|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: The Taliban resurgent |
 |
|
Anxious times for the under-manned Western forces
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7037572
| Quote: |
ACROSS a wide swathe of southern and south-eastern Afghanistan, the Taliban have never looked stronger since they were driven from power by an American-backed alliance in November 2001. And the government of President Hamid Karzai has never looked weaker, controlling only the towns and, during daylight hours, the main roads. The Taliban are not in a position to unseat the government and win the war; not while Western troops remain. Last February, however, General Michael Maples, director of America's Defence Intelligence Agency, told Congress that the Taliban insurgency is growing and presents a greater threat to the Afghan central government's authority than at any point since America's victory.
Contributing to the deep unease about security, and even more insidious, is the existence of a criminal mafia largely funded by the multi-billion dollar drugs trade, whose activities are made easy by endemic corruption. The fact that in many cases the drugs barons hold senior public office discredits the government and its international backers.
�All the promises of the Karzai government and the foreigners are rubbish,� says Lal Hawas, 36, a chemist in the town of Girishk, in Helmand, one of the most wretched of Afghanistan's southern provinces. �In the Taliban time a robber who was arrested would be left hanged for a week in the city as an example. Now if a robber is arrested, he pays a bribe or he has a cousin in the police and he is released.� Another shopkeeper in Girishk, who, like many in the town bazaar, says he supports the Taliban, asks how anything can improve �while the warlords and gunmen in power are supported by the foreigners.�
Belatedly, the Western countries that have committed themselves to saving Afghanistan from further collapse are girding themselves for a new start in the south under the auspices of NATO, which next month will take on responsibility for the four southern provinces. NATO's supreme commander in Europe, General James Jones, has called this the most important mission the alliance has ever undertaken. Some see it as a mission that will either carve out a new post-cold war role for the organisation or, if the alliance stumbles, underline its lack of purpose. So it is alarming that the whole Afghan operation has a make-do-and-mend feel to it.
Under the new plan, the command structure for all foreign forces in Afghanistan, including America's, will be unified, probably early next year, under a NATO headquarters in Kabul. That unity of command will mark a welcome change. At present, there are two Western forces: the International Security Assistance Force, run by NATO, and the American-led coalition, whose job is mainly confined to offensive operations in the south and south-east. But even when they are under one command, the different components will still have different rules of engagement and different operational objectives. The Americans will still hunt the Taliban and al-Qaeda, while the British, the largest part of the new southern force, will focus on helping Afghan forces with security and long-term development.
Another problem plaguing Afghanistan is perennial: there are not enough boots on the ground. In the autumn, the Americans plan to withdraw 3,000 troops. They, it is true, are due to be replaced by larger numbers from other Western countries, including Canada, Australia, Britain, Romania and Denmark. But the British contingent in Helmand province will still be tiny. It consists of only 800 fighting infantrymen in an area 250 miles (400km) by 250 miles, a battalion fewer than many thought the bare minimum. British commanders say they have enough men to make a difference, adding that support troops, artillerymen, even cooks and clerks, can be pressed into the infantry role if need be. But it looks far from ideal.
General David Richards, the (British) overall commander of the NATO force, insists that fighting troop numbers in the south will eventually more than double. But even then, the planned total of 12 companies or approximately 2,400 fighting soldiers looks small given the vast area they must cover. And despite the big increase in numbers the force is receiving no additional transport helicopters, which will compel it to make greater use of the dangerous roads and, inevitably, expose it to roadside bombs and ambushes.
NATO's plan is to assert control of territory and hold it for as long as it takes to saturate the area with �quick impact� rebuilding projects, build up and hand over to local Afghan security forces, and win the trust of the people. But locals are unlikely to co-operate eagerly with the foreigners until they are sure that they are not going to be abandoned to a vengeful Taliban. Winning their confidence and raising reliable Afghan forces could take years, if the current venality of the police is anything to go by. The Afghan National Army is generally a better prospect, but has morale problems of its own. One in four men of the first unit sent to Helmand to give the British operation an �Afghan face� deserted on the way.
Still, there are some signs that local government is getting better. The commander of forces in the south, a Canadian general, David Fraser, is fulsome in his praise for the efforts of several newly appointed provincial governors. They are plainly a more honest bunch than their dreadful predecessors. In Zabul, Governor Delbar Arman is winning particular approval for defying tribal pressures and sacking many corrupt officials. Across the country, provincial and district police chiefs are being made to sit exams. A large number of doubtful characters can expect to get their marching orders. But finding enough honest replacements to do a dangerous and underpaid job will be hard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So I was thinking about this article and I started to wonder, why dont the Western government just buy the Herion that is causing all the problems? It keeps it off the streets and funds regualr Afghanis who just want to be farmers, wouldn't this effectivily end the "narco state" problems? What do people think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure about this plan but I also wouldn't discount it. We do the same thing in many industries or something similiar. Gov't guaranteed pricing of commodities --milk, wheat, corn etc.......
