IGX

For those of you not wallowing in your own ignorance; look up Ahmad Shah Massoud and The Northern Alliance. There were good guys by and large in Afghanistan. The bad guys were mostly the Foreign Islamic Fighters & the Pakistanis. BTW- Ahmad Shah Massoud received almost no US aid in his fight against the USSR. USA military aid was distributed by the Pakistanis and they hated Ahmad Shah Massoud. Despite this, Ahmad Shah Massoud was feared by the USSR commanders on the ground. Ahmad Shah Massoud should be hailed as one of the most successful and charismatic guerrilla fighters in the modern age.

Afghanistan has been the play thing of the real enemies of the West; Arab Gulf States lead by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Afghanistan was surprisingly a pretty cosmopolitan place (for a third world shit hole) until the communists and Islamic goat fuckers messed things up.

It's been about a dozen years since I read Ahmed Rashid's book, "Taliban", but I believe it bears out Batboy's statements. Although some Taliban fought the Soviets, for the most part they were younger men, who grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan.
And of course, Bin Laden had Masoud assassinated on September 10, 2001, because he knew we would go right to Masoud for help, and Bin Laden feared that possibility the most.

It seems to me that what really fucked up the Afghan war was the Iraq war, because it opened the door to the argument that we didn't have enough troops.
We were never supposed to have 100,000 boots on the ground there.
We also never should have attempted this nation building bullshit. Just kill as many Taliban and Al Quaeda as possible and leave. Propping up,that country was always a hopeless task.

I still think Obama was right to get Berghdal back. If he deserted, defected, or committed treason, he should prosecuted, but I wouldn't count on that happening.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:I still think Obama was right to get Berghdal back.

Why now? And at what cost? That's the whole point.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:It's been about a dozen years since I read Ahmed Rashid's book, "Taliban", but I believe it bears out Batboy's statements. Although some Taliban fought the Soviets, for the most part they were younger men, who grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan.
And of course, Bin Laden had Masoud assassinated on September 10, 2001, because he knew we would go right to Masoud for help, and Bin Laden feared that possibility the most.

It seems to me that what really fucked up the Afghan war was the Iraq war, because it opened the door to the argument that we didn't have enough troops.
We were never supposed to have 100,000 boots on the ground there.
We also never should have attempted this nation building bullshit. Just kill as many Taliban and Al Quaeda as possible and leave. Propping up,that country was always a hopeless task.

I still think Obama was right to get Berghdal back. If he deserted, defected, or committed treason, he should prosecuted, but I wouldn't count on that happening.

where do the afghan pashtun fit in the narrative?

as nafod noted in one of these threads, the pakis have pulled a lot of strings, but we seem to be largely unable to manage the puppet-master.

T>1200 wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:I still think Obama was right to get Berghdal back.

Why now? And at what cost? That's the whole point.

Because we're fixing to leave.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think this was too high a price to pay.

dead man walking wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:It's been about a dozen years since I read Ahmed Rashid's book, "Taliban", but I believe it bears out Batboy's statements. Although some Taliban fought the Soviets, for the most part they were younger men, who grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan.
And of course, Bin Laden had Masoud assassinated on September 10, 2001, because he knew we would go right to Masoud for help, and Bin Laden feared that possibility the most.

It seems to me that what really fucked up the Afghan war was the Iraq war, because it opened the door to the argument that we didn't have enough troops.
We were never supposed to have 100,000 boots on the ground there.
We also never should have attempted this nation building bullshit. Just kill as many Taliban and Al Quaeda as possible and leave. Propping up,that country was always a hopeless task.

I still think Obama was right to get Berghdal back. If he deserted, defected, or committed treason, he should prosecuted, but I wouldn't count on that happening.

where do the afghan pashtun fit in the narrative?

as nafod noted in one of these threads, the pakis have pulled a lot of strings, but we seem to be largely unable to manage the puppet-master.

I did quite a bit of reading about this about ten years ago, and I'm going from memory here, so I may not be correct.
I think, that the Pashtun are from the south and the east, as are the Taliban. And the choice was made to keep power centered there.
Or maybe the Paks just played us from day one.
Probably the latter.

For the past 10 years, we've been fighting the wrong enemy. We won't touch the Saudi's or the Pakistanis.

T>1200 wrote:For the past 10 years, we've been fighting the wrong enemy. We won't touch the Saudi's or the Pakistanis.

Yes.

Seconded.

What exactly is the upside of attacking a nuclear Islamist state? Pakistan has the world over a barrel - they have nukes, religious fervor and are, unlike the rational actor we deposed in Iraq (who had neither of those) is crazy enough to launch on their regional enemies.

President Obama announced today that a deal had been struck with North Korea to trade the South Korean capital of Seoul to secure the safe return of the USS Pueblo, a U.S. Navy spy ship held captive since 1968.

Standing next to the ship’s christener, Mrs. Dorothy Duvall of Palm Beach, Florida, the president told reporters at the Rose Garden ceremony he decided to act when he learned of the ship’s “rapidly deteriorating condition.”

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/06/uss-p ... ma/#!YUYLo

milosz wrote:What exactly is the upside of attacking a nuclear Islamist state? Pakistan has the world over a barrel - they have nukes, religious fervor and are, unlike the rational actor we deposed in Iraq (who had neither of those) is crazy enough to launch on their regional enemies.

About as stupid as pretending they are our allies. No one posted we should attack them. We should however be countering their moves around the world. Saudi Arabia is almost single handily responsible for spreading the Jihadist ideology via the founding of Wahhabist religious schools and mosques.

Pakistan is almost as bad, their security agencies work hand in hand with Saudi interests in Afghanistan and India.

Please. The US doesn't counter anything around the world anymore, preferring to react a decade after a problem has been well sown. China is buying Africa for what will one day seem like a handful of guilders.

