Riiiight. Stopping the settlements is definitely bashing Jews... unless you want any kind of even a start to peace.
Full Version: Afghanistan
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
Riiiight. Stopping the settlements is definitely bashing Jews... unless you want any kind of even a start to peace.
QUOTE
KABUL, Afghanistan — A suicide bomber driving a motorcycle detonated his explosives near a densely crowded traffic intersection in the eastern city of Khost on Monday, killing 7 Afghan civilians and wounding 44, including 7 children, local officials said.
The blast came just seconds after a smaller explosion rocked the same spot.
The bombs were most likely part of a strategy in which the first attacker hoped to draw security forces to the scene, and the second strike was intended to kill them, said Kochi Nasery, spokesman for the governor of Khost.
However, the explosions were separated by only a few seconds, and officials had not yet arrived at the scene.
Also in Khost on Monday, NATO forces killed an Afghan driver who ignored several pleas by international forces to get his vehicle to come to a stop. A NATO official said no further details were available.
In a separate attack in Kandahar Province, a suicide bomber on foot blew himself up, killing three Afghan soldiers and wounding five others, local officials said....
The blast came just seconds after a smaller explosion rocked the same spot.
The bombs were most likely part of a strategy in which the first attacker hoped to draw security forces to the scene, and the second strike was intended to kill them, said Kochi Nasery, spokesman for the governor of Khost.
However, the explosions were separated by only a few seconds, and officials had not yet arrived at the scene.
Also in Khost on Monday, NATO forces killed an Afghan driver who ignored several pleas by international forces to get his vehicle to come to a stop. A NATO official said no further details were available.
In a separate attack in Kandahar Province, a suicide bomber on foot blew himself up, killing three Afghan soldiers and wounding five others, local officials said....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/as...n.html?ref=asia
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged military leaders from the Persian Gulf region to help with security and development of Afghanistan, saying there is only a "fleeting opportunity" now to turn the stalemated war around.
Speaking at a conference in downtown Washington, Gates called the ongoing Pakistan military offensive against insurgents "an encouraging first step" by a government that had long tilted the readiness of its armed forces toward a possible conflict with nuclear neighbor India.
"Also encouraging is the support Afghanistan has received from other nations, including members of the Gulf community," Gates told military officials from a dozen nations including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq.
But he encouraged other countries to do more to improve Afghan governance, security, development and reconstruction. "The application of more resources, improved cooperation, a better integrated civil, military and diplomatic strategy — and the benefit of lessons learned both in-country and in Iraq — present a historic but fleeting opportunity to turn the situation in Afghanistan around," Gates said.
Col. John Spiszer told a Pentagon press conference earlier Tuesday that Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against insurgents appears to be helping in Afghanistan.
"I think there's a definite impact, and I think it almost can't be overstated," said Spiszer, commander of troops in northeastern Afghanistan along the Pakistani border.
Pakistan's Army and Frontier Corps have been clearing out militants from the Swat Valley and nearby districts since late April and the army has been pounding strongholds of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in the South Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan in apparent preparation for a major offensive.
Spiszer specifically cited the efforts in Swat, Dir district and the Mohmand and Bajur areas.
"The operations have been going on, and the activity in this area (of Afghanistan) has declined," Spiszer told a Pentagon press conference. "And not just declined, but what I think is happening is weapons are drying up, money is drying up, and there's only so many resources to go around up in the (tribal area) to travel over into Afghanistan."
He gave no figures to quantify the effect. But speaking by videoconference from Jalalabad, Spiszer said commanders have "pretty good evidence" that demand has pushed the prices of weapons and ammunition to double what the were last summer.
"So that's a great sign because there's only so much that they can do ... if they can't pay their fighters, if they can't buy weapons."
Speaking at a conference in downtown Washington, Gates called the ongoing Pakistan military offensive against insurgents "an encouraging first step" by a government that had long tilted the readiness of its armed forces toward a possible conflict with nuclear neighbor India.
"Also encouraging is the support Afghanistan has received from other nations, including members of the Gulf community," Gates told military officials from a dozen nations including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq.
But he encouraged other countries to do more to improve Afghan governance, security, development and reconstruction. "The application of more resources, improved cooperation, a better integrated civil, military and diplomatic strategy — and the benefit of lessons learned both in-country and in Iraq — present a historic but fleeting opportunity to turn the situation in Afghanistan around," Gates said.
Col. John Spiszer told a Pentagon press conference earlier Tuesday that Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against insurgents appears to be helping in Afghanistan.
"I think there's a definite impact, and I think it almost can't be overstated," said Spiszer, commander of troops in northeastern Afghanistan along the Pakistani border.
Pakistan's Army and Frontier Corps have been clearing out militants from the Swat Valley and nearby districts since late April and the army has been pounding strongholds of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in the South Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan in apparent preparation for a major offensive.
Spiszer specifically cited the efforts in Swat, Dir district and the Mohmand and Bajur areas.
"The operations have been going on, and the activity in this area (of Afghanistan) has declined," Spiszer told a Pentagon press conference. "And not just declined, but what I think is happening is weapons are drying up, money is drying up, and there's only so many resources to go around up in the (tribal area) to travel over into Afghanistan."
He gave no figures to quantify the effect. But speaking by videoconference from Jalalabad, Spiszer said commanders have "pretty good evidence" that demand has pushed the prices of weapons and ammunition to double what the were last summer.
"So that's a great sign because there's only so much that they can do ... if they can't pay their fighters, if they can't buy weapons."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...0alBTgD990IQ5O0
Good luck w/that, John.
Taliban Make Human Shields Work
June 24, 2009: The U.S. has again changed their rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan, in response to popular anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result, it's much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb when there might be civilians nearby.
Taliban propaganda, and the enthusiasm of the media for jumping on real, or imagined, civilian deaths caused by foreign troops, made people forget that far more civilians (about four times as many) had been killed by the Taliban. But because Afghans have been conditioned to expect more civilized behavior from the foreign troops, much less media attention is paid to the civilians killed by the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Of course, Afghan civilians are aware of who is killing most of the civilians, and that's why the Taliban and al Qaeda are moving down in the opinion polls. But the media hammering foreign troops get every time they kill a civilian, or are simply (often falsely) accused of doing so, has led to the ROE becoming far more strict than they ever were in Iraq. Thus one Taliban victory you don't hear much about is how they turned their use of human shields into a powerful, and very successful, propaganda weapon against NATO and U.S. troops, and an excellent way to avoid many attacks by U.S. and NATO troops.
Under the new ROE, you must, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that attacks are often called off just because there's some small risk of harming civilians.
The Taliban are aware of the ROE, and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft and UAVs to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time, has led to the deaths of many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.
The U.S. Air Force has managed to reduce civilian casualties, from deliberate air attack, to near zero. Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these conditions, the ROE is much more flexible, but now Taliban use of civilians as human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this, and there may be tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart bomb, and told that they can't have it because of the risk of civilian casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid getting hit with a smart bomb.
The new restrictions on the use of air power, and the greater Taliban use of civilians as human shields, has enabled the Taliban to avoid a lot of situations where they would otherwise get killed. When they are out in the open, the Taliban still get toasted regularly by foreign troops (with or without the use of smart bombs). The new ROE is based on the fact that the Taliban are increasingly openly hated by Afghan civilians. This has led to more tribes getting angry enough to fight the Taliban. This is why outside of Pushtun areas (most of southern Afghanistan), you see very few Taliban. The Taliban are basically a Pushtun thing, and non-Pushtun people are violently opposed to any Taliban moving into their territory. The new American ROE is hoping to exploit that growing hatred of the Taliban in the south. But in some areas of the south, particularly Helmand province (where most of the worlds heroin comes from), where the Taliban and locals are in the drug business together, there are still fans of the Taliban. Moreover, the Taliban recruits heavily in Helmand, and adjacent provinces. This is where the Taliban came from (initially as refugees living in Pakistan.) Helmand has always been ground zero in the fight against the Taliban, and now the fight has gotten harder, and more dangerous.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/20090624.aspx
June 24, 2009: The U.S. has again changed their rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan, in response to popular anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result, it's much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb when there might be civilians nearby.
Taliban propaganda, and the enthusiasm of the media for jumping on real, or imagined, civilian deaths caused by foreign troops, made people forget that far more civilians (about four times as many) had been killed by the Taliban. But because Afghans have been conditioned to expect more civilized behavior from the foreign troops, much less media attention is paid to the civilians killed by the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Of course, Afghan civilians are aware of who is killing most of the civilians, and that's why the Taliban and al Qaeda are moving down in the opinion polls. But the media hammering foreign troops get every time they kill a civilian, or are simply (often falsely) accused of doing so, has led to the ROE becoming far more strict than they ever were in Iraq. Thus one Taliban victory you don't hear much about is how they turned their use of human shields into a powerful, and very successful, propaganda weapon against NATO and U.S. troops, and an excellent way to avoid many attacks by U.S. and NATO troops.
Under the new ROE, you must, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that attacks are often called off just because there's some small risk of harming civilians.
The Taliban are aware of the ROE, and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft and UAVs to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time, has led to the deaths of many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.
The U.S. Air Force has managed to reduce civilian casualties, from deliberate air attack, to near zero. Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these conditions, the ROE is much more flexible, but now Taliban use of civilians as human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this, and there may be tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart bomb, and told that they can't have it because of the risk of civilian casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid getting hit with a smart bomb.
The new restrictions on the use of air power, and the greater Taliban use of civilians as human shields, has enabled the Taliban to avoid a lot of situations where they would otherwise get killed. When they are out in the open, the Taliban still get toasted regularly by foreign troops (with or without the use of smart bombs). The new ROE is based on the fact that the Taliban are increasingly openly hated by Afghan civilians. This has led to more tribes getting angry enough to fight the Taliban. This is why outside of Pushtun areas (most of southern Afghanistan), you see very few Taliban. The Taliban are basically a Pushtun thing, and non-Pushtun people are violently opposed to any Taliban moving into their territory. The new American ROE is hoping to exploit that growing hatred of the Taliban in the south. But in some areas of the south, particularly Helmand province (where most of the worlds heroin comes from), where the Taliban and locals are in the drug business together, there are still fans of the Taliban. Moreover, the Taliban recruits heavily in Helmand, and adjacent provinces. This is where the Taliban came from (initially as refugees living in Pakistan.) Helmand has always been ground zero in the fight against the Taliban, and now the fight has gotten harder, and more dangerous.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/20090624.aspx
Smart bombs is an oxymoron.
