Af/Pak & Other News (11/26/2011)

[dump...@hotmail.com]

Pakistan demands US vacate air base after deadly strikes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45442885/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TtFs__I8eCw



Marines to wind down Afghan combat in 2012:

http://news.yahoo.com/marines-wind-down-afghan-combat-2012-082658096.html;_ylt=AlNOnSJNOPBAMfMK.pFgrQhvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTRhZnZvZHFlBGNjb2RlA3ZzaGFyZWFnMgRtaXQDVG9wU3RvcnkgV29ybGRTRgRwa2cDZTE1NzBkMzgtZjU5My0zNDhhLWJkODctZTg2OTAwYWMxZWUwBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2NmNGY3NGMwLTE4NjUtMTFlMS1iZmJkLTg3Y2U2YTU5ZDUyOA--;_ylg=X3oDMTFwZTltMWVnBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZARwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3



Rover, Rover Keeps Getting Made Over:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20111126.aspx



German troops to stay in Afghanistan after NATO goes:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hp-aBfffkjv3fh8rrQNffk64qAzw?docId=CNG.d2cb7fcead198fb5fcf3ea88ef8ea035.6c1



India demands Pakistan action against Mumbai attackers:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/298009/india-demands-pakistan-action-against-mumbai-attackers/



General: History Will Judge Afghan War Positively:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8354570&c=EUR&s=LAN



Size Does Matter:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20111126.aspx



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Other news:



Bombs kill 15 in and around Baghdad:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45443384/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TtFtbfI8eCw



Latest developments in Arab world's unrest:

http://news.yahoo.com/latest-developments-arab-worlds-unrest-183302862.html;_ylt=AuzEPJKCYEacb2WnUDSUMJQLewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTQ4dXYxdjhkBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBXb3JsZFNGIE1pZGRsZUVhc3RTU0YEcGtnAzZiNzJmZjVkLTI3NDUtMzVjZC1iNzU5LTY2NTY5NjM3ZmM4ZARwb3MDOARzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgMzMTgxNzMwMC0xODZiLTExZTEtYmNkZi0yMTk5YjAyM2MxNjU-;_ylg=X3oDMTI1aGZjdmcxBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZHxtaWRkbGUgZWFzdARwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3



Iran to Target NATO Shield in Turkey if Threatened:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8376682&c=MID&s=AIR



Indonesia; Govt to Buy Leopard Tank and Apache Helicopter:

http://www.tempointeractive.com/hg/nasional/2011/11/25/brk,20111125-368445,uk.html



C-17 Wing that transports nuclear weapons given unsatisfactory rating:

http://alert5.com/2011/11/26/c-17-wing-that-transports-nuclear-weapons-given-unsatisfactory-rating/

[William Black]

On 27/11/11 00:29, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Pakistan demands US vacate air base after deadly strikes:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45442885/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TtFs__I8eCw
>

I wonder if they'll be sending all those arms back...

I imagine not, this is just propaganda.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[Andrew Swallow]

On 27/11/2011 01:03, William Black wrote:
> On 27/11/11 00:29, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Pakistan demands US vacate air base after deadly strikes:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45442885/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TtFs__I8eCw
>>
>>
>
> I wonder if they'll be sending all those arms back...
>
> I imagine not, this is just propaganda.
>
>

If the USA is going to attack Pakistan it will have to evacuate any
bases in Pakistan to prevent the US people inside from being used as
hostages.

Andrew Swallow

[William Black]

Pakistan is three times as big as Afghanistan and has ten times the
population and has nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons usually precludes any US direct action against a country
owning them. Pakistan also has a more or less unlimited military
alliance with China.

The Chinese army hasn't actually proved much of a threat to anyone
except the Chinese civilian population in the past half century, but it
could be a dreadfully big nuisance.

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:29:58 -0800 (PST), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:

> General: History Will Judge Afghan War Positively:
>
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8354570&c=EUR&s=LAN

More accurately some historians might.

[William Black]

I doubt that.

The first two Afghan wars are universally condemned and the third was a
mess that everyone keeps trying to forget.

The judgement of history will be what it usually is with Afghanistan:

"Afghanistan is just too difficult"

The only chance we've got is the introduction of a massive education
system and the introduction of Western luxuries on a huge scale.

People whose wives have washing machines don't attack the local power
station...

But right now we just can't afford that, any more than the Soviets could.

Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:

> On 27/11/11 04:06, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:29:58 -0800 (PST), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> General: History Will Judge Afghan War Positively:
>>>
>>> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8354570&c=EUR&s=LAN
>>
>> More accurately some historians might.
>
> I doubt that.
>
> The first two Afghan wars are universally condemned and the third was a
> mess that everyone keeps trying to forget.

