An article needs to be written (here is an outline) of the possibility that the war in Afghanistan could continue even if the US got out. And that the US getting out won’t ever make immediate sense, despite long turn advisability.
An area where I am reluctant to go, but I hope others explore, is the possibility that the Afghan War is more hopeless than a “Catch 22". When the Soviets left, massive carnage and confusion followed as the warlords fought among themselves. Today the more General McChrystal avoids civilian deaths the more tolerable endless war will be. This, especially if Mullah Omar keeps responding with a strict code of ethics, of his own, often individually warning people to specifically stop cooperating with the Americans on a specific project before attacking them, and never attacking open markets and other civilian gatherings. The US tries especially under General McChrystal to use PR and try to win the hearts and minds. But now so is Mullah Omar, no more Internet executions, and he is demanding without total success that girls schools not be attacked. This careful policy on both sides makes a forever war possible if the US doesn’t run out of funds. People employed as a soldier or guard no matter what side, can become afraid of not finding work if peace comes. Even some in the Taliban may worry about no longer being able to steal supplies if the US leaves. More than the US military-industrial-complex is involved an addition to war.
A few women sadly putting back on the burqa while crying that the US or Obama or Kucinich betrayed them will spread the image of betrayal nearly as much as many people shouting betrayal as the death rate climbs from fighters continuing to find work, with various warlords. Those warlords that fought with the US will be free, if the US leaves, from avoiding civilian casualties.
If the US stays while a new order is being established as Gilbuddin Hekmatyar, a until recently Taliban supporting warlord tried to arrange, with a power sharing government with President Karzai, instead of cheering the lack of bloodbath, the American public will be incensed if a woman after a short trial is whipped for not wearing a burqa where the US troops are maintaining order or if a traitor to the Taliban is tried and executed while the US troops watch. No matter which scenario happens the American people will be disgusted with the results.
The American people won’t fight forever. If you remember Nixon claimed to have a secret plan to end the earlier war, but first tried carpet bombing and invading Cambodia and Laos. I don’t think a Republican can claim a secret plan a second time, but one may claim to plan to make what he will claim to be generous peace terms, and to take off the gloves if the other side doesn’t accept, conceivably this could mean fighting as rough as the Soviets did, and likewise getting the Muslim world similarly angry at the US. Of course international currency collapse could happen and occur sooner due to war spending, this spending could even be the threshold factor.
Someone please explore the beyond “Catch 22" angle to what the US should do or not do in trying to leave Afghanistan.
Actually I see touches of hope, besides learning to cheer a little bad news to prevent even further bad news to follow. For a little positive hope please see,
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/richardkanepa
RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
+ Read more
May 24, 2010
Really bad news in Afghanistan may never go away any time soon
An article needs to be written (here is an outline) of the possibility that the war in Afghanistan could continue even if the US got out. And that the US getting out won’t ever make immediate sense, despite long turn advisability.
An area where I am reluctant to go, but I hope others explore, is the possibility that the Afghan War is more hopeless than a “Catch 22". When the Soviets left, massive carnage and confusion followed as the warlords fought among themselves. Today the more General McChrystal avoids civilian deaths the more tolerable endless war will be. This, especially if Mullah Omar keeps responding with a strict code of ethics, of his own, often individually warning people to specifically stop cooperating with the Americans on a specific project before attacking them, and never attacking open markets and other civilian gatherings. The US tries especially under General McChrystal to use PR and try to win the hearts and minds. But now so is Mullah Omar, no more Internet executions, and he is demanding without total success that girls schools not be attacked. This careful policy on both sides makes a forever war possible if the US doesn’t run out of funds. People employed as a soldier or guard no matter what side, can become afraid of not finding work if peace comes. Even some in the Taliban may worry about no longer being able to steal supplies if the US leaves. More than the US military-industrial-complex is involved an addition to war.
A few women sadly putting back on the burqa while crying that the US or Obama or Kucinich betrayed them will spread the image of betrayal nearly as much as many people shouting betrayal as the death rate climbs from fighters continuing to find work, with various warlords. Those warlords that fought with the US will be free, if the US leaves, from avoiding civilian casualties.