The American's could do a lot better by just giving aid/money to these nations for real products, to support real businesses -- this is the best way to promote democracy, supporting working people and getting money to the little guy......If they invested all the trillions they spend on armnaments, they'd change the world.
But then again, they would have all those youth without much to do and where to place their aggression???? Also, businesses not making a profit out of death -- a whole lot of economic adjustment in America which has got fat on death all over the world........When people suffer -- those already in a good place, always profit....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| what an incoherent torrent of delusional conspiracy-fueled tripe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| What a post that says nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| as opposed to your post? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My post was a full 19 syllables, yours was only 7, 2 of which were an echo of my post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
OK. How about this:
The Soviets made a huge mistake when they went into Afghanistan. The terrain is among the toughest conceivable.
They lost and withdrew.
Mindful of that, we went in and captured Kabul. Woohoo!
What we didn't capture was Afghanistan.
It's still a wild west show.
Now, please articulate yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Part of the reason we're doing poorly in Afghanistan (besides the the fact we don't have enough troops) is our financial assistance is a total joke.
1. 47% of American aid money goes towards "technical assistance." What is that? Hiring westerners to assist the locals. Now that might not sound too extravegent, but let's compare it to other countries.
Norway: 12%
Sweden: 4%
Luxemborg and Ireland: 2%
2. 70% of american aid is contingent on buying American products & services.
Those other countries? Not contingent whatsoever.
So what does this mean? 86 cents/dollar of american aid stays in american hands. USAID=corporate welfare. Sad isn't it?
Only country where a higher % of intl. aid stays in that country? France.
Now you might be thinking, "well, hey, a little aid is better than no aid. And at least it is only us Americans who should be pissed since our tax dollars are being wasted." I wish.
No, because the Afghanis hear about all this aid money being given to them, but the only results they see is a flood of westerners driving around, ordering around Afghanis, and driving around in brand new SUVs, frequenting brothels, and doing god knows what else.
And some people wonder why the Taliban is regaining support and power...
Source: "Winter in Kabul" by Ann jones. I'll be happy to look up her sources for her info later if anyone would like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Part of the reason we're doing poorly in Afghanistan (besides the the fact we don't have enough troops) is our financial assistance is a total joke.
1. 47% of American aid money goes towards "technical assistance." What is that? Hiring westerners to assist the locals. Now that might not sound too extravegent, but let's compare it to other countries.
Norway: 12%
Sweden: 4%
Luxemborg and Ireland: 2%
2. 70% of american aid is contingent on buying American products & services.
Those other countries? Not contingent whatsoever.
So what does this mean? 86 cents/dollar of american aid stays in american hands. USAID=corporate welfare. Sad isn't it?
Only country where a higher % of intl. aid stays in that country? France.
Now you might be thinking, "well, hey, a little aid is better than no aid. And at least it is only us Americans who should be pissed since our tax dollars are being wasted." I wish.
No, because the Afghanis hear about all this aid money being given to them, but the only results they see is a flood of westerners driving around, ordering around Afghanis, and driving around in brand new SUVs, frequenting brothels, and doing god knows what else.
And some people wonder why the Taliban is regaining support and power...
|
Thanks for that info BB, now I am really interested in reading Winter in Kabul...
Hey Gopher......doesn't this sound familiar.....heck I only said 80 cents on the dollar..... 
There is now a major offensive in the works to coincide with the deployment of the special task force that is in pursuit of bin Laden:
US troops to lead major attack on Taliban
| Quote: |
An American-led force of 11,000 troops will launch their biggest offensive against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan since 2001 on Thursday, concentrating their firepower on an area under British control.
British, American, Canadian and Afghan troops will sweep across militant strongholds in four southern provinces rocked by a wave of Taliban violence in recent months, US officials said.
The ambitious offensive, named Operation Mountain Thrust, aims to cripple the strengthening insurgency before Nato takes command of southern Afghanistan next month. |
Yikes, looks like the begining of a month of high death tolls....I know that it is neccessary if they want to repel the Taliban "resurgency", but is it playing right into the Taliban's game plan.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
