Beating a dead horse...

[The New Guy]

ad.ca.doubleclick.net/adi/msn.cbc/news;sz=221x60;ord=51236598?

But he's not as bad as Hitler or Stalin right?

Right?

[PTH]

www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030514-010619-1590r

"The attack in Saudi Arabia alone, though deadly -- 34 people died including eight Americans -- would not be so disturbing to the White House were it in isolation. But it is not in isolation:

-- More than a month after hostilities ended in Iraq, Baghdad and much of the nation are in turmoil. Food, water, power, medical care and law enforcement, all basics of civilized life, have not been restored and the government apparatus is only operating at quarter step.

-- Bush quietly had to replace virtually the entire team that the Department of Defense had put together to begin reconstruction, placing a trusted American diplomat, L. Paul Bremer, at the helm.

-- Bremer Wednesday immediately ordered that U.S. troops would fire upon looters, a move that to many who entered Baghdad in mid-April seems a month too late.

-- He also Wednesday set about making sure senior members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party would not get posts in the new government. That will be a more formidable task then many may think. Jobs throughout government from hospitals to the army command generally required two things: membership in the Baath Party and worshipping as a Sunni Muslim.

-- Along with the inability of the U.S. team to get reconstruction briskly under way, is the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Bush and others in his administration argue they will be found. Nevertheless all the pre-war rhetoric about the dangers of Saddam's weapons is as yet coming to naught. The United States is reducing its military weapons hunting teams in Iraq and sending in a smaller, more token force to destroy missiles that have been found and to look further. The most glaring hyperbole here was the report shortly before the war that Republican Guard units guarding Baghdad had access to chemical and perhaps biological weapons. None has turned up.

One of President Bush's primary justifications for waging war against Iraq was to end Saddam's alleged direct and indirect support for terrorists. Evidence of these connections has been lean....."

But the war was justified and well organised, right ?

Right ?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

It was a success because the Americans took matters into their own hands and showed the world who's boss. Idiots!

[The New Guy]

PTH said:

More than a month after hostilities ended in Iraq, Baghdad and much of the nation are in turmoil. Food, water, power, medical care and law enforcement, all basics of civilized life, have not been restored and the government apparatus is only operating at quarter step.

Actually, that's not entirely true. There are parts of Baghdad in turmoil, and certain cities are suffering more than others (I think Al-Nasyria is the one that's in real trouble thanks to Iraqi sabotage of their electrical system), but the entire nation isn't in chaos.

The blog that Mr. Bozo (I think) posted on here during the early days of the war is back online, and from his first hand account of things (assuming he is first hand - I leave that to you doubting Thomas's) things are not terrible (not fantastic either, mind you - but the area is a week clear from an end of hostilites)

The blog is here for those who don't want to go back and find the li
dearraed.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_dear_raed_archive.html

PTH said:

-- Bush quietly had to replace virtually the entire team that the Department of Defense had put together to begin reconstruction, placing a trusted American diplomat, L. Paul Bremer, at the helm.

Funny, you think that if the government was doing it *quietly*, it wouldn't appear on the *obviously* state controlled, American-biased media (CNN). But I've heard quite a bit about it.

The transition from a military government to a civilian government sounds reasonable to me...

PTH said:

-- Bremer Wednesday immediately ordered that U.S. troops would fire upon looters, a move that to many who entered Baghdad in mid-April seems a month too late.

Oh... wouldn't figure you'd advocate shooting people on site. But whatever hey... I guess the best solution to everything is violence.

Here's why the 'open fire' order has been issued now. The looting has quieted down. Those looters found now are likely a part of the criminal element anyways. Using military force to beat down the earlier "riots" would've had anti-war people (and the UN, and many Muslim countries, and a large hunk of the NGO's) up in arms. Now that the looting is more isolated, it won't cause so much umbrage.

Of course you can't please all of the people...

PTH said:

-- He also Wednesday set about making sure senior members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party would not get posts in the new government. That will be a more formidable task then many may think. Jobs throughout government from hospitals to the army command generally required two things: membership in the Baath Party and worshipping as a Sunni Muslim.

