Hopefully we'll learn from this and use our military to take out the offending enemy units and then leave the area. No aid, no support to the government, just a surgical strike and withdrawl.

Can't we at least try that for a century or two?

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at December 5, 2007 10:56 AM

Islam: makes cancer envious.

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 5, 2007 12:01 PM

From the article:

Development has always been touted as a key factor in Western efforts to win over Afghans and bolster support for President Karzai

Will someone please remind me why we're spending our money and energy and our soldiers' lives improving life for the Afghans? Because we're so grateful for their support for Al Qaeda before (and after) 9/11? Because more than half of them currently (and growing) support the return of the Taliban?

Why?

Posted by: special_guest at December 5, 2007 12:18 PM

We will never win there. They have too many young people willing to fight and die. We don't. That is a cursed part of the world and I wish that we would just leave it.

Posted by: capner at December 5, 2007 12:20 PM

From Capner:
We will never win there.

Not fighting "limited", "moderate" wars... oxymorons. If we are going to fight, we need to get 21st century medieval and kill the enemy and their support structures like we mean it, and remove all religious references from their constitutions. If we aren't prepared to dictate the terms of victory, we will never achieve it.

They have too many young people willing to fight and die. We don't.

Not just willing, but eager. The trick is to make a win-win out of this: they die, we live. We can do it remotely, but it won't be "surgical".

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 5, 2007 12:43 PM

Almost half of Afghanistan is now too dangerous for aid workers to operate in, a leaked UN map seen by The Times shows.

Who's making these areas no-go zones? Are there that many hijackers-of-one-of-the-world's-great-religions-tiny-minority-extremists?

That's a lotta hijackers to cover half of Afghan, the Pak tribal areas, a big portion of Iraq, southern Lebanon, the West Bank, and all those French suburbs.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 5, 2007 12:59 PM

It is terrible each time little Afghani school girls and their teachers are brutally murdered for the 'crime' of education for females. Afghanistan, the
"Islamic" republic that the US helped to create, suppresses its tiny populations of religious minorities, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians. It is time for our troops and our money to come home. We have done enough. Afghans can deal with their own problems. Rich "Islamic" countries to bankroll their move from the sixth century to the seventh century, or wherever they want to be.

Posted by: maryrose at December 5, 2007 1:07 PM

Why are aid workers there at all? The West jsut never learns, does it?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 5, 2007 1:13 PM

Keep in mind that your ordinary Afghan is much more pro-American than many Arabs in Iraq. The situation is akin to the way most Kurds think of America and Americans. Many American soldiers in Afghanistan have built up a rapport with the man-in-the-street Afghan and then there is the larger moral problem of abandoning those who have looked to us for protection. Is it a complicated situation that does not lead to easy answers? You bet. Nonetheless, I'm convinced we must be as ruthless to Islamic terrorists as possible, which often times we are not. America's guiding principle should be "no better friend, no worse enemy." The only real alternative to this is to make war on virtually all Muslims. Ponder that all those who, like myself, find Islam deficient in so many ways but are loathe to come to the aid of any Muslims. Lincoln's approach should be adopted here I think-------you can hate the sin without necessarily hating the sinner. I admit, though, that the time may come when all of the Islamic world will have to be looked upon as the enemy. If that day does come, it will present at least as many problems as we have now and probably far, far more.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2007 1:15 PM

Had Bush spent all those hundreds of billions of dollars on Afghanistan, it would be a different story today.
Instead, he began the war in Iraq.
*sigh* and they say LIBERALS are dumb.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 1:24 PM

Let's not forget the conditions applied by individual NATO nations on it's troops. I don't know the specifics, but hearing the sarcasm about the limitation imposed by the "contributing" nations is not encouraging. What good is it to deploy our forces to the trouble areas if the "allies" can't even secure the once secured areas? Europe owes us big time. We saved them from the Nazis, rebuilt their nations, secured them from communist threat, which allowed them to prosper, and and committed our forces, erroneously, to the "peace" in the Balkans. Maybe it is time for NATO to disband. It is an alliance only in name.

