Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals

punditman says...punditman is posting an article from the New York times. That's probably a first. The Times has been a bastion of neo-con warmongering for as long as this man of punditry can recall. Of course, as with all corporate media, there are always exceptions. There are informative articles. This is one such piece.

Even experts have trouble keeping up with how complex the situation really is in the AfPak theatre. No surprise then, that many people do not know the difference between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban, or the fact that there are real tensions between these two movements. Or, that the Afghan Taliban are a "genuine national movement," whatever we may think of them. Or that the Afghan Taliban say that their interests lie solely in Afghanistan. In fact, in a recent interview, an Afghan Taliban leader said that they “don’t have any interest in fighting against other countries.” “Our aim was, and is, to get the occupation forces out and not to get into a fight with a Muslim army,” the commander added. Many people don't realize that while the Afghan Taliban are supported by elements in Pakistan's intelligence services, it is the Pakistan Taliban who are attacking Pakistani forces and causing a lot of havoc and misery for Pakistan.

This is worse than Iraq. Western governments are deluded if they really believe they can somehow manage and control this region. When you read this, you should realize that idea has become a joke, really--something to keep in mind when you hear shallow platitudes about "staying the course" from idiotic politicians.

Punditman says that the United States and NATO face an impossible situation, which is what often happens when you invade and occupy other countries. You stir up a hornet's nest. It is one helluva mess over there.

Punditman is posting an article from the New York times.

By SCOTT SHANE

Published: October 22, 2009

WASHINGTON — As it devises a new Afghanistan policy, the Obama administration confronts a complex geopolitical puzzle: two embattled governments, in Afghanistan and Pakistan; numerous militias aligned with overlapping Islamist factions; and hidden in the factions’ midst, the foe that brought the United States to the region eight years ago, Al Qaeda.

But at the core of the tangle are the two Taliban movements, Afghan and Pakistani. They share an ideology and a dominant Pashtun ethnicity, but they have such different histories, structures and goals that the common name may be more misleading than illuminating, some regional specialists say.

“The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion,” said Gilles Dorronsoro, a French scholar of South Asia currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Read On...

Spell "Quagmire" A-F-G-H-A-N-I-S-T-A-N

punditman says...that punditman is posting yet another article about Afghanistan. Why is punditman doing this? Because it seems the lessons of the past have not been learned. It seems that bewildered politicians and generals were playing hooky for one lesson in particular. That's the one that explained that occupying armies almost always end up being resisted, especially if they hang around long enough to do a lot of damage. Afghanistan is no exception. Duh!

Meanwhile, we can depend on the Washington Post and other bastions of brilliance to play their usual subservient roles.

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet

There are few pundits quite as dishonest as the WaPo's Jackson Diehl, so who knows if his concern-trolling on behalf of our European allies is even true:

As the president and his National Security Council privately debate whether to send tens of thousands of troops to war, America's European allies watch with a mixture of anxiety and anguish. They know that if the deployment goes forward, they will be asked to make their own difficult and politically costly contributions of soldiers or other personnel. But they are, if anything, even more worried that the American president will choose a feckless strategy for what they consider a critical mission. And they are frustrated that they must watch and wait -- and wait and wait -- for the president to make up his mind.

To back his contention, he cites Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, then fleshes it out with the words of a "senior commander in one European army," "the words of one ambassador" and "another ambassador." So there are two Europeans whose quotes are perfectly inline with Diehl's personal preference for more military force in Afghanistan. And apparently, they basically represent a continental consensus:

European governments bought in to Obama's ambitious plan to pacify Afghanistan when he presented it in March. Unlike the U.S. president, they mostly haven't had second thoughts. By and large they agree with the recommendations developed by the commander Obama appointed, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who says that unless the momentum of the Taliban is broken in the next year, the war may be lost.

Even if we buy his story, it's worth noting that Diehl's never met a foreign war he didn't like and was naturally far less sympathetic to European sensibilities when most of those in the Old Country vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Now he's become so preoccupied with the idea that the Yur-peans may think us wobbly -- and perhaps less-than-manly -- if the Obama administration chooses not to escalate the conflict that he doesn't bother to argue why we should.

