Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"They will help to train competent Afghani security forces .... "

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:18 PM
Original message
"They will help to train competent Afghani security forces .... "
Uh ...... who might be in charge of these crack troops? Karzai the Oil Puppet? That Northern Alliance guy with two identical names? Mullah Omar?

Who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. oh this worked smashingly well before.....
didn't we train Al Qaeda to fight against the soviets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. can we start calling them the mujahideen again? then all will be groovy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. we trained them, and armed them
with lots of Stinger missiles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. And then? And then? And then? We can give rise to a new Hussein!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. That, bush had plenty of time for - it's time for bush & Dana Perino to start taking responsibility
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. And just where the fuck are they going to find any of those?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Shit you know they're going to bribe them into service with our tax dollars---again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I KNOW that! The problem word was "competent".
That is in short supply.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Oh man we're going to go for THAT!?! That's as bad as the FREEDOM thing.
Common purpose - check
Time of trial - check
Cause is just - check
Might Makes Right - check
Pain and suffering - check
Sacrifice - check
Hope - check
Change - check

Blah, blah, blah...been hearing this same shit since Viet Nam
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Huh?
I have NO idea what you read into that. All I meant was that they so called "security forces" have neither loyalty or adequate training. They aren't "competent" to assume the responsibilities. That said, I still think we should get the hell out and let them figure it out on their own. Viet Nam is in pretty good shape these days.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Actually you got most of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yeah, all the while ignoring the Pakistani/India problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shirley-cloyes-dioguardi/misreading-afghanistan_b_375200.html

Here's a snippet from that article:

"We disagree. Our policies are failing, and they are failing because they do not confront the hidden causes of the conflict. The crisis in Afghanistan is largely due to Pakistan's insecurity and its consequent support of the Afghan Taliban. Because of its fear of India, Pakistan is determined to dominate Afghanistan, and this is the problem we need to address.

We should never forget that the Soviets sent 50,000 troops into Afghanistan; they put an enormous amount of effort into training the Afghan army; and they failed, largely because of Pakistan's support of Afghan rebels whose battle against the Soviets was financed by our governments. The idea that our fate will be different is erroneous, because Afghans do not want foreigners in Afghanistan, no matter how "nice" they are.

Although every conflict is different, there are ominous similarities between the Russians in Afghanistan and our current escalation. The parallels between the US involvement in Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan are also stark. Just as Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, unable to admit that America's strategy was failing, agreed the answer must be more troops, US Commander General Stanley McChrystal has called for an increase in US troops to 68,000 and Afghan forces from 134,000 to 240,000 by year's end. But no matter how hard they try, more troops will merely turn more Afghans against us.

Barack Obama is not the first to misread Afghanistan. Successive administrations have failed to understand that the United States and NATO are bit players in what is fundamentally a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This conflict, over the Pashtun lands, has been ongoing since 1948, when Afghanistan voted against the creation of Pakistan in the United Nations and sent tribal fighters into the Pashtun border areas of Pakistan. It is the reason why Pakistan accepted American support of the Mujahedeen in the 1980s, and why later it supported Afghanistan's brutal Mujahedeen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyr, and then the Taliban in their efforts to take over Afghanistan, since both promised to be friendly regimes to Pakistan.

Ignoring this history, the US and British governments have missed the fact that the key to routing out the Taliban and other extremist elements lies not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. There are 25 million people in Afghanistan, while there are 200 million in Pakistan, and Pakistan is currently in meltdown -- the product of its insecurity over its borders with India, Kashmir, and Afghanistan and hence its chronic militarism and support of terrorism in India and Afghanistan.

Until the international community creates conditions that make Pakistan feel secure about its borders with India and Afghanistan, the country will remain dominated by its military and most of its monies spent on weaponry instead of on health and education. Lack of education has kept generations of Pakistanis locked in poverty, and has created a fertile ground for Islamists. Any solution to Afghanistan is impossible without solving Pakistan's problems."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. We should send Rudyard Kipling over there to document the proceedings!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC