Good Read

Gargoyle

From Rich Lowery

A Win
Victory makes everything look different.

November 13, 2001 3:55 p.m.



Victory makes everything look different.

What appears to be the Northern Alliance's extraordinary rout of the Taliban in the north and west may be temporary, as the Afghan way of war sometimes features armies running away in headlong retreat, then running right back again as the other side, in turn, runs away in headlong retreat.

But be that as it may, you can feel the forces beneath the international status quo buckling a bit, as the application of American power turns the world a little plastic, makes possible fundamental reorderings that would have been unthinkable otherwise.

What is Saddam thinking right now as he sits in Baghdad, perhaps a marked man? The mullahs of Iran, as they sit above a powder keg of domestic unrest? Yasser Arafat, as he watches what a dollop of American power has wrought in Afghanistan?

What they should be thinking is, "Oh, s---," and if the U.S. plays to that fear — increasing and manipulating it — we will able to effect serious change in the Middle East.

The last couple days have been a vindication of the strategic shift the administration made in response to the failure of its initial strategy, of bombing the south in hopes of prompting Pashtun defections. Instead, as NR had urged for weeks, the administration began killing Taliban troops in the north, with delightful results. There is no substitute for destroying your enemies.

There's also no substitute for taking and holding ground. Relying on the Northern Alliance to do it was a risk, as I wrote last week, but once we began to bomb Taliban troops in earnest and arm the Northern Alliance, there was little doubt about the ultimate result (although I, of course, had no idea how quickly things would work out in the north).

R.W. Apple's piece in the New York Times about how Afghanistan could be another Vietnam looked silly at the time, but seems positively ridiculous now.

Of course, there is much work to be done. In most wars, we kill people to take territory. In this war, we are taking territory to kill people — the Taliban military and leadership, and Osama bin Laden.

That goal may still be months — or even longer — away. That goal may yet take an appreciable American force on the ground. But it is now closer, and that is a wonderful thing.

gandalf

I counter your Rich Lowery with a Robert Fisk

from http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=104799

Robert Fisk: What will the Northern Alliance do in our name now? I dread to think...

'Why do we always have this ambiguous, dangerous relationship with our allies?'

14 November 2001

It wasn't meant to be like this. The nice, friendly Northern Alliance, our very own foot-soldiers in Afghanistan, is in Kabul. It promised – didn't it? – not to enter the Afghan capital. It was supposed to capture, at most, Mazar-i-Sharif and perhaps Herat, to demonstrate the weakness of the Taliban, to show the West that its war aims – the destruction of the Taliban and thus of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida movement – were inevitable.

The corpse of the old man in the centre of Kabul, executed by our heroes in the Alliance, was not supposed to be on television. Only two days ago, Alastair Campbell's 24-hour Washington-London-Islamabad "communication centre'' was supposed to counter Taliban propaganda. Now Mr Campbell must set up his team of propagandists in Kabul to fight the lies of our very own foot-soldiers of the Northern Alliance.

Was it not the US Secretary of State Colin Powell who assured General Musharraf of Pakistan the Alliance would be kept under control, that the United Nations' envoy, Lakhdar Ibrahimi, would be allowed to construct a truly representative government in Kabul to replace the Taliban?

General Musharraf had promised his support to the United States – at the risk of his nation and his life – in return for American promises that Afghanistan would be governed by a truly representative coalition. Pakistan's air bases, its very support for the "war on terrorism'', was contingent on Washington's word that the Northern Alliance would not take over Kabul and impose its own diktat on Afghanistan.

Yesterday, the pictures from Kabul were almost identical to the videotapes of April 1992 when the pro-Russians and Communists were defeated. We saw the same jubilation by the non-Pushtu population. And within two days, Hekmatyar Gulbeddin began to bomb the city. The division of ethnic groups plunged the Afghan capital into civil war. Yesterday, the Alliance was supposed to wait on the outskirts of the city while the Americans attempted to construct a workable coalition. But for the present, Afghanistan – without the Taliban – is a country without a government.

What on earth is going on? And what, for that matter, has happened to Mr bin Laden? Are we driving him into the mountains – always supposing he is not already there – or are we pushing him into the tribal areas of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan? For without a city, the Taliban themselves will melt back into their birthplace, the madrassa schools along the Pakistan border which created the puritan, obscurantist spirit which has inspired the rulers of Afghanistan these past five years.

