open Democracy News Analysis - 9/11 : the 'war on terror' - Comments

cherif.rifaat on "Afghanistan: state of siege"

cherif.rifaat — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:51:08 +0100

I would like the United States to behave itself and manifest its fabled self-correcting qualities, not to decline further or collapse a la Soviet union. There are ominous signs of military and economic difficulties.

It is currently pursuing 19th century style colonial wars which will fail because the colonial era has pased.

For those do not believe Afghanistan is a colonial war, consider:

- The "porous border" which is destroying any chance for "victory" by ISAF is not a border at all. It is an imaginary concept through the mountains called the Durand Line, invended by a British colonial civil servant, certainly not to help the Afghan people. It divides the Pashtun. They just ignore it and help each other any way the see fit.

- ISAF is protecting a corrupt government run by a former (some say also current) oil executive and employee of Vice President Cheney. If he were really democratically elected, then it is a coincidence verging on the miraculous that such a person who had been out of afghanistan for years should be chosen by the Afghan people.

jdubow on "Afghanistan: state of siege"

jdubow — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:27:50 +0100

The key issue in Afghanistan is hot pursuit of Taliban/Al Queda into Pakistan.

While this is called a non-starter in Roger's article, it is the only way to reduce the strength of the Taliban. Numerous studies have shown that a safe haven an outside supply for external armies makes them virtually undefeatable. Pakistan is suspected of both. Rogers writes as if Pakistani reactions would be so negative as to deter US actions on the border. If a liberal administration rules in DC that may well be the case. If a conservative administration or a centrist administration with educated and historically conscious senior officials gets elected other considerations may come to the fore.

Amongst the options include hot pursuit of Taliban/Al Queda into the areas of Pakistan that are not fully controlled by the government anyway. While this will fuel anti-US sentiment and mainstream media outrage, the real question for Pakistan will come down to whether they hate US strikes in border areas more than they would hate US support for India in the simmering conflict between the two nations. After all, Pakistan has already contributed to nuclear proliferation , refused to take on the Taliban/Al Queda in their own nation, and indeed may be supplying and aiding their growth. If they won't control their own border and won't let the US look out for the substantial investment in stability in Afghanistan that it has made, then what good are they as an ally?

While it may be politically incorrect to suggest that the Pakistani opinions about America are secondary to US opinions and interests regards to US policy it is also likely a logical suggestion. Moreover, a shift to India by the US would have substantial benefits to the US in the area and in the war on Terror. Unfortunately, political correctness constrains the terms of debate in most media and academic circles. At this sorry time the military and intelligence communities are the amongst the only places truly open debates between open minds can occur.

alfredo.bremont on "Afghanistan: state of siege"

alfredo.bremont — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:50:39 +0100

Normal
0
21

The main problem in
Afghanistan is ethical and a moral problem.

The war is an impose
aggression by Washington towards another nation under the idea that only
Washington knows best and the American way of life is the key to happiness.
This is a happiness closely linked to the capitalist system and its consumerism
laws and regulations. Therefore, the battle is mainly for petrol, the
surrounding of china and Iran and eventually Russia in order to control the
prices and use of the energy resources, which the simplest way to control
Europe. Russia A nation that has well reacted to Washington’s aggression in
this respect. Washington insists it knows best on how to promote culture and
civilization. It seems is simply the geometrical bourgeois reasoning of the elites,
the one that is guiding western civilization now, however, this reasoning has
reached its limits and it is no longer applicable. The result is a system that
will undoubtedly collapse. The Americanization of Afghanistan, Iraq, or any of
the other Middle Eastern nations will never be achieved. The coming war on Iran
will create more tension, hatred and discontent. Further repression towards the
common citizens, a psychological oppression via the main media to continue
these illogical and counterproductive ventures. The world has no other choice
but to modify it’s reasoning accept the evolving globalization and abolish the
irrelevant borders between nations. It is no longer the survival of the fittest
but rather the survival of the planet that is at stake.

Humans should become more
honest among them and realize that it is our own planet that now needs a lot
more respect care and understanding than is actually getting. A global
harmonization and the passage to a new social democratic system based on newer
and just rules are unavoidable. Otherwise, the future holds nothing more than
disaster isolation hatred and ultimately the destruction of the human race.