Posted by: Kevin at December 5, 2007 2:48 PM

RoobartSpunsar: Don't be too quick to exculpate liberals where the Iraq War is concerned. Remember that liberals throughout the West were prepared to do exactly nothing about Saddam Hussein's filling up mass graves, having torture rooms aplenty and having women raped in large numbers as their husbands and fathers were forced to watch. Liberals, I submit to you, have no moral high ground whatsoever to stand on respecting Iraq. None.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2007 3:17 PM

From what I understand, this was up to NATO to protect, and they decided to leave. Leave and let the Taleban take it back. That was the wrong decision, NATO.

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at December 5, 2007 4:06 PM

What good is NATO if they make a point of never bringing Bullets for their Guns.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 5, 2007 5:25 PM

Wellington said

Remember that liberals throughout the West were prepared to do exactly nothing about Saddam Hussein's filling up mass graves, having torture rooms aplenty and having women raped in large numbers as their husbands and fathers were forced to watch.

First of all, we didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was filling mass graves, or because he had torture rooms. We went there because he was developing WMD's that were in imminent threat of being used against us. There were nuclear weapons (including documented yellowcake purchases in Niger), chemical weapons that could be readied within 15 minutes, and mobile biological weapon factories.

Second, who was he killing and torturing? Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, and Kuwaitis. Not Yanks, Canucks, Brits, or Aussies. He was killing and torturing Muslims, not Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists. UN resolutions, diplomatic pressure, and economic sanctions seem appropriate in that case.

Posted by: special_guest at December 5, 2007 6:21 PM

"Second, who was he killing and torturing? Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, and Kuwaitis. Not Yanks, Canucks, Brits, or Aussies. He was killing and torturing Muslims, not Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists. UN resolutions, diplomatic pressure, and economic sanctions seem appropriate in that case."

There ARE Christians in Iraq, so it's not impossible that some were tortured.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 6:35 PM

"RoobartSpunsar: Don't be too quick to exculpate liberals where the Iraq War is concerned. Remember that liberals throughout the West were prepared to do exactly nothing about Saddam Hussein's filling up mass graves, having torture rooms aplenty and having women raped in large numbers as their husbands and fathers were forced to watch. Liberals, I submit to you, have no moral high ground whatsoever to stand on respecting Iraq. None."

I agree--there's also the fact that many liberals shamefully voted in favor of this war. They had no excuse for that whatsoever.

...however, conservatives were not particularly eager to stop the torture in Iraq either. Saddam, after all, was our ally during both the Reagan and Bush I administrations (until he overstepped his bounds by invading Kuwait). Then, when we had a chance to rid the world of him, Bush I held back.

I would describe it as a collective failure, not just that of the left or the right.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 6:37 PM

RoobartSbunsar: Oh, we can't have this, i.e., you and I in agreement on something. Just kidding. I would only add that the Reagan Administration made a calculation (one with which I certainly agree) when the Iran-Iraq War was in its early stages that a stalemate between the two would be the best of all possible scenarios. And since in the early 1980s it looked to many that Iran had the upper hand, President Reagan decided to offer very limited support to Saddam Hussein. It's easy to criticize that decision now, but Monday morning quarterbacking should itself be treated skeptically. As for Bush I, the very people who criticize Bush II for getting us involved so deeply in Iraq should, if they wish to be consistent, extend approbation to Bush I for refraining from continuing the war to the point of removing SH.