I am not sure what you mean by the first three Afghan wars.

>
> The judgement of history will be what it usually is with Afghanistan:
>
> "Afghanistan is just too difficult"
>
> The only chance we've got is the introduction of a massive education
> system and the introduction of Western luxuries on a huge scale.
>
> People whose wives have washing machines don't attack the local power
> station...

One of the lessons of the Third Anglo-Afghan War, is if the Afghans do not
cause problems outside, they should be left alone because it is not worth
getting involved in the place.

>
> But right now we just can't afford that, any more than the Soviets could.
>
> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.

Part of the reason here is I think after the Cold War ended it would have
made a lot of sense for the West to prop up the Russians in Afghanistan.

[Keith W]

Which would been a clever trick given that the Russians began to leave
in 1988 which is some time before the cold war ended. The real problem
is that the west lost interest after the soviets left and allowed the
Pakistani ISI free to pursue its plan of dominating the country through
the Taliban who they trained and equipped.

The soviets screwed things up bigtime, prior to their invasion they
actually already had a marxist regime in place in the form of
the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan .

The ruling PDPA managed to piss off much of the country and
a rather nasty civil war started. It didn't help that they also
wanted to expand 'the peoples revolution' into Pakistan and
thus pissed them off too.

The Soviets added fuel to the fire by intervening thus expanding
the civil war by managing to paint their allies as not only
oppressors of Islam but also as traitors too.

Quite why Mr Black thinks this was going forwards is beyond me.

Keith

[William Black]

On 28/11/11 11:34, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>
>> On 27/11/11 04:06, SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:29:58 -0800 (PST), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> General: History Will Judge Afghan War Positively:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8354570&c=EUR&s=LAN
>>>
>>> More accurately some historians might.
>>
>> I doubt that.
>>
>> The first two Afghan wars are universally condemned and the third was a
>> mess that everyone keeps trying to forget.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by the first three Afghan wars.

And yet you refer to the Third Anglo Afghan War below...

>
>>
>> The judgement of history will be what it usually is with Afghanistan:
>>
>> "Afghanistan is just too difficult"
>>
>> The only chance we've got is the introduction of a massive education
>> system and the introduction of Western luxuries on a huge scale.
>>
>> People whose wives have washing machines don't attack the local power
>> station...
>
> One of the lessons of the Third Anglo-Afghan War, is if the Afghans do not
> cause problems outside, they should be left alone because it is not worth
> getting involved in the place.
>

The reason we're there now is because they allowed their house guests to
get involved 'outside'.

The rest of the world was quite prepared to let them jkeep repressing
their women and raiding each other as long as they didn't actually raid
over any borders.

But they always do...

>> But right now we just can't afford that, any more than the Soviets could.
>>
>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>
> Part of the reason here is I think after the Cold War ended it would have
> made a lot of sense for the West to prop up the Russians in Afghanistan.
>

The US political establishment had far too much of its credibility
invested in a Russian defeat.

Afghan women were better off under the Soviets, and the women,
especially as regards education, are the key...

[William Black]

On 28/11/11 12:49, Keith W wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>>

> The Soviets added fuel to the fire by intervening thus expanding
> the civil war by managing to paint their allies as not only
> oppressors of Islam but also as traitors too.
>
> Quite why Mr Black thinks this was going forwards is beyond me.

Because the Soviet campaign was initially one which tried to drag
Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the nineteen twenties...

The usual Soviet policies of universal education and universal free
healthcare, no matter how badly implemented, were a lot more than
we're doing.

[Keith W]

William Black wrote:
> On 28/11/11 12:49, Keith W wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>>>
>> The Soviets added fuel to the fire by intervening thus expanding
>> the civil war by managing to paint their allies as not only
>> oppressors of Islam but also as traitors too.
>>
>> Quite why Mr Black thinks this was going forwards is beyond me.
>
> Because the Soviet campaign was initially one which tried to drag
> Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the nineteen twenties...
>

Trying to impose socialist values grounded in atheistic dogma
on a deeply religious tribal society was never going to end well.

> The usual Soviet policies of universal education and universal free
> healthcare, no matter how badly implemented, were a lot more than
> we're doing.

Well given their policies created instant couintry wide jihad
copying them would seem like a bad idea.

Keith

[William Black]

There never was any 'instant country wide jihad', it took years for
Pakistan to convince the USA to pay for the insurrection.

[Keith W]

Nonsense. The civil war started long before the USA became involved

July 1973 the Marxist PDPA stages a military coup, overthrows the
monarchy and installs Mohammad Daoud Khan as Prime Minister
His policies are deeply unpopular and mass demonstrations in Kabul
are brutally repressed..

