Why exactly Afghanistan

@lwd
Why so frontally, dense and trashing everything you wouldn't agree, sentence by sentence? A mental vivisection. Nobody wants to persuade you to change your point of view neither wants to confront you. I see this as an interchange of views, with no hostile intentions. We just talk.

 

Make no mistake about the man on the photo below: he isn't a Taliban - he is an American, Kerry Patton, in cover clothes in Afghanistan. He seems to be a reliable source, the man who has been there and knows a lot about Afghanistan. He states: "Pakistan Taliban is the only Taliban militant group in existence." Whom then the western forces fight in Afghanistan if there are no such things as Talibans in Afghanistan?

You can read more at the Jerusalem Pages.

 

The owner of that site has an obvious conflict of interest:

 

I have generally kept out of this but I have to make a comment and yes from a point of experience. There seems to be a lot of talk about Afghanistan not being free until the majority want to be, I'm sorry but this is not as easy to do as it is to say. How do you rid yourself of the Taliban/Al-Quaeda/local warlord when you are part of the poor unarmed majority. Anyone who steps out of line is killed quickly if he's lucky and slowly if he's not and probably with or in front of his family. My step Nephew fled to Iran when his Father dissapeared in a fall out with a local armed warlord. The whole family went to Iran and my Nephew walked to Greece and somehow (he doesn't talk about it much) got the UK where at 14 he was held as a adult in a UK detention centre. He has since found out his Father survived and is now also in Iran. They know they will never return home for although the government may change the men with guns are still the ones with the power.

 

And unfortunately Mr. Patton is just as inaccurate and simplistic in his article as those he accuses of the same thing.

