19 true things US generals can't say in public about the Afghan war

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The act of entering a foreign country without authorization kind of puts them already in a suspect mode.. Just like TTP in Pakistan..

Technically the Indian Army is also a 'foreign occupation force' in Disputed J&K. But, as I pointed out, trying to justify atrocities by the IA on a technicality of 'X crossed the border to rape and Kill men, women and children, but the IA did not have to cross the border to rape and kill men, women and children' is a really depraved manner of thinking.

Why is it so hard for you lot to condemn ALL 'rape and murder of men, women and children', whether it be by Afghan Mujahideen or the Indian Army'?

Those people are there illegally and carry arms illegally. And its all of them and not just the bad apples. So this logic kind of flies on the face of common sense..

You have yet to factually establish that 'ALL of the Afghan Mujahideen engage/engaged in the rape and murder of men, women and children' and that they did so as a matter of policy, instead of a few 'bad apples' committing these acts, as you claim happens in the IA.

I am sorry, but nonsense is too soft a word for the above rant... Kashmir is Indian territory whose ownership is disputed by Pakistan in UN. The land mass in question falls under the purview of the constitution of India and hence no Indian is a foreigner there including the Indian army. Indian army men in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir are as much at home as Pakistani army is in Balochistan or Sindh or KP.

India's constitution has no value on the disputed status of the territory from an international legal perspective. Any nation can amend its constitution - if India decides to amend its constitution to include Texas as 'Indian territory', that does not make it so, no matter how much India and Indians whine and rant about their 'constitution' and 'integral part of India'. Internationally, legally, the territory is considered disputed.

If anyone wants to consider Sindh and Baluchistan disputed, raise it on an international platform and make a case and obtain a decision in favor of that position.

Do remember that Pakistan is disputing Indian ownership of the state of J&K.. It does not make the state as a no man's land.. Win the dispute if you can and then you can lay that claim.

Pakistan's claim has already been validate through the UNSC resolutions and India's acceptance of them, as well as the Simla Declaration.

UN as a body does not decide the borders of a country. Countries in question do..

Again, a country cannot claim any territory that it feels like ...

btw, by calling Indian army as external terrorists, you are breaking the rules of a forum which you guys are supposed to administer... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ... Eh?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/announcements/78490-policy-libel-kashmir-related.html

No rules are being broken by me - I merely responded to Vinod, Karan and your comments. The argument of 'rape and murder and terrorists' was not raised by me first, it was in response to the posts of you three. So, as I said to Vinod, go back and retract/delete your comments, and I will do the same with mine.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It was a policy decision to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", based on the inspirations provided by that region and its "non-state actors".

The WWW and media do not require a physical region to offer 'inspiration and motivation', and therefore the argument of 'fight them there so we do not have to fight them here' holds not weight. If anything, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq only acted as a catalyst for terrorism and terrorists, and the body count since validates that argument.

Regardless of who is blamed, the end is result is what I would suggest is important to prevent. This statement is akin to somebody burning my house down, and I want him to put out the fire too since he lit it. My house, my problem. Or else I am homeless.

In order to 'prevent the end result' that one wishes to avoid, one has to identify the policies causing one to move in that direction, and pointing out that US policies are a large part of the instability in Pakistan is essential because it identifies the main reason behind Pakistan's instability.

The 'slide into chaos' cannot be halted without a halt to the policies accelerating that slide.

I would agree here that US leadership needs to be whole lot better than it has been over the last decade.

Agreement is not all that is needed - you need to direct some of the same energy you put into critiquing Pakistan's policies into critiquing and lobbying against US foreign policies, as an American - otherwise you are part of the problem.

 

[VCheng]

The WWW and media do not require a physical region to offer 'inspiration and motivation', and therefore the argument of 'fight them there so we do not have to fight them here' holds not weight. If anything, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq only acted as a catalyst for terrorism and terrorists, and the body count since validates that argument.

Fair comment, but about a decade ago, the main actors were in the regions that were targeted, and that counter-thrust is only now beginning to wind up. I am sure that the strategy will change to target newer areas of concern.

In order to 'prevent the end result' that one wishes to avoid, one has to identify the policies causing one to move in that direction, and pointing out that US policies are a large part of the instability in Pakistan is essential because it identifies the main reason behind Pakistan's instability.

The 'slide into chaos' cannot be halted without a halt to the policies accelerating that slide.

That is exactly why I continue to argue to work with the US to co-ordinate its own policies that will help halt the slide, which I do believe is not yet inevitable at this point. Both countries need each other if this is to succeed.