Ah, the world's a messy place because freedom and democracy don't exist everywhere. In every war over the past hundred years, at least one of the two sides was not democratic, sometimes both. Complicating all this is the stark reality that free societies sometimes have to align with a non-free society to defeat another authoritarian regime. The classic example here is America, Britain, Canada, et al. having to work closely with Stalin, perhaps the greatest single butcher in history, to end the rule of another tyrant, Hitler. A complicated and messy world indeed.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2007 7:00 PM

special_guest: The Congressional Resolution of November 2002 authorizing President Bush to go into Iraq if he deemed it necessary for the protection of America listed over twenty reasons why Saddam Hussein needed to go. WMDs were not the only reason. Also, several of Bush's closest advisers (e.g., Karen Hughes) have maintained unhesitatingly that Bush himself was personally disgusted in the extreme with Saddam Hussein's sadism and tyranny over his own people. Bush also concluded that UN resolutions, sanctions and diplomatic pressure would do diddly squat to stop Saddam and his sons from continuing their carnage over thier own countrymen, something Vice-President Cheney had concluded even before Bush had.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2007 7:08 PM

"I would only add that the Reagan Administration made a calculation (one with which I certainly agree) when the Iran-Iraq War was in its early stages that a stalemate between the two would be the best of all possible scenarios."

They had to choose between a secular tyrant and a fanatical Islamist one. I suppose I shouldn't blame them for choosing Saddam.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 7:22 PM

"Also, several of Bush's closest advisers (e.g., Karen Hughes) have maintained unhesitatingly that Bush himself was personally disgusted in the extreme with Saddam Hussein's sadism and tyranny over his own people."

I don't necessarily doubt that he was genuinely disgusted by it--any civilized person would (whether I consider Bush "civilized" is a whole different question!). What really got to me, however, is their constant insistence that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11. They used the memory of 9/11 to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with it. It is this, more than anything else, that so angered me about it.

I'm all for seeing a tyrant fall--but not if it's done under false pretenses.

...eh, I suppose you're right. The world is a messy place with all these dictatorships. Any US government, liberal or conservative, would pretty much have to side with some unsavory characters.

Well, at least I still have my Johnnie Walker *pours himself a Scotch* Anyone else want one?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 7:26 PM

RoobartSpunsar: I must correct you on one serious error of yours. And I mean serious. Here it is: It is a complete fiction that the Bush Administration has ever maintained that Saddam Hussein was somehow behind 9/11. Criticize Bush as you will, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the Bush Administration ever averred that Saddam was in some way responsible for 9/11. Doubt me? All right, provide me evidence to disprove what I have just written here.

Bush and others in his Administration did say that SH had contacts with Al Qaeda (which is true), but the Bush Administration also has been crystal clear that these contacts did not extend to any kind of operational control (contrast this, though, with the bombing of the World Trade Center towers in 1993, where SH did have input). Bush saw SH as part of a larger cancer within the Islamic/Arab world as a whole. I, for one, cannot disagree with this assessment. Islam is warped (though I fear Bush doesn't fully comprehend this) and the Arabs are the most dysfunctional, self-pitying and troubling major people on the planet.

That's all for now. Hope you are well.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2007 8:00 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

(my apologies for having to cite BBC--they're nauseating to many people, myself included)

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 8:08 PM

RoobartSpunsar: Thanks for the link. The BBC has indeed become a wretched phenomenon, which many in the UK know only too well, but sometimes even fools stumble into the truth. In any case, it helps prove my point, does it not, particularly where Bush himself is concerned? Cheney's comment about not knowing was absolutely accurate in a lawyer-like kind of way, even though the Vice-President is not a lawyer (though a very careful man with a keen intellect).

Of course, you understand that Cheney's response was for accuracy's sake and not an assertion of complicity by SH. May I suggest you go to the Congressional Resolution of late 2002, which gave over twenty reasons why President Bush had the authority (and approval) of Congress to take action against Saddam, both for purposes of protecting American interests as well as for enforcing UN Resoltuions, over a dozen of which SH had ignored and mocked.

Posted by: Wellington at December 5, 2007 8:50 PM

Wait till Musharraf is overthrown due to Bush and Rice pressuring him on democracy, and the Islamists take over. Then the rest of Afghanistan will become a no-go zone, and the US loses to the jihad there.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at December 5, 2007 9:22 PM

Ruslan, Enraged Since 1999 --

You may be interested in the recent addition of "Utomlyonnoye Solntse" (Weary Sun) in Sfasman's version, to the offerings at "Interludes."