The claim that there are only "Pakistani Taliban" in Afghanistan is ludicrous and simply ignores the history and what the actual situation in Afghanistan is. It is a dumbed down explaination that uses artificial man made constructs and "tags" to explain a complex and diverse issue. It also ignores the fact that some of these groups are constantly changing and evolving, as to membership, allegiences, causes, allies and enemies.
The Taliban or Taleban, when used in the context of Afghanistan refers specifically to a fundimental Islamist political group, formed by Mullah Mohammed Omar from his madrassah students in 1994 to oppose depredations against the Afghani people by some of the warlords that came to power after the collapse of the communist government. Initially, it was an idealistic movement with a noble cause. Many of it's early members were Afghani refugees that had been living in Pakistan, where they had earlier fled. The people initially supported the movement because of what it was trying to achieve. As it grew in size, and power and gained control of larger areas of the country and it's populations, it changed. Fundamentalist extremists moved into positions of power and authority and changed the character of the movement. By the time they came to power, supplanting the national government with their own, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Sept 1996 to Dec 2001), they were the power that was preying upon the Afghani people and their abuses and depredations were equal to or exceeded, that which they had initially formed to oppose. The local tribes that had supported them, if they now withdrew their support, were kept in line by force. After the initial invasion by western forces, supporting the northern alliance, during which the Taliban was swept from power, many of the local tribes adopted a wait and see attitude. Reasonable, given the past history of governments, pseudo-governments, etc. that had oppressed the people. The remnants of the Taliban, and Al Queda moved across the border into Pakistan to seek refuge amoung their kinsmen and others sympathetic to their cause in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where the government only has nominal control. The Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) has long been accused of providing covert aid to radical islamist groups, I tend to believe the assertion, they definately were a conduit for funneling aid from Pakistan, the CIA, Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern nations to the Soviet opposition forces.
You have asked before, "why don't we intervene in Pakistan?". The reason is simple, Pakistan is a nuclear power. It has a basically unstable government. As long as the government in power maintains a moderate stance towards the west it is in our best interests to maintain the status quo. If we were to intervene, the government could tip towards the radical elements, if they came to power and decided to align with militant Islamic organizations and give them access to these nuclear weapons....you get the picture.
Anyway back to Afghanistan. Remember I had earlier stated there is the principle of "the strongest tribe". Most of the local, tribal based groups, as a matter of survival, allign themselves with the most powerful group. When the Taliban was in power, the Taliban government was that group, After their fall it remained to be seen who would emerge as the power, so they sat on the sidelines. The west has a long history of intervening, and then leaving. This pretty much screws any of the indigenous people that side with the west. Our first mistake was to utilize too few troops to control the country. We did not want to be seen as invaders, but as liberators. This allowed the opposition groups to maintain a covert presense on the ground while their forces in exile rebuilt their strength. Re-enter Al Queda. After it's loss of it's primary bases in Afghanistan, Al Queda was looking for a new home. When the US began to shift it's focus to Iraq, Al Queda began facilitating the infiltration of huge numbers of foreign Jihadists into Iraq to support Saddam. Not that Saddam had any direct ties to Al Queda, it was the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. Al Queda and foreign fighters from all over the mid-east/west and central asia flocked to Iraq to support the Sunnis. The Sunni tribes alligned with them because they were the strength and because they wanted to retain their favored position within Iraqi society. Iran (majority Shiite) funneled weapons and support to Muqtadā al-Ṣadr and his Shiite militia. The Shiites had long been repressed by the minority Sunni population and wanted this to change and Iran wanted to extend it's influence in Iraq. When it looked like a functioning government might be formed, Al Queda used assasinations and bombings against the Shiite majority to incite sectarian violence. The Sunnis were becoming tired of the depredations committed against their own people by Al Queda and began drifting away from them and withdrawing support. Al Queda by igniting the sectarian firestorm forced these Sunni tribes to remain aligned with them in order to survive. When the US surged in Sunni Al Anbar and could protect the people from Shiite reprisals and Al Queda, loyalty flipped from the opposition to the coalition. The "Great Awakening" started, the Sunnis started helping the US, Al Queda was run out and the Shiite/Sunni violence receeded. The strongest tribe (the US in this case) had prevailed, it was simply a matter of survival for the local tribes. This too is a simplistic explaination, there were many other factors, motives, allegiences, causes, but there is not enough time nor space in this format to give every permutation concerning situation.
Back to Afghanistan. When it was realized that we (the west) had insufficient troop numbers to provide security to all the population of Afghanistan, Omar and the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al Queda, rebuilt their strength in their Pakistan sanctuaries. Every spring they would re-infiltrate into Afghanistan to renew the fighting. They were strongest in the more remote areas or in areas with limited western troop presence, or in areas where they had an "enemies of my enemies are my friends" relationship, example warlords that were into the drug trade. The local tribes would align with them for survival not ideological reasons, some of the poorer Afghanis would fight for the side that paid the most. It is just employment not ideological. Some for ideological reasons, they see the western forces as invaders, christian infidels, to maintain their sociological control, due to blood feuds, etc. All these diverse forces were and are lumped under the heading of the "Taliban" because that is the primary opposition "political" element. Mr. Patton, I am sure, knows this but chooses to "nitpick" the use of the term. The Taliban is now home based in the Pakistani tribal areas because they have had their bases in Afghanistan denied to them. This does not make them "Pakistan Taliban", though there are Pakistani fighters in their ranks. The majority are still displaced Afghani's, supported by large numbers of Jihadi fighters from all over the region. You can think of them like the "Free French" or Dutch governments, in exile in Britain during WWII. The use of the term "Taliban" would be synonymous with a 1940's newspaper article that stated "Allied forces were engaged by nazi forces". These forces may have been composed of Germans, but the troops may not have technically been Nazi's nor have embraced the ideology. They may have been Italians, Romaians, Ukranians, SS, Wermacht, whatever, fighting because they were nazi's, or because they were anti-communist, or defending the motherland, or because they were racist and wanted to exterminate Jews and other "undesireables", or 1001 other reasons. Also just like in WWII the majority of the civilians aren't taking an active part, for either side, they're just trying to suvive. They will exist and endure no matter which regime is in charge, the Axis or the Allies.

Now read this 2011 article within the context of what I've just related to you and you can begin to see the complex factors at play. You'll also see that this author does give a balanced view of what is going on. Use this knowledge base to search for and read more, use your own B.S. meter to filter the political perspective and a fairly good understanding of the situation can be derived.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/01/watershed_tribal_engagement_in.php

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/Alikozai%20Tribal%20Dynamics.pdf

Here's another one and if you pay close attention to the details, the reasons things develloped the way they have makes a good deal of sense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/04/AR2011010405489_2.html?sid=ST2011010405807

And more information on the tribal dynamics:
http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/Putting%20It%20All%20Together.pdf

As I attempted to illustrate earlier, shifting alliances due to a number of factors can shift groups and individuals from a Taliban alliance to a government alliance and back again, and again. It is a very fluid situation.

I think you will see that the statement from the article you posted gives a highly inaccurate picture:
"Pakistan Taliban is the only Taliban militant group in existence."
While the groups may be now be based in Pakistan that does not mean they are of Pakistani origin or composed of a majority of Pakistanis, nor does it mean that Taliban forces, comprised of Afghani's are not operating in Afghanistan or that they are not, along with Al Queda allies, the primary opposition being faced.
Finally, I would suggest that if his statement were true, it would give more justification for intervention in Afghanistan, because we would be defending them (Afghanistan) from invasion by a foreign power (Pakistan).