Agreement is not all that is needed - you need to direct some of the same energy you put into critiquing Pakistan's policies into critiquing and lobbying against US foreign policies, as an American - otherwise you are part of the problem.

Trust me Sir, I do that even more energetically and resourcefully than what you see here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I meant the Pakistan supporters in the US establishment.

Most of them are now erstwhile supporters.

Does not change the facts when it comes to Pakistan's very significant role in decimating AQ.

You are quit right here.

Thank you. But as you pointed out above, these facts regarding Pakistan's very constructive role in combating AQ are ignored, not just by the Western media, but also apparently by US officials (though there is a very strong possibility that US officials are doing so on purpose as part of a propaganda campaign to weaken Pakistan).

It is not speculative.

And it is used for both Taliban and AQ.

Read Bruce Riedel (he has spent his life in CIA and has advised your president Obama on Pakistan policy), watch the BBC documentaries on "secret Pakistan" just for a start.

Reading Riedel offers me nothing other than his opinion - if you have read him (since you are suggesting I do so) can you offer some excerpts from his work that substantiate the argument that Pakistan was both supporting/sheltering AQ, at the same time as it was hunting down AQ's top level leadership and foot soldiers?

Pakistan had/as no incentive in supporting AQ - they serve no purpose for us, as could at lest be argued about the Afghan Taliban, in terms of maintaining influence in Afghanistan. In fact, support for AQ would also alienate Pakistan's strong financial backer in Saudi Arabia, whose rulers are threatened and targeted by AQ.

Inside Afghanistan?

While the Taliban was ruling? How so?

The absence of war would indicate that the Taliban had agreed to a trial of OBL in a third country, and had accepted demands for a crackdown on AQ in return for international legitimacy and aid. Engagement with the Taliban and Pakistan could have also resulted in ISI/PA missions inside Afghanistan to hunt AQ, given the existing military and intelligence relationship with them.

The two sources I mentioned above would be a good starting point.

There are many quite reputable sources (many in Pakistan) who have deduced the same. Some earlier than the others.

The sources you mentioned offer opinion, not evidence in support of your claims. These sources cannot even point to any actual material gain achieved by Pakistan in 'producing when necessary'.

US aid to Pakistan has not so far been based on 'aid for every AQ member neutralized', so what exactly does 'produced when necessary' accomplish for Pakistan?

 

[CENTCOM]

Have forum members on this thread ever read those opinion-entertainment pieces that are published in magazines with titles such as, “Ten things your husband/wife/boss does not want to tell you,” and others in the same line? While these 19 “truths” will certainly resonate with those tired and frustrated by the slow pace of progress, our commanders and diplomats on the ground cannot afford such cheeky cynicism. They are engaged in the far more serious and consequential business of finding solutions to the vexing problems that stand in the way of progress, peace and stability. As for some of the comments, claiming that America wants to destroy everyone and everything is an incredibly absurd statement, which does not follow logic or reality. We live in a globalized world in which countries are interdependent on each other. Stable and peaceful countries are a benefit not only for themselves but for the entire international community.

We wanted a democratic Afghanistan whose people would not live under tyranny, fear and intimidation. An Afghanistan where people would have the opportunity to shape their lives, thoughts, and future. If we wanted to destroy everything and everyone, we would not be spending time, money and effort in trying to rebuild Afghanistan. We would not concern ourselves with building hospitals or schools, and other infrastructure at the expense of increasing our debt. It is surprising to know that some are still following the narratives of those who are trying to devalue the gains and the development achieved by Afghans through our help. Assess where Afghanistan was under the Taliban rule and how far it has come in only a decade. Do you still see them as losing to the terrorists and not achieving our combined goals for Afghanistan?

MAJ David Nevers,
DET – U.S. Central Command
U.S. Central Command

 

[W.11]

 

[foxbat]

No rules are being broken by me - I merely responded to Vinod, Karan and your comments. The argument of 'rape and murder and terrorists' was not raised by me first, it was in response to the posts of you three. So, as I said to Vinod, go back and retract/delete your comments, and I will do the same with mine.

I will respond to the remaining pieces of propaganda in your post once I get some time, but to this, mate, you are just finding lame excuses.. How many times have you yourself told people that responding to a foul post is as big a violation as making a foul post. Specially if the response also breaks forum rules. And in this case, Afghan Taliban in Kashmin are not Kashmiri separatist who should not be called terrorists as per forum rules.. But forum rules prohibits calling any uniformed army of a country as a terrorist army, which you violated.. But with you, this is not the first time.. So surprised I am not...

 

[Vinod2070]

Delete/retract your original comment about 'rape and murder' and I'll do the same and we can continue with the topic

Its surprising that you are so offended on behalf of the "Afghan Mujahideen".

... You chose to post an off-topic inflammatory comment, I merely showed you the 'other side of the coin' in response to that.

You did nothing of the sort. You chose to get offended by some facts about terrorists and tried to equate them to false propaganda.

Rape is rape - if the PA was bombing schools and massacring civilians in suicide bombings on purpose, then yes, a comparison of those acts would be appropriate. In this case acts of 'rape and murder of innocent men, women and children' should be equally condemnable, whether committed by 'Afghan Mujahideen' or 'Indian Army Soldiers'.

You, and Karan and Foxbat's, degenerate views are pretty clear from the fact that instead of agreeing that 'rape and murder of innocents is condemnable', regardless of who commits it, you chose to offer absurd excuses such as 'The Indian Army is raping and murdering its own family' etc.

The justifications offered by the three of you, in trying to make a distinction between the crimes of the insurgents and the Indian Army soldiers, are the really 'pathetic and disgusting' displays on this thread.

A bit of hallucination at play.

IA is fighting in an extremely tough situation and any insurgency anywhere can lead to some excesses. You are mixing terrorists with criminal acts that are not condoned.

Rape, murder, terror everything is condemnable. Propaganda is more so....

The mass graves and reports by international organizations on the atrocities committed in Kashmir by the Indian Army and other security forces refute you claim of 'propaganda'.

Those mass graves may contain these "Afghan Mujahideen" and victims of cross border Islamic terrorists including LET and the likes of Kasab.

They deserved nothing better.

Yet more nonsensical running around in circles - I advise you to actually read the previous posts going back to the original poster instead of manufacturing positions and arguments to dishonestly attribute to others.

The original poster you responded to made no comment about Kashmir - he merely offered his views about the ability of the IA to combat Afghans if deployed in Afghanistan. Now how you can manage to distort the context of his views, and my response to your distorted comments, into the above, is truly something for a shrink to figure out.

Again, please point out to me where (even in the comment of mine you quoted) I talked about the effectiveness of the IA in combating insurgents?

Let's move on. This has become a farce already.

The comment you quoted explained to you the original posters point. Again, try and control your impulsive anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim hatred and need to denigrate Muslims and Pakistanis, and you might actually understand the posts and be able to respond on topic.

Yawn.....

The shoe is on the other foot.

Its not me who questions "why normal relations" rather than "why not"!

Its not me who gets uncomfortable at the mere thought of moving on from the hostilities and remains stuck on positions like "disputed territory" that supposedly confers a right to push terrorists and rape and kill people.

One was the Ambassador I believe, the others were individuals in Afghanistan that met with Western and Pakistani officials. And there was nothing to lose in exploring their offer - the prospect of war would have been kept on the table, and Taliban compliance with their offer, if agreement was reached, was easily measurable since it involved the detention and trial of specific individuals and certainly various other anti-terrorism measures.

I remember those days vividly. The Taliban never appeared serious and were apparently dragging their feet.

At the very least, they couldn't utilize the small window available to them to move fast enough.

The Taliban took the morally and legally correct position on the issue - they refused to hand over anyone without the US establishing guilt, either in a trial in Afghanistan or in a mutually acceptable third country.

Yes, and they were apparently instigated by the ISI chief to take that stand (apparently gone rogue?).

I am not sure you talked of "morally and legally correct position" and Taliban in the same sentence with a straight face.

If you did, you deserve an Oscar.

I am merely pointing out that the US put into power, after its invasion of Afghanistan, a regime comprised of warlords and criminal and/or their associates, who had committed horrible atrocities and crimes, which in turn means that the people the US replaced the Taliban with were not any better, as far as Afghans were concerned at least, than the Taliban.

The record on the ground suggests otherwise.

I have not heard of Pushtun civilians massacres the way it was common during Taliban days. Women have better rights and many more children including girls are in school.

They may have a troubled present but at least they can hope to have a better future.

Something that was not possible under your favorite dispensation.

 

[Vinod2070]

Does not change the facts when it comes to Pakistan's very significant role in decimating AQ.


Thank you. But as you pointed out above, these facts regarding Pakistan's very constructive role in combating AQ are ignored, not just by the Western media, but also apparently by US officials (though there is a very strong possibility that US officials are doing so on purpose as part of a propaganda campaign to weaken Pakistan).