April 1978 another military coup overthrows (and murders) Daoud
and installs his PDPA rival Nur Muhammad Taraki.

Mid 1978 rebellion breaks out in Nuristan and spreads throughout
the country as a result of the 'modernization' policies of the new
government. The PDPA resorts to traditional terror tactics to
put down the rebellion with thousands being executed in the
Pul-e-Charkhi prison for opposing government policy.

By spring of 1979 revolt has spread to 26 or the 28 provinces.

September 1979 another coup installs Hafizullah Amin as leader and
he starts backtracking on the policies. This does not go down well
in Moscow and the leadership decides to intervene.

December 1979 Soviet forces cross the frontier and begin moving into
Afghanistan in overwhelming force. and Soviet special forces
take control of Afghan government buildings, overthrow Amin
installing Babrak Karmal. To their consternation he is livid warning
them that they have ignited the fuze to a powder keg.

He is right within weeks over 50% of the Afghan army has defected to the
rebels along with their heavy weapons . The government controls less
than 20% of the country. The Soviets launch a series of punitive raids
into rebel country but take heavy losses and as soon as they withdraw the
rebels come out of hiding again.

The US only becomes heavily involved after the Soviet invasion by which time
the rebellion is well established.

Keith

[William Black]

Well that's seven years.

> He is right within weeks over 50% of the Afghan army has defected to the
> rebels along with their heavy weapons . The government controls less
> than 20% of the country. The Soviets launch a series of punitive raids
> into rebel country but take heavy losses and as soon as they withdraw the
> rebels come out of hiding again.
>
> The US only becomes heavily involved after the Soviet invasion by which time
> the rebellion is well established.

The rebellion was certainly well established, but in real terms it was
'Afghanistan: business as usual" until US arms started to arrive in
quantity.

Without them there'd probably still be a Russian army in Afghanistan and
Rambo III wouldn't be unshowable...

[SolomonW]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:43:44 +0000, William Black wrote:

> On 28/11/11 11:34, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/11/11 04:06, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:29:58 -0800 (PST), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> General: History Will Judge Afghan War Positively:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8354570&c=EUR&s=LAN
>>>>
>>>> More accurately some historians might.
>>>
>>> I doubt that.
>>>
>>> The first two Afghan wars are universally condemned and the third was a
>>> mess that everyone keeps trying to forget.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by the first three Afghan wars.
>
> And yet you refer to the Third Anglo Afghan War below...
>

Okay well the second and third from the British view were reasonably
successful.

>>
>>>
>>> The judgement of history will be what it usually is with Afghanistan:
>>>
>>> "Afghanistan is just too difficult"
>>>
>>> The only chance we've got is the introduction of a massive education
>>> system and the introduction of Western luxuries on a huge scale.
>>>
>>> People whose wives have washing machines don't attack the local power
>>> station...
>>
>> One of the lessons of the Third Anglo-Afghan War, is if the Afghans do not
>> cause problems outside, they should be left alone because it is not worth
>> getting involved in the place.
>>
> The reason we're there now is because they allowed their house guests to
> get involved 'outside'.
>
> The rest of the world was quite prepared to let them jkeep repressing
> their women and raiding each other as long as they didn't actually raid
> over any borders.
>
> But they always do...
>

This is why every so many years, they get invaded.

>>> But right now we just can't afford that, any more than the Soviets could.
>>>
>>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>>
>> Part of the reason here is I think after the Cold War ended it would have
>> made a lot of sense for the West to prop up the Russians in Afghanistan.
>>
>
> The US political establishment had far too much of its credibility
> invested in a Russian defeat.

I prefer to think of it as a Cold War momentum that kept going long after
its use-by-date.


The other issue is the US are just too much into nation building, but
unable to pay the price in time and blood required for such a policy.

>
> Afghan women were better off under the Soviets, and the women,
> especially as regards education, are the key...

It hardly makes up for the brutality experienced by the people under the
Soviets.

[William Black]

On 29/11/11 10:28, SolomonW wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:43:44 +0000, William Black wrote:
>

>>
>> The US political establishment had far too much of its credibility
>> invested in a Russian defeat.
>
> I prefer to think of it as a Cold War momentum that kept going long after
> its use-by-date.

Same difference.

> The other issue is the US are just too much into nation building, but
> unable to pay the price in time and blood required for such a policy.

That's their problem.

Making nations takes time and money.

>> Afghan women were better off under the Soviets, and the women,
>> especially as regards education, are the key...
>
>
> It hardly makes up for the brutality experienced by the people under the
> Soviets.

To paraphrase Bismarck, People who like nation building are like people
who like sausages, they shouldn't watch the process...