Afghanistan risks 'failed state'

[OKtoBerFeSt]

The justice system has not improved under 7 years under Karzai then.

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Afghan 'blasphemy' death sentence

Is this a valid reason to execute people? If not, why single out the Taliban, as you are doing?

Look, atleast the Karzai govt. claims to be trying to reverse the damage that has been done.
The Taliban were the one who fine-tuned all these ideas in the first place.

As I said earlier, it will take a long, long time for afghan society to recover.

Taliban were not invaders to be conquerors. The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are Afghanis.

That is entirely subjective....considering the amount of factionalism and tribalism in Afghanistan, it is safe to assume that people of one tribe consider another tribe as foreigners and invaders.

 

[ahussains]

we all have realise this that Afghansitan is keep quite in the Taliban control way back in 1996 and so on drugs are alomst finish there , I think it just beagan beacuse of a Gas pipline which US offers around 4 Billion $ its was comming from Tagikistan or Turkaministan (dont know exactly) and the Belgium company is willing to offer upto 7 Billion $ ... Can any have details about this

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Repression can keep things quiet for a long time.

The Communists are a good example.

The repressive regime of the Taliban cannot be taken as something that is good!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"The US needs to start a secondary process of finding alternative leadership in the strongholds of the NA as well."

Sounds like a job for Pakistan. You find and vett the names. Ask Asim for some help. He really likes those folks up north.

58% of the nation isn't pashtu. Pick some goodun's. They need representation at least the equal of the Taliban.

Nat'l elections one year from now for president. I wouldn't in the least be surprised if Karzai refused a second term.

I am retracting my comment - from Pakistan's perspective, warlords and "puppets" will work fine. They are above all driven with greed, and greed can be leveraged into support for trade, pipelines etc. - which in turn will hopefully drive revenue generation that can go into Afghan education and development and raise a generation that is perhaps not as bound by those Tribal/ethnic ties. The inevitable economic connection with Pakistan in turn is an incentive for GoP policies that encourage stability and prosperity in Afghanistan.

Pakistan, where society still possesses Tribal/Biradri undercurrents (though nowhere close to what Afghanistan has), has had democracy continue to function along those fissures, so the process is by no means going to be "successful" for quite a few generations - but it needs to start first, and who knows how different the results (from Pakistan's) could be if Afghanistan were not to follow the stuttering Pakistani model.

I do still think that the US has a role to play in assuaging Pakistani concerns in Afghanistan, to obtain their full cooperation (though I personally think we have enough to plenty to lose by not offering it regardless), by encouraging the GoA to engage with Pakistan in settling territorial issues, and addressing concerns related to India.

 

[roadrunner]

Anyway the only country where Taliban still has any admirers appears to be Pakistan judging by some member's posts here.

Then you'd be wrong. Your translating (wrongly), a strong dislike of the Northern Alliance into an admiration for the Taliban. If you have two murderers, one who kills his victims with an axe, the other who spares them of pain by doing it in their sleep through injection, and you are forced to side with one, who would you side with? My opinion is that siding with the Northern Alliance is as bad as siding with the Taliban. Therefore I choose the lesser of the two evils. Northern Alliance committed some horrific crimes, if I'm forced to choose between the two, I'd choose the Taliban (provided they don't give refuge to the Arabs).

The main critisicm I have of the Taliban is not giving up OBL, which they should have done. The Northern Alliance actually invited OBL into Afghanistan in 1995, so it's not like they have their hands clean in this instant.

Any wonder, there is such a strong pro-Taliban movement there. Most people found their treatment of women including beating them on streets, not letting them get educated, not even letting them get treated by doctors!, persecution and genocide of Shias among many others ABHORRENT.

There were different reasons for all these and though their interpretation of Islam was too extreme, they were able to do some positive things for the country. Their treatment of women was overly propagandized imo.

If this is callled providing security, I am sure not many Afghans would be interested in that kind of security. People everywhere struggle for living a life of dignity even at the cost of so called security.

Well that's bs. I would much rather have security than walk around in a lawless society where anybody could shoot anyone and get away with it. Though harsh, there was the rule of law. Because this rule of law appears harsh to you, it may not have appeared harsh to the Afghani people.

I guess it would be a stretch even for some of the Taliban admirers here to say that they provided a life of dignity to the Afghans.

It would be a stretch for even some of the Northern Alliance admirers here to say the same I would have thought. The Taliban and Northern Alliance are two faces of the same coin, just that the Taliban are stronger, better fighters who can unify the country through force.

 

[roadrunner]

Look, atleast the Karzai govt. claims to be trying to reverse the damage that has been done.
The Taliban were the one who fine-tuned all these ideas in the first place.