Batboy2/75 wrote: About as stupid as pretending they are our allies. No one posted we should attack them.

"For the past 10 years, we've been fighting the wrong enemy. We won't touch the Saudi's or the Pakistanis."

Highjack:

China is buying Africa for what will one day seem like a handful of guilders.

NO SHIT! I have deployed a couple times to do 'security force assistance' and 'foreign internal defense' in real Africa (not that fake US base, Djibouti) and out in the middle of the bush where people are standing around starving, without enough technology to know how or have the ability to drill a well, there are fucking Chinese earth-movers harvesting timber and they are mining for who-knows-what.

It's like the Jack Handey "they say it's frightening how much topsoil we're losing, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared..." deal, because there isn't anybody who cares, but when we get our thumb out of our collective ass and actually look up from the middle east to find that Africa is now one gigantic eBay store owned by China, don't say *I* didn't warn you...

Chinese 'communism' at it's finest. If we just went in and bought shit, instead of giving the dictators free money for humanitarian "aid" we'd have lotsa African assets. Plus, Chinese not whitee

SPIEGEL: Now it's the Chinese who are making inroads on the continent. Though they are investing in the commodities and food sectors, they care very little about the environment and not at all about human rights. Doesn't that disturb you?

Moyo: The Chinese don't want to impose either democracy or their religion, and they aren't driven by a feeling of guilt about colonialism. They're coming in the name of China. They need copper and oil. Many Africans love them because they build streets and stadiums and create jobs. That's the progress that the West has repeatedly promised us over the last 40 years but never really delivered.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 86465.html

WildGorillaMan wrote:

SPIEGEL: Now it's the Chinese who are making inroads on the continent. Though they are investing in the commodities and food sectors, they care very little about the environment and not at all about human rights. Doesn't that disturb you?

Moyo: The Chinese don't want to impose either democracy or their religion, and they aren't driven by a feeling of guilt about colonialism. They're coming in the name of China. They need copper and oil. Many Africans love them because they build streets and stadiums and create jobs. That's the progress that the West has repeatedly promised us over the last 40 years but never really delivered.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 86465.html

Those decrepit German fags at Speigel are full of shit. The US and Western Nations have done all the same shit. They have built infrastructure, provided education and handed out aid like crazy. Within a matter of time the infrastructure is falling down, no one is in the schools and all of the aid money has been stolen.

The issue is the fucking Africans. Almost every nation is a bunch of lines on the map with dozens if not thousands of ethnic tribes and languages mixed up within the boundaries. Add on top the African habit of rampant corruption and tyranny and you have your recipe for squalor, hunger and backwardness.

I guess the only positive aspect of this story is the chinks aren't pretending they are in Africa to help and talking about the "Yellow mans burden". They are there for China, end of story. They decided to skip the white guilt hand wringing and pC crap.

The Chinese will rape Africa silly and only a hand full of African dictators and their families will get rich. Nothing different than what Europe did in the colonial times and what western Businesses do today. However, the chinks will get a pass because they aren't white.

The Chinese will rape Africa silly and only a hand full of African dictators and their families will get rich. Nothing different than what Europe did in the colonial times and what western Businesses do today. However, the chinks will get a pass because they aren't white.

This is the truth of it. All the Western nations 'give' stuff and leave, China TAKES stuff and leaves.

We are so concerned about political correctness and post-colonial appearances focused on not 'taking' (which includes buying) anything from Africans at this point in history, that we won't even put AFRICOM HQ down there, and instead we get sat phone calls from douchebags in Germany who have never even put boots on the continent about what should be going on, tactically.

Dirt McGirt wrote:

The Chinese will rape Africa silly and only a hand full of African dictators and their families will get rich. Nothing different than what Europe did in the colonial times and what western Businesses do today. However, the chinks will get a pass because they aren't white.

This is the truth of it. All the Western nations 'give' stuff and leave, China TAKES stuff and leaves.

We are so concerned about political correctness and post-colonial appearances focused on not 'taking' (which includes buying) anything from Africans at this point in history, that we won't even put AFRICOM HQ down there, and instead we get sat phone calls from douchebags in Germany who have never even put boots on the continent about what should be going on, tactically.

The only COCOM that is located in the area it is concerned with is EUCOM. CENTCOM is in Florida, PACOM in Hawaii (guess you could argue it is in region), SOUTHCOM in Florida. At least AFRICOM is in the same time zone. I agree, though, that there's a disconnect. When we did our daily DCO briefings, they'd open with a weather brief, and they'd talk about the weather in Germany first. But then Africa.

No country in Africa wants our presence that much. Small bases here and there, sure, preferably on the down-low. But a big mega-base with its own reality distortion field of Americana? No. So as much as we might desire AFRICOM to be in Africa, it is not likely to happen. I don't think we want one there anyway. Better to be low-key about our interaction. African solutions for African problems and all that.

We buy plenty of crude oil, precious metals, other metals, and cocoa beans and shit from Africa.

I guess, to me, all of the other COCOMs are essentially 'where they need to be' for ops purposes, because if nothing else you have big bases in-theatre to operate from. In Africa, you are literally 'on your own' on the continent if you're not at Lemonnier.

And sure, we *buy* lots of stuff, particularly from Western and Southern Africa, but we sure don't seem to *own* much, unlike the Chinese, who are getting leases to diamond and platinum mines in exchange for putting in 50 miles of paved road. It seems like our negotiators needs to attend some PME in Beijing...

Or they should just quit being pussies.

The flipside is you're right... Who really *wants* real-estate, from a base and/or HQ perspective, there? Between Nigeria, DRC, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Benin, and Guineau, I don't think I've seen a shittier bunch of shitholes, even in the Middle East. Damn.