Reading Riedel offers me nothing other than his opinion - if you have read him (since you are suggesting I do so) can you offer some excerpts from his work that substantiate the argument that Pakistan was both supporting/sheltering AQ, at the same time as it was hunting down AQ's top level leadership and foot soldiers?

Pakistan had/as no incentive in supporting AQ - they serve no purpose for us, as could at lest be argued about the Afghan Taliban, in terms of maintaining influence in Afghanistan. In fact, support for AQ would also alienate Pakistan's strong financial backer in Saudi Arabia, whose rulers are threatened and targeted by AQ.


The absence of war would indicate that the Taliban had agreed to a trial of OBL in a third country, and had accepted demands for a crackdown on AQ in return for international legitimacy and aid. Engagement with the Taliban and Pakistan could have also resulted in ISI/PA missions inside Afghanistan to hunt AQ, given the existing military and intelligence relationship with them.

The sources you mentioned offer opinion, not evidence in support of your claims. These sources cannot even point to any actual material gain achieved by Pakistan in 'producing when necessary'.

US aid to Pakistan has not so far been based on 'aid for every AQ member neutralized', so what exactly does 'produced when necessary' accomplish for Pakistan?

A bit busy now but read the book "deadly embrace" by Bruce Riedel if you can.

I have read it but don't remember the details now. Will need to go back to the book.

Both the book (and several articles by him) and the documentary can't be called just opinions. They contain solid facts that decidedly prove their conclusions.

The book more so.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will respond to the remaining pieces of propaganda in your post once I get some time, but to this, mate, you are just finding lame excuses.. How many times have you yourself told people that responding to a foul post is as big a violation as making a foul post. Specially if the response also breaks forum rules. And in this case, Afghan Taliban in Kashmin are not Kashmiri separatist who should not be called terrorists as per forum rules.. But forum rules prohibits calling any uniformed army of a country as a terrorist army, which you violated.. But with you, this is not the first time.. So surprised I am not...

Any outsider fighting an occupation force inside disputed J&K is not automatically a 'terrorist' - the IA is an 'outside occupation force' as well, so your argument of 'outsider' would also apply to the Indian Army being called 'terrorists'.

Again, the option to retract/delete your comments is available. And no, there was nothing 'foul' in my response to Vinod - the Indian Army has indeed 'raped and murdered innocent men, women and children' in disputed J&K.

Beyond that there is nothing more to add - the choice is of retracting your earlier comments or getting back on topic.

Cheers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You did nothing of the sort. You chose to get offended by some facts about terrorists and tried to equate them to false propaganda.

There is no 'false propaganda' in what I stated - that Indian Army soldiers and other Indian security forces have engaged in the mass murder and rape of innocent men, women and children in disputed J&K has been corroborated by various independent organizations, and there are multiple threads in the Kashmir War section on those atrocities. The only propaganda here is the denial and degenerate excuse of 'the Indian Army soldiers are raping their own family so its alright' excuses trotted out by the you Karan and Foxbat.

Rape, murder, terror everything is condemnable.

Then you certainly condemn the 'rape and murder of men, women and children', as documented by various organizations, by the Indian Army, don't you?

Those mass graves may contain these "Afghan Mujahideen" and victims of cross border Islamic terrorists including LET and the likes of Kasab.

They deserved nothing better.

The mass graves also include innocent men, women and children massacred by the Indian security forces.

Let's move on. This has become a farce already.

The only farce here is the defence of 'rape and murder of innocents' by the Indian Army, by the Indians commenting on this thread.

Yawn.....

The shoe is on the other foot.

Its not me who questions "why normal relations" rather than "why not"!

Its not me who gets uncomfortable at the mere thought of moving on from the hostilities and remains stuck on positions like "disputed territory" that supposedly confers a right to push terrorists and rape and kill people.

Keep yawning - that does not change the fact that you went into an off topic rant because you completely misunderstood the original poster as a result of you impulsive anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim POV.

I remember those days vividly. The Taliban never appeared serious and were apparently dragging their feet.

At the very least, they couldn't utilize the small window available to them to move fast enough.

You don't remember anything then - there was barely any time allowed for 'dragging feet' - the US launched the war and invasion less than a month after the September 11 attacks - that is barely enough time for even a basic investigation to be carried out, let alone investigate, gather evidence, build a case and engage in diplomacy to arrive at mutually acceptable outcomes.

And to refresh your 'vivid memory' some more, it was the US that never even offered to consider the possibility of OBL's trial in a third country. The fault here was entirely with the US, not the Taliban.