He doesn't articulate what success in Afghanistan might look like, and he takes it as a given that more troops would finally give NATO forces the upper hand.

But that is anything but a sure thing ...

Here are a few recent stories to consider when weighing the prospects of achieving "victory" in Afghanistan.

Keep Reading...

What lies beneath the war in Afghanistan

punditman says...Just to show that punditman doesn't get too hung up on the "ideological purity" of every source he or Peacenik uses on this blog, punditman is posting another Eric Margolis article. Yes, Eric Margolis. Here's how his politics are described by wikipedia:

Margolis identifies his politics as "Eisenhower Republican". Though his domestic political persuasion is moderately conservative (he is a staunch anti-communist and a supporter of capitalism), Margolis' views on the Middle East are sharply at odds with the neoconservatives.

He also happens to have written some of the most insightful pieces on Middle East politics and the so-called "War on Terror" in recent years.

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Truth is war's first casualty. The Afghan war's biggest untruth is, "we've got to fight terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them at home."

Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements.

False. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by U.S.-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel.

Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Taliban received U.S. aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and Taliban against Russia's Central Asian allies.

Keep Reading...

Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter

punditman says...Punditman is back and he has noticed that Afghanistan is headlining the news a lot lately. The war is going badly; the election a mess. As usual, Scott Horton and Gareth Porter help cut through the fog.

Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for Inter Press Service, discusses how Afghan election violence is a portent of things to come, Hamid Karzai’s lead in the “vote for me or I’ll burn down your house” category, Afghan warlords preparing to stuff ballot boxes and how U.S. claims that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq ignore the vibrant Middle East black market.

MP3 here. (27:37)

Gareth Porter is an independent historian and journalist. His articles appear on the Huffington Post, Inter Press Service News Agency and on Antiwar.com.

Scott Horton Interviews Juan Cole

punditman says...
There is an unspoken rule that permeates all mainstream broadcasts and most intellectual discourse: namely, we in the West always fight the "bad guys." In fact, we often hear military officials and clownish politicians talk about going after "bad people," and celebrating when we kill them.
How stupid is this paradigm? Are we living in a giant batman movie or what? Never mind that we may be killing innocent Pashtun tribesmen and their families in far away regions that few people can pronounce. Or we may be killing people that we used to support. But never mind these inconvenient truths; we call anyone who opposes us "Taliban," or "militants" or "extremists" or "insurgents" or, wait for it..."al Queda."
The script goes something like this: We "good guys" may be occasionally misguided though our intentions are pure, and though we may be experiencing total confusion and "mission creep" in the Af-Pak War, we are on the "good side" of history. Yet history suggests that we are no better or no worse than any previous colonial force. And we are having a really tough time pretending otherwise as we try to figure out what to do about being knee deep in the big muddy. Juan Cole understands this. Listen to him, for he is wise.

Juan Cole, author of Engaging the Muslim World, discusses the origin and meaning of the Taliban, the conflicting messages Obama and the U.S. military give on why staying in Afghanistan is a good idea, the benefits of an “Egypt solution” billion dollar yearly payoff to stabilize and allow withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s low popular support and territorial control.

MP3 here. (30:17)

(courtesy antiwar.com)

Massive US Assault to Seize Taleban Heartland

Peacenik thinks this surge is delusional. Memories of Vietnam. No one in all of history has tamed Afghanistan. The supposed plan is to stabilize the country before presidental elections in August.

How do you stabilize a country that is composed of different areas ruled by war lords? The current president can't even control Kabul, the capital. Let's accept the fact that the US is in Afghanistan for geopolitical reasons, not humanitarian reasons. If a strongman existed, any strongman, who could control the country, the US would support that person. Why is Canada still supporting a US imperial misadventure. Why did I forget that question mark? Bring the Canadian troops home now.

by Tom Coghlan

Thousands of US Marines stormed into an Afghan river valley by helicopter and land early today, launching the first major military offensive of Barack Obama's presidency with an assault deep into Taleban-held territory.