Stupid startegy. Maybe not so dumb where there was credible intel. That ain't Afghanistan.
Lucky if you can find smart people.
Stupid startegy. Maybe not so dumb where there was credible intel. That ain't Afghanistan.
Lucky if you can find smart people.
Precision guided bombs would be better, but not so snappy.
Not so dellusional tho.
Precision still an oxymoron.
All dependent on level of intel. Measley.
~~~~~~
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-...90624-cww5.html
Know they were militants because of their militant ID badges.
Precision still an oxymoron.
All dependent on level of intel. Measley.
~~~~~~
QUOTE
A bomb tore through a vehicle in Afghanistan Wednesday and killed seven civilians while authorities reported that 54 people, mostly militants, were killed in other insurgency-linked violence.
A tide of unrest has reached record levels in Afghanistan nearly eight years after the ouster of the Taliban regime, prompting the United States to rethink its strategy amid fears the bloodshed could overshadow August elections.
A roadside bomb of the sort used by Taliban against security forces struck a civilian vehicle in the turbulent southern province of Helmand, the interior ministry said in a statement.
"Today seven civilian countrymen were martyred when a mine planted by the enemies blew up their vehicle," it said, adding four others were wounded.
The province has seen heavy military operations in recent weeks as security forces try to clear out insurgents hotspots ahead of August 20 presidential and provincial council elections.
Afghan soldiers have killed 48 militants in two operations in Helmand and adjoining Uruzgan this week aimed at clearing Taliban strongholds, officials announced Wednesday.
Local troops backed by NATO-led international forces stormed a militant stronghold in Uruzgan on Tuesday, killing 23 insurgents, Afghan army General Sher Mohammad Zazai told AFP.
Fighter jets from the NATO force took part in the battle close to the provincial capital of Tirin Kot and near the Pakistan border, he added.
The Afghan defence ministry reported separately that troops had killed 25 "terrorists" in a three-day clean-up operation that ended on Tuesday in the southern province of Helmand.
The main producer of Afghanistan's illegal opium, Helmand sees some of the worst of the insurgency, with a handful of districts said to be under insurgent control.
US national security adviser James Jones visited the province on Wednesday as part of a tour to assess implementation of a new US strategy against the Taliban that promises more troops, money and development.
In other violence, two Afghan intelligence officers were killed late Tuesday in the southern province of Zabul, provincial governor Mohammad Ashraf Nasery said.
Police in the same province killed four Taliban who had attacked a convoy also the same day, he said.
Jones started his trip in Kabul on Tuesday where he met President Hamid Karzai and the top US commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who took over just over a week ago.
He stressed US commitment to securing the August 20 presidential elections, a milestone in international efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan after the 1996-2001 Taliban regime was toppled in a US-backed invasion.
The Taliban insurgency has grown steadily in recent years, and picked up again in recent weeks, raising fears for the security of the elections....
A tide of unrest has reached record levels in Afghanistan nearly eight years after the ouster of the Taliban regime, prompting the United States to rethink its strategy amid fears the bloodshed could overshadow August elections.
A roadside bomb of the sort used by Taliban against security forces struck a civilian vehicle in the turbulent southern province of Helmand, the interior ministry said in a statement.
"Today seven civilian countrymen were martyred when a mine planted by the enemies blew up their vehicle," it said, adding four others were wounded.
The province has seen heavy military operations in recent weeks as security forces try to clear out insurgents hotspots ahead of August 20 presidential and provincial council elections.
Afghan soldiers have killed 48 militants in two operations in Helmand and adjoining Uruzgan this week aimed at clearing Taliban strongholds, officials announced Wednesday.
Local troops backed by NATO-led international forces stormed a militant stronghold in Uruzgan on Tuesday, killing 23 insurgents, Afghan army General Sher Mohammad Zazai told AFP.
Fighter jets from the NATO force took part in the battle close to the provincial capital of Tirin Kot and near the Pakistan border, he added.
The Afghan defence ministry reported separately that troops had killed 25 "terrorists" in a three-day clean-up operation that ended on Tuesday in the southern province of Helmand.
The main producer of Afghanistan's illegal opium, Helmand sees some of the worst of the insurgency, with a handful of districts said to be under insurgent control.
US national security adviser James Jones visited the province on Wednesday as part of a tour to assess implementation of a new US strategy against the Taliban that promises more troops, money and development.
In other violence, two Afghan intelligence officers were killed late Tuesday in the southern province of Zabul, provincial governor Mohammad Ashraf Nasery said.
Police in the same province killed four Taliban who had attacked a convoy also the same day, he said.
Jones started his trip in Kabul on Tuesday where he met President Hamid Karzai and the top US commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who took over just over a week ago.
He stressed US commitment to securing the August 20 presidential elections, a milestone in international efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan after the 1996-2001 Taliban regime was toppled in a US-backed invasion.
The Taliban insurgency has grown steadily in recent years, and picked up again in recent weeks, raising fears for the security of the elections....
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-...90624-cww5.html
Know they were militants because of their militant ID badges.
QUOTE (hunin @ Jun 24 2009, 07:43 PM) 
Not so dellusional tho.
Precision still an oxymoron.
All dependent on level of intel. Measley.
Precision still an oxymoron.
All dependent on level of intel. Measley.
Here we go again with the mis-use of terminology. "Precision" in this case refers to the inherent accuracy of hitting the aim point. In the case of a laser-guided or TV-guided bomb, it is the precision with which the laser/TV target selector can be directed to a given spot and held there throughout the terminal flight of the bomb, as opposed to a gravity bomb dropped at some height from an aircraft whose exact path to the target is fixed ballistically at the moment of release and is totally dependent upon the speed of the aircraft, the g forces acting upon the bomb and aircraft, the vagueries of windspeed and direction, and any imperfections in the bomb release and stabilizing mechanisms themselves, as well as the pilot's accuracy in dropping at the precise dive angle, and delivery height for the attack profile selected, his accuracy in determining both target and aimpoint (based on his/her best guess as to all those other conditions) at the moment of release. For GPS or inertially guided weapons, the inherent accuracies of the internal guidance systems are wholly dependent upon the accuracy of the target coordinates entered prior to release. Example is a 750 lb gravity bomb, 45 degree dive bomb. In the best of conditions the bomb has a circular error probable (CEP) of 75 feet (exemplary number only, the actual I do not have in front of me but it is close to what I recall from my bomb-dropping days). That means that for X number of bombs dropped in the same exact parameters, 50% will fall inside a radius of 75 feet from the desired impact point. That's if you're perfect - imperfection expands the CEP. With LGB's that number was around 15 feet, for TV guided about 20 feet. For GPS-guided I think it's close to 20 feet IF you are perfect in your target coords. In tight situations the CEP difference is critical.
The Taliban set up civilian casualties and use them to best advantage. If we never killed a single civilian they'd probably do it themselves for the propaganda.
A big thermonuclear device is so much more precise for these purposes as the NORKs about to find out...
QUOTE (Spot @ Jun 24 2009, 07:31 PM)
The Taliban set up civilian casualties and use them to best advantage. If we never killed a single civilian they'd probably do it themselves for the propaganda.
The United States announced a new drug policy Saturday for opium-rich Afghanistan, saying it was phasing out funding for eradication efforts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31580590/ns/wo...d_central_asia/
free money
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31580590/ns/wo...d_central_asia/
free money
QUOTE (inyerface @ Jun 27 2009, 07:06 AM)
The United States announced a new drug policy Saturday for opium-rich Afghanistan, saying it was phasing out funding for eradication efforts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31580590/ns/wo...d_central_asia/
free money
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31580590/ns/wo...d_central_asia/
free money
Not pretty but good to know one's limitations. And just work to do the best one can.
Reality can be a real pisser.
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSSP463281
QUOTE
DESERT OF DEATH, Afghanistan, June 28 (Reuters) - After five years coping with the most dangerous province in Iraq, the U.S. Marines have been given their next assignment: the most dangerous province in Afghanistan.
But this time around, they say they will talk a little more and shoot a little less.
"We spent so much time in Iraq learning from our mistakes," said Corporal Mahmoud Awada, a 21-year-old Lebanese-American Marine from Utah, who spent the second half of 2007 and early 2008 in Anbar west of Baghdad.
"We learned that we can't just go around kicking down doors because that won't work. In Iraq, what really helped us win over there, make the situation better, was gaining the trust of the people, becoming friends with them."
The Marines that have arrived in recent weeks in Afghanistan's wild southern Helmand province are a different force from the Marines who blasted their way into Anbar.
Back then, the Marines were still learning the art of counter-insurgency warfare.
An Arabic speaker, Awada worked closely with the Iraqi army. It was frustrating at times, but it opened his eyes.
"You have to sit down and talk with them, talk for a while, enjoy a nice cup of tea, get to know them a little better, ask them how their family is doing," Awada said.
The Marines fought two massive battles for the Anbar city of Fallujah in 2004, the biggest engagements of the Iraq war.
Anbar was almost completely in the hands of insurgents for the next 2 or 3 years and the Marines gained an early reputation for heavy-handed use of firepower.
They had turned it around by late 2007, forming an alliance with local tribal leaders against al Qaeda militants that helped transform Iraq's most violent province into one of its safest.
Today, they are being asked to repeat the trick in Helmand, the heartland of Afghanistan's Taliban. U.S. President Barack Obama, overseeing a troop drawdown in Iraq, has made Afghanistan the military's top priority....
The 8,500 Marines sent to Helmand are the biggest wave of a reinforcement strategy that will see U.S. forces in Afghanistan rise from 32,000 at the end of 2008 to 68,000 by the end of 2009.
Southern Helmand, like Anbar, is virtually entirely made up of a vast, empty desert, cut through by a single river, surrounded by a band of densely populated agricultural land. Insurgents infiltrate across a long and poorly guarded border.
In both Anbar and Helmand, locals are wary of even their close neighbours, much less outsiders from the capital or abroad.
Winning their trust is tricky, but it pays off, said Corporal Vincent Schaffer, 21, who served in Iraq last year and signed back up to go to Afghanistan at the first opportunity.
"If you spend time with them, treat them with respect, kind of become friends with them, then they are more willing to help us, provide us with information, the things we need to conduct operations in their area," Schaffer said.
Lieutenant Kenneth Zavada led a platoon of the 10th Marines on a patrol on Sunday to isolated settlements in Helmand's brutal Dasht-e-Margo, the Desert of Death.
None of the locals had ever seen a U.S. Marine. Most were friendly, if a bit stand-offish, working in fields that grow opium poppy, marijuana, wheat, alfalfa and some vegetables.
"My name's Kenny," he said, reaching out to shake hands with a grey-bearded farmer. "Is it OK if I come back here again and talk to you about solar-powered pumps for your well?"
Helmand produces the bulk of Afghanistan's opium poppy crop -- something the Marines never encountered in Iraq. Walking from compound to compound, the Marines crushed the dried stalks of the harvested opium crop beneath their boots.
Opium funds the insurgency. It will have to be dealt with but is not something the Marines will start a fight over.
"We know it's a huge problem, but right now we don't consider it a priority. People have to feed their families. If you start mowing down their poppy fields, you just make them angrier," Zavada said. "History proves you are never going to shoot your way out of an insurgency."
But this time around, they say they will talk a little more and shoot a little less.
"We spent so much time in Iraq learning from our mistakes," said Corporal Mahmoud Awada, a 21-year-old Lebanese-American Marine from Utah, who spent the second half of 2007 and early 2008 in Anbar west of Baghdad.
"We learned that we can't just go around kicking down doors because that won't work. In Iraq, what really helped us win over there, make the situation better, was gaining the trust of the people, becoming friends with them."
The Marines that have arrived in recent weeks in Afghanistan's wild southern Helmand province are a different force from the Marines who blasted their way into Anbar.
Back then, the Marines were still learning the art of counter-insurgency warfare.
An Arabic speaker, Awada worked closely with the Iraqi army. It was frustrating at times, but it opened his eyes.
"You have to sit down and talk with them, talk for a while, enjoy a nice cup of tea, get to know them a little better, ask them how their family is doing," Awada said.
The Marines fought two massive battles for the Anbar city of Fallujah in 2004, the biggest engagements of the Iraq war.
Anbar was almost completely in the hands of insurgents for the next 2 or 3 years and the Marines gained an early reputation for heavy-handed use of firepower.
They had turned it around by late 2007, forming an alliance with local tribal leaders against al Qaeda militants that helped transform Iraq's most violent province into one of its safest.
Today, they are being asked to repeat the trick in Helmand, the heartland of Afghanistan's Taliban. U.S. President Barack Obama, overseeing a troop drawdown in Iraq, has made Afghanistan the military's top priority....
The 8,500 Marines sent to Helmand are the biggest wave of a reinforcement strategy that will see U.S. forces in Afghanistan rise from 32,000 at the end of 2008 to 68,000 by the end of 2009.
Southern Helmand, like Anbar, is virtually entirely made up of a vast, empty desert, cut through by a single river, surrounded by a band of densely populated agricultural land. Insurgents infiltrate across a long and poorly guarded border.
In both Anbar and Helmand, locals are wary of even their close neighbours, much less outsiders from the capital or abroad.
Winning their trust is tricky, but it pays off, said Corporal Vincent Schaffer, 21, who served in Iraq last year and signed back up to go to Afghanistan at the first opportunity.
"If you spend time with them, treat them with respect, kind of become friends with them, then they are more willing to help us, provide us with information, the things we need to conduct operations in their area," Schaffer said.
Lieutenant Kenneth Zavada led a platoon of the 10th Marines on a patrol on Sunday to isolated settlements in Helmand's brutal Dasht-e-Margo, the Desert of Death.
None of the locals had ever seen a U.S. Marine. Most were friendly, if a bit stand-offish, working in fields that grow opium poppy, marijuana, wheat, alfalfa and some vegetables.
"My name's Kenny," he said, reaching out to shake hands with a grey-bearded farmer. "Is it OK if I come back here again and talk to you about solar-powered pumps for your well?"
Helmand produces the bulk of Afghanistan's opium poppy crop -- something the Marines never encountered in Iraq. Walking from compound to compound, the Marines crushed the dried stalks of the harvested opium crop beneath their boots.
Opium funds the insurgency. It will have to be dealt with but is not something the Marines will start a fight over.
"We know it's a huge problem, but right now we don't consider it a priority. People have to feed their families. If you start mowing down their poppy fields, you just make them angrier," Zavada said. "History proves you are never going to shoot your way out of an insurgency."
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSSP463281
QUOTE
The U.S. military has launched a major offensive against Taliban militants in towns and villages of southern Afghan province of Helmand in an effort to clear militants from the region ahead of the forthcoming August 20 presidential elections, said officials on Thursday.
According to officials, the new offensive code named Operation Khanjar, or "Strike of the Sword," was launched early hours of Thursday. Some 4,000 U.S. marines and 650 Afghan troops are involved in the offensive, supported by more than 50 U.S. and other allied warplanes.
Brigadier General Larry Nicholson of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade described the latest offensive as unique because of its "massive size" and speed. Meanwhile, some U.S. officials on the ground said that it was the biggest ever marine offensive since Vietnam.
"What makes Operation Khanjar different from those that have occurred before is the massive size of the force introduced, the speed at which it will insert," Brig. Gen. Nicholson said in a statement. "Where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces."
Helmand province is considered to be the hot-bed of Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, and it is estimated that at least 25 U.S. and British troops have been killed in the region this year alone. Also, southern Afghanistan is the center of opium production in the country that accounts for almost 90 per cent of the world's supply, and the Taliban militants there use the money generated from the illegal trade of opium to fund their insurgency.
The offensive launched Thursday is the U.S. military's largest operation in Afghanistan after General Stanley McChrystal, a former U.S. special forces commander, officially took charge of the nearly 90,000 U.S. and NATO-led troops fighting Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan mid-June....
According to officials, the new offensive code named Operation Khanjar, or "Strike of the Sword," was launched early hours of Thursday. Some 4,000 U.S. marines and 650 Afghan troops are involved in the offensive, supported by more than 50 U.S. and other allied warplanes.
Brigadier General Larry Nicholson of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade described the latest offensive as unique because of its "massive size" and speed. Meanwhile, some U.S. officials on the ground said that it was the biggest ever marine offensive since Vietnam.
"What makes Operation Khanjar different from those that have occurred before is the massive size of the force introduced, the speed at which it will insert," Brig. Gen. Nicholson said in a statement. "Where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces."
Helmand province is considered to be the hot-bed of Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, and it is estimated that at least 25 U.S. and British troops have been killed in the region this year alone. Also, southern Afghanistan is the center of opium production in the country that accounts for almost 90 per cent of the world's supply, and the Taliban militants there use the money generated from the illegal trade of opium to fund their insurgency.
The offensive launched Thursday is the U.S. military's largest operation in Afghanistan after General Stanley McChrystal, a former U.S. special forces commander, officially took charge of the nearly 90,000 U.S. and NATO-led troops fighting Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan mid-June....
http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews...1&Id=995070
All good luck, Larry.
What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July.
Thank a soldier, marine, airman, sailor or coastie
for keeping us free.
Your Pre-July 4th Weekend Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRmFS1nNmtQ...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfYtwLTmS1k&NR=1
As you devil those eggs and get the Bud on ice.
Remember the 4,000 Marines in
Afghanistan today who won't be doing any of that.
Lucianne.com
US Marines push deeper into southern Afghan towns
Associated Press,
by Jason Straziuso and Fisnik Abrashi
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1
7/3/2009 8:28:11 AM
NAWA, Afghanistan - U.S. Marines moved into villages in Taliban strongholds in southern Afghanistan on Friday, meeting little resistance as they tried to win over local chiefs on the second day of the biggest military operation here since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001. One Marine was killed and several others injured or wounded on Thursday, when some 4,000 Marines launched the operation in Helmand province....
Associated Press,
by Jason Straziuso and Fisnik Abrashi
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1
7/3/2009 8:28:11 AM
NAWA, Afghanistan - U.S. Marines moved into villages in Taliban strongholds in southern Afghanistan on Friday, meeting little resistance as they tried to win over local chiefs on the second day of the biggest military operation here since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001. One Marine was killed and several others injured or wounded on Thursday, when some 4,000 Marines launched the operation in Helmand province....
I forgot to put mine out, went fishing and the gf put it out for me. Good girl.
QUOTE
U.S. and Afghan officials say two U.S. soldiers and at least 30 militants have been killed in fighting that began with a Taliban attack on a U.S. military base in eastern Afghanistan.
Officials say Taliban militants began firing on the base in the Zirok district of Paktika province Saturday. During an ensuing clash with U.S. troops, a suicide bomber drove an explosives-laden truck toward the base, but he was shot before he could reach it. The truck exploded.
The battle ended when the U.S. military called in airstrikes. Afghan officials say at least 30 militants were killed. The U.S. military says two of its soldiers were killed in an explosion.
At least seven U.S. and two Afghan troops were wounded in the fighting.
Saturday's attack took place in the same province where an American soldier was believed captured by insurgents on Tuesday. A Taliban faction led by Sirajuddin Haqqani operates in Paktika province and has been responsible for a number of high profile attacks....
Officials say Taliban militants began firing on the base in the Zirok district of Paktika province Saturday. During an ensuing clash with U.S. troops, a suicide bomber drove an explosives-laden truck toward the base, but he was shot before he could reach it. The truck exploded.
The battle ended when the U.S. military called in airstrikes. Afghan officials say at least 30 militants were killed. The U.S. military says two of its soldiers were killed in an explosion.
At least seven U.S. and two Afghan troops were wounded in the fighting.
