Marines in Afganistan

[xoxoxoBruce]

After the crap hit the fan over prisioner abuse, the email of most of our guys in Iraqi and Afghanistan, was terminated. Bummer.
There is a contingent of Marines (& sailors) in Afghanistan, supplying medical treatment to the Afghan people, who have permission to set up there own wireless satellite link. There is a website that explains how. You can help these Americans establish a censorship free link home. It helps keep the Pentagon honest, also.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well, they've collected enough donations to get the equipment and the first two months internet service.

[classicman]

Resurrection time...

ObamaNation Wants Taliban Talks, Not Military Escalation, in Afghanistan

Americans elected President Obama in part based on his promise to put diplomacy and international cooperation, rather than the use and threat of military force, at the center of his foreign policy. With respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, while there have been some encouraging signals, in terms of actually implemented policies the folks who voted for Obama are not yet getting the "diplomacy first" that they were promised.

The great thing about talking to the Taliban is that it costs nothing, kills no-one, and is compatible and complementary, at least initially, with every other strategy.

It costs nothing, because if in negotiations Afghan insurgents demand something totally unreasonable, you can always say no. If the talks go nowhere, you haven't lost anything; in fact, you've gained credibility with the Afghan population because you showed you were willing to negotiate. And if the talks break down because you stood firm on an important principle, then Afghans can see that you stood firm on an important principle.

If, on the other hand, Afghan insurgent leaders say: "we'll stop fighting if you agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of your forces," and if you were eventually planning to withdraw your forces anyway, now you've got something to talk about.

What could be more monstrous and absurd than more than doubling our military operations in Afghanistan - starting a new war, essentially, and leading almost certainly to an increase in civilian deaths, as aid agencies warned NATO leaders on Friday -because we say we have to fight people who oppose the presence of foreign troops, and that we can't leave until we defeat them militarily?

Why not make agreements with most of the people we are now fighting, and agree to a timetable for withdrawal, as we have done in Iraq?

And even if talks with Afghan insurgents did not lead quickly to a comprehensive agreement on all issues, mightn't it useful to pursue intermediate agreements? Let's say we want to build some schools. Wouldn't it be useful to have agreements with insurgents not to shoot at the people building them or blow the schools up?

Some very interesting questions. Make agreements with people we are fighting - ok ... What agreements?
Take the Taliban at their word not to bomb schools?
Would the Afgan people really get the message that we are willing to talk or would the entire situation be distorted to benefit those in power? Would that be construed as a sign of weakness and embolden the forces we are fighting there?
How does one talk to people whose sole driving force in life is to rid the world of "us"? I don't get it.

[The Teapot]

Americans elected President Obama in part based on his promise to put diplomacy and international cooperation, rather than the use and threat of military force, at the center of his foreign policy. With respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, while there have been some encouraging signals, in terms of actually implemented policies the folks who voted for Obama are not yet getting the "diplomacy first" that they were promised.

The great thing about talking to the Taliban is that it costs nothing, kills no-one, and is compatible and complementary, at least initially, with every other strategy.

It costs nothing, because if in negotiations Afghan insurgents demand something totally unreasonable, you can always say no. If the talks go nowhere, you haven't lost anything; in fact, you've gained credibility with the Afghan population because you showed you were willing to negotiate. And if the talks break down because you stood firm on an important principle, then Afghans can see that you stood firm on an important principle.

If, on the other hand, Afghan insurgent leaders say: "we'll stop fighting if you agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of your forces," and if you were eventually planning to withdraw your forces anyway, now you've got something to talk about.

What could be more monstrous and absurd than more than doubling our military operations in Afghanistan - starting a new war, essentially, and leading almost certainly to an increase in civilian deaths, as aid agencies warned NATO leaders on Friday -because we say we have to fight people who oppose the presence of foreign troops, and that we can't leave until we defeat them militarily?

Why not make agreements with most of the people we are now fighting, and agree to a timetable for withdrawal, as we have done in Iraq?

And even if talks with Afghan insurgents did not lead quickly to a comprehensive agreement on all issues, mightn't it useful to pursue intermediate agreements? Let's say we want to build some schools. Wouldn't it be useful to have agreements with insurgents not to shoot at the people building them or blow the schools up?
Some very interesting questions. Make agreements with people we are fighting - ok ... What agreements?
Take the Taliban at their word not to bomb schools?
Would the Afgan people really get the message that we are willing to talk or would the entire situation be distorted to benefit those in power? Would that be construed as a sign of weakness and embolden the forces we are fighting there?
How does one talk to people whose sole driving force in life is to rid the world of "us"? I don't get it.

Well to be fair you're putting the population in an impossible situation at the moment. They'll support whoever is operating closer to them, and will change sides to what ever will benifit them best. So really its irrelivent, because if you are going to leave, the loyalty will go to whoever is the most powerful still there.
You don't need them to think well of you, you just need a strong goverment that doesn't hate you.

[TheMercenary]

Army In Aftganistan:

Audio slide show under the multimedia heading, first box on the left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/wo...er=rss&emc=rss