Posted by: Hugh at December 5, 2007 10:16 PM

Hugh, this is one of my favorites ! ! !

Makes me feel like romancing Ludmila again ... .
Ludmilas, my Ludmilas, where are you now?

Ruslan Tokhchukov, Lost in Dreamy Reminiscing ... .

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at December 5, 2007 10:38 PM

Ah, finally, back to the subject at hand: Afghanistan. I have been for the U.S. going into Afghanistan, but only if we did not make the same mistake as Vietnam: allowing the mission to fail because of Congress interfering the execution of the mission. If we had gone in and used all of our resources to obliterate the enemy, instead of trying to resurrect the Marshall plan, we would have the respect, and yes, fear, of dar-al-Islam. Instead, our troops were hamstrung from the beginning, and Congress has second-guessed and politicized the operation to the point where our nation is regarded as weak by dar-al-Islam. I have family serving over there, so Congress' lack of will, conviction, support, and commitment as well as their duplicitous statements that give comfort to the enemy and undermine the morale of our armed forces make me angry. I believe that America will never again have the necessary resolve to do what is necessary to win an armed conflict precisely because too many in our Congress are afraid of success, and the resentment they perceive other nations will have for us. Too many of them do not comprehend that the culture of Islam will either respect and hate us, or not respect us and hate us. I'd rather win the day, have the respect, and not worry about the hate which is a fact of life. Winning in Afghanistan and Iraq has been the only acceptable option, and we didn't do it right off the line. Our failure.

America is inherently Christian in its approach to trying to make friends by being generous in other nations. That presupposes that the government or people appreciate the new schools, hospitals and infrastructure. The culture tends to resent the wealth that can be so generous, and have contempt for it, just as they have contempt for our vacillating foreign policy. Dar-al-Islam knows that the politics of America change with the wind making it both unreliable and weak. Dar-al-Islam is of one mind: slowly, steadily migrating into the West.

Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at December 6, 2007 3:32 AM

Pashto Afghanis have never stopped supporting the Taliban, which has always raked in the 15% cut of the heroin trade. Under Karzai (a Pashto), that dog's breakfast of a country has gone from an opium cultivator, to a heroin producer. Karzai continued the Taliban's eradication program in non-Pashto areas, only to keep UN aid coming. Pashto tribalists are flush with money from the heroin trade.

The US media will report Bush's latest indulgence of jihadism, while he peddles himself as a terror fighter, when it is most damaging. I attacked President Stupid the day after he spewed "islam is peace" vomit. Is the Surge working? The Surge is nothing more than an indulgence of ethnic cleansing of Sunnis by removing US troops from the sectarian salients. No salients; lesser conflict. The extra troops are being used outside of Iraq cities which have gone to Islamofascists in various forms.

American troops are dying so that Bush can portray himself as a nation-builder and terror-fighter. He is neither. He is Clinton2.

Posted by: supercargo at December 6, 2007 4:18 AM

Slightly OT, but in France there are 752 muslim enclaves. The people in these enclaves are building up weaponry, such as rocket propelled grenades etc.

I predict that during the next decade, if not before, these enclaves will declare themselves to be independent from the surrounding state, and will wage war against France, England, and all other European countries where these enclaves exist.

Posted by: Voltaire at December 6, 2007 6:41 AM

The failure to help ordinary Afghans or to rebuild areas damaged by fighting in provinces such as Helmand has caused huge resentment and is exploited by Taleban propaganda.
............................

Notice the odd reverse logic here? The above posits that US and Nato troops and Western aid groups either refuse or at least neglect to aid Afghans, leading to resentment, and Taliban exploitation of that resentment.

But as stated in the above article, the reason aid workers are unable to operate in so much of Afghanistan is because it is *too dangerous*--and it is too dangerous because of the presence of the Taliban and other terrorists, who would target them.

This is just another case of endlessly blaming the West, and holding that the Middle East is in no way responsible for its own misery, no matter what the ugly or irrational actions of so many of its denizens.

Posted by: gravenimage at December 6, 2007 9:24 PM