Afghanistan:

1) Why are we there?

2)Why were the Russians there?

1) Because that's where bin Laden was hiding when we went in.

1) Because we can.

2) Because they could.

'Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680-km pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and later oil from the Caspian basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the West.' These wars are about oil, not democracy

Unfortunately, NNN your second link is to a piece by John Pilger. You might have chosen another source

You may not know it, but this journalist has given rise to words based on his name; 'pilgerise' and 'pilgerism'; in use in Britain.The word 'pilgerism' was invented by the late Auberon Waugh, a writer in the satirical magazine Private Eye.In that regard John Pilger is with Captain Boycott and the marquis de Sade rather than with ,say, Pasteur or Sir Robert 'Bobby' Peel ['bobby' and 'peeler' for a policeman]

These words roughly translate as the art of misrepresenting, or being careless with, facts, to write your own propaganda .If you 'google' pilgerism , no doubt you'll find some examples of it.Pilger is sometimes thought to be of the far left, but some prefer to think of him simply as Pilger being Pilger. The latter is more subtle and more accurate, perhaps.

It's simply not true to say that examples of civilians being killed in Afghanistan, with the innuendo that other journalists are either ignorant of or are deliberately concealing what is going on and misrepresnting the facts, are being ignored by the media here.Qualifying words such as 'largely' are intended to give a let- out, but that's a common device in such cases.The effect is unaltered.

The New Statesman happens to be of the left itself, but that's not really relevant.It is, however, unusual for a British magazine or newspaper to give a 'puff' ,promoting the achievements of a known writer or regular contributor, alongside the piece they publish.Aliter, if the writer is a specialist in some narrow field of science, when their credentials are given to show their status and to distinguish them from a mere journalist writing on the subject.

Once a writer has that reputation we are slow to accept anything he says or conclusion he draws

Nevertheless, Pilger is not the only person to question the strategy of "more bombs and more soldiers" as the best way to bring some kind of acceptable settlement in Afghanistan. The Soviets had many more troops on the ground and failed. Pilger may be right in suggesting that increasingly aggressive NATO military operations are counter-productive in that they are alienating Afghanistanis.

Afghan MPs warn foreign troops on civilian deaths

Oxfam America Urges Candidates to Address Poverty and Insecurity in Afghanistan

Brzezinski warns against repeating Soviet experience

There's increasing opposition in Canada to the idea that the war in Iraq is the 'good war' (in contrast to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq), and that the solution to the conflict can be a military one:

It's time to recalibrate Canada's mission

Taliban winning propaganda battle in Afghanistan, says think tank

NNN,that you can cite a Reuters report, inter alia, gives the lie to Pilger's claim about this being unreported, largely or otherwise. There we have an example of pilgerism in action. The Times and other serious papers report this widely.

Nobody over here doubts that killing civilians is counter-productive.Countries in Europe have experience of it, both nationally and in the context of fighting terrorism and insurgency.The other view belongs in the 'stuff happens' school, one not unfamiliar to one American administration, together with the view that bombing cities or dwellings is an essential to 'victory'.

The British have been at pains to play up their work in befriending and in improving the lot of ordinary Afghanis.

Hi Fred:

I understand that Obama plans to pull all of our troops out of Iraq within 16 months...

unfortuately he plans on putting them all into Afghanistan...

so don't look for them to be comimg home soon.

hippolips

Maybe if he does, we can finally get bin Laden, then. You DO remember him, don't you, Hippo? He was the reason we went in to Afghanistan. He is the guy behind the 9/11 Atacks. He is the head of al Qeada. Please tell me that you at least realize who he is and what he did.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Maybe if he does, we can finally get bin Laden, then. You DO remember him, don't you, Hippo? He was the reason we went in to Afghanistan. He is the guy behind the 9/11 Atacks. He is the head of al Qeada. Please tell me that you at least realize who he is and what he did.

______________________________________________

Hi Dor:

If I remember correctly Obama promised to bring our boys home...not dump them into Afghanistan...that's why he got nominated.

"I'll bring our boys home in 16 months."..sure he will.

Tell that to every wife or mother who has a boy or girl serving their 3rd or 4th tour in Iraq.

hippolips

uh...Hippo...Obama hasn't been nominated yet. Please pay attention to what is happening. Besides, don't blame him for those serving their 3rd, 4th, or even 5th tour of duty in Iraq. That blame goes to your buddy george. (Maybe george should have lowered requirements to join even more. Surely there are more felons who might be persuaded to join. He could have also raised the upper age limit to join again, making it 50 or so.)

quote:

Originally posted by hippolips:
Hi Fred:

I understand that Obama plans to pull all of our troops out of Iraq within 16 months...

unfortuately he plans on putting them all into Afghanistan...

so don't look for them to be comimg home soon.

hippolips

Well, Hippo, where do you think the British troops from Iraq have gone?
Afghanistan.

Last time we had that many troops there would have around 1880 (Second Afghan War).Then we were fighting to get control of that key access point because we didn't want the Russians to have it. We installed a puppet government.Nothing new, is there?

Anyway, why do you want your troops back home? What's the point of having an army if all you do is keep it in barracks in your own country ?

"Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades," McCain said. "Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them." msnbc.msn.com

McCain, it seems, would actually like those additional soldiers to come from other NATO countries (he's a little muddled, not being used to real 'command', I guess). An increased NATO contribution is maybe unlikely, with so many (as Fred, but not Pilger, points out ) questioning the military solution. It does seem that whoever is the next US President is going to send more forces to Afghanistan. Too little, too late - and the wrong thinking anyway?

"Too little, too late - and the wrong thinking anyway?"

I think that depends on the mission. The original mission was to find bin Laden. That was a mission that most of the Left, and many in the rest of the world, found not only acceptable but desirable. I still think it is extremely important, even though this administration and seemingly most politicians have forgotten about it. McCain is just now mentioning it again, possibly because he sees it as a political wedge. But there is nothing political about finding and bringing to justice the man behind the killing of so many victims. Afghanistan is where our military belongs, and where they should have remained until bin Laden was either caught, killed, or proven to not be there. If he is in Pakistan, of any other country, we should simply tell that country that they have a day or two to either bring him to us, prove that he is dead, or prove that he has left the country. If they do none of those, we should go in ourselves.

The people of the US let themselves get sidetracked by the antics of the buffoons in this administration and bush's need to prove that he is better than Daddy. (Once again, he failed miserably at that.) The 9/11 attacks were the reason for going into Afghanistan; we went in to get bin Laden. Had the Taliban produced him at that time, they would still be in control of the government instead of just a large part of the country. But they didn't, and we removed them from the government. We should have left it at that until we found bin Laden. Only then should we have worried about how their country was going to be governed.

'... By any measure, a military “victory” in Afghanistan is simply not possible. The only viable alternative is to begin direct negotiations with the Taliban, and to draw in regional powers with a stake in the outcome: Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, China, and India.

But to do so will require abandoning our “story” about the Afghan conflict as a “good war.” In this new millennium, there are no good wars.' Afghanistan: Not a Good War