The Northern Alliance is advancing, meanwhile, with all its baggage of massacres and looting and rape intact. We have so idolised these gunmen, been so infatuated with them, supported them so unquestioningly, pictured them on television so deferentially that we are now immune to their history. So, perhaps, are they.

General Rashid Dostum, our hero now that he has recaptured Mazar-i-Sharif, is in the habit of punishing his soldiers by tying them to tank tracks and then driving the tanks around his barracks' square to turn them into mincemeat. You wouldn't have thought this, would you, when you heard the jubilant reports of General Dostum's victory on Monday night?

Nor would you have thought, listening to the reports from Afghanistan yesterday, that the Northern Alliance was responsible for more than 80 per cent of the drug exports from the country in the aftermath of the Taliban's prohibition of drug cultivation. I have a ghostly memory of writing this story before, not about the Taliban but about the KLA in Kosovo, a guerrilla army which was partly funded by drugs and which, once its political aspirations had been met by Nato's occupation of the Serbian province went on to become "terrorists'' (our former Foreign Secretary's memorable description) inside Macedonia. True, Nato's wheel of fortune moves in mysterious ways but it's not difficult to understand how our allies – praised rather than controlled – follow their own agenda.

Why, I wonder, do we always have this ambiguous, dangerous relationship with our allies? For decades, we accepted the received wisdom that the "B" specials were a vital security arm of the Northern Ireland authorities on the grounds that they "knew the territory" – just as, I fear, we rely upon the Northern Alliance because it "knows the land".

The Israelis relied upon their Phalangist militia thugs in Lebanon because the Christian Maronites hated the Palestinians. The Nazis approved of their Croatian Ustashi murderers in 1941 because the Ustashi hated the Serbs.

Is this, I ask myself, why the Northern Alliance is our friend? Not because it is a loyal ally but because it hates the Taliban? Not because it opposes poverty and destitution and the destruction of Afghanistan under an Islamic regime but because it says it loathes Osama bin Laden?

There are brave men in the Alliance, true. Its murdered leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, was an honourable man. It's not difficult to turn our allies into heroes.

But it remains a fact that from 1992 to 1996, the Northern Alliance was a symbol of massacre, systematic rape and pillage. Which is why we – and I include the US State Department – welcomed the Taliban when they arrived in Kabul. The Northern Alliance left the city in 1996 with 50,000 dead behind it. Now its members are our foot soldiers. Better than Mr bin Laden, to be sure. But what – in God's name– are they going to do in our name?

bugler

What are Saddam Hussein, and the mullahs in Iran thinking?

Saddam is probably thinking that the US didn't want to get rid of him at the end of the Gulf war, and that the situation hasn't really changed since then.Then again he might be pre-occupied with those sanctions that are HURTING HIM OH SO BADLY!

The mullahs in Iran are probably not that worried either, I mean if things look like getting ugly then can always just shift their stance to be more supportive of the US, and no problems. They could become another Saudi Arabia, with an appalling human rights record, little integrity, but completely safe from the US's righteous justice that it metes out to evil people all over the world.Unless they get over thrown or challenged by their populace, in which case the US might have to bomb people again, a la Vietnam.

As for the Arafat reference, I mean what the hell? It never ceases to amaze me how politicians can get away with rolling out the same old rubbish, that a 6 yr old could pick holes in.

Gargoyle/Nagilum : This was not a "good read".

gandalf

I have put all the thread concerning the other thread closure in a new thread. This means that we can keep this thread on the original topic.

Gandalf.

Sharkey

Originally posted by gandalf
Sharkey lets get this clear all the lockdowns etc have occured because adults have started to insult each other like spoilt children. Not because of a certain bias in politics or opinions.

Again -- sometimes it seems that your treatment is a bit unequal.

As for Right Wing /Left Wing, I am getting the impression that anyone who offers a point of view that questions what the US & allies are doing in Afghanistan are been labelled as Left Wing.

Gandalf.

I try to stay off the right-wing/left-wing labels as these labels tend to shift country to country. However, I would call someone who made or supported or even tolerated a statement like "Americans are less human than Arabs" as anti-American. For the life of me I'm still trying to resolve how this isn't considered racist to the very same crowd that simultaneously howled that I was a racist for criticizing the UN.

I would call someone who makes absurd, unsupported and untrue anti-American claims as anti-American. for example -- a posteron this board stated that "the whole argument presented for going into Afghanistan was supposedly about getting this one man. "

Of course this same person stated in the next sentence "... the stated objectives were to get bin Laden, to quell Al Qaeda, and only to go against the Taliban in order to achieve these first two goals.... "

This persons second statement is in direct conflict with his first. yes -- I would state that this person's politics show a certain anti-American bias.

gandalf

Sharkey

I'm not going back over the past between us on the board.