Operation Khanjar, which the Marines call simply "the decisive op", is intended to seize virtually the entire lower Helmand River valley, a heartland of the Taleban insurgency and the world's biggest heroin producing region.

It is the biggest operation launched by the US Marines Corps since the retaking of Fallujah in 2004 and seeks to break the grinding stalemate between Nato forces and the Taleban in the province.

Read on...

How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die for a Mistake in Afghanistan?

Posted by ZP Heller, Brave New Films at 1:51 PM on April 23, 2009.

Brave Afghan vet demands answers from Congress.

What happened today in Washington was, as Senator Russ Feingold called it, "historic." Thirty-eight years nearly to the day when a young John Kerry shocked the nation with his fiery anti-Vietnam war testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rick Reyes, a former US Marine Corporal, delivered an equally puissant testimony in which he expressed his disenchantment with the war in Afghanistan. How appropriate Kerry should be sitting directly across from Reyes as Committee Chairman, listening attentively as Congress heard one of the first major voices of dissent on this war.

The son of Mexican immigrants who joined the Marines to escape a violent gang life in Los Angeles, Reyes served as an infantry rifleman in Afghanistan and Iraq. He upheld his duty to serve our country honorably, and immediately after 9/11, he was deployed to Afghanistan "with the conviction of fighting for justice and the American way." All of that changed when Reyes realized US military forces faced the impossible task of fighting militant Taliban members who blended in with the local Afghan population, routinely resulting in the injuries or deaths of innocent civilians.

Read on...

Enough is Enough. Peacenik says bring the troops home now.

Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter

www.antiwar.com

Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for Inter Press Service News Agency, discusses the Obama administration’s attempted duplication of Gen. Petraeus’s Iraq “success” in Afghanistan, the difficulty foreign occupiers have in overcoming the Pashtunwali code, the possible changes in U.S. military planning when the Quadrennial Defense Review is completed and Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic attempt to separate the Taliban and al Qaeda.

MP3 here. (27:43)

Gareth Porter’s articles appear on the Huffington Post, Inter Press Service News Agency and on Antiwar.com.

punditman says...Vice President Joe Biden thinks that 70% of the insurgents are just doing it for the money, and therefore all the West has to do is buy them off and we're home free.

Malarky, says Porter--and anyone else who knows anything about the region. They will fight because they will not accept foreign occupation--ever. They will fight because the Pashtun code of conduct dictates that they must avenge the deaths of their relatives. And since NATO is doing a great job at killing lots of innocents, then the war will go on as long as foreign troops occupy, end of story. Listen to this interview and then compare it to what we are told about Afghanistan in the mainstream media.

Pakistani Taliban Offers to Lay Down Arms for Peace

Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) spokesman Maulvi Omar has offered negotiations with the Pakistani government “without any conditions.” The Pakistani government has previously offered such negotiations, but demanded that the TTP first lay down their arms and agree to expel all foreigners from the tribal areas.

Maulvi Omar seemed open to the possibility, saying that the TTP would be willing to lay down arms so long as the Pakistani government ceases its offensives against them. He also said his faction would be willing to cooperate with the government in driving out foreigners and preventing infiltration into Afghanistan. He also was open to promising the TTP would not cross into Afghanistan to fight there, saying the Afghan Taliban was powerful enough on its own.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...It is important to point these things out to illustrate the complex, nuanced situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You don't get that in the mainstream media, and you don't get that inside most people's heads -- where everything is good guys (us) vs. bad guys (meaning whoever the government and the military says are the bad guys) .

Afghan war is unwinnable

By GWYNNE DYER

The main purpose of British generals, it sometimes seems, is to say aloud the things that American generals (and British diplomats) think privately but dare not say in public. Things like: "We're not going to win this war."

That was what Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the senior British commander in Afghanistan, said last week at the end of his six-month tour in command of 16 Air Assault Brigade. His force saw a great deal of combat and lost 32 killed, but it didn't lose any battles. Regular troops rarely lose battles against guerrillas. But there were no lasting successes either — which is also typical of wars where foreign troops are fighting local guerrillas.