Saturday's attack took place in the same province where an American soldier was believed captured by insurgents on Tuesday. A Taliban faction led by Sirajuddin Haqqani operates in Paktika province and has been responsible for a number of high profile attacks....
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-04-voa12.cfm
What a zoo.
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Jul 4 2009, 11:48 AM)
What a zoo.
No, it's a very different and difficult War against muzzie terrorists we are trying to win - but being a liberal democrat and BushHater you would not admit it!
I am not a liberal but I do hate Bush.
Mullah Sprung From Gitmo Jail Now Leads Foe in Afghan Campaign 
New York Post, by Seth G. Jones
7/5/2009 5:18:09 AM
KABUL, Afghanistan -- As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban. Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.
New York Post, by Seth G. Jones
7/5/2009 5:18:09 AM
KABUL, Afghanistan -- As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban. Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.
QUOTE
SORKHDOZ, Afghanistan, July 5 (Reuters) - The mullah's message was blunt. We don't trust you and if you don't earn our trust, our first meeting will be our last.
With that, he stood abruptly and walked out of his first "shura", or council meeting, with U.S. Marines.
U.S. forces who have moved deep into formerly Taliban-controlled territory in southern Afghanistan this week say they are here to stay and will not leave until they have improved the lives of ordinary people.
But locals -- used to seeing NATO troops come through to fight but fail to follow through on promises of development -- may not be won over easily.
This week, the Marines, sent by President Barack Obama, launched operation Strike of the Sword, one of the biggest operations by ground forces in Afghanistan since Soviet forces withdrew in 1989.
Their goal has been to seize quickly the lower Helmand River valley, a Taliban stronghold and the world's biggest opium producing region, where fighters resisted advances by an overstretched British-led NATO force for years.
In the village of Sorkhdoz, Foxtrot Company of the 2nd battalion, 8th Marines held their first shura with local elders on Sunday, three days after arriving on assault helicopters.
No one invited them into their home. Instead, they met on the street, in the shade of the outside wall of a mud-brick compound.
The company commander, Captain Junwei Sun, promised his troops were not just passing through.
"This is a beautiful village. It's very peaceful. And we need to work to keep it that way," Sun said.
"I know there's Taliban. They come through the village and intimidate you and intimidate your children. That's why I want you to know, we are going to stay here."
PRAYER BEADS AND DEMANDS
The elders listened, clicking their prayer beads. Then Mullah Zainuddin, the village's religious leader, listed their demands.
They want the provincial authorities to allocate more water for their irrigation system. They want a health clinic, and they want a school. Produce these things or leave us alone, he said.
"I do not trust you. There have been international forces that have come through the village and promised schools, promised clinics. When you are already (delivering) that, then I will trust you," he said.
"We are out of patience here. If you do not do these things and solve these problems, we will leave this village. We will fight: every man, woman and child, we do not fear death."
"This is our last speech, and if you can't solve these problems, we will not have another shura. We will not sit like this again and talk with you," he said. He then got up and walked away, leaving the Marines to finish the shura without him.
Suddenly, a Marine could be heard up the road shouting "stop!" and pointing his rifle at a man driving a motorcycle with two women hidden in burqas sitting behind him on the bike.
The Marine summoned an interpreter. Afghan police searched the driver and allowed the motorcycle to drive on. The village elders and the other Marines holding their shura watched the tense incident in quiet.
"I know you think you are here for our security. But you have come here to disturb us," said one of the elders, Hajji Baluch. "The women on the motorcycle were on their way to a clinic."
Captain Sun said he would try to persuade his men not to stop motorcycles with women.
"We're still new here. We're still trying to get used to the people. Once we know the people, we'll get better," he said.
In the end, they agreed to hold another shura. The Americans promised to bring officials from the agriculture ministry who would discuss providing the town with more water for irrigation.
The Marines shook hands and headed back to the compound they have occupied as a combat outpost. The elders remained in the street and quietly watched them walk away.
With that, he stood abruptly and walked out of his first "shura", or council meeting, with U.S. Marines.
U.S. forces who have moved deep into formerly Taliban-controlled territory in southern Afghanistan this week say they are here to stay and will not leave until they have improved the lives of ordinary people.
But locals -- used to seeing NATO troops come through to fight but fail to follow through on promises of development -- may not be won over easily.
This week, the Marines, sent by President Barack Obama, launched operation Strike of the Sword, one of the biggest operations by ground forces in Afghanistan since Soviet forces withdrew in 1989.
Their goal has been to seize quickly the lower Helmand River valley, a Taliban stronghold and the world's biggest opium producing region, where fighters resisted advances by an overstretched British-led NATO force for years.
In the village of Sorkhdoz, Foxtrot Company of the 2nd battalion, 8th Marines held their first shura with local elders on Sunday, three days after arriving on assault helicopters.
No one invited them into their home. Instead, they met on the street, in the shade of the outside wall of a mud-brick compound.
The company commander, Captain Junwei Sun, promised his troops were not just passing through.
"This is a beautiful village. It's very peaceful. And we need to work to keep it that way," Sun said.
"I know there's Taliban. They come through the village and intimidate you and intimidate your children. That's why I want you to know, we are going to stay here."
PRAYER BEADS AND DEMANDS
The elders listened, clicking their prayer beads. Then Mullah Zainuddin, the village's religious leader, listed their demands.
They want the provincial authorities to allocate more water for their irrigation system. They want a health clinic, and they want a school. Produce these things or leave us alone, he said.
"I do not trust you. There have been international forces that have come through the village and promised schools, promised clinics. When you are already (delivering) that, then I will trust you," he said.
"We are out of patience here. If you do not do these things and solve these problems, we will leave this village. We will fight: every man, woman and child, we do not fear death."
"This is our last speech, and if you can't solve these problems, we will not have another shura. We will not sit like this again and talk with you," he said. He then got up and walked away, leaving the Marines to finish the shura without him.
Suddenly, a Marine could be heard up the road shouting "stop!" and pointing his rifle at a man driving a motorcycle with two women hidden in burqas sitting behind him on the bike.
The Marine summoned an interpreter. Afghan police searched the driver and allowed the motorcycle to drive on. The village elders and the other Marines holding their shura watched the tense incident in quiet.
"I know you think you are here for our security. But you have come here to disturb us," said one of the elders, Hajji Baluch. "The women on the motorcycle were on their way to a clinic."
Captain Sun said he would try to persuade his men not to stop motorcycles with women.
"We're still new here. We're still trying to get used to the people. Once we know the people, we'll get better," he said.
In the end, they agreed to hold another shura. The Americans promised to bring officials from the agriculture ministry who would discuss providing the town with more water for irrigation.
The Marines shook hands and headed back to the compound they have occupied as a combat outpost. The elders remained in the street and quietly watched them walk away.
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSB593438
QUOTE (Lord_Proprietor @ Jul 5 2009, 09:39 AM)
Mullah Sprung From Gitmo Jail Now Leads Foe in Afghan Campaign
New York Post, by Seth G. Jones
7/5/2009 5:18:09 AM
KABUL, Afghanistan -- As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban. Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.
New York Post, by Seth G. Jones
7/5/2009 5:18:09 AM
KABUL, Afghanistan -- As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban. Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.
QUOTE
The Afghan Government was asked last night to explain why it released a former Guantánamo Bay detainee who has gone on to mastermind attacks on British troops in Helmand.
Patrick Mercer, Conservative chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism subcommittee, said it was extraordinary that a man of his record could be freed to go back to his old ways. Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, who operates under the nom de guerre Mullah Abdullah Zakir, has been in charge of Taleban attacks in the province since early last year when he was released from prison in Kabul.
He had been transferred there from Guantánamo in December 2007 after a US review board deemed him no longer a threat. Taleban sources have since told The Times that he was a senior commander at the time of his capture in 2001 and that the Afghan authorities should have known that.
Mr Mercer said: “The Americans presumably let him go from Guantánamo Bay in order for him to be kept in custody in Afghanistan. We need to know why the Afghan authorities released him.”...
Last spring, after widespread criticism of closed trials in Block D, Mr Karzai appointed a commission to review each case, and scores of detainees were released. What influence the US officials have over the running of the prison is the subject of litigation in an American court.
Peter Ryan, an American lawyer who represented a former Guantánamo detainee, said that the review system was chaotic and opaque, with tribal loyalties appearing to count for more than innocence or guilt....
Patrick Mercer, Conservative chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism subcommittee, said it was extraordinary that a man of his record could be freed to go back to his old ways. Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, who operates under the nom de guerre Mullah Abdullah Zakir, has been in charge of Taleban attacks in the province since early last year when he was released from prison in Kabul.
He had been transferred there from Guantánamo in December 2007 after a US review board deemed him no longer a threat. Taleban sources have since told The Times that he was a senior commander at the time of his capture in 2001 and that the Afghan authorities should have known that.
Mr Mercer said: “The Americans presumably let him go from Guantánamo Bay in order for him to be kept in custody in Afghanistan. We need to know why the Afghan authorities released him.”...
Last spring, after widespread criticism of closed trials in Block D, Mr Karzai appointed a commission to review each case, and scores of detainees were released. What influence the US officials have over the running of the prison is the subject of litigation in an American court.
Peter Ryan, an American lawyer who represented a former Guantánamo detainee, said that the review system was chaotic and opaque, with tribal loyalties appearing to count for more than innocence or guilt....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5898261.ece
QUOTE
According to officials in the US and the UK, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, an Afghan prisoner freed from Guantánamo in December 2007, has surfaced as a Taliban leader responsible for roadside bomb attacks against British forces. While this may well be true – although there has, as yet, been no independent confirmation that the man calling himself Mullah Abdullah Zakir is indeed former prisoner 008 – claims that this poses "a potential complication for the Obama administration's efforts to close the prison" are largely overplayed.
This is not the first instance of a former prisoner "returning to the battlefield", of course, but an honest debate about the significance of these recidivist prisoners has been scuppered by sensationalism in the media, by a refusal on the part of the Pentagon to back up its regular claims about the numbers of prisoners who have "returned to the fight" and, perhaps most importantly, by the refusal of any of the parties concerned to examine the situation at Guantánamo, and to ask why the Pentagon seems to have such difficulties ascertaining who it has been holding in the prison.
