“The only reason they’re fighting us i…
“The only reason they’re fighting us is because we are occupying them.” Matthew Hoh, former marine and key policy adviser for Afghanistan, resigns. Read his entire resignation letter here (PDF)
-
willow
Reply
thabet, 
shams, 
Buzz and 7 others are discussing.
null 10:06 am on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
Sad that it takes a Senior policy adviser years to learn what any Rickshawallah in Islamabad understood instinctively all along.
aziz 11:28 am on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
of course that’s a but of a tautology though – if we aren’t there, they can’t fight us by definition. But is ths a keen insight? The ramifications of leaving are more than just about how many of our troops are killed. Its about what would happen in our absence – and its clear that if we left, Afghanistan would not have breathing space to develop its own civil society. The questioin of how “useful” a functioning civic state in Afghanistan is to our national self-interest is open to debate, of course (but also, inherently distasteful).
johnpi 1:38 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
What would happen in our absence?
I recently picked up Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid’s book “Taliban,” which was published pre Sept. 11th and included Rashid’s decades of experience reporting in that country. Here’s his description from the prologue of what was going on there in the summer of 2001:
How has this changed? There are still individuals there from other extremist organizations fighting on the Taliban’s behalf who are ‘quietly carrying out their political agendas at home’ when they don’t have to keep their heads down.
And the civil war with the groups that comprised the United Front are all still there, ready to fire right back up again when and if NATO leaves, so I doubt there would be any “peace dividend” to the Afghan people either…
The whole idea being promoted right now that the Taliban are just a local group without international ambitions fails to take into account this history. If the Taliban are going to align themselves with every terrorist organization out there like some cartoon super-villain in a James Bond movie made real, then even if NATO leaves it will eventually be compelled to return – or some other outside force will (China, Pakistan, India, Iran, etc.).
aziz 1:48 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
what has changed from then to now is, actually, the very thing that Willow linked in this post – we are now a target because we are simply there. But being a target means we force them to spend blood and money on attacking us instead of growing themselves.
We like to think of terrorists as a nebulous force unconstrained by the same limitations as our armed forces, by usung analogies of swamps and tar pits and whatnot. But the reality is that the “bad guys” are limited in their resources just as we are. By our very presence, we force them to attack us – and that means that they cant do the things they would otherwise do in our absence.
we are the lightning rod. And teh new strategy by McChrystal forces the fight down to our terrain instead of theirs – instead of hunting them in the mountains, we defend the villages. Thus they must come to us. They will.
shams 1:52 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
The more troops we dump into the Graveyard of Empires, the more we destabilize neighboring Pakistan, a country that ACTUALLY HAS 100 NUKES.
GTFO Clueless Meddlers.
aziz 2:11 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
what do we mean when we say something will “destabilize” Pakistan? The scenario in which Al Qaeda magically takes over Pakistan is as utterly ludicrous as the suitcase-nuke-in-miami.
Pakistan is a country where the military can take absolute control over the civil society at a moment’s notice – and has often done so. How then will Al Qaeda “take over” ?
johnpi 2:13 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
Specious.
The Pakistani Taliban didn’t break their agreement with the government to stay in Swat and march out to within 60 miles of the capital because of NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan…
shams 2:56 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
Im quoting a mil adviser featured on CNN last night.
The bigger footprint we make in MENA, the more recruits al-Q and the Talis and every other two-bit radical nativist street gang can harvest.
riiiight…..but the Pak mil have total control, right?
NATO?
it is to laff.
this is Bush’s War, don’t be clueless, Johnpi.
johnpi 3:08 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
but the Pak mil have total control, right?
Irrelevant/red herring/non-response to my point.
Bush’s war? Pakistan’s battle with its militants belongs to Pakistan.
Buzz 3:12 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
There needs to be something like a Muslim UN which consists only of Muslim national military forces and can come in to stabilize weak or oppressed regions without leaning on (or being taken advantage of) western countries.
The US could support this org with equipment and money.
shams 3:23 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
but the Pak mil have total control, right?
for aziz
Bush’s
democracy promotionWar pushes the Reavers into Pak, Johnpi.Do you dispute that?
johnpi 3:47 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
Ripped from the latest headlines: US pulls out of Nuristan, Taliban there now marching to reinforce Pakistani militants.
johnpi 3:55 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
And again, given that if NATO wasn’t in Afghanistan there would still be a standing Taliban army there fighting a civil war, don’t tell me that those Talib fighters wouldn’t have been there if NATO wasn’t.
shams 5:33 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
That is not my point Johnpi.
The point is, ‘Merican troops anywhere in Af-Pak contribute to deligitimizing the Pak government.