 

The reason boots on the ground were needed was that Osama's organization was operating on both sides of the border. Even if Osama could not be "gotten to", because he was located in Pakistan, we could engage and kill his forces in Afghanistan instead of fighting them in the time and place of their choosing. Same, same for Mullah Omar and the Taliban. The moment we left Afghanistan the situation revert back to the exact same situation we faced when we invaded. Almost as if we'd never taken the action in the first place.

 

That way it's clear what I disagree with and why. Or clearer anyway.

When my position gets misstated and points I've raised get ignored (refuted or questioned I can accept readily) I tend to get a bit irritated. Basing what's suppose to be a rational discussion on opinions and faulty logic is also of questionable utility.

Really? I'd like to know why you think so. Have you read many of his writings? He's a consultant because he usually gets it right and he does so by trying to be as realistic as possible.

 

The info they gave on what they have done with their money and what their people have done is probably quite accurate. They are however not a news gathering organization nor do they have much expertise in the analysis of political or cultural data. On a fair number of occasions when they've made announcements of political import said announcements have been questionable.

 

EDIT: @lwd: ah ... never mind!

 

Price, I do indeed appreciate your profound knowledge about the subject under consideration and your preparedness to help us understand. But there is something indeed odd: NATO knew that Osama was in Pakistan and yet they decided to attack other, obviously more convenient target.

The truth is simple to explain: one just simply states the facts. The other thing, the contrary to the truth, requires a complicated explanation to hide the truth. The subject we consider here is indeed complex, but not complex that much: they wanted to hunt the bastard and I agree that they had to catch Osama and kill him along with all his comrades. But why Afghanistan if THEY KNEW Osama was elsewhere? This is difficult to defend. (I know, there are also rather complicated answers to this, but untruthful)

 

Thank you.

Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan when he was killed and had fled there at some point after Afghanistan was invaded and the Taliban regime toppled. At the time military US/NATO military operations aginst Afghanistan commenced in October 2001 Bin Laden was in Afghanistan under the protection of Mullah Omar and the Taliban government. Al Queda also had training camps in Afghanistan and actually had a brigade of fighters (055 brigade or 55th Arab Brigade) integrated into the Taliban Army. The US demanded Bin Laden's extradition and the Taliban refused. Omar/Taliban and Bin Laden/AlQueda had close ties and then their is the cultural imperative of sanctuary to guests. Some accounts, which I tend to believe, state that Omar went to Bin Laden and demanded to know if he and his organization were involved in the 9/11 attacks and that Bin Laden assured him that they were not. Omar, based upon his relationship with Bin Laden, believed him and continued to offer him sanctuary in spite of US threats of military intervention. I have read other accounts that state Omar has developed some hatred for Al Queda due to his being misled, however, until the invaders (US/NATO) are expelled from Afghanistan they will coninue to cooperate. "The enemies of my enemies are my friends" thing again.

Here is a "The Guardian" article on the proven and suspected relationship:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/29/bin-laden-al-qaida-taliban-contact

Heres an interesting Al Jazeera piece on the Omar myth, not directly related to the current posts, but interesting and good for additional understanding of one of the main characters/players:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/20126665650415526.html

Why Afghanistan? Because that is where he was, his organization was, his fighters were, his training facilities were, and where he had a safe haven to train, plan and execute his operations. Again, Pakistan came later, and again a point I tried to make in an earlier post, the situation is fluid and these groups, leaders and fighters constantly move back and forth across the border.

 

I've heard very simple lies as well as very simple statements of the truth. Complicated lies can usually be disected and their fallacies (logically or factually) demonstrated. Your "truths" have been shown wanting and you have yet to successfully challenge the facts of logic we have presented. You seem to wonder why some of us get irritated when you make statments that either don't acknowledge what we've said or are dissmisive of it with nothing to back it. Furthermore you basically called us liers you you are the one that seams to have a problem with fact and logic.

Start with a fallacy (i.e. an opinion which you are mistaking for a fact) and your chance of being correct is significantly diminished and your logical position completely undermined. As USMC stated when we first went to Afghanistan we did know where Osama was, or at least had a very good idea, and it wasn't Pakistan it was Afghanistan. After that we weren't sure where he was until shortly before the raid that got him. Of course he wasn't the only target as USMC also pointed out. You also keep ignoring that the Taliban by their actions had become the enemy as well and removing them from power and keeping them out became a valid objective just as the destruction of Al Quada did. Indeed the latter two were argueablly more important than getting Osama. It's not difficult to defend it's reasonable, logical, and in accordance with international "law". You can continue to prefer your fantasies to the truth but that doesn't make them true or make reality "untruthful".

 

An article which may imply that even the 20% of civilian casualties often stated as due to the allies might be a bit high.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20130625.aspx