The Cycle of Violence in Afghanistan

Texas Straight Talk

Last week the National Bureau of Economic Research published a report on the effect of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq that confirmed what critics of our foreign policy have been saying for years: the killing of civilians, although unintentional, angers other civilians and prompts them to seek revenge. This should be self-evident.

The Central Intelligence Agency has long acknowledged and analyzed the concept of blowback in our foreign policy. It still amazes me that so many think that attacks against our soldiers occupying hostile foreign lands are motivated by hatred toward our system of government at home or by the religion of the attackers. In fact, most of the anger towards us is rooted in reactions towards seeing their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and other loved ones being killed by a foreign army. No matter our intentions, the violence of our militarism in foreign lands causes those residents to seek revenge if innocents are killed. One does not have to be Muslim to react this way, just human.

Our battle in Afghanistan resembles the battle against the many-headed Hydra monster in Greek mythology. According to Former General Stanley McChrystal’s so-called insurgent math, for every insurgent killed, 10 more insurgents are created by the collateral damage to civilians. Every coalition attack leads to 6 retaliatory attacks against our troops within the following six weeks, according to the NBER report. These retaliatory attacks must then be acted on by our troops, leading to still more attacks, and so it goes. Violence begets more violence. Eventually more and more Afghanis will view American troops with hostility and seek revenge for the death of a loved one. Meanwhile, we are bleeding ourselves dry, militarily and economically.

Some say if we leave, the Taliban will be strengthened. However, those who make that claim ignore the numerous ways our interventionist foreign policy has strengthened groups like the Taliban over the years. I’ve already pointed out how we serve as excellent recruiters for them by killing civilians. Last week I pointed out how our foreign aid, to Pakistan specifically, makes it into Taliban coffers. And of course we provided the Taliban with aid and resources in the 1980s, when they were our strategic allies against the Soviet Union. For example – our CIA supplied them with Stinger missiles to use against the Soviets, which are strikingly similar to the ones now allegedly used against us on the same battlefield, according to those Wikileaks documents. As usual, our friends have a funny way of turning against us. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein are also prime examples. Yet Congress never seems to acknowledge the blowback that results from our interventionism of the past.

Our war against the Taliban is going about as well as our war on drugs, or our war on poverty, or any of our government’s wars – they all tend to create more of the thing they purport to eradicate, thereby dodging any excuse to draw down and come to an end. It is hard to imagine ever “winning” anything this way.

We have done enough damage in Afghanistan, both to the Afghan people, and to ourselves. It’s time to re-evaluate the situation. It’s time to come home.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Our war against the Taliban is going about as well as our war on drugs, or our war on poverty, or any of our government’s wars – they all tend to create more of the thing they purport to eradicate, thereby dodging any excuse to draw down and come to an end. It is hard to imagine ever “winning” anything this way.

Which proves, ........ you can't half-ased fight a War and have any hope of even coming out even a "partial winner".

One has to act quickly, fearlessly and ruthlessly ..... and put "the fear of God" in your enemy so that they don't get in a hurry to "do their own thing".

And that also goes for any "non-enemy" engaged in graft, corruption, theft, etc.

But alas, it is that "also goes for" that will insure that America will never ever win another War on anything.



.

You're wrong on war Sam. We won WW2 because we killed them until they couldn't stand to be killed anymore.

There was no fear involved as Hitler's youth was lining up in Berlin in 45 to continue the fight and the only reason the Japanese surrendered was the threat of the extinction of their race, and even the, the sentiment among the masses was to continue the fight.

Is that what you propose we do in Afghanistan, and if so, why?

Aaron wrote:You're wrong on war Sam. We won WW2 because we killed them until they couldn't stand to be killed anymore.

There was no fear involved as Hitler's youth was lining up in Berlin in 45 to continue the fight and the only reason the Japanese surrendered was the threat of the extinction of their race, and even the, the sentiment among the masses was to continue the fight.

Is that what you propose we do in Afghanistan, and if so, why?

I have to agree with Sam on this one. You can't fight a war half Assed. You either fight it to win or you avoid the fight.