Yes, and they were apparently instigated by the ISI chief to take that stand (apparently gone rogue?).

I am not aware of any credible evidence suggesting the ISI chief at that point was behind the Taliban position - but regardless of who was behind the stance they took, the argument of 'provide evidence, establish guilt and conduct a fair trial' is an undeniably 'moral and legally correct' one.

The record on the ground suggests otherwise.

I have not heard of Pushtun civilians massacres the way it was common during Taliban days. Women have better rights and many more children including girls are in school.

You have not 'heard' because your 'vivid memory' chooses to block out everything that contradicts your anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim prejudice.

The following link details atrocities on both sides:

rawa.org: The Northern Alliance atrocities in Afghanistan from 1992-96

There are various other reports as well of atrocities committed by warlords and factions allied with the NA.

---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

A bit busy now but read the book "deadly embrace" by Bruce Riedel if you can.

I have read it but don't remember the details now. Will need to go back to the book.

Both the book (and several articles by him) and the documentary can't be called just opinions. They contain solid facts that decidedly prove their conclusions.

The book more so.

If you have read the book you should be able to provide excerpts supporting your argument - until you do, your argument stands unsubstantiated and speculative, as are the claims you attribute to Reidel.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We wanted a democratic Afghanistan whose people would not live under tyranny, fear and intimidation. An Afghanistan where people would have the opportunity to shape their lives, thoughts, and future. If we wanted to destroy everything and everyone, we would not be spending time, money and effort in trying to rebuild Afghanistan. We would not concern ourselves with building hospitals or schools, and other infrastructure at the expense of increasing our debt. It is surprising to know that some are still following the narratives of those who are trying to devalue the gains and the development achieved by Afghans through our help. Assess where Afghanistan was under the Taliban rule and how far it has come in only a decade. Do you still see them as losing to the terrorists and not achieving our combined goals for Afghanistan?

MAJ David Nevers,
DET – U.S. Central Command
U.S. Central Command[/FONT][/SIZE]

If you wanted a 'stable, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan' then you would not have gone to war in 2001 and put in place a regime comprised of warlords and criminals that had committed atrocities matching those of the Taliban, and ran drug and smuggling networks.

If you wanted a 'stable, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan' you would have engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban an arrived at mutually acceptable agreement on OBL's trial in a third country, and offered international acceptance and aid in exchange for an end to war and a start to development activities in Afghanistan.

You chose war, and that refutes all the poppycock you spout about 'wanting a stable, democratic blah, blah blah'.

 

[Vinod2070]

You have not 'heard' because your 'vivid memory' chooses to block out everything that contradicts your anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim prejudice.

Just to this part, I think you forget that both the parties are Muslim/Islamic!

Why I am not surprised!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just to this part, I think you forget that both the parties are Muslim/Islamic!

Why I am not surprised!

At which point your 'anti-Pakistan prejudice' takes over ...

 

[CENTCOM]

If you wanted a 'stable, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan' then you would not have gone to war in 2001 and put in place a regime comprised of warlords and criminals that had committed atrocities matching those of the Taliban, and ran drug and smuggling networks.

If you wanted a 'stable, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan' you would have engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban an arrived at mutually acceptable agreement on OBL's trial in a third country, and offered international acceptance and aid in exchange for an end to war and a start to development activities in Afghanistan.

You chose war, and that refutes all the poppycock you spout about 'wanting a stable, democratic blah, blah blah'.

The Taliban regime did not leave us a choice when we attacked them in Afghanistan; it was because they harbored and protected a foreign terrorist and cared little, if at all, about the consequences it would bring to their own people. They chose to put the lives of millions of Afghans in danger only to protect a terrorist organization. When there are voluntary confessions and proud claims by Al-Qaeda’s leader, boasting of killing American civilians, attacking our embassies and waging a war of hatred among religions, do you expect those he influenced and paid to protect him would have negotiated his capture and death? How can you compare the state of Taliban now with when they were in power in Afghanistan? This war was supported by the international community, and as compared to the era of the Taliban regime, Afghanistan’s government is now recognized by the world and democratically elected by its people. President Karzai has been elected leader by the Afghans themselves, and has also been endorsed by Pakistan and the rest of the world. To label him a war lord is both incorrect and unjustified. Ironically, it is democracy that denied victory in the elections to those who are considered war lords in Afghanistan. As for development activities, we have and are committed to helping and supporting development projects in Afghanistan. The progress is visible and transparent, if one chooses to see it.

MAJ David Nevers,
DET – U.S. Central Command
U.S. Central Command