Carleton-Smith did not say that the foreign forces in Afghanistan will lose the war. He said that they could not deliver a "decisive military victory." The best they might do, over a period of years, would be to reduce the Taliban insurgency "to a manageable level . . . that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan Army."

This will not be news to any professional soldier who knows the conditions in Afghanistan. The question is whether it comes as a surprise to American and British politicians (including Barack Obama) who still promise "victory" in the Afghan war. Because if victory is not possible, then in the end the Afghan government will have to talk to the Taliban and negotiate a peace settlement.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...The West has allied itself on one side in what is essentially an ethnically based civil war. It isn't working and ultimately, it won't work. A regional peace settlement is the only workable solution.

Seven Years in Afghanistan: From "War on Terror" to "War of Terror"

By GARY LEUPP

October 7, 2008. Seven years ago today the U.S. began the assault on Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime and produced the present mess. Abetted by U.S. bombing and commando operations, the Northern Alliance took Kabul on November 13, 2001. This was the initial U.S. response to 9-11, an assault on the U.S. by Saudi Islamist fanatics based in Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda attacks killed 3000 people. By March 2002 the U.S. bombing had produced that many Afghan civilian fatalities. This was just the beginning.

The invasion produced little change in the daily life of the average Afghan. Fanatical Sunni leaders who’d had a genuine social base and had been able to control 95 per cent of the country with minimal outside help were driven back to their villages. They were replaced by other fanatical Sunni leaders---those who had toppled the “leftist”
government in 1993, then been overthrown themselves by the Taliban in 1996. These Northern Alliance forces had been nurtured in the duration by India, Russia and Iran as their idea of the better bet among competing Islamist fundamentalists.

But in the seven years since, this collection of tribal-based warlords has been unable to stabilize Afghanistan---even though they’re propped up by tens of thousands of foreign troops who’re told that they’re there to fight terrorism and help create “democracy.” Indeed, its hold on power becomes more tenuous every year, while a resurgent Taliban with no foreign government’s support exacts an ever heavier price
from the foreigners and their local allies.

According to the United Nations, 1,445 civilians were killed in the war from January through August this year---a rise of 39 per cent over 2007. At least 577 of these deaths were due to the actions of pro-government forces. Deaths from air strikes have tripled since 2006. “Mistakes by the US and Nato have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans,” declares Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat with eight years’ experience in Afghanistan, recently noted that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces have created “a great deal of antipathy” and the situation in the country is the worst it’s been since 2001. Members of the Afghan Parliament have staged a one-day walkout to protest the civilian casualties.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...
This is a great summary -- both from an historic and present-day perspective. It puts the lie to all the nonsense and mythology about the war in Afghanistan, how we got there and where it is all going. And for Canadians, there's this to consider:

Washington’s reported bid to take over sole command of the Afghan war, cutting NATO out of the command structure, will likely fuel European and Canadian opposition.

The New 'Invasion of Cambodia'

by William Pfaff

Paris, September 11, 2008 – The United States has just invaded Cambodia. The name of Cambodia this time is Pakistan, but otherwise it’s the same story as in Indochina in 1970.

An American army, deeply frustrated by its inability to defeat an anti-American insurgent movement despite years of struggle, decides that the key to victory lies in a neighboring country. In 1970 the problem was the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. Today it is Taliban and al Qaeda bases inside Pakistan, which the United States has been attacking from the air for some time, with controversial “collatoral damages.”

George W. Bush has now authorized independent ground assaults on Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s Tribal Territories, without consultation with Pakistan authorities. These already have begun.

This follows a period of tension, with some armed clashes, between American and Pakistani military units, the latter defending “Pakistan’s national sovereignty.” Pakistan public opinion seems largely against “America’s war” being fought inside Pakistan.

Washington’s decision was made known just in time for the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that opened the first phase of the “war on terror,” after which “nothing could ever be the same.” We no doubt have now begun phase two.

Read more...

punditman says...