In January, when the Pentagon issued a press release announcing that 61 former prisoners had returned to the battlefield, researchers at the Seton Hall Law School in New Jersey, who have been monitoring the Pentagon's regular pronouncements about former prisoners, responded by pointing out that the "DoD has issued 'recidivism' numbers 43 times, and each time they have been wrong".
Professor Mark Denbeaux of the Law School's Center for Policy & Research explained, "Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DoD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers." He added, "They have counted people as 'returning to the fight' for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival."
This is not to deny that genuinely dangerous men have been released, but when the latest unsubstantiated figures emerged from the Pentagon, even Robert Gates, the defence secretary, distanced himself from them, explaining that in fact the recidivism rate was "four or five percent" although he added, "there's been an uptick in recent months".
Given that the recidivism rate for violent offenders in the US prison system is about 60%, and that countries throughout the world routinely release prisoners after they have served their sentences, even though many of them then go on to commit other violent crimes, the defence secretary was responsible for injecting some sanity into the debate, implicitly asking why it was regarded as plausible that Guantánamo should have a recidivism rate of zero.
However, the main problem with the sensationalism surrounding the news about Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul is that it masks some uncomfortable truths about Guantánamo itself. The first is that, although the US authorities touted the prison as a place that held "the worst of the worst", they never knew who they had in their possession, because they had secured most of the prisoners through substantial bounty payments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and because they had refused to screen any of the prisoners on capture according to the competent tribunals established by the Geneva conventions.
In the heat of the Bush administration's arrogance, the US vice-president Dick Cheney's legal counsel, David Addington, the driver of the administration's extra-legal manoueuvring, insisted that the president had designated all of the prisoners as "enemy combatants" on capture, without the use of any evidence whatsoever, and that no review of the basis of that decision was required.
It has taken lawyers and human rights activists many long years to be able to challenge these unjustifiable assertions in a courtroom, and in the meantime the decisions about who to release from Guantánamo have been based primarily not on notions of justice or considerations about the threat posed by the prisoners but on diplomatic arrangements with the prisoners' home countries.
Demands for the men's repatriation have arisen precisely because the prisoners were held neither as criminal suspects nor as prisoners of war, but as "enemy combatants" without rights, and they could therefore have been avoided had the "war on terror" been pursued according to existing laws.
This is not the first instance of a former prisoner "returning to the battlefield", of course, but an honest debate about the significance of these recidivist prisoners has been scuppered by sensationalism in the media, by a refusal on the part of the Pentagon to back up its regular claims about the numbers of prisoners who have "returned to the fight" and, perhaps most importantly, by the refusal of any of the parties concerned to examine the situation at Guantánamo, and to ask why the Pentagon seems to have such difficulties ascertaining who it has been holding in the prison.
In January, when the Pentagon issued a press release announcing that 61 former prisoners had returned to the battlefield, researchers at the Seton Hall Law School in New Jersey, who have been monitoring the Pentagon's regular pronouncements about former prisoners, responded by pointing out that the "DoD has issued 'recidivism' numbers 43 times, and each time they have been wrong".
Professor Mark Denbeaux of the Law School's Center for Policy & Research explained, "Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DoD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers." He added, "They have counted people as 'returning to the fight' for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival."
This is not to deny that genuinely dangerous men have been released, but when the latest unsubstantiated figures emerged from the Pentagon, even Robert Gates, the defence secretary, distanced himself from them, explaining that in fact the recidivism rate was "four or five percent" although he added, "there's been an uptick in recent months".
Given that the recidivism rate for violent offenders in the US prison system is about 60%, and that countries throughout the world routinely release prisoners after they have served their sentences, even though many of them then go on to commit other violent crimes, the defence secretary was responsible for injecting some sanity into the debate, implicitly asking why it was regarded as plausible that Guantánamo should have a recidivism rate of zero.
However, the main problem with the sensationalism surrounding the news about Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul is that it masks some uncomfortable truths about Guantánamo itself. The first is that, although the US authorities touted the prison as a place that held "the worst of the worst", they never knew who they had in their possession, because they had secured most of the prisoners through substantial bounty payments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and because they had refused to screen any of the prisoners on capture according to the competent tribunals established by the Geneva conventions.
In the heat of the Bush administration's arrogance, the US vice-president Dick Cheney's legal counsel, David Addington, the driver of the administration's extra-legal manoueuvring, insisted that the president had designated all of the prisoners as "enemy combatants" on capture, without the use of any evidence whatsoever, and that no review of the basis of that decision was required.
It has taken lawyers and human rights activists many long years to be able to challenge these unjustifiable assertions in a courtroom, and in the meantime the decisions about who to release from Guantánamo have been based primarily not on notions of justice or considerations about the threat posed by the prisoners but on diplomatic arrangements with the prisoners' home countries.
Demands for the men's repatriation have arisen precisely because the prisoners were held neither as criminal suspects nor as prisoners of war, but as "enemy combatants" without rights, and they could therefore have been avoided had the "war on terror" been pursued according to existing laws.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ay-human-rights
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Jul 4 2009, 10:48 AM)
What a zoo.
Worse for the 5 years of neglect.
QUOTE
The British military says two British soldiers were killed during separate attacks in southern Afghanistan.
Officials say one soldier was killed in a rocket propelled grenade attack, while another died in an explosion. Both attacks took place Saturday near Gereshk in Helmand province.
Meanwhile, in eastern Afghanistan, gunmen kidnapped 16 Afghans working for a United Nations- sponsored demining agency.
Police officials say the workers were taken as they traveled between Paktia and Khost provinces. No group has claimed responsibility for the abductions.
Afghanistan is one of the world's most heavily mined countries.
Officials say one soldier was killed in a rocket propelled grenade attack, while another died in an explosion. Both attacks took place Saturday near Gereshk in Helmand province.
Meanwhile, in eastern Afghanistan, gunmen kidnapped 16 Afghans working for a United Nations- sponsored demining agency.
Police officials say the workers were taken as they traveled between Paktia and Khost provinces. No group has claimed responsibility for the abductions.
Afghanistan is one of the world's most heavily mined countries.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-05-voa8.cfm
QUOTE (hunin @ Jul 5 2009, 02:46 PM)
The war front at home made everything more difficult and almost impossible to get the Gitmo problem solved in the military courts. Liberal lawyers throwing monkey wrenches into the works.
Republicans are undermining the rule of law and prohibitions against war crimes.
I'm amazed surviving Nazis aren't suing because they didn't get Miranda rights.
We didn't torture forking Nazis genius, we hung them for perpetrating war crimes.
QUOTE (Lord_Proprietor @ Jul 5 2009, 04:10 PM)
The war front at home made everything more difficult and almost impossible to get the Gitmo problem solved in the military courts. Liberal lawyers throwing monkey wrenches into the works.
Yeah right. Prez orders made it all happen.
Liberal lawyers had no influence.
More like the US Supreme Court had a serious influence. Pesky rule of law.
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Jul 5 2009, 07:33 PM)
We didn't torture forking Nazis genius, we hung them for perpetrating war crimes.
Heh, yes 'we' did.
By a court of their peers judged? Justice is seldom really served by tribunals methinks. Revenge maybe exacted tho.
Execution of POWs is illegal as I recall. Even w/a kangeroo trial. Only their gov't can execute them as I recall.
Killing people for killing sets no sort of positive feedback loop.
Just sez - violence rules.
Bad paradigm. Bad message.
Unhealthy. For us all.
For the future.
QUOTE
The increasingly deadly conflict in Afghanistan is a "serious fight" but one essential for the future stability of the country, the US president says.
Insisting that US and allied troops have pushed back the Taliban, Barack Obama said the immediate target was to steer Afghanistan through elections.
The country is due to hold a presidential vote in August.
Mr Obama spoke to Sky News as concern grew in the UK at the rising British death toll in Afghanistan.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was also forced on Saturday to justify British involvement in Afghanistan.
Mr Brown said the UK's military deployment there was aimed at preventing terrorism in the UK.
Fifteen British troops have died in the past 10 days, pushing the country's number of deaths in Afghanistan past the number killed in action in Iraq.
'Extraordinary role'
Speaking during a day-long visit to Africa, Mr Obama also told Sky News that the battle in Afghanistan was a vital element in the battle against terrorism.
He said the continued involvement of British troops in the conflict was necessary, right and was a vital contribution to UK national security.
"This is not an American mission," Mr Obama said.
"The mission in Afghanistan is one that the Europeans have as much if not more of a stake in than we do.
"The likelihood of a terrorist attack in London is at least as high, if not higher, than it is in the United States."....
Insisting that US and allied troops have pushed back the Taliban, Barack Obama said the immediate target was to steer Afghanistan through elections.
The country is due to hold a presidential vote in August.
Mr Obama spoke to Sky News as concern grew in the UK at the rising British death toll in Afghanistan.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was also forced on Saturday to justify British involvement in Afghanistan.
Mr Brown said the UK's military deployment there was aimed at preventing terrorism in the UK.
Fifteen British troops have died in the past 10 days, pushing the country's number of deaths in Afghanistan past the number killed in action in Iraq.
'Extraordinary role'
Speaking during a day-long visit to Africa, Mr Obama also told Sky News that the battle in Afghanistan was a vital element in the battle against terrorism.
He said the continued involvement of British troops in the conflict was necessary, right and was a vital contribution to UK national security.
"This is not an American mission," Mr Obama said.
"The mission in Afghanistan is one that the Europeans have as much if not more of a stake in than we do.
"The likelihood of a terrorist attack in London is at least as high, if not higher, than it is in the United States."....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8146309.stm
QUOTE
The U.S. military says a roadside bomb killed two U.S. Marines Saturday in Afghanistan's volatile south, where U.S. and British troops continue their offensive to oust Taliban insurgents from the region.
Military officials initially reported four U.S. Marines had died in the attack in Helmand province, but they later corrected the figure, saying the same incident had been reported twice by mistake.
A third U.S. soldier serving with NATO-led forces in the south died Friday from wounds received in combat last month.
The U.S. deaths came a day after eight British soldiers were killed in Helmand in a 24-hour period....