I'm curious Cato, why would you agree with Sam on how to fight a war when his assessment was wrong? Unless of course you can show me the last war we won by putting "the fear of God" in our enemy so that they didn't get in a hurry to "do their own thing". The victories I see in our history have come via "out killing" the enemy or occupation.

And by all means, feel free to answer the same question I posed to Sam. What would you have us to do to the citizens of Afghanistan in this war?

Also, both of you should bear in mind that the last successful invader in Afghanistan was Genghis Kahn and that the current citizens of that country have been at war against one force or another for the past 40 years, give or take a month or so.

So how we gonna win this one?

One of the issues I find most critical that this article does not address is what this war has done to Pakistan. The Taliban has now crossed into Pakistan and the US has followed.


Since Obama took office, drone attacks on targets in Pakistan have tripled, killing over 700 people, many of them civilians. During this time period, the number of militants and militant attacks inside Pakistan have soared. In addition, more and more militant groups are joining forces, further escalating the violence.

As a direct result of US operations in Afghanistan, Taliban has moved into Pakistan. They moved into Pakistan, so the US attacks tribal areas inside Pakistan with drones. The drones kill civilians and new militants are born. The new militants penetrate further and further into Pakistan, battling the Pakistani army and US backed paramilitary forces, using terrorist tactics like road-side bombs and suicide bombers, killing and injuring innocent civilians in their wake and in doing so spawning more radicalism.

As if all of this isn't bad enough, Pakistan is experiencing the worst flood in history and the government now estimates 13.8 million people are now affected by this flooding with no end in sight. Millions and millions of people displaced, who knows what the death toll will ultimately be because once the flood waters recede disease will spread rapidly.

Without a doubt, it will be radical Islamic groups offering initial assistance and their audience will be scared, tired, hungry, angry and captive. While extremists are aiding flood victims you can bet your eye teeth they'll be working tirelessly to find new recruits using the deaths of innocent Pakistani civilians from all those drone attacks.

This vicious cycle is now playing out in a nation with nuclear weapons and is a direct result of the escalation of US military operations in Afghanistan. It is insane.

I do not oppose humanitarian aide to the victims of flooding in Pakistan. In fact, given the facts outlined above I believe it's imperative the US provide immediate highly visable support and assistance to the Pakistanis. However, this will only generate Pakistani good will towards America if we stop chasing the Taliban into Pakistan, and if we stop the drone attacks that result in the deaths of Pakistani children.

It is time to put America first. What is in the best interests of America? It absolutely is not in the best interests of the United States or her citizens to generate more Islamic radicals. It is not in our interests to send our young men and women off to wage war on the other side of the globe without a clear objective, without even defining what victory would be. This is particularly true in a nation like Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East where the people have been engaged in some sort of military action for centuries. The spread of violence and extremism into nuclear Pakistan makes it imperative that we stop NOW, before we reach the point of no return.

If Pakistan becomes so unstable that the government loses control of its nuclear arsenal, what then? Crazy Islamic extremists who hate America, willing to blow themselves up, will have access to nuclear weapons. Neither our ports or borders are secure. Think what kind of damage a suicide bomber with a backpack full of weapons grade nuclear material could do upon slipping into the US through Mexico, or Canada.

We need to end the war in Afghanistan. We need to cease all attacks in Pakistan. We need to do it NOW.

I regret that we are giving so many rabid Islamic jihadists what they want--martyrdom. However, I will get over it.

Aaron wrote:You're wrong on war Sam. We won WW2 because we killed them until they couldn't stand to be killed anymore.

DUH, isn't that what I just got through saying, to wit:

One has to act quickly, fearlessly and ruthlessly ..... and put "the fear of God" in your enemy so that they don't get in a hurry to "do their own thing".

Aaron wrote:There was no fear involved as Hitler's youth was lining up in Berlin in 45 to continue the fight and the only reason the Japanese surrendered was the threat of the extinction of their race, and even the, the sentiment among the masses was to continue the fight.