Which is why there's a transitory American government...

PTH said:

-- Along with the inability of the U.S. team to get reconstruction briskly under way, is the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Bush and others in his administration argue they will be found. Nevertheless all the pre-war rhetoric about the dangers of Saddam's weapons is as yet coming to naught. The United States is reducing its military weapons hunting teams in Iraq and sending in a smaller, more token force to destroy missiles that have been found and to look further. The most glaring hyperbole here was the report shortly before the war that Republican Guard units guarding Baghdad had access to chemical and perhaps biological weapons. None has turned up.

(a) No weapons have been found. Darn. They have found the head of their biological weapons program, so even if they don't have them, they could have them in the future. I think that was one of the things they weren't supposed to do under that whole treaty thing in 1991.

(b) The report was that they might, not that they did. But we won't mention glaring hyperbole....

PTH said:

But the war was justified and well organised, right ?

Hey - I don't know... deposing a mass murderer seems justification enough... don't'cha think? Irregardless of everything else....

Later...

[PTH]

I can't beleive I'm getting sucked back into this.

And TNG, I was quoting the article, those aren't my points, and I won't argue about those I'm not up to date on.

The_New_Guy said:

Actually, that's not entirely true. There are parts of Baghdad in turmoil, and certain cities are suffering more than others (I think Al-Nasyria is the one that's in real trouble thanks to Iraqi sabotage of their electrical system), but the entire nation isn't in chaos.

Nevertheless, the whole situation should never have gotten so terribly out of hand.

Funny, you think that if the government was doing it *quietly*, it wouldn't appear on the *obviously* state controlled, American-biased media (CNN). But I've heard quite a bit about it.

Still, it was done fairly quietly compared to most other things in Iraq.

The transition from a military government to a civilian government sounds reasonable to me...

Wouldn't you feel better if this had someone been planned, if there were a roadmap to follow ? This is a kneejerk reaction to people not liking a retired general in charge, nothing more.

Oh... wouldn't figure you'd advocate shooting people on site. But whatever hey... I guess the best solution to everything is violence.

You're the one who likes invading countries.

Here's why the 'open fire' order has been issued now. The looting has quieted down. Those looters found now are likely a part of the criminal element anyways. Using military force to beat down the earlier "riots" would've had anti-war people (and the UN, and many Muslim countries, and a large hunk of the NGO's) up in arms. Now that the looting is more isolated, it won't cause so much umbrage.

Or maybe someone somewhere realised that looting is bad, and that having destroyed the infrastructure of the country, the US Army had to do the job cause no one else could.

Which is why there's a transitory American government...

Yup "the Authority", which essentially does as it pleases, has to respect no international law, hands out contracts putting the country firmly in US company's hands, decides how to rebuild, and once all the real decisions are made, then Iraqis can elect someone who'll be stuck as the leader of what will amount to an American economic protectorate.

(a) No weapons have been found. Darn. They have found the head of their biological weapons program, so even if they don't have them, they could have them in the future. I think that was one of the things they weren't supposed to do under that whole treaty thing in 1991.

You think ? YOU THINK ? This is the key justification for war, and you're perfectly OK letting it slide because it doesn't seem 100% kosher that Iraq had people who cared about WMD ? They weren't building them, they have no stockpiles of them, and essentially were a country with a former chemical weapons capability. Yet the US and the UK were perfectly willing to say that they had irrefutable evidence, to the point that they went to war over it, or at least that they considered it a sufficient casus belli. And yet, nothing of significance is found.

(b) The report was that they might, not that they did. But we won't mention glaring hyperbole....

The US was also claiming that WMD were a threat to the region, and yet.... nothing.

Hey - I don't know... deposing a mass murderer seems justification enough... don't'cha think? Irregardless of everything else....

Well, if the US had gone into this claiming that as their motive, then perhaps I'd let myself be swayed. Of course, that might have called into question how Bush I is responsible for huge numbers of those deaths, having pushed Iraqis to revolt and then not supporting them at all. Saddam was the murderer, but their blood is on Bush I's hands as well.