If the US stays while a new order is being established as Gilbuddin Hekmatyar, a until recently Taliban supporting warlord tried to arrange, with a power sharing government with President Karzai, instead of cheering the lack of bloodbath, the American public will be incensed if a woman after a short trial is whipped for not wearing a burqa where the US troops are maintaining order or if a traitor to the Taliban is tried and executed while the US troops watch. No matter which scenario happens the American people will be disgusted with the results.
The American people won’t fight forever. If you remember Nixon claimed to have a secret plan to end the earlier war, but first tried carpet bombing and invading Cambodia and Laos. I don’t think a Republican can claim a secret plan a second time, but one may claim to plan to make what he will claim to be generous peace terms, and to take off the gloves if the other side doesn’t accept, conceivably this could mean fighting as rough as the Soviets did, and likewise getting the Muslim world similarly angry at the US. Of course international currency collapse could happen and occur sooner due to war spending, this spending could even be the threshold factor.
Someone please explore the beyond “Catch 22" angle to what the US should do or not do in trying to leave Afghanistan.
Actually I see touches of hope, besides learning to cheer a little bad news to prevent even further bad news to follow. For a little positive hope please see,
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/richardkanepa
RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
+ Read more
An area where I am reluctant to go, but I hope others explore, is the possibility that the Afghan War is more hopeless than a “Catch 22". When the Soviets left, massive carnage and confusion followed as the warlords fought among themselves. Today the more General McChrystal avoids civilian deaths the more tolerable endless war will be. This, especially if Mullah Omar keeps responding with a strict code of ethics, of his own, often individually warning people to specifically stop cooperating with the Americans on a specific project before attacking them, and never attacking open markets and other civilian gatherings. The US tries especially under General McChrystal to use PR and try to win the hearts and minds. But now so is Mullah Omar, no more Internet executions, and he is demanding without total success that girls schools not be attacked. This careful policy on both sides makes a forever war possible if the US doesn’t run out of funds. People employed as a soldier or guard no matter what side, can become afraid of not finding work if peace comes. Even some in the Taliban may worry about no longer being able to steal supplies if the US leaves. More than the US military-industrial-complex is involved an addition to war.
A few women sadly putting back on the burqa while crying that the US or Obama or Kucinich betrayed them will spread the image of betrayal nearly as much as many people shouting betrayal as the death rate climbs from fighters continuing to find work, with various warlords. Those warlords that fought with the US will be free, if the US leaves, from avoiding civilian casualties.
If the US stays while a new order is being established as Gilbuddin Hekmatyar, a until recently Taliban supporting warlord tried to arrange, with a power sharing government with President Karzai, instead of cheering the lack of bloodbath, the American public will be incensed if a woman after a short trial is whipped for not wearing a burqa where the US troops are maintaining order or if a traitor to the Taliban is tried and executed while the US troops watch. No matter which scenario happens the American people will be disgusted with the results.
The American people won’t fight forever. If you remember Nixon claimed to have a secret plan to end the earlier war, but first tried carpet bombing and invading Cambodia and Laos. I don’t think a Republican can claim a secret plan a second time, but one may claim to plan to make what he will claim to be generous peace terms, and to take off the gloves if the other side doesn’t accept, conceivably this could mean fighting as rough as the Soviets did, and likewise getting the Muslim world similarly angry at the US. Of course international currency collapse could happen and occur sooner due to war spending, this spending could even be the threshold factor.
Someone please explore the beyond “Catch 22" angle to what the US should do or not do in trying to leave Afghanistan.
Actually I see touches of hope, besides learning to cheer a little bad news to prevent even further bad news to follow. For a little positive hope please see,
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/richardkanepa
RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
+ Read more
February 19, 2010
We've Caught the Taliban Chief! Can We Go Home Now?
We've Caught the Taliban Chief! Can We Go Home Now?
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/485
for [URGENT] more information google it. Also google ‘Peace may be Inches Away’ and google ‘peace negotiations’ Afghanistan.
