| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| It was never a grassroots guerrilla movement, and probably still isn't even now. You don't switch allegiences over night, regardless of what Newspapers say. They probably do get a lot of underground support even now. |
Well we could argue about what constitutes a 'grassroots' movement and then argue about the history of the rise of the Taleban, but for the sake of simplicity I'll just withdraw 'grassroots' and let 'rural guerrilla movement' stand. Without a doubt they had a huge amount of Pakistani support (and therefore Saudi money)- I highly doubt those officers were 'off-duty'. Afghanistan was and is the 'wild west' for Pakistani Intelligence, and it's very open to debate how strong the oversight is on it. And I agree about the allegiances, it's one of the many fine lines Musharraf is walking. The Taleban were good for Pakistan right up until the second they pissed off US by refusing to give up bin Laden.
The point I was trying to make (but didn't do a very good job) is that it's pretty much been viewed an outstanding victory- kicking the Taleban out of the national government and out of the cities. And it was- they no longer openly harbour and abeit Al Queda. But another view is that this defeat for the Taleban isn't as bad as it seems- they're no longer burdened with running a country; They're not responsible for ensuring electricty is produced and distributed, markets and stores have produce, people get fed, government workers get paid, police patrol streets, etc. To a certain extent they've been freed to concentrate on what they're best at- resisting foreigners.
They've been forced out of the cities and have faded back to the Pashtun villages and small towns where they first gained support (the 'grassroots').
And while progressive Afghans in Kabul cheer their departure and their freedom from repressive Islamic law, there remain lots of Afghans who see NATO forces in the same light that they saw the Russians 26 years ago.
Just as bin Laden is still out there, so is Omar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo
Al Qaida has been weakened. For one thing if they were more deadly being dispersed then why wasn't that their choice when they were in power?
Also their attacks are getting weaker.
9-11 3000 killed
3- 11 200 killed
7-7 60 killed
And last no attacks in the US. That would be their destination of choice would it not?
Attacks in Saudi Arabia have stopped. Indeed Saudi Arabia killed an Al Qaida commander not two days ago.
Of course it could be that Saudi Arabia only goes after Al Qadia that attack within Saudi Arabia but that ignore Al Qadia when it attacks out side of Saudi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess only time will tell.
How come you left out the body count in Iraq? Not at all related to Al Queda? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: Re: 'Dead Wrong:' Inside an Intelligence Meltdown |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| Intelligence that said he had WMDs was more like a trigger for the war, not the reason for it. |
Okay, I can see how you'd say that... it wasn't clear, it seemed you were making a different point. |
I don't think anybody who supported the war is now saying "oops, what a mistake! i wish we'd never done it" because of the lack of WMDs. those who supported the war in the first place (like me) and have common sense (like me) know that hindsight is 20/20 and that the decision that was made was the best decision possible at the time.
sending in more UN "inspectors" (who were on the payroll of the oil-for-bombs scheme) to willfully ignore Iraq's re-armament for another ten years was not an option. we went with the intel we had at the time, not because we believed in it like it was gospel, but because it was the most reliable report we were aware of on a murky situation
The only people who say that they think we should regret the war because of the bad intelligence about WMDs are those who were against the war to begin with. This argument that "we were told" the intelligence was handed down on stone tablets from God is a straw man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me submit this to you as food for thought-
If we can't admit our mistakes, if we can't even recognize them for what they are, then we will never be able to avoid repeating them.
I'm convinced invading Iraq was a serious mistake and has made all of us less safe.
I'm not saying there was a mistake in targetting.
There's no doubt that Saddam was an enemy.
And I'm not simply talking about mistakes in intelligence- we all know of those.
I'm talking about strategic mistakes- mistakes in timing, mistakes in allocation of power and resources, political mistakes. Iraq was invaded not because it was the best thing to do at the time but because Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld thought they had finally found the perfect excuse to do what they had wanted to do for a long time, and they cajoled and bullied until people fell in line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree the intel was way off on the "WMDS" in Iraq. Does any one else hate the acronym WMD? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I'm talking about strategic mistakes- mistakes in timing, mistakes in allocation of power and resources, political mistakes. Iraq was invaded not because it was the best thing to do at the time but because Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld thought they had finally found the perfect excuse to do what they had wanted to do for a long time, and they cajoled and bullied until people fell in line. |
Whether you agree with the war or not , I think it is fair to say that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz saw invading Iraq as a way perhaps the best way to fight terror.
Even Thomas Friedman and also Farid Zakaria too agreed with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo, good points you made in reply to my point. I used the term "off-duty" because unless you have absolute information that they were on duty for the Pakistan military, its better to give them the benefit of doubt.
I just remember watching on TV the reporter talking excitedly about the Taliban movement, while a row of tanks with Pakistan Supporters in Uniform drove past on thier way to Kabul. It just at the time seemed too unlikely that this efficient military attack was carried out by a bunch of religious students from a Pakistan Madrasa, with no previous military experience. It just seemed too much of a simplification.
It was their original support for human rights that won grassroots support in Afghanistan. It was sad that they ended up being some of the worst abusers in the end. I know my friend was quite supportive of them when they first entered and disliked them by the time they had been in power a few years. I learnt a little about them from him, long before they became popular to discuss in western media.
A lot of the grassroots support is ties with the people. The pastuns (Spelling?) have had a history of being great thieves and robbers in that area. They would steal from you and kill you, but if they invited you in and ate with you in thier house. Then that same person who would have killed you in a heartbeat before would now sell his life in your defence as you were his guest. This has probably changed over the years due to ongoing social changes, but it was part of the problem on getting OBL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
My understanding is that the old al-Quaida organization no longer exists. No infrastructure survived the Afghanistan attacks.
But "al-Quaida" as an idea is the thing that is persisting among Muslim extremists, and they are copying the organization locally.
This should probably be viewed as a matter of great concern as you cannot wage wars against ideas... |
The intel services of mideast nations are quite able of puting an end to Al Qaida within their own nations.
If they are not doing so the question is why not and what kind of pressure the US can put on them to get them to do so.
If mideast regimes feel that Al Qaida supporters are a such a problem that it puts their regime in danger then they are all quite capable of grabbing Al Qaida supporters ,dragging them kicking and screaming into the street , slashing their throats and then letting them bleed into the sewers.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
My understanding is that the old al-Quaida organization no longer exists. No infrastructure survived the Afghanistan attacks.
But "al-Quaida" as an idea is the thing that is persisting among Muslim extremists, and they are copying the organization locally.
This should probably be viewed as a matter of great concern as you cannot wage wars against ideas... |
The intel services of mideast nations are quite capable of puting an end to Al Qaida within their own nations.
|
As opposed to MI5 and Scotland Yard? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yup most mideast regimes are totalitarian police states |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Yup most mideast regimes are totalitarian police states |
My understanding is that, at least in the cases of Saudi (monarchy) and Pakistan (military govt), the govts there walk a very tight rope with some level of sincere collaboration with Washington as an ally, while at the same time appeasing their dangerously fundamentalist populations -- they don't want to go the way of Iran either (not necessarily for ideological reasons: people in power simply like to stay in power).
So I'm not sure that it's a straightforward issue with them, that is, whether they merely want to clean up the terrorist cells that may be operating within their borders. They can't afford to alienate their own populations, right?
It's probably a very complex issue, then. And things could be much worse than they are for us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
