Just going after some low hanging fruits, don't wanna miss my shows...
The few valid points you were beginning to raise were drowned out by the rest of your rant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tukhachevskii
Civilian deaths in strikes have caused widespread resentment in Afghanistanhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527627.stm
This is a general response to the “moral” fallout from the death of civilians in Operation Moshtarak in the open source media and from “heated” diatribes I often hear Muslims deliver on the streets of my home town (there was a time when Hyde Park corner sufficed to satiate these types).
Our overwhelming superiority in firepower is our major strength (war, after all, is about “killing and destruction” as per Gian Gentile) , our congenital inability to apply that without second guessing ourselves or adopting ROEs with will only lead into strategic cul-de-sacs and coffins being flown home is our greatest weakness. A weakness they exploit.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think Col Gentile is a proponent of using indiscriminate firepower.
Quote:
So what if 20 civilians die on an operation against the Taliban? Why are WE apologising? How many Muslims currently residing in the “West” condemned the attacks of 7/7, 9/11 etc.? They didn’t. They justified/absolved them (ironically, Arab public opinion seemed less clear cut) and shifted the blame/passed the buck.
Assuming the Muslims in the west never condemned these terrorist acts, why should they have to? They didn't do it. As a Christian/Conservative, am I required to publicly condemn the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church?
As a liberal, should I write my closest military recruiting office and apologize for the actions of Code Pink? Just because somebody is of the same religion/political party/nationality/etc, that doesn’t mean they are obligated to publicly counter-balance the views of extremists?
Quote:
If the Afghan people (whoever they are and that’s a different matter) don’t like the presence of NATO forces on their soil they should be reminded of why we are there...because of the Taliban. If civilians are dying in operations conducted by NATO to destroy the Taliban who hide like cowards “amongst the people” then that is the fault of the Taliban.
High speed police chase in Los Angeles... innocent bystander gets run over by cop car... who does the family blame?
Quote:
Just compare the range of “services” we strain ourselves to supply to the Afghans (at no cost to themselves) with what the Taliban did and make the Afghan’s decide.
But they didn't ask for these services. Furthermore, this argument has been tried many times colonials but it usually fails to convince the natives to just play along (i know, i know, our intentions are noble). Not to mention the fact that some of the reports published state that we (or our partners) haven't even been that great at providing these services. I believe one of the articles posted in the Marjah thread claimed that the Taliban are much better at providing said services.
Quote:
If the Afghans want us out why don’t we tie that demand in to the destruction of the Taliban. Once they are long gone (difficult metric to satisfy I know) so will we be and leave the Pakistanis, and Iranians to sort out the mess/responsibility (and blame should they fail); after all Pakistan’s role in this imbroglio nor its responsibility should not be forgotten. Instead of trying to “capture” the hearts and minds of the “Afghan” people why aren’t we making them participants, stakeholders or whatever buzzword is currently in fashion, in a process that will finally get us to some kind of satisfactory situation (another flammable metric) where we can get out “with honour”?
Even if the message "we will stay here as long as it takes, so you better help us" was going to work, how will it play out at home.
Quote:
Why are we adhering to these Liberal neo-colonial (there’s no two ways about it) preconceptions that somehow these “primitive children” can be “forced to be free”, that inside every Gook or Arab or Afghan is a middle-class, atheistic, latte drinking, Franz Fanon reading, sexually confused, moral-relativist trying to get out? Take for instance the following neo-developmentalist/modernisation drivel;
I'm not touching this one.
Quote:
WE [shouldn't be] in business of propping up failed states or building new ones (there’s a pun in there somewhere). I don’t think we got out of the imperial policing business just to return and make the same mistakes. Just think of all the filoos/money that we have spent pouring down the drain in Afghanistan (amongst other places) that could have been spent in our recession hit economies and, more importantly, on homeland defence. WE do not have the answers for THEM (and it’s important we remember that distinction) nor do we need to waste the lives of our young men and women on installing dams or generators when they will be inoperable within a decade after we have gone.
I kind of agree that the resources would've been better spent at home.
Quote:
And if we really must educate them in the ways of democracy then let’s introduce them to the concept of accountability for ones actions.
But you have a problem with NATO taking responsibility for civilian casualties.
Quote:
Definitely, but that’s a language THEY understand (psychologically speaking); in the face of overwhelming power Islam retreats (even to the extent of releasing its spell on Muslims); “The situation changed rapidly a month into the Allied campaign against the Taliban. Muslims saw the unequivocal power of American military might, and turned away from bin Laden and the Taliban” (Lazar Berman , “Understanding Arab Culture”, Small Wars Journal, p.6).
Your basing your argument on a 10-page article by an arguable biased IDF Lt with no hard data and a citation from this guy. You both seem to be making some giant leaps and cherry picking.
The 'Special Relationship': small tussle down south
Fuchs,
The remarks of Hilary Clinton over the Falkland Islands were reported here critically, but I doubt if published, public opinion polls will focus on the 'Special Relationship'. We are in a pre-General Election period and other issues take precedence.
A US diplomat recently stated opinion polls found public support in the UK for the 'relationship' remained strong; without citing the source alas.
My own view is that, even with allowance for the end of President Bush, is that the 'Special Relationship' remains beloved in Whitehall-Westminster, but has less support amongst the public for a variety of reasons.
An insight into this diplomatic tussle can be found on KoW: http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/03/dea...nny-boy-to-do/ An earlier commentary on the UK-US link: http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2009/10/bri...-idle-musings/
Spain confirms to leave Afghanistan in 2011
Should we stay or should we go? A Swedish perspective on Afghanistan
Taken from KoW and yes, a Swedish viewpoint; an EU member, not a NATO member who has an infantry battalion deployed in the north:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/10/sta...n-afghanistan/
Which cites a Swedish newspaper article:http://www.dn.se/debatt/darfor-maste...stan-1.1187784
KoW ends with this pithy comment:
Quote:
...the aim may be to be part of the mission until the end, to do the best possible in their area of operations, and to thereby enhance Sweden’s standing internationally, even if this means partaking in an eventual strategic failure. There is a curious logic to that, but is this a cause worth sacrificing Swedish soldiers for?
New NATO Library Guide: Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan
New NATO Library Guide: Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan
Entry Excerpt:
Via e-mail from NATO: The NATO Multimedia Library has just published a new title in its LibGuides series. 'Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan' is a web-based research guide bringing you the latest information (articles, news, videos, websites etc.) on issues related to counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, in particular in the NATO context.
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.