Calling someone Anti American because they question the motives of your Government is probably a bit strong. I'm sure they have nothing against Americans just the policies and motives of this American Adminstration.

I have no problems with ordinary Americans, I was over in Boston 2 weeks ago. I do however have serious concerns over what your current adminstration have planned in the pipeline (sorry couldn't resist it) for the future.

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey
I would call someone who makes absurd, unsupported and untrue anti-American claims as anti-American. for example -- a posteron this board stated that "the whole argument presented for going into Afghanistan was supposedly about getting this one man. "

Of course this same person stated in the next sentence "... the stated objectives were to get bin Laden, to quell Al Qaeda, and only to go against the Taliban in order to achieve these first two goals.... "

This persons second statement is in direct conflict with his first. yes -- I would state that this person's politics show a certain anti-American bias.

Well gee, if you're gonna quote me verbatim you might do me the courtesy of using my name as well

I challenge you to find a single post of mine which is not concerning the current Afghanistan crisis and/or American foreign policy (two areas I see as inextricably linked) which shows an anti-American bias.

I also challenge you to show how my poor choice of wording on the one point above somehow makes my postings "absurd, unsupported and untrue anti-American claims". Exactly which claims have been absurd and unsupported?

Yes, in the example you quote, I contradict myself slightly. This contradiction could easily have been excused, or politely pointed out. However, using this small contradiction as the basis for your argument above is beyond me. In one sentence I say bin Laden, in the next I say bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. I believe it is people like you who have been arguing throughout this whole series of events that getting bin Laden will effectively cripple al Qaeda in the first place, so at the very least the two issues are closely related. But no, instead of a correction, a clarification, or indeed a rebuttal I get instults. Bravo. Well done.

I would also point out to you that having a political view which is contrary to the current American one does not make me anti-American as you seem to be implying, nor does it make me "left-wing" nor anything else other than being critical of the American actions at present, and their foreign policy in general.

I have a simple solution to this....forget the "challenges" I put to you above...

<clunk>

Thats the sound of your name landing at the bottom of my ignore list. Problem solved.

Your continued inability to hold a rational discussion or partake in an argument without brandishing labels such as "anti-American" for no discernible reason has made me decide that you are not worth the effort of conversing with any more. I dont come here to be personally insulted simply for having differing views to someone like you. The easiest solution is that I stop listening to you. That way neither of us have to leave, and I dont have to suffer your insults any more. Brand me what you like, because I just dont care any more - you're not worth the effort.

Thank you for playing.

jc

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

I challenge you to find a single post of mine which is not concerning the current Afghanistan crisis and/or American foreign policy (two areas I see as inextricably linked) which shows an anti-American bias.

Wait -- are you saying that posts that your self-contradictory and highly inaccurate posts are not enough?

I also challenge you to show how my poor choice of wording on the one point above somehow makes my postings "absurd, unsupported and untrue anti-American claims". Exactly which claims have been absurd and unsupported?

Here's one : "... the whole argument presented for going into Afghanistan was supposedly about getting this one man."

Total bunk. So untrue is this statement that you contradict it in your next sentence.

Regardless, this whole Afghan thing was about capturing bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. From DAY ONE! Every statement by American policymakers supports this. By the way -- have you noticed that we bombed the al Qaeda bases, froze their financial assets and set out on a nationwide/worldwide manhunt for bin Laden's thugs?

Yes, in the example you quote, I contradict myself slightly....

To be honest -- a touch more than slightly. You made a very definitive statement, then contradicted it. Yes, perhaps I might have been a bit more civil in my approach. Then again, you might be a bit more even-handed and ACCURATE in your attitude about American foreign policy.

For example, you state "The US is not attacking Al Qaeda ...." Total b.s. The FIRST thing the US did was level every al Qaeda base we could.

But no, instead of a correction, a clarification, or indeed a rebuttal I get instults. Bravo. Well done.

You might admit that anyone who asserts a stream of wholly inaccurate statements does leave himself a bit open for a cutting rebuttal.

I would also point out to you that having a political view which is contrary to the current American one does not make me anti-American ...

Sure, that's just jiffy. What is a problem is when you support your view with serial garbage.

Look -- All I'm asking from you is a bit more fact checking. Then debate can continue on the merits, rather than wasting time on fantasy