Military officials initially reported four U.S. Marines had died in the attack in Helmand province, but they later corrected the figure, saying the same incident had been reported twice by mistake.
A third U.S. soldier serving with NATO-led forces in the south died Friday from wounds received in combat last month.
The U.S. deaths came a day after eight British soldiers were killed in Helmand in a 24-hour period....
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-12-voa2.cfm
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has ordered his national security team to investigate reports that U.S. allies were responsible for the deaths of as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners of war during the opening days of the war in Afghanistan.
Obama told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday that he doesn't know what how the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance behaved in November 2001, but he wants a full accounting before deciding how to move forward.
"I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have even in war," Obama said during an interview at the end of a six-day trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana.
"And if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that."
The president's comments seem to reverse officials' statements from Friday, when they said they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces.
Reacting to the interview, Physicians for Human Rights hailed Obama's decision.
"President Obama is right to say that U.S. and Afghan violations of the laws of war must be investigated," said Nathaniel Raymond, a Physicians for Human Rights researcher. "If the Obama administration finds that criminal wrongdoing occurred in this case, those responsible — whether American or Afghan officials — must be prosecuted."
But Obama's direction — discussed as he toured a former slave castle on Ghana's coast — does not guarantee action.
"We'll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all the facts gathered up," Obama said.
The mass deaths were brought up anew Friday in a report by The New York Times. It quoted government and human rights officials accusing the Bush administration of failing to investigate the executions of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of prisoners.
U.S. officials said Friday they did not have legal grounds to investigate the deaths because only foreigners were involved and the alleged killings occurred in a foreign country.
The Times pointed to U.S. military and CIA ties to Afghan Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, accused by human rights groups of ordering the killings. The newspaper said the Defense Department and FBI never fully investigated the incident.
The allegations date back to November 2001, when as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners died in transit after surrendering during one of the regime's last stands, according to a State Department report from 2002.
Witnesses have claimed that forces with the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance placed the prisoners in sealed cargo containers over the two-day voyage to Sheberghan Prison, suffocating them and then burying them en masse, using bulldozers to move the bodies, according to the State Department report. Some Northern Alliance soldiers have said that some of their troops opened fire on the containers, killing those within.
Dostum, the Northern Alliance general who is accused of overseeing the atrocities, has previously denied the allegations. He was suspended from his military post last year on suspicion of threatening a political rival, but Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently rehired him.
Obama told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday that he doesn't know what how the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance behaved in November 2001, but he wants a full accounting before deciding how to move forward.
"I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have even in war," Obama said during an interview at the end of a six-day trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana.
"And if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that."
The president's comments seem to reverse officials' statements from Friday, when they said they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces.
Reacting to the interview, Physicians for Human Rights hailed Obama's decision.
"President Obama is right to say that U.S. and Afghan violations of the laws of war must be investigated," said Nathaniel Raymond, a Physicians for Human Rights researcher. "If the Obama administration finds that criminal wrongdoing occurred in this case, those responsible — whether American or Afghan officials — must be prosecuted."
But Obama's direction — discussed as he toured a former slave castle on Ghana's coast — does not guarantee action.
"We'll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all the facts gathered up," Obama said.
The mass deaths were brought up anew Friday in a report by The New York Times. It quoted government and human rights officials accusing the Bush administration of failing to investigate the executions of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of prisoners.
U.S. officials said Friday they did not have legal grounds to investigate the deaths because only foreigners were involved and the alleged killings occurred in a foreign country.
The Times pointed to U.S. military and CIA ties to Afghan Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, accused by human rights groups of ordering the killings. The newspaper said the Defense Department and FBI never fully investigated the incident.
The allegations date back to November 2001, when as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners died in transit after surrendering during one of the regime's last stands, according to a State Department report from 2002.
Witnesses have claimed that forces with the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance placed the prisoners in sealed cargo containers over the two-day voyage to Sheberghan Prison, suffocating them and then burying them en masse, using bulldozers to move the bodies, according to the State Department report. Some Northern Alliance soldiers have said that some of their troops opened fire on the containers, killing those within.
Dostum, the Northern Alliance general who is accused of overseeing the atrocities, has previously denied the allegations. He was suspended from his military post last year on suspicion of threatening a political rival, but Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently rehired him.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...LRxwxgD99D4Q181
Dostrum a mofo from way back.
QUOTE
Marine Sgt. Michael W. Heede Jr. has become the first Marine from Camp Pendleton killed in Afghanistan during the current offensive to oust the Taliban from key areas of Helmand Province.
Heede, 22, of Delta, Pa., was killed Monday during combat operations, the Marine Corps announced today. He was a combat engineer with the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division based at Camp Pendleton.
Heede enlisted in 2005 and served in Iraq from November 2006 to April 2007. Among his citations was the Combat Action Ribbon, awarded only to Marines who have come under enemy fire.
About 4,000 Marines have surged into Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to provide protection for the local population and to confront the Taliban.
The Marines also announced the death of Staff Sgt. David S. Spicer, 33, of Zanesfield, Ohio, also in Helmand Province during combat. Spicer was assigned to 8th Engineer Support Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 2, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, based at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Heede and Spicer were killed by a roadside bomb attack.
Heede, 22, of Delta, Pa., was killed Monday during combat operations, the Marine Corps announced today. He was a combat engineer with the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division based at Camp Pendleton.
Heede enlisted in 2005 and served in Iraq from November 2006 to April 2007. Among his citations was the Combat Action Ribbon, awarded only to Marines who have come under enemy fire.
About 4,000 Marines have surged into Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to provide protection for the local population and to confront the Taliban.
The Marines also announced the death of Staff Sgt. David S. Spicer, 33, of Zanesfield, Ohio, also in Helmand Province during combat. Spicer was assigned to 8th Engineer Support Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 2, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, based at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Heede and Spicer were killed by a roadside bomb attack.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009...urrent-off.html
QUOTE
KABUL (AP) — July is shaping up as the deadliest month of the Afghan war for U.S.-led international forces, with the number killed already matching the highest full-month toll of the nearly eight-year conflict, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
As of Wednesday, at least 46 international troops, including 24 Americans, had been killed in Afghanistan this month, according to statements by the U.S. military and the NATO command. That matches the tolls for the two previous deadliest months — June and August of 2008.
The rate of deaths in July — about three a day — is approaching some of the highest levels of the Iraq war.
The latest reported deaths occurred Tuesday. They include an American soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan and two Turks, including a colonel, who died in a traffic accident in the north of the country.
In addition, six Ukrainian civilians and a 6-year-old Afghan were killed Tuesday when an Mi-6 transport helicopter crashed in southern Afghanistan. The helicopter's owners in the former Soviet republic of Modova said the helicopter was shot down, and the Taliban claimed responsibility....
As of Wednesday, at least 46 international troops, including 24 Americans, had been killed in Afghanistan this month, according to statements by the U.S. military and the NATO command. That matches the tolls for the two previous deadliest months — June and August of 2008.
The rate of deaths in July — about three a day — is approaching some of the highest levels of the Iraq war.
The latest reported deaths occurred Tuesday. They include an American soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan and two Turks, including a colonel, who died in a traffic accident in the north of the country.
In addition, six Ukrainian civilians and a 6-year-old Afghan were killed Tuesday when an Mi-6 transport helicopter crashed in southern Afghanistan. The helicopter's owners in the former Soviet republic of Modova said the helicopter was shot down, and the Taliban claimed responsibility....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...YhjZJQD99F2RGO0
QUOTE
HELMAND PROVINCE, Afghanistan — Rising insurgency, rules of engagement, roadside bombs ... there’s something about Afghanistan that looks, sounds and feels like Iraq.
As Marines fight the Taliban in Helmand Province, there is no doubt that the lessons learned in Iraq are influencing the war in Afghanistan. Do the troops have enough supplies? Are there enough troops? Are the rules of engagement clear? For the Iraq retread, how can the military avoid past mistakes while moving forward?
“We are light; we’re not complaining about what we got,” Sgt. Major Robert L. Caldwell of the 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines told FOXNews.com at the Fiddler’s Green fire base.
“Everyone will always say they can use more, but there’s a difference between what you need and what you want,” Caldwell says in his South Carolina accent.
You go to war with what you have, but equipment saves lives, no matter how eager the Marines are to fight.
“We could use some more MRAPs,” Caldwell says.
The MRAP — the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle — has earned mixed reviews among the troops in Afghanistan. Mechanics complain of springs that bust too frequently. The sheer weight of the vehicles gets them stuck in the dusty pathways that pass for roads here.
The military has placed orders for a lighter, smaller, all-terrain MRAP, but in the meantime the mammoth MRAP's higher blast protection is offset by a lack of spare parts.
“My vehicles and equipment are taking a beating,” says Lt. Col. Chris Braney, executive officer of Combat Logistics Battalion Eight, the Marine engineers tasked with building bases in hostile territory.
“I have 51 percent of the vehicles I’m allotted,” he says.
Transportation, equipment and supplies are all in high demand in Afghanistan, and vehicles come from wherever possible, including Iraq. “This stuff comes in gluts; everyone is aware of the situation,” Braney says.
“When we come in, we come in big,” said Gunnery Sgt. Victor O. Marks, the utilities chief. The Miami, Fla., native sees supply scarcity as a natural growing pain.
“Supplies is always an issue,” he says. “My job is always about suspension or improvement. This is only going to get bigger.” He motions to a row of tents behind him, where a group of Marines are fanning themselves because the A/C has blown out.
The 120-degrees-and-climbing heat is not new for those who have patrolled in Iraq, but at 2,000 feet above sea level, the Helmand heat steals stamina and sends more Marines to the medical tent.
“We’ve seen a big increase in heat casualties,” says Navy MD Lt. Heather Hinshelwood.
The military tries to adapt. Flame Resistant Organizational Gear is standard issue, along with a higher grade of body armor and a 1-liter Kamelbak in place of the old canteen. “The FROG uniform is more comfortable and dries quicker,” says James Gray, an Amphibious Assault vehicle operator.