And please….dont take me for a WEC “moran”.
The non-American part of the NATO presence is miniscule.
Are you trying to legitimize this misbegotten effort by spreading NATO’s burdha over this disaster?
Owned, bought, and paid for by the american taxpayer.
aziz 8:07 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
now we have gone from “destabilizing” to “delegitimizing”. In whose eyes? no Pakistani thinks their govt is illegitimate just because of American troops in Afghanistan.
shams 8:28 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
right.
wasn’t there recently a riot at the uni in Kabul where students called the Afghani security forces American lapdogs and burned Obama in effigy?
You think that sentiment doesn’t cross the border?
naif.
aziz 8:37 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
“You think that sentiment doesn’t cross the border?”
huh? my dear, Afghan security forces ARE American lapdogs. Thats not exactly a bad thing, but its nevertheless true. What this hasto do with Pakistan, however, is zero. “sentiment” doesn’t “cross the border” because Afghanistan is not Pakistan by a million miles. Dont fall for the fake Af-Pak conflation. Have you been to either nation? I have. We aren’t talking about Texas and Oklahoma here.
naif? I wish I were.
shams 10:23 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
Oh plzzzzz.
Like Musharraf wasn’t our lapdog.
That border is permeable to more than memes.
shams 10:26 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
Or the Bhutto crime dynasty either.
why cant we just fold our tents?
Buzz 10:38 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
Musharraf was not a lapdog. He was a double dealer like Karzai. Smart asses who think they are too clever to be tied down. Well where are you now Mush? Karzai’s story will not end well.
shams 5:57 am on November 3, 2009 Permalink
Well….I would say Mush survived Our Big White Christian Bwana patronage better than the Bhutto Mafia Family.
thabet 12:38 am on November 7, 2009 Permalink
Shams,
This might seem strange coming from me, but yes, Buzz is 100% right on this one.
Lapdog is a perfectly fine insult; a bit like puppet.
But these words mask the complicated relationship between people like Musharraf or Karzai and the US. These people have their own aims, ambitions, ideologies, desires, etc too.
shams 1:23 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
i linked that days ago.
willow 4:03 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
There needs to be something like a Muslim UN which consists only of Muslim national military forces and can come in to stabilize weak or oppressed regions without leaning on (or being taken advantage of) western countries.
I agree. Of course, that begins to look something like a caliphate…
Buzz 4:22 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
That is OK. As long as everyone in a Caliphate wants it or can leave it, the form of Muslim rule should be their decision. An Amir of peace and security for Muslim lands would be a good thing.
Hoh expresses real American values: fairness, objectivity, humanitarianism. I see the same thing in Obama but his situation is more complicated. The best outcome for Afghanistan now would be to cut off the profiteers who run these wars and find a graceful way to declare some kind of moral victory and leave it in safe hands.
I don’t think the Arab world has done a lot for Palestinian Arabs so there is lots of room for improvement.
historian 8:05 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
“There needs to be something like a Muslim UN”
So it’s ok to have a UN group that is all Muslim? How about a UN group that is all Jewish, or all American? This is ridiculous and against the definition of what the UN is.
America invaded Afghanistan after warning the Taliban they will be held responsible for the actions of their guests, who has declared war on us. This is historical fact, not opinion. Another fact to consider is all governments are held accountable for the actions of people in their territory, so this warning to the Taliban is nothing unique.
The Taliban chose to become Afghanistans government, they chose to enter the world stage, and now they are at war because of their own actions (and inactions).
Also, this idea that America is responsible for Afghanistan’s condition before 9/11 is a joke. You’re imply we’re guilty since we didn’t invade the country sooner and install democracy by force? Guilty we didn’t force our will on the Afghan people one way or the other? Or perhaps we’re guilty because we didn’t send more of our citizens hardearned money to them? We had no responsibility to help them in the first place, let alone continue to help them after they won their war.
We were a great friend to Afghanistan, we helped them defeat the Soviets, then we left them alone to live their lives in peace.
I wonder how many Muslims have considered that the Fermi Paradox could be well explained by the concept that intelligent life tends to self destruct? Life itself is a fighter, it’s part of our nature. Once we become smart enough to have the ability to destroy ourselves, we will. And at the core of it will be religion, which by definition is not provable nor logical.
Most of you simply disgust me, especially the jealous lazy muslims who chose to have 7 children and can’t understand why they can’t feed them.
Want to know the single biggest difference between America and much of the middle east? We only have as many children as we can take care of and we despise corruption. We don’t need to send away our children to religious madrassas that teach hatred and are funded by oil money, controlled by unelected tribal mullahs, because of our own avoidable ignorant mistakes.
shams 8:20 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
Well ALL of you disgust me. Pig-ignorant reaver-builders.