And if just being a mass murderer is cause enough to invade a country, then the US had better raise its military budget - just taking out the sadistic dictators they put in place would take a solid 10 years.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Ah, they're juist a bunch of ragheads. Eff 'em if they can't understand the "democracy" we're gonna impose on 'em.

The UN could never, ever, have done a better job than what we're doing. Just ask the President or any of his advisors.

Afghanistan? Get away from me! That's ancient history. Ain't nobody pays attention to that tinpot country any more.

Jeez, you want cheap oil and sneakers, or what?

[BadCompany]

mr said:

Ah, they're juist a bunch of ragheads. Eff 'em if they can't understand the "democracy" Afghanistan? Get away from me! That's ancient history. Ain't nobody pays attention to that tinpot country any more.

Well, unfortunately not every one has forgotten about Afghanistan...

(but on a brighter note, at least Canadian troops in Kabul can now carry guns, something they apparently haven't been allowed to do over the last little while)

From TIME Magazine:

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,449942,00.html?cnn=yes

The U.S. Says the Afghanistan War Is Over. The Taliban Aren't So Sure[/size]

The U.S. winds down operations, but Mullah Omar's men are making something of a comeback[/size]

By TONY KARON

Tuesday, May. 06, 2003
The U.S. has ended "major combat activity" in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced last week, adding "we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities." But "stability" is a relative term, and the accompanying announcement that the U.S. would like to withdraw its forces by the end of summer next year may have been received with a measure of anxiety by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That's because the security situation in Afghanistan today may be worse than it was a year ago — and the Taliban appear to be making something of a comeback.

Rumsfeld's declaration reflects a shift in the orientation of U.S. operations away from large-scale sweeps — such as Operation Valiant Strike, which saw some 1,000 U.S. soldiers trawl through southeastern Afghanistan in March — that are designed to root out Taliban and al-Qaeda diehards. Such operations haven't proved particularly effective in eliminating the small, mobile enemy formations that continue to operate throughout eastern and southern Afghanistan, across the border in Pakistan's tribal areas (where the local elected leadership is openly pro-Taliban) and in the Taliban's Pashtun heartland.

Only days before Rumsfeld spoke in Kabul, two U.S. soldiers were killed in a daylight attack by a group of Taliban fighters in southeastern Afghanistan, while U.S. outposts come under (mostly inaccurate) fire on an almost daily basis. Spring has seen an escalation in both the number and intensity of operations by the Taliban and its allies — although there may now be less direct involvement by al-Qaeda personnel, the new guerrilla war appears to involve a coordinated command structure combining Taliban fighters, loyalists of the fiercely anti-American warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and other former Mujahedeen commanders alienated from the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.

The long border with Pakistan is considered particularly vulnerable, because insurgents are taking shelter in the tribal areas where the Pakistani government is either unable, or unwilling to clamp down. Taliban recruitment and training occurs relatively openly across the border, reminding journalists of the movement's emergence a decade ago in the madressas of Pakistan. The country is nominally on friendly terms with President Karzai, but it is also well aware that his writ doesn't extend much beyond the palace gate — and also that the Northern Alliance which dominates the government all around Karzai is closely allied to India, whose influence has grown considerably at Pakistan's expense in the post-Taliban Afghanistan.

But it's not only across the border that the jihadis are finding shelter and succor. The relative ease with which small Taliban units operate in its old stomping grounds these days is a reminder that the new government in Kabul has not managed to wean away some of the Taliban's core supporters — a point underscored by the fact that Mullah Omar and most of the movement's senior leadership have never been captured. Unlike the sophisticated Arab operatives of al-Qaeda for whom Afghanistan was simply another stopover in a globalized jihad, the one-eyed peasant mystic mullah is still believed to be at large somewhere on home turf. (The Pashtun heartland spans the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.) And the fact that he hasn't been found suggests a measure of support among the local population.

Taliban commanders have begun giving interviews with media organizations confidently describing a new offensive, and the audacity of the resurgent radicalism was highlighted Tuesday by the first anti-American demonstration in Kabul since the Taliban's demise — it drew some 300 students and government employees, complaining of a lack of security but also demanding that the U.S. leave and Islamic rule be restored.