And now this: Pakistani Troops Fired on US Helicopters Trying to Cross Border. Using Pakistan as a gambit in the ever-expanding, endless war on terror is not going to work any more than invading Cambodia worked to help win another unwinnable war a generation ago. "Bold moves" such as these only serve to show up the US for the bumbling giant that it is, while making scores of new enemies for every civilian maimed or killed.

Afghanistan was never Canada's war

January 18, 2008

Thomas Walkom

American Defence Secretary Robert Gates may well be right when he says that Canadian and European troops in Afghanistan are not well equipped to fight a counter-insurgency campaign. But what has been lost in the controversy over his impolitic remarks is that we did not sign on to fight insurgents – there or anywhere else.

The International Stabilization and Assistance Force, which NATO now commands and which includes some 2,500 Canadian soldiers, was set up in late 2001 by the United Nations to do just what its name suggests – stabilize a country emerging from years of civil war and assist the fledgling Kabul government in its redevelopment efforts.

Fighting the Taliban (or, as they were called then, the Taliban "remnants") was a job that Washington insisted on reserving to itself through what it called Operation Enduring Freedom.

Canada helped out in that one too, sending troops to serve under U.S. command in 2002. But in those days, America wanted to keep its sometimes squeamish allies well away from a dark war that was aimed primarily at capturing terror suspects and transferring them to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

It was only after 2003, when the U.S. found itself troop-short and bogged down in Iraq, that Washington changed the rules of engagement for its allies. Gradually, Afghanistan became NATO's war. Washington's plan then was to gradually reduce its 20,000 troop commitment to Afghanistan and switch them over to Iraq.

Which is why, since 2006, Canadian troops have found themselves under fire in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.

It's worth remembering that we keep sending soldiers to Afghanistan not because Canada has been attacked by the Taliban, but because our friends, the Americans, feel they are at war with them.

Keep Reading...

Punditman says: There's just no pleasing those damn Bushies: you fight their wars for them and they complain; you don't fight their wars for them and they complain. By agreeing to going on a fool's errand, Canada is in a no-win situation.

Fresh from their delusionary "success" in Iraq, the US is now turning its' attention back to Afghanistan by sending another 3,200 Marines there this spring to help NATO troops and Afghan security forces. Stay tuned as this renewed debacle spreads into Pakistan.

Brown: 'It's time to talk to the Taliban'

Today, the Prime Minister will announce a major shift in strategy on Afghanistan. Could it mark the beginning of the end of a bloody six-year war? Or is it just spin?

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
The Independent
Published: 12 December 2007

As the deadliest year in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion in 2001 comes to a close, Gordon Brown is ready to talk to the Taliban in a major shift in strategy that is likely to cause consternation among hardliners in the White House.

Six years after British troops were first deployed to oust the Taliban regime, the Prime Minister believes the time has come to open a dialogue in the hope of moving from military action to consensus-building among the tribal leaders. Since 1 January, more than 6,200 people have been killed in violence related to the insurgency, including 40 British soldiers. In total, 86 British troops have died. The latest casualty was Sergeant Lee Johnson, whose vehicle hit a mine before the fall of Taliban-held town of Musa Qala.

The Cabinet yesterday approved a three-pronged plan that Mr Brown will outline for security to be provided by Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) and the Afghan national army, followed by economic and political development in Afghanistan.

But the intention to engage Taliban leaders in a constructive dialogue, which Mr Brown will make clear in a parliamentary statement today, will be by far the most controversial element of the plan. A senior Downing Street source confirmed the move last night and one Brown aide who accompanied the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Kabul, said: "We need to ask who are we fighting? Do we need to fight them? Can we be talking to them?"

Senior government officials said it was an error to see the Taliban as a unified organisation rather than as a disparate group of Afghan tribesmen, often farmers recruited at the end of the gun, infiltrated by foreign fighters. The aim is to divide the Taliban's local support from al-Qa'ida and militants from Pakistan.

Full article...

punditman says: Now that the British are (apparently) seeing the hopelessness of the current policy of endless war with no light at the end of the tunnel, what does Canada say? Hello, Mr. Harper, are you listening?

