                            Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
                            If The Americans had made a hasty withdrawal, would the Taliban have found it so easy to come back? If so, why?
                            (COMMENT)

                            This is a parable of when enough is enough.

                            No political situation remains constant. If the US had withdrawn immediately after al-Qaeda was massively struck, we fall into predictions. The threat was, at that time, al-Qaeda and not the Taliban.

                            REMEMBERING:
                            • Al-Qaeda was the "international terrorist threat." (Possing NO threat to the US.)
                            • The Taliban became the "repressive government regime in exile." (Possing a "demonstrated threat" with international consequences.)

                            There would be several questions (major issues) that would have to be contemplated.
                            • After suffering major damage to their infrastructure, what would be the reconstruction and reconstitution for the Taliban?
                            • Would the Taliban allow al-Qaeda to re-enter Afghan territory without opposition?
                            • How long after being disbursed would it take al-Qaeda to reconstitute their forces, rebuild encampments, and re-establish a command and control center in support of international terrorist operations?

                            Then there would be the cost-benefit analysis.
                            • How much would it cost to periodically conduct massive strikes to suppress al-Qaeda after they re-establish bases and networks?
                              VERSUS
                            • How much would it cost to leave a stay-behind force to continue eradication programs?

                            We now know that the latter would have been much cheaper; but, there was know way to effectively know that when the decision was made.
                            Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
                            The United States did not understand, that an attack on a Pashtun tribes person, is seen as an attack on the whole tribe. I do not know, how many Pashtun's feel a blood feud towards Pakistan, and the United States, especially after the Pakistan Army attack on 'Khyber Pakhtunwa', the new Pakistani name for the North West Frontier Province. The Pashtoon's are perhaps responsible for the many bomb blasts in Pakistan. The West may see them as being a commodity to be purchased, but they are very loyal to their own people. Pakistan will never control Afghanistan, again. They may have to cede 'Khyber Pakhtunwa', to Afghanistan, to get peace in return from the Pakhtoons. How else can the Pakistan government make peace with the Pashtoons(Pakhtoons)?
                            (COMMENT)

                            I agree that the SE Afghan//NWFP Pak poses a dilemma for the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has an indigenous population (you call tribal) that is nationalistic in nature; with cultural defense reflexes that are territorial in scope. They are not unlike the Kurds, in this respect. A people lost in time and sitting aside the borders of more than one nation.

                            I believe that the the US Senior Leadership, at that time, was not focused on the problem and understanding the inner workings of the Pashtuns as one of the world's largest and ancient patriarchal ethnic groups.

                            However, with the demise of the last King of Afghanistan (Zahir Shah - King Amanullah Khan), the Pashtuns allowed themselves to be dominated by the Taliban --- and in that --- chose their own destiny. They willing chose to separate themselves from the remainder of the world, becoming what they are today --- what they are known for today. It is extremely difficult to tell, with the Pashtun, where the ancient culture ends and the Taliban begins until the blood flows.

                            But again, the remnants of al-Qaeda (the original threat) does not live in isolation. It is without question that the Taliban (Pashtuns) is providing some safe haven and subsistence for them.

                            The unanswered question is that of the people of Afghanistan. Do they want ISAF to withdraw and leave them to their chosen destiny. I believe that if the people spoke with one voice, the UN Mandate would be withdrawn. But for the Pashtun to do that, they would need to stipulate a leader (if they can let one live long enough) to throw that voice to be heard. Until then, they are merely a chaotic and feudal culture with no aspirations or direction; largely cut-off from the rest of the world; living under the dominate thumb of their own making.

                            Most Respectfully,
                            R

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              We have lost 9 Marines the last 4 days in Afghanistan. I haven't seen anything above that justifies this. Help me to understand....please.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X