As I said earlier, it will take a long, long time for afghan society to recover.

It was the Mujahideen actually. The US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Soviet Union and a lot of other countries, INCLUDING the Afghans themselves are to blame for this.

That is entirely subjective....considering the amount of factionalism and tribalism in Afghanistan, it is safe to assume that people of one tribe consider another tribe as foreigners and invaders.

By this defintion the Northern Alliance are invaders into most of Afghanistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

Then you'd be wrong. Your translating (wrongly), a strong dislike of the Northern Alliance into an admiration for the Taliban. If you have two murderers, one who kills his victims with an axe, the other who spares them of pain by doing it in their sleep through injection, and you are forced to side with one, who would you side with? My opinion is that siding with the Northern Alliance is as bad as siding with the Taliban. Therefore I choose the lesser of the two evils. Northern Alliance committed some horrific crimes, if I'm forced to choose between the two, I'd choose the Taliban (provided they don't give refuge to the Arabs).

The main critisicm I have of the Taliban is not giving up OBL, which they should have done. The Northern Alliance actually invited OBL into Afghanistan in 1995, so it's not like they have their hands clean in this instant.

The Taliban is universally recognized as one of the most barbaric regimes on earth in the recent past. You brought the NA into the picture here not me. I was talking about Taliban on it's own merits. I am no NA supporter. If they were as bad or worse than Taliban, so be it.

Their giving support to OBL only brings out their true colours. They were terrorists or their supporters anyway. Remember their welcoming of the Kandhar hijackers who subsequently eased back into Pakistan and formed terrorist outfits openly. The Afghans were between the rock and a hard place but this does not justify Taliban's actions in any way. The world is better off without them and definitely Pakistanis are better off without them else you may have a much larger problem in NWFP than it is now.

There were different reasons for all these and though their interpretation of Islam was too extreme, they were able to do some positive things for the country. Their treatment of women was overly propagandized imo.

This clearly tells me you are their apologist. So, come out openly with that and stop comparing them to other bandits to say that they were better bandits.

Well that's bs. I would much rather have security than walk around in a lawless society where anybody could shoot anyone and get away with it. Though harsh, there was the rule of law. Because this rule of law appears harsh to you, it may not have appeared harsh to the Afghani people.

I remember people dancing on the streets when the Taliban fled away from Kabul like the dogs they were, without a fight. You know how many Americans it took on the ground to make the Taliban run? Not even a thousand AFAIK. They could only cane women and murder innocents. When it came time to show their real mettle, they were found lacking.

It would be a stretch for even some of the Northern Alliance admirers here to say the same I would have thought. The Taliban and Northern Alliance are two faces of the same coin, just that the Taliban are stronger, better fighters who can unify the country through force.

As told earlier, I give a damn to NA. You think Taliban are fighters! Amazing!!! All they can do is blow up girl's schools, send suicide bombers in crowded markets, kill barbers for shaving beards and other such brave acts. Never heard of them standing like men and fighting. They are nothing but COWARDS like some others you may know of, who send men to die on suicide missions promising them other worldly pleasures and then marry their widows to enjoy life in this world for themselves.

 

[roadrunner]

The Taliban is universally recognized as one of the most barbaric regimes on earth in the recent past. You brought the NA into the picture here not me. I was talking about Taliban on it's own merits. I am no NA supporter. If they were as bad or worse than Taliban, so be it.

You are no Northern Alliance supporter, just as I am no Taliban supporter "on it's own merits". However, everything is relative, and relatively the Taliban were more capable at bringing peace and laws (some justice is better than no justice) than the Northern Alliance.

Their giving support to OBL only brings out their true colours. They were terrorists or their supporters anyway. Remember their welcoming of the Kandhar hijackers who subsequently eased back into Pakistan and formed terrorist outfits openly.

As far as I can recollect, the Air India hostage drama was handled quite well by the Taliban who threatened to storm the plane if any hostage was killed. It was the Indian government that caved in and released the militants.

The support to OBL was to be expected given their traditions.

The Afghans were between the rock and a hard place but this does not justify Taliban's actions in any way. The world is better off without them and definitely Pakistanis are better off without them else you may have a much larger problem in NWFP than it is now.

The Afghan Taliban have nothing to do with the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistani Taliban are generally just a bunch of low level criminals wanting to make a name for themselves. Pakistan is much better off without Al Q and Arabs/Uzbeks though.

This clearly tells me you are their apologist. So, come out openly with that and stop comparing them to other bandits to say that they were better bandits.