UN: Violence in Afghanistan up almost 25 percent in '07

Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Afghanistan is currently suffering its most violent year since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, according to an internal United Nations report that sharply contrasts with recent upbeat appraisals by President Bush and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai.

"The security situation in Afghanistan is assessed by most analysts as having deteriorated at a constant rate through 2007," said the report compiled by the Kabul office of the U.N. Department of Safety and Security.

There were 525 security incidents — attacks by the Taliban and other violent groups, bombings, terrorism of other kinds, and abductions — on average every month during the first half of this year, up from an average of 425 incidents per month in 2006.

Last year was the most violent since the U.S. post-September 11 offensive that ousted the hard-line Taliban Islamic militia from power and drove Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida terrorists into neighboring Pakistan.

The U.N.'s Half-Year Review of the Security Situation in Afghanistan underscored the continuing resurgence of the Taliban, which many experts attribute to Bush's decision to shift troops and resources to Iraq, the U.S. failure to capture the militia's top leaders, and the refuge the militia has secured in the lawless tribal region of neighboring Pakistan.

There are currently about 40,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Keep Reading...

Afghanistan: Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time

punditman says: The following excerpt puts the lie to the bogus claim that the Taliban are drug peddlers...

...Nobody has denied the sincerity of the Taliban's crazy religious zeal, and they were as unlikely to sell you heroin as a bottle of Johnnie Walker.

They stamped out the opium trade, and impoverished and drove out the drug warlords whose warring and rapacity had ruined what was left of the country after the Soviet war.

That is about the only good thing you can say about the Taliban; there are plenty of very bad things to say about them. But their suppression of the opium trade and the drug barons is undeniable fact.

Now we are occupying the country, that has changed. According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60 per cent. This year will be even bigger.

Full article...

The above article tells a tale of rampant corruption within Afghanistan's Western-installed Karzai government, which is comprised of brutal warlords who are up to their necks in the heroin trade. This has led to record crops and cheap prices on the streets of our major cities.

So, I have an idea for a new ribbon for the pro-war crowd to attach to the back of their hummers (though I doubt they would understand):
"Support the Troops, the War and the Heroin Trade."

U.S. makes mockery of Afghan democracy-ousted MP

The United States is making a mockery of democracy and the war on terrorism by supporting corrupt Afghan lawmakers who are criminals and warlords, said an outspoken female Afghan politician, who was removed from parliament.

Malalai Joya, 29, was effectively expelled last month when the lower house of parliament voted to suspend her for the remaining 3 1/2 years of her term after she described the legislative body as "worse than a stable" during an interview.

Washington "supports the same enemies, who are mentally like the Taliban. ... They brought them back into power," soft-spoken Joya told Reuters in an interview during a visit to the United States.

...unfortunately we are looking at a worse situation than the Taliban period."

punditman says:
The above link begins to tell the story of the West's glorious quest to install "democracy" in Afghanistan from the point of view of a woman MP who has been threatened and ousted from the Afghan parliament.

Yet voices such as Malalai Joya get little play in Western media. Instead it's all good guys vs. bad guys, as they interview army generals who merely echo the platitudes of their political masters in Washington, Ottawa, etc.

Winning Hearts and Minds?

Airstrike reportedly kills 21 Afghan civilians
Governor says Taliban hid in villagers’ homes; coalition soldier also killed

punditman says:
The same old story, and it goes something like this: "Of course we didn't mean to, and we promise we will pay for the funerals, but we had to kill your family members because the enemy was hiding in your homes."

This is becoming so common place in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that I believe people in the West have become desensitized to the carnage. And a numb populace is incapable of acting as a responsible citizenry. One begins to think that this is precisely the idea of an endless war against an illusive enemy.

Afghanistan Fight Will Only Get Tougher

"What we call the “Taliban” is actually a loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahedin from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle."

Afghanistan Fight Will Only Get Tougher

punditman says:
Eric Margolis, who has a syndicated column for the Toronto Sun is one of the few informed, mainstream media critics of the Afghanistan mission.