But the Taliban and its allies are only one part of President Karzai's security problem. The Afghan president has no real army of his own to speak of: U.S. troops are currently training the nucleus of an Afghan national army, and expect to have trained some 9,000 troops by the middle of next year. But right now security even in the capital itself relies on the 4,400 mostly NATO troops deployed in Kabul in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and the 8,000 U.S. troops deployed primarily to hunt down remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and to conduct some rudimentary reconstruction.

That leaves most of the country outside of the capital under the de facto control of a patchwork of often feuding warlords whose links to Kabul are often tenuous and many of whom have reverted to extortion, drug production and other illicit revenue streams. Even in Kabul itself, Karzai finds himself a virtual prisoner in the palace, guarded by U.S. personnel because the Northern Alliance troops of his defense minister, General Mohammed Fahim, may not be sufficiently trusted with Karzai's life. Fahim, of course, is quite happy for the affable Pashtun president in the coat of many colors to be the international face of a government dominated by his mostly Tajik Northern Alliance, although he's not exactly happy at the prospect of a truly national army eroding his power base. That's a concern he likely shares with warlords all over the country, and a plague of defections and other problems leaves a measure of uncertainty over whether the army bequeathed Karzai by the Americans will be in a position to enforce order.

The government is hurting for cash, too, with much of the aid money promised by donor nations in the wake of the Taliban's ouster having failed to materialize. Rumsfeld's announcement was designed in part to persuade donors that the war is over and it's now time to send reconstruction aid. (The Bush administration wasn't exactly leading by example when it simply forgot to include aid for Afghanistan in the initial version of the budget it sent to Congress in February.) Most of the $1.8b that arrived in the first year after the war was spent on caring for refugees and other emergency needs, although the $2 billion promised at a new donor's conference in March has been earmarked by Karzai's government for rebuilding infrastructure and paying the salaries of those expected to run and secure it. Another hint of brightness on the horizon is the announcement by NATO last week that the alliance would take over leadership of ISAF — it remains unclear, though, whether NATO is willing to more than quadruple ISAF's troop strength in order to extend the stabilization mission beyond the capital.

Afghanistan may be no safer now than it was a year ago; the best hope right now is that the security situation doesn't become appreciably worse. Such deterioration is precisely what the resurgent Taliban will try to achieve in the coming months, and moves to hold national elections in June next year — which could threaten the hold of the warlords — may raise the trouble quotient nationally. The resurgent Taliban is unlikely to muster a serious bid for power any time soon, but its revival is a sharp reminder that Afghanistan could be plagued with instability for years.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Well, BC, unfortunately we don't have an irony emoticon. Thanks for the excellent article.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

The USA did what they wanted to do in Afghanistan. They got the majority of Taliban and Al-Qeada fighters routed out, and they replaced the government-in-exile back in to power.

However, the article states in the last paragraph that, "... a sharp reminder that Afghanistan could be plagued with instability for years..." I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, because I really don't know all of the circumstances. But, it's rather obvious to me that the only ones who will be able to sort out their country will be the Afghans themselves.

Sure, the NATO forces, of which Canada will be assuming command of shortly, will have to continue to "police" the Afghan frontiers for Taliban and Al-Qeada fighters, but they can't expect to sort out the country by their standards.

However, the scenario could remain the same. If in the future, the Afghans can't sort it out themselves, will another invasion occur should the Taliban re-take power?

Now that the Iraqi precedence has been set, will we see this scenario again? Or, will it be a case similar to Rwanda; " Afghanistan? Where's that? "

Cheers.

[PTH]

Much as with Saddam, the US is largely responsible for the confusion in Afganistan - they heavily supported resistance to the Soviets, and typically resistance movements are the fundamentalist kind. Much like the US and UK backed Tito in Yougoslavia, they backed some extreme parties because they resisted the bad guys, but afterwards the instability caused by having those extremists with major military weight can doom a country to instability for years onwards.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

I'm watching "Wag the Dog", and well, it's making me howl.