I've said it before, I'll say it again since you have difficulty reading. The Taliban were a backward government compared to the Western governments, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Russians and so on. However, compared to the Northern Alliance, there's not much to choose between the two. Both are pretty backward, it's just the NA are weak, anti Pak. Both NA and Taliban are as dumb and radical as each other though. Need a mention Dostum and his method of killing prisoners by running them over with the tank tracks.

I remember people dancing on the streets when the Taliban fled away from Kabul like the dogs they were, without a fight. You know how many Americans it took on the ground to make the Taliban run? Not even a thousand AFAIK. They could only cane women and murder innocents. When it came time to show their real mettle, they were found lacking.

What did you expect them to do? Stand and fight against an army with sophisticated equipment? That truly would be dumb. They are guerillas, they don't fight conventionally.

The people dancing was just some Northern Alliance supporters or ordinary folk who feared for their lives if they didn't show appreciation for the new government. People were dancing in the street too when the Taliban entered Kabul in 1996.

As told earlier, I give a damn to NA. You think Taliban are fighters! Amazing!!! All they can do is blow up girl's schools, send suicide bombers in crowded markets, kill barbers for shaving beards and other such brave acts. Never heard of them standing like men and fighting. They are nothing but COWARDS like some others you may know of, who send men to die on suicide missions promising them other worldly pleasures and then marry their widows to enjoy life in this world for themselves.

However much I disagree with some of the Taliban policies, one thing they're not, is cowardly. Whereas Indians would generate a lot of excrement tricking down their legs at the thought of a US bombing, the Taliban are prepared to take casualties. One can accuse them of being short sighted, ill educated, and barbaric to an extent, but definitely not cowardly.

 

[Vinod2070]

However much I disagree with some of the Taliban policies, one thing they're not, is cowardly. Whereas Indians would generate a lot of excrement tricking down their legs at the thought of a US bombing, the Taliban are prepared to take casualties. One can accuse them of being short sighted, ill educated, and barbaric to an extent, but definitely not cowardly.

Much as I avoided getting into India-Pakistan issues here, you just won't allow that!

If memory is not serving you right, India faced up to the US sending their 7th fleet in support of the 1971 genocide. In India we don't have the 3 As that determine our destiny. Need I mention where that happens? I am sure you know what the 3 As are.

Who did a complete U turn after a single phone call? It was not India for sure! Who is fighting their own people in their own territory under US pressure? Not India!

So you will do better to have some sense of perspective before writing such BS. Sorry, didn't want to use such words but don't have an alternative.

And regarding the cowardly part, it is not Indian troops who are surrendering in their hundreds to a bunch of 20 odd terrorists. You know where that is happening?

 

[Vinod2070]

SA, they are not unafraid to die. That is why they target such soft targets as I already outlined.

In Iraq you see mad women being used as unwilling suicide bombers in marketplaces. I don't think Taliban is much different. They have also used young kids for such activities while keeping a safe distance for themselves. Remember Mullah Omar fleeing on a bike (or was it a donkey)?

 

[Flintlock]

SA, they are not unafraid to die. That is why they target such soft targets as I already outlined.

In Iraq you see mad women being used as unwilling suicide bombers in marketplaces. I don't think Taliban is much different. They have also used young kids for such activities while keeping a safe distance for themselves. Remember Mullah Omar fleeing on a bike (or was it a donkey)?

Forget it....wrong thread to debate this stuff....I"m deleting my earlier post.

 

[roadrunner]

Much as I avoided getting into India-Pakistan issues here, you just won't allow that!

Oh yeah, blame it on me that you're typing. You have no control obviously

If memory is not serving you right, India faced up to the US sending their 7th fleet in support of the 1971 genocide. In India we don't have the 3 As that determine our destiny. Need I mention where that happens? I am sure you know what the 3 As are.

No, I don't know what the three a's are. And 1971 was a genocide only in Indian newspapers. Your 3 million figure has been proven bs.

Who did a complete U turn after a single phone call? It was not India for sure! Who is fighting their own people in their own territory under US pressure? Not India!

So you will do better to have some sense of perspective before writing such BS. Sorry, didn't want to use such words but don't have an alternative.

And regarding the cowardly part, it is not Indian troops who are surrendering in their hundreds to a bunch of 20 odd terrorists. You know where that is happening?

It's not Pakistani troops surrendering either. It's paramilitary troops, which has been pointed out to you often enough.

If you think India with all its billion people, would not leave the Indian Ocean infected with uncontrollable bowel products if the US threatens to bomb them, you are living in cuckoo land. India would cave to any US demand in a flash if it were threatened with bombing, of that there's little doubt.

And in 1971, India had the Soviets warships and nuclear submarines in the Bay of Bengal keeping the Americans in check.

SA, they are not unafraid to die. That is why they target such soft targets as I already outlined.

