Thread: Afghanistan

Russia has been benefiting from the NATO's presence in Afghanistan because they contain Taliban from expanding into the Middle Eastern states which Russia considers (don't know whether rightfully) it's sphere of influence.

At the same time, Russia has been loosing due to the heroin trafficing. Taliban in fact decreased the drugs production when it was in power (due to their religious views, I suppose).

It looks like the NATO forces control very little of the situation. The numbers of troops stationed there is ridiculously small. A mountaionous area cannot be easily isolated so I doubt there is an alternative to the occupation.

I personally see no way out. And the US governmeent doesn't see it either, I think.

Originally Posted by Ленивец

Russia has been benefiting from the NATO's presence in Afghanistan because they contain Taliban from expanding into the Middle Eastern states which Russia considers (don't know whether rightfully) it's sphere of influence.

At the same time, Russia has been loosing due to the heroin trafficing. Taliban in fact decreased the drugs production when it was in power (due to their religious views, I suppose).

It looks like the NATO forces control very little of the situation. The numbers of troops stationed there is ridiculously small. A mountaionous area cannot be easily isolated so I doubt there is an alternative to the occupation.

I personally see no way out. And the US governmeent doesn't see it either, I think.

Good explanation. I agree with this.

They should never have gone there in the first place. At least during the Soviet war there, there was SOME kind of reasonably understandable justification; a problem directly on the border. But I do not agree with that war either...

I read about British soldiers killed there almost every day. Yesterday a female soldier was blown up in her truck.

The USSR expected NATO's military presence in Afghanistan if they didn't enter the country first. Of course, now we can speculate only about this. Afghanistan has been really a terrorists harbour but President Bush didn't estimate right what the war would have been. That's not a 'push-button war' like one can wage on a urban country. It's like colonial wars of the past. I think that modern Europeans are unprepared to take up '"the white man's burden' like it's depicted in the famous Kipling's verse. Moreover a genocide is reequired to win such wars.

It is short sighted to think that this is Bush's war or even America's war. This war was started by those who control the world's economies and they are international and have no allegiance to any country. Why do you think that Obama is continuing the war? The war was never meant to end.

DDT that may be true.

But the fact remains; it is American soldiers who are there (mainly) and the war is funded and run by America! And all the lucrative rebuilding contracts and oil contracts are awarded to US and British firms. The war is the perfect excuse to build Nato (US) bases in the area.

If there is an international consipiracy etc behind it, like you say, then why is America doing its' dirty business for it, and why do American people put up with this state of affairs?

(We know the answer to that question -- good 'propaganda' on TV and general lack of involvement and interest by the public. )

This is Vietnam II, just as meaningless, just as sad...! But this time people are too jaded to really care. Back in the 1970s there was some idealism and people were not addicted to Playstation and Facebook and reality TV... or working/studying such insane hours that they had no energy to care about anything.

For what great purpose did these young British and American men (and even women) die? Nobody can really answer that question and none of the answers they can muster up are even remotely convincing. I doubt the soldiers themselves could answer even the most basic historical or cultural question about the area. Yet they die there.

When this war broke out I was pulling 12 hour days in the City (financial district of London) I had no energy to get involved or to care, although it seemed quite insane Britain to be part of an invasion of Afghanistan because some Saudi-Arabian and Egyptian lunatics committed an act of terrorism in America! Plus, getting involved in such causes can lead to failing security clearances which I was dependent upon passing. I remember a holiday to France and Italy around that time. People were out on the streets protesting the war, but nothing like hat happened in in England, people just accepted it.

Just a few of the Brits who died there last year. This year has already exceeded last years death toll.

Some interesting quotes about Soviet invasion into Afganistan in comparison to modern NATO's one that I'v found:

The Russians had been invited in by the Amin government and so they claimed that they were not invading the country. They claimed that their task was to support a legitimate government and that the Mujahideen were no more than terrorists.

Exact data is hard to come by, but during their nine years in Afghanistan the Soviets sent tens of thousands of Afghans to colleges and universities in major Soviet cities. They built schools, roads, hospitals, and they brought in professionals to staff them.
The United States will soon surpass the Soviet tenure in Afghanistan. This is our ninth year of conflict. One has to wonder what our legacy will look like 20 years from now.

Najibullah's goverment remained in power for another three years after the Soviet pull-out.. ..I bet modern Karzai's one wouldn't make it for several hours without NATO troops beeing there.

Also keep in mind that Mujahideen, or душманы, as Soviets soldiers called them, the opposition to the Soviet forces, had a very strong support of the world's most powerful country. Just compare the way "those bloody commies" had done it with the modern "brave and free" ones, who are afraid to pull out their nose from their moving fortresses and are shooting any moving thing on sight, even if it's a peacful wedding or funeral ceremony. I'm not trying to say that the Soviet invasion was a "good" one and the modern NATO invasion is a "bad" one. I think that any invasion is a bad thing. But still, I strongly doubt that many Afganians will think about NATO troops with nostalgia 20 years from now as many of them think today about "shuravi" times.

Interesting. I was vaguely aware that there were some mitigating circumstances for the USSR going there. I remember hearing some criticism about the Soviet presence there as a child, but nothing remotely as strong as the comments regarding America's little invasions here and there.

The Talibans probably consider communism and American style democracy to be about equally bad, so for them there is probably no great distinction... ! Some of the same fighters are still around, apparently -- They are using the same old caves and the weapons they got from CIA to fight the USSR! They have been at it for 30 years now! How ironic the whole thing is. Allegedly the war was supposed to stop terrorism. Yes, right.. !

I knew that the USSR educated people from around the world and helped countless 3rd world countries and I think that was a great thing. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with wanting to support 3rd world countries like the USSR did -- they got a lot out of it.

But as you know, popular opinion made a U-turn in the 1990s and it became totally unacceptable to talk about the USSR with anything but regret and condemnation. I haven't heard a nice thing said about it since circa 1991...

It's sad that media and people can't take a more nuanced perspective and appreciate the good things and learn from the bad things.

YouTube - ‪A Year at War‬‏