We meddled in Afghanistan.
We should have declared war when the Talis refused to turn over OBL.
Instead we got the traditional proselytization of Our Superior WESTERN Civilization.
This all flows from Big White Christian Bwana’s endless meddling in MENA, from Operation Ajax to the Tyrant Shah to Bush’s Gog/Magog war in Iraq.
The Graveyard of Empires will continue to eat American kids until we wise up and gtfo.
ooo! ooo! pick me!
/waves hand
The single biggest difference is that the nation-states of MENA couldn’t afford to go on little expeditions of foreign proselytizing and adventurism.
And now……America can’t afford it either!
hahaha
lulz.
Buzz 10:43 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
How you find this site, historian? Are you angry American with big attitude and tiny little gun that can’t shoot straight anymore? Haha. I am laughing at you with rest of world at your failing capitalists devil dog system. You are rome + 2000 years. Burning. Chinese and Indians will pimp you out to the 3rd world for measly fees, you has been loser.
null 11:19 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
Buzz, is that you?
Buzz 11:30 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
Yes, of course it is me. I am bad muslim stereotype for angry american refugee from dean’s world or other red state regurgitator. I use voice of Boris Badenov to complete really off mark characterization and say things you wish you could, no?
Buzz 10:48 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
I think you sniff too much glue you yankee doodle kaffir! Your brain is baba ganoush.
Or maybe you are making ridiculous joke. Haha. Very funny. You hate corruption, you and enron and worldcom and aig and madoff and so on…
you are making me laugh so much with your stupid jokes.
shams 6:01 am on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
lawls.
Too bad about caucs not having more white babies though, Historian……the christian world is pretty much black, yellow and brown going forward.
Must be all that white baby
abortionmurdering going on in America.thabet 12:35 am on November 7, 2009 Permalink |
I actually feel a little sorry for Obama, and my friends on this blog who live with you, when I read people like you or that fool TotEM.
johnpi 10:47 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
Frothy around here tonight…
historian 7:01 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
“huh? my dear, Afghan security forces ARE American lapdogs. ”
Lapdogs, eh? Why am I not surprised to hear that type of statement.
Grow up.
shams 7:20 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
Run along and enjoy your extinction, two-digit white-boi.
The black, brown and yellow are about to inherit the earth, and I dont think they are going to treat the revenants of Big White Christian Bwana too kindly.
historian 12:45 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
What a mature group of people we have here.
Nice crowd you hang out with Aziz.
Buzz 12:51 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
Pardon us and don’t blame Aziz, Historian. He has no control over who comes and goes and commenting is open to everybody.
Justifying the right to kill your adult daughter for not seeming to share a parent’s values is something that requires deep maturity and a psychosis that develops over time.
I am sorry that you were obviously hurt by some woman who cheated on you or damaged your relationship in some way related to sex. Instead of wanting to kill people, maybe you could get some therapy and talk to someone who can get you past your rage.
Ooops, there I go again. Sorry.
Buzz 12:57 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
Sorry, Hist.
Got you mixed up with Abe Lincoln on another thread I was rereading. Apologies.
You are the one that thinks we have nothing to do with pre 9-11 Afghanistan. Well, we certainly the only ones in there creating problems, but we did fund and do a lot of business with the Taliban fighters.
“We were a great friend to Afghanistan, we helped them defeat the Soviets, then we left them alone to live their lives in peace.”
This statement is kind of delusional. You should read your history closer historian.
historian 2:39 pm on November 6, 2009 Permalink |
“but we did fund and do a lot of business with the Taliban fighters. ”
Please provide proof, please.
Buzz 2:54 pm on November 6, 2009 Permalink |
Come on! You have got to be kidding. Spend a little time.
Here is some primer material:
Mujahideen
Pay special attention to the 2nd to last sentence.
Business directly with Taliban
That should get you started. I could provide links all day. The great Ronald Reagan praised them as “Freedom Fighters” after he cut his deal with Ayatullah Khoemeini.
Does your head hurt yet? About to explode?
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!”
lol
shams 6:20 pm on November 6, 2009 Permalink |
that is a failhistorian methinks.
thabet 12:33 am on November 7, 2009 Permalink |
A 2006 documentary by (UK based) Channel 4′s Dispatches found that Western allies were flogging weapons to the “Taliban”.
Recent evidence suggests local “Taliban” commanders are receiving healthy slices of aid money to stop them attacking reconstruction projects.
Most of our (Western) allies are not much different to the “Taliban” we demonise so much.