Caldwell singles out a young lance corporal and barks sternly: “You got sunblock on?” The temperature outside is over 120 degrees, and the young, beet-red Marine nods. Caldwell orders him to get some rest, a commodity in short supply.
“There’s no such thing as fuzzy commands here,” Caldwell says. “This is where the rubber meets the road, and the rule of engagement are clear.”....
As Marines fight the Taliban in Helmand Province, there is no doubt that the lessons learned in Iraq are influencing the war in Afghanistan. Do the troops have enough supplies? Are there enough troops? Are the rules of engagement clear? For the Iraq retread, how can the military avoid past mistakes while moving forward?
“We are light; we’re not complaining about what we got,” Sgt. Major Robert L. Caldwell of the 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines told FOXNews.com at the Fiddler’s Green fire base.
“Everyone will always say they can use more, but there’s a difference between what you need and what you want,” Caldwell says in his South Carolina accent.
You go to war with what you have, but equipment saves lives, no matter how eager the Marines are to fight.
“We could use some more MRAPs,” Caldwell says.
The MRAP — the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle — has earned mixed reviews among the troops in Afghanistan. Mechanics complain of springs that bust too frequently. The sheer weight of the vehicles gets them stuck in the dusty pathways that pass for roads here.
The military has placed orders for a lighter, smaller, all-terrain MRAP, but in the meantime the mammoth MRAP's higher blast protection is offset by a lack of spare parts.
“My vehicles and equipment are taking a beating,” says Lt. Col. Chris Braney, executive officer of Combat Logistics Battalion Eight, the Marine engineers tasked with building bases in hostile territory.
“I have 51 percent of the vehicles I’m allotted,” he says.
Transportation, equipment and supplies are all in high demand in Afghanistan, and vehicles come from wherever possible, including Iraq. “This stuff comes in gluts; everyone is aware of the situation,” Braney says.
“When we come in, we come in big,” said Gunnery Sgt. Victor O. Marks, the utilities chief. The Miami, Fla., native sees supply scarcity as a natural growing pain.
“Supplies is always an issue,” he says. “My job is always about suspension or improvement. This is only going to get bigger.” He motions to a row of tents behind him, where a group of Marines are fanning themselves because the A/C has blown out.
The 120-degrees-and-climbing heat is not new for those who have patrolled in Iraq, but at 2,000 feet above sea level, the Helmand heat steals stamina and sends more Marines to the medical tent.
“We’ve seen a big increase in heat casualties,” says Navy MD Lt. Heather Hinshelwood.
The military tries to adapt. Flame Resistant Organizational Gear is standard issue, along with a higher grade of body armor and a 1-liter Kamelbak in place of the old canteen. “The FROG uniform is more comfortable and dries quicker,” says James Gray, an Amphibious Assault vehicle operator.
Caldwell singles out a young lance corporal and barks sternly: “You got sunblock on?” The temperature outside is over 120 degrees, and the young, beet-red Marine nods. Caldwell orders him to get some rest, a commodity in short supply.
“There’s no such thing as fuzzy commands here,” Caldwell says. “This is where the rubber meets the road, and the rule of engagement are clear.”....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532747,00.html
Clear? Seit wann?
If only, Bob. But thanks for the positive smoke.
Best of luck for sure.
This Afghan er Surge should have been over-logisticed by a month. Bad mark for the prez, and his minions.
For a Marine to say, "we could use ..." is f-king a flare of the bow.
No screwing around when it comes to force protection. No mas. Double-time.
I am not pleased with what Bob said. The content. But good he had the balls to say it. Bob's a braveheart.
Caldwell for Senator!
So now we have to mirandize terrorists before arresting them? That's going to make Afghanistan a lot safer, sure.
QUOTE (Hondo @ Jul 15 2009, 08:47 PM)
So now we have to mirandize terrorists before arresting them? That's going to make Afghanistan a lot safer, sure.
I don't think it's realy true with the Mirandizing business.
QUOTE (Hondo @ Jul 15 2009, 08:47 PM)
So now we have to mirandize terrorists before arresting them? That's going to make Afghanistan a lot safer, sure.
Say what?
Miranda is settled law.
In Afghanistan? wtf?
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Jul 15 2009, 08:54 PM)
I don't think it's realy true with the Mirandizing business.
As in, it's a lie?
Feel free to speak freely.
I got to see Charlie Wilson's War last night. Very good movie, and a good illustration of why so often nothing got done to oppose the Soviets.
IMBD also had a good piece about CW by somebody who supposedly knows him, and had some interesting insights.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/board/nest/79984373
Setting Some Things Straight About Charlie
by TTKforU (Tue Jul 17 2007 12:23:47)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I have just stumbled onto this site while looking for what the buzz is on the upcoming movie. There is some really interesting info in some of the threads, however, I have also noted some things that are in error. Against my better judgement, I am going to address some mistaken info about Charlie Wilson that I have read in some of the threads. In doing so, I am not going to "call out" any of the posters by name, nor am I going to make any judgements as to motive. I am simply assuming that they have been misinformed, and their mistakes were made with no malicious intent.
First, however, my bonafides...I am not Charlie Wilson, nor anyone else that you have likely heard of. However, I do know CW quite well, and have for 30+ years. Have gotten drunk with him (though not in years since he went on the wagon), chased women with him (again, not in years since he is now happily married), watched fireworks from the balcony of his old apartment in D.C. several 4th of Julys, attended his wedding in 1999, owe him many favors, etc. Further, I have spent a good bit of time with George Crile including several days shortly before his passing. I knew Gust, not well, and spent some time with him during the time frame of the book, not at all, unfortunately, after his retirement and subsequent health problems leading up to his death.
The first thing that I will address because it is the most bothersome. CW did not receive any sort of "kickbacks" or financial considerations over the Oerlikon AAA deals. He was simply convinced that they were the best means available (politically speaking) to give the Muj a chance to shoot back at the Mi-24s with something that was both somewhat portable and potentially effective. There were not that many reliable shoulder fired SAMs capable of bringing down a Hind gunship in existence at the time. Remember also, that at the beginning of the US involvement there were not to be any US arms used so that we could always maintain "plausible deniability" with the Soviets in our support of the Muj; it was only after things reached a critical mass (1985 or 1986?) that we were able to be more overt in our support and get stingers introduced into the fight. Anyone who knows CW well knows that when he locks on to something he is not giving up (just re-read the book, that trait is both his biggest flaw and greatest strength). The tenacity he showed on ramming the Oerlikons down the CIA's throat had everything to do with that trait. Further, if he had been getting this financial windfall, please explain how he was perpetually broke during his time in Congress...He was consistently listed among the "poorest" members of Congress. Should you logically wonder "how I should know?," well, believe me or do not, but I do know. Also, I had the distinct pleasure (sarcasm) of being deposed twice in the course of two of the investigations into this...the investigation that focused directly on CW, and then the subsequent one into the mysterious "Mr. C," Joe Christie, whom I also know very well. Mr. C, a life-long friend of CW, acted as the agent in the Oerlikon deal because, frankly, CW was not able to get either a government or an established corporation to do it because nobody wanted to piss off the Russians. So, he turned to a friend that had the international business sophistication and financial wherewithall to execute the deal. Mr. C did the deal, he made money, he reported his gains, and he paid his taxes. End of story.
The second item I would like to address is the Monday morning quarterbacking of who CW supported and who he did not among the warlords, and why. Simply put, for better or for worse, this was about breaking the Red Army; the vaunted force that had never lost a war; the glue that held the Warsaw Pact together. You don't accomplish that by backing the boy scouts, you do it by finding the most influential, ruthless, merciless, meanest, fearless, cruelest bastards in the valley and give them the tools they need to ply their trade. CW was agnostic as to who got the weapons and support, what he cared about were the ends, the bleeding and breaking of the Red Army. In point of fact, while Gust had some in put on which commanders received support (Gust mostly made deals to acquire weaponry, ammo, and get them delivered to Pakistan, as well as get training camps set up), for the most part the ISI directed the materials to the Muj. Of course, being mostly Pashtun themselves, that is who they supported the most.
Regarding the history since the end of the war, I can not fault CW for bin Laden, 9/11, the Taliban, or the rise of militant islam. Really, could any westerner see such a thing at the time? And if so, would they foresee that as a bigger threat than the Evil Empire? The mistake that does stand out is not in who we supported, or the means with which they operated, but rather that we did not support Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Had a mini-Marshall plan been executed following the conflict, as CW advocated at the time, our more recent history may have very well been much different.
While points within the book could certainly be argued, from my observations and knowledge of some of the actual participants and events, I believe that it is a fair and accurate representation of the historical events directly related. Needless to say, there were certainly other things going on involving other people that had some effect on how things unfolded, and who is to say accurately the exact weight that any of them had on the outcome of either the Afghan war or the road to 9/11. As history books are regularly revised with new discovery, historians realize that many seemingly divergent views of an event can all be true at the same time, for each mountain top has a differnt view of the same landscape.
I'll just close by stating that CW is far from a perfect person. He is weak, he is strong, he is smart, he is dense, he is troubled, he is at peace, he is kind, he is mean...it all depends upon where you stand (however, no one will ever be able to accurately call him a hypocrite). In other words, he is a human being and a very real character. I hope that the movie is true to that, and that through it you will all be able to come to know more about the real man. If you do, you will likely leave the theater somewhat torn in your feelings about whether he is a hero or anti-hero, but you will want to learn even more about him
IMBD also had a good piece about CW by somebody who supposedly knows him, and had some interesting insights.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/board/nest/79984373
Setting Some Things Straight About Charlie
by TTKforU (Tue Jul 17 2007 12:23:47)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I have just stumbled onto this site while looking for what the buzz is on the upcoming movie. There is some really interesting info in some of the threads, however, I have also noted some things that are in error. Against my better judgement, I am going to address some mistaken info about Charlie Wilson that I have read in some of the threads. In doing so, I am not going to "call out" any of the posters by name, nor am I going to make any judgements as to motive. I am simply assuming that they have been misinformed, and their mistakes were made with no malicious intent.