Aaron, the youth will do anything that they are "brainwashed" (nurtured) into believing n' doing. Just look around you, there is evidence of that everywhere ya look. Its everywhere, its everywhere, its in politics, religion, education, etc.

Sentiment is one thing that takes years to "flush out" of the minds of the public. I cite the Civil War and Equal Rights of the "colored" as two examples.

Aaron wrote:Is that what you propose we do in Afghanistan, and if so, why?

WHY??? Are you being funny or what?

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:Is that what you propose we do in Afghanistan, and if so, why?

WHY??? Are you being funny or what?

You didn't answer the question Sam. What do you propose we do in Afghanistan?

Sam and Cato are right. If the Taliban were ever convinced we had the cajones to turn any enemy occupied territory into a lake that would be the end of the war. It is surely true that innocents would die, but likely far fewer than have with the milquetoast attempt to fight a war against savages.

Simply put, since we don't have any backbone to actually fight to win, we should withdraw immediately. It is unfair to our soldiers and to our pocketbooks.

Read it and weep ...... or make some sort of frigging excuse for it, whatever "turns your crank".

KABUL, Afghanistan — The number of civilians killed or wounded in the Afghan conflict rose 31 percent in the first six months of the year, with anti-government forces causing about three-quarters of the casualties, the United Nations said in a report Tuesday.

"Afghan children and women are increasingly bearing the brunt of the conflict," said Staffan de Mistura, the special representative of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and the U.N.'s top envoy to the country.

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said in its mid-year report that 1,271 Afghans died and 1,997 were injured — mostly from roadside bombings — in the first six months of the year.

The Taliban and other insurgents, described in the report as "anti-government elements" were responsible for 76 percent of the 2,477 deaths and injuries suffered by civilians in the period, up from 53 percent in 2009.

Deaths and injuries among children attributed to such anti-government agents were up 55 percent from 2009, the report said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635495/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

SheikBen wrote:Sam and Cato are right. If the Taliban were ever convinced we had the cajones to turn any enemy occupied territory into a lake that would be the end of the war. It is surely true that innocents would die, but likely far fewer than have with the milquetoast attempt to fight a war against savages.

Simply put, since we don't have any backbone to actually fight to win, we should withdraw immediately. It is unfair to our soldiers and to our pocketbooks.

You mean if we had the "cajones" to kill half a million soldiers and over a million innocent civilians, the citizens of Afghanistan would turn tail and run Mike?

That's the death rate those same citizens suffered at the hands of the Russians, who were much more barbaric then our citizens will ever stand for our military being and if I recall correctly, the Afghans repealed that invading force.

At least that's the way I think it ended. Am I wrong in my history or did the Afghans already outlast and bankrupt one superpower?

Damn Sam, now you're starting to act like Ziggy, running from a simple question like a scalded dog. Once again, what do you propose our military do in Afghanistan?

And here I though you had the "cajones" to answer simple questions.

Silly me.



Since Sam seems to be tongue tied Mike, Cato's no where to be found and you agree with both of them, why don't you see if you can handle the "softball" I've lobbed to the both of them.

We wouldn't have to kill a million of anyone, Aaron. We would have to be willing to wipe out communities of hundreds, perhaps.

You think so Mike? Then why didn't that work for the Russians who did kill a million and still limped away with their tail between their legs, whipped and bankrupt?

History doesn't seem to agree with you that "wiping out communities of a hundred or so" will put the fear of God in the Afghan people.

SheikBen wrote:We wouldn't have to kill a million of anyone, Aaron. We would have to be willing to wipe out communities of hundreds, perhaps.

Mike, you've lost your mind. Are you that clueless of Afghan history?

Stephanie,

I lost my mind years ago:)

Russia tried to occupy Afghanistan, and I have no stomach for that. If there is a Taliban element we can do away with them without staying or seeking to impose an American style government on them.

Remember, Steph, that we actually agree on what US policy should be right now--get the hell out, we just agree for different reasons.

If you are going to fight a war, it has to be to win, otherwise don't fight it. Even if you are not in favor of scorched earth, surely you see that fighting a half-assed war is the worst of all possibilities?