In Iraq you see mad women being used as unwilling suicide bombers in marketplaces. I don't think Taliban is much different. They have also used young kids for such activities while keeping a safe distance for themselves. Remember Mullah Omar fleeing on a bike (or was it a donkey)?

Fleeing F-16s and Apaches on a donkey would be very brave. Even fleeing on a motorbike is what most people would not do when they have Apaches chasing them. Do you honestly think it is cowardly to flee Apaches on a motorbike rather than surrendering? Try using your head for once!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I question the bravery aspect of the Taliban vs the NA in determining the possibility of which side could control the other. Mehsud and Dostum held out for years against the Taliban, even though they were outnumbered. In my opinion the only reason the Taliban can be considered better able to control Afghanistan (control should not be equated with good governance) is because they would belong to the largest ethnic group and therefore have the advantage of numbers on their side. But from a military aspect, without the sort of overwhelming military superiority the US put on the side of the NA, the civil war would still be continuing in Afghanistan - with the NA still resisting the Taliban, and territory continuously being conquered and surrendered.

This is a very academic debate IMO - Pakistan or Saudi Arabia will never put the kind of military power needed to provide overwhelming victory to the Taliban in their hands or in support of them. Even if we did, it would open the door for the nations sponsoring the NA to raise the level of their support to the Taliban.

Without that kind of support, the nations supporting the NA will continue to provide them with military aid and resources sufficient to continue the stalemate.

 

[Flintlock]

It's not Pakistani troops surrendering either. It's paramilitary troops, which has been pointed out to you often enough.

Aren't those paramilitary troops brave aryan warrior Pakistanis too?

If you think India with all its billion people, would not leave the Indian Ocean infected with uncontrollable bowel products if the US threatens to bomb them, you are living in cuckoo land. India would cave to any US demand in a flash if it were threatened with bombing, of that there's little doubt.

Whats your basis for this assumption (apart from your racial theories)?

Fleeing F-16s and Apaches on a donkey would be very brave. Even fleeing on a motorbike is what most people would not do when they have Apaches chasing them. Do you honestly think it is cowardly to flee Apaches on a motorbike rather than surrendering? Try using your head for once!

[/QUOTE]

So on one hand the Afghans are "brave" because they like to commit suicide....and on the other hand Mullah Omar is brave too, because he had the "guts to flee on a motorbike".

I had deleted my earlier post, but I guess I'll just summarize what I wrote:
Don't confuse unthinking violence with bravery, please.

 

[roadrunner]

RR:

I question the bravery aspect of the Taliban vs the NA in determining the possibility of which side could control the other. Mehsud and Dostum held out for years against the Taliban, even though they were outnumbered.

Don't know who you mean by Mehsud vs the Taliban. Mehsud and Dostum I don't think was an alliance. Onto Dostum, he fled Maza i Sharif in 1997 into Uzbekistan and Iran, but didn't spend years fighting the Taliban, or holding out against them. Taliban got into Kabul in 1996. The advance spread up North at this time, and Dostum held out for a year at most, probably much less. Anyhow, Dostum, was and is a known chameleon. He changes sides to whoever he thinks is going to win the war. Dostum joined forces with the Soviets, until the Soviets withdraw, then he joined forces with the Rabbani government.

In my opinion the only reason the Taliban can be considered better able to control Afghanistan (control should not be equated with good governance) is because they would belong to the largest ethnic group. But from a military aspect, without the sort of overwhelming military superiority the US put on the side of the NA, the civil war would still be continuing in Afghanistan - with the NA still resisting the Taliban, and territory continuously being conquered and surrendered.

Nope, I don't agree. The Taliban had captured all of Northern Afghanistan, including Dostum's stronghold of Mazar-i-Sharif, the only part they had not captured was the difficult terrain of the Pasnjshir Valley. 90% of Afghanistan was under the Taliban's control, and all of Dostum's territory was under theor control. By 2001, the Northern Alliance were all but defeated.

This is a very academic debate IMO - Pakistan or Saudi Arabia will never put the kind of military power needed to provide overwhelming victory to the Taliban in their hands or in support of them. Even if we did, it would open the door for the nations sponsoring the NA to raise the level of their support to the Taliban.

The Russians were sponsoring the Northern Alliance plus India afaik. Mainly the Russians probably. But the Northern Alliance were simply defeated, even though they probably had access to better equipment than the Taliban (Russian equipment).

Without that kind of support, the nations supporting the NA will continue to provide them with military aid and resources sufficient to continue the stalemate.

Well, it wasn't stalemate. From PBS

"By 2000, the Taliban controlled almost 90 percent of Afghanistan and enforced Islamic law."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Rough Cut . Weight of the World . Background Facts and Related Links | PBS