First, however, my bonafides...I am not Charlie Wilson, nor anyone else that you have likely heard of. However, I do know CW quite well, and have for 30+ years. Have gotten drunk with him (though not in years since he went on the wagon), chased women with him (again, not in years since he is now happily married), watched fireworks from the balcony of his old apartment in D.C. several 4th of Julys, attended his wedding in 1999, owe him many favors, etc. Further, I have spent a good bit of time with George Crile including several days shortly before his passing. I knew Gust, not well, and spent some time with him during the time frame of the book, not at all, unfortunately, after his retirement and subsequent health problems leading up to his death.
The first thing that I will address because it is the most bothersome. CW did not receive any sort of "kickbacks" or financial considerations over the Oerlikon AAA deals. He was simply convinced that they were the best means available (politically speaking) to give the Muj a chance to shoot back at the Mi-24s with something that was both somewhat portable and potentially effective. There were not that many reliable shoulder fired SAMs capable of bringing down a Hind gunship in existence at the time. Remember also, that at the beginning of the US involvement there were not to be any US arms used so that we could always maintain "plausible deniability" with the Soviets in our support of the Muj; it was only after things reached a critical mass (1985 or 1986?) that we were able to be more overt in our support and get stingers introduced into the fight. Anyone who knows CW well knows that when he locks on to something he is not giving up (just re-read the book, that trait is both his biggest flaw and greatest strength). The tenacity he showed on ramming the Oerlikons down the CIA's throat had everything to do with that trait. Further, if he had been getting this financial windfall, please explain how he was perpetually broke during his time in Congress...He was consistently listed among the "poorest" members of Congress. Should you logically wonder "how I should know?," well, believe me or do not, but I do know. Also, I had the distinct pleasure (sarcasm) of being deposed twice in the course of two of the investigations into this...the investigation that focused directly on CW, and then the subsequent one into the mysterious "Mr. C," Joe Christie, whom I also know very well. Mr. C, a life-long friend of CW, acted as the agent in the Oerlikon deal because, frankly, CW was not able to get either a government or an established corporation to do it because nobody wanted to piss off the Russians. So, he turned to a friend that had the international business sophistication and financial wherewithall to execute the deal. Mr. C did the deal, he made money, he reported his gains, and he paid his taxes. End of story.
The second item I would like to address is the Monday morning quarterbacking of who CW supported and who he did not among the warlords, and why. Simply put, for better or for worse, this was about breaking the Red Army; the vaunted force that had never lost a war; the glue that held the Warsaw Pact together. You don't accomplish that by backing the boy scouts, you do it by finding the most influential, ruthless, merciless, meanest, fearless, cruelest bastards in the valley and give them the tools they need to ply their trade. CW was agnostic as to who got the weapons and support, what he cared about were the ends, the bleeding and breaking of the Red Army. In point of fact, while Gust had some in put on which commanders received support (Gust mostly made deals to acquire weaponry, ammo, and get them delivered to Pakistan, as well as get training camps set up), for the most part the ISI directed the materials to the Muj. Of course, being mostly Pashtun themselves, that is who they supported the most.
Regarding the history since the end of the war, I can not fault CW for bin Laden, 9/11, the Taliban, or the rise of militant islam. Really, could any westerner see such a thing at the time? And if so, would they foresee that as a bigger threat than the Evil Empire? The mistake that does stand out is not in who we supported, or the means with which they operated, but rather that we did not support Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Had a mini-Marshall plan been executed following the conflict, as CW advocated at the time, our more recent history may have very well been much different.
While points within the book could certainly be argued, from my observations and knowledge of some of the actual participants and events, I believe that it is a fair and accurate representation of the historical events directly related. Needless to say, there were certainly other things going on involving other people that had some effect on how things unfolded, and who is to say accurately the exact weight that any of them had on the outcome of either the Afghan war or the road to 9/11. As history books are regularly revised with new discovery, historians realize that many seemingly divergent views of an event can all be true at the same time, for each mountain top has a differnt view of the same landscape.
I'll just close by stating that CW is far from a perfect person. He is weak, he is strong, he is smart, he is dense, he is troubled, he is at peace, he is kind, he is mean...it all depends upon where you stand (however, no one will ever be able to accurately call him a hypocrite). In other words, he is a human being and a very real character. I hope that the movie is true to that, and that through it you will all be able to come to know more about the real man. If you do, you will likely leave the theater somewhat torn in your feelings about whether he is a hero or anti-hero, but you will want to learn even more about him
QUOTE
Really, could any westerner see such a thing at the time? And if so, would they foresee that as a bigger threat than the Evil Empire?
Absolutely, they're a bigger threat. They are a non-state actor, don't have territory and populations under their jurisdiction and thus cannot be 'punished' and 'deterred' the same way.
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Jul 20 2009, 09:53 AM)
Absolutely, they're a bigger threat. They are a non-state actor, don't have territory and populations under their jurisdiction and thus cannot be 'punished' and 'deterred' the same way.
Bigger than what? Not bigger than a Soviet client poised to help take other middle east countries. They were the first stop precisely because they weren't a real state.
The USSR - like most nations - had its own survival in mind. And governments tend to make rational decisions to preserve their existence.
Assymetric er, war with a crew who have very little self-preservation motivation and who have their own internal logic is a larger threat, than ICBMs in the hands of the sane.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8160604.stm
Assymetric er, war with a crew who have very little self-preservation motivation and who have their own internal logic is a larger threat, than ICBMs in the hands of the sane.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Five Afghan security personnel have died in a series of Taliban attacks in eastern Afghanistan, officials say.
Gunmen and suicide bombers targeted four sites in the city of Gardez, among them the governor's compound. Four bombers were reported killed.
During an attack in Jalalabad, near the Pakistan border, at least one militant was killed and another captured.
The attacks come amid a spike of violence in the country ahead of elections on 20 August.
Taliban militants have carried out similar co-ordinated attacks on provincial cities in recent months.
In May, six people were killed when militants launched simultaneous assaults on government buildings in the city of Khost, also in eastern Afghanistan.
Shootout
In Gardez, the militants attacked the police chief's office, a police station and the intelligence directorate, as well as the governor's compound, Afghan officials said.
A Taliban spokesman said 15 militants, all wearing suicide vests, planned to launch attacks in the city. Afghan officials refused to comment on that claim.
Reports said at least two of the attackers carried their bombs underneath burkas, the all-enveloping dress often worn by Afghan women.
A local trader said there was panic and confusion.
"I was at my shop and I suddenly heard a loud explosion and then gunshots. I saw fire being exchanged between the police and attackers," the trader told the BBC.
In a statement, the defence ministry said four militants were killed in a shootout and two blew themselves up....
Meanwhile in Jalalabad at least two militants tried to attack an airport which is a base for Afghan and foreign troops.
Nato-led forces said one blew himself up and another was captured. An Afghan official said one policeman was killed, but that was not confirmed....
Gunmen and suicide bombers targeted four sites in the city of Gardez, among them the governor's compound. Four bombers were reported killed.
During an attack in Jalalabad, near the Pakistan border, at least one militant was killed and another captured.
The attacks come amid a spike of violence in the country ahead of elections on 20 August.
Taliban militants have carried out similar co-ordinated attacks on provincial cities in recent months.
In May, six people were killed when militants launched simultaneous assaults on government buildings in the city of Khost, also in eastern Afghanistan.
Shootout
In Gardez, the militants attacked the police chief's office, a police station and the intelligence directorate, as well as the governor's compound, Afghan officials said.
A Taliban spokesman said 15 militants, all wearing suicide vests, planned to launch attacks in the city. Afghan officials refused to comment on that claim.
Reports said at least two of the attackers carried their bombs underneath burkas, the all-enveloping dress often worn by Afghan women.
A local trader said there was panic and confusion.
"I was at my shop and I suddenly heard a loud explosion and then gunshots. I saw fire being exchanged between the police and attackers," the trader told the BBC.
In a statement, the defence ministry said four militants were killed in a shootout and two blew themselves up....
Meanwhile in Jalalabad at least two militants tried to attack an airport which is a base for Afghan and foreign troops.
Nato-led forces said one blew himself up and another was captured. An Afghan official said one policeman was killed, but that was not confirmed....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8160604.stm
QUOTE (hunin @ Jul 21 2009, 09:13 AM)
The USSR - like most nations - had its own survival in mind. And governments tend to make rational decisions to preserve their existence.
The USSR was seeking to advance worldwide communism. To the point some were ready to split the world in half literally if the communist system was going under. It was not a nation, but Russian masters and satellite slaves.
Never notice the Soviet tanks in Checkoslovakia?
I didn't say nations aren't capable of use of force. Spheres of influence are a rational paradigm. Not always honorable, but rational.
The occasional over-reaching is a testing mechanism, as in the Cuban missile crisis. We basically take the whole hemisphere as our sphere of influence. Monroe Doctrine and all that jazz.
Advance whatever floats a nation's navy.
We had tanks in Nam. Defending dictators from nationalism - or from other dictators if you'd prefer.
The occasional over-reaching is a testing mechanism, as in the Cuban missile crisis. We basically take the whole hemisphere as our sphere of influence. Monroe Doctrine and all that jazz.
Advance whatever floats a nation's navy.
We had tanks in Nam. Defending dictators from nationalism - or from other dictators if you'd prefer.
QUOTE (hunin @ Jul 21 2009, 01:17 PM)
I didn't say nations aren't capable of use of force. Spheres of influence are a rational paradigm. Not always honorable, but rational.
The occasional over-reaching is a testing mechanism, as in the Cuban missile crisis. We basically take the whole hemisphere as our sphere of influence. Monroe Doctrine and all that jazz. Advance whatever floats a nation's navy.
We had tanks in Nam. Defending dictators from nationalism - or from other dictators if you'd prefer.
The occasional over-reaching is a testing mechanism, as in the Cuban missile crisis. We basically take the whole hemisphere as our sphere of influence. Monroe Doctrine and all that jazz. Advance whatever floats a nation's navy.
We had tanks in Nam. Defending dictators from nationalism - or from other dictators if you'd prefer.
Ever hear of the necessity of protecting the Freedom we had and sowing seeds of more freedom as a security process/measure?
Diplomatic/Foreign Relations take many forms, i.e., whatever is necessary at the time!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.