I respect your opinion on a great many things Mike and there are times when the rest of us are out in rant land that you're the lone voice of reason but I got to tell you, on this one, you're so far wrong that it isn't even funny.

Yes, if you're going to fight a war, you have do so in a manner that leaves no doubt in the enemies mind you will go as far as necessary to win the war. "Communities of hundreds" isn't even close to getting there and that is not an opinion or educated guess on my part, that is fact proven by decades of resistance against atrocities much worse then the American public is willing to stomach from our military.

I am curious though; on what justification does the United States have in wiping out these communities of hundreds of Afghan citizens.

SheikBen wrote:Stephanie,

I lost my mind years ago:)

Russia tried to occupy Afghanistan, and I have no stomach for that. If there is a Taliban element we can do away with them without staying or seeking to impose an American style government on them.

Remember, Steph, that we actually agree on what US policy should be right now--get the hell out, we just agree for different reasons.

If you are going to fight a war, it has to be to win, otherwise don't fight it. Even if you are not in favor of scorched earth, surely you see that fighting a half-assed war is the worst of all possibilities?

I am opposed to needless war. I am opposed to occupying and government toppling and regime installing and empire building and meddling in the affairs of other nations. A large part of me is pacifist.

HOWEVER, if we are going to wage war somewhere, I say wage war. As opposed as I am to needless aggression, I am many times more opposed to sending US troops into battle with restraint. I wish no country harm, and I certainly wish no people harm. What I do is place a higher value on the lives and well being of our troops than I do either global opinion or the lives of citizens of other nations.

War is hell. I find it a disgusting waste of lives and resources and good will. However, if the US is going to engage in war, if our President is going to send our men and women to battle, then let them use every tool and tactic at their disposal to achieve victory as quickly as possible. Anything else is an absolute betrayal of our soldiers and their families.

I want our troops to come home. I want them to come home NOW. If we're not going to bring them home, then let them scorch Afghanistan. That is pretty despicable, but so is war. That is precisely why it should always be the last resort.

Mike, apparently Aaron doesn't think that Sherman's March through Georgia, etc., made one iota bit of difference in the North's winning of the Civil War.

"Never leave an enemy behind". Shaka Zulu

Sherman's march is the same tactic we used in Europe and the Pacific during World War 2 Sam. If you scroll back through the post, you will that that that I pointed that out-killing the enemy is how you win a war.

When I corrected you then, I also ask you for the first time what you thought our military should do with insurgents in Afghanistan.

You avoided the question then as you have done twice more since the. Each time, you’ve taken the girly man route instead of simply answering the question as Mike did.

So for the 4th time Sam, what do you think our military should do in Afghanistan? Is there a particular reason you’ve assumed the role of Ziggy when this question is posed to you?

Aaron,

I don't relish the deaths of innocents in war, but they are simply unavoidable. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan for the sake of making it a puppet, no of deposing or neutralizing some particular leader or group. There is a world of difference, one in fact I wish our leaders would learn.

If the Taliban insists on using a given city as a base of operations, kindly tell that city that it is going to be destroyed in a week and to get out. Then, in a day, destroy it. I think folks will stop welcoming in these creeps when they realize that the US is willing to be patient, calculating, and treat American soldiers' lives as of paramount importance. I think it also must be altogether clear that the US wants to get out, and that is not altogether clear to anyone there, as far as I can tell. Right now our commander in chief cannot be trusted when he tells the Afghanis, or anyone else, anything.

Steph,

I am not ignorant of Afghanistan's history, its long history of decentralization and the social realities of a nation with such harsh terrain. You are never going to put in a national government of any kind of Western-style and succeed; you CAN, however, kill and imprison the group that wishes to do you in, setting clear rubrics of when you will declare victory and then, clearly, state when and how you will be leaving.

If you think for a second that local tribes are going to rid themselves of the Taliban simply because we blow up some of their villages and lie to them in the process then your are very naive Mike. It's simply not going to happen.

But even if you were correct and we could kill the Afghan into submission, the American public would not stand by and allow it to happen.

And you failed to answer the second part of the question. What would be our justification for systematically eradicating the villages?