There is suddenly a section of the peace movement calling for "Negotiations Now" to strike a peace deal with the moderate militants that Pakistan had been protecting. This is reminiscent of the “Negotiate Now” efforts back before 1966 which I think could have actually changed Johnson’s mind about the war if it grew instead of being replaced by militant protesters that finally ended the war after Nixon escalated into Laos and Cambodia. In any case we can learn a lot if we study that history google Negotiate Now Vietnam and click on this link,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19650215&id=St0jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mCcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4444,2477653
To continue, PRESS READ MORE ICON
Pakistan protected the more moderate Taliban leaders under Mullah Omar because he has a strict code of conduct (google Omar ‘code of conduct’ with the ‘NY Times’ and other papers). His code of conduct urged that other Muslims not to attack Pakistan, and even not to attack US troops when they are off duty. Pakistan wishes it could only attack the most militant wing of al Qaeda which is attacking funerals, bazaars and religious processions in Pakistan.
Some in the US want to stay the course, and others like Cheney want even the moderate militant leaders tortured. This would put the most extreme militants in charge. And make life miserable in Afghanistan where such carnage like in Iraq hasn’t occurred because of Omar’s policies. The, most militant, militants in charge would put soldiers and contractors at risk when they are off duty or shopping or engaging in "private" entertainment enjoying Kabul’s nightlife. In the US the militant militant don't want to excite the US to start sending troops without million dollar protective gear and armor and huge medical backup, but this could change in the future.
As I mentioned in the summery introduction, in 1963 thru 1966 there was a strong moderate peace movement with speeches signs and letters to politicians (phone call were rare, back then) calling to "NEGOTIATE NOW.”
Something similar happened before Obama’s speech calling for 30, 000 troops. Right before this speech there was a flood of calls, emails and faxes to the White House urging acceptance of Vice President Biden's call to "Hunter Down" in secure areas of Afghanistan and wait for an opportunity for things to cool down. That was an extremely poor suggestion, especially since it would dash bin Laden’s assurance that the US would bankrupt itself, with our incredibly expensive protective gear and medical backup.
Remember to look at the excitement over calls for negotiations back in 1965 Google Peace Now Vietnam,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19650215&id=St0jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mCcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4444,2477653
+ Read more
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/485
for [URGENT] more information google it. Also google ‘Peace may be Inches Away’ and google ‘peace negotiations’ Afghanistan.
There is suddenly a section of the peace movement calling for "Negotiations Now" to strike a peace deal with the moderate militants that Pakistan had been protecting. This is reminiscent of the “Negotiate Now” efforts back before 1966 which I think could have actually changed Johnson’s mind about the war if it grew instead of being replaced by militant protesters that finally ended the war after Nixon escalated into Laos and Cambodia. In any case we can learn a lot if we study that history google Negotiate Now Vietnam and click on this link,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19650215&id=St0jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mCcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4444,2477653
To continue, PRESS READ MORE ICON
Pakistan protected the more moderate Taliban leaders under Mullah Omar because he has a strict code of conduct (google Omar ‘code of conduct’ with the ‘NY Times’ and other papers). His code of conduct urged that other Muslims not to attack Pakistan, and even not to attack US troops when they are off duty. Pakistan wishes it could only attack the most militant wing of al Qaeda which is attacking funerals, bazaars and religious processions in Pakistan.
Some in the US want to stay the course, and others like Cheney want even the moderate militant leaders tortured. This would put the most extreme militants in charge. And make life miserable in Afghanistan where such carnage like in Iraq hasn’t occurred because of Omar’s policies. The, most militant, militants in charge would put soldiers and contractors at risk when they are off duty or shopping or engaging in "private" entertainment enjoying Kabul’s nightlife. In the US the militant militant don't want to excite the US to start sending troops without million dollar protective gear and armor and huge medical backup, but this could change in the future.
As I mentioned in the summery introduction, in 1963 thru 1966 there was a strong moderate peace movement with speeches signs and letters to politicians (phone call were rare, back then) calling to "NEGOTIATE NOW.”
Something similar happened before Obama’s speech calling for 30, 000 troops. Right before this speech there was a flood of calls, emails and faxes to the White House urging acceptance of Vice President Biden's call to "Hunter Down" in secure areas of Afghanistan and wait for an opportunity for things to cool down. That was an extremely poor suggestion, especially since it would dash bin Laden’s assurance that the US would bankrupt itself, with our incredibly expensive protective gear and medical backup.
Remember to look at the excitement over calls for negotiations back in 1965 Google Peace Now Vietnam,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19650215&id=St0jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mCcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4444,2477653
+ Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
