NYT: "High-Level Talks Aim for an End to the Afghan War"

as Robert McNamara so wisely pointed out so many years ago, winning the war is just a matter of body counts.

The Democrats need some guts, and the republicans need some brains...

pun·dit   

–noun
1.
a learned person, expert, or authority.
2.
a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.
3.
pandit.
Origin:
1665–75; < Hindi paṇḍit < Skt paṇḍita learned man, (adj.) learned

—Related forms
pun·dit·ic, adjective
pun·dit·i·cal·ly, adverb



—Synonyms
1. sage, guru, savant.

"Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of [Noam] Chomsky, [Edward] Herman, [Howard] Zinn and [Susan] George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply 'can't be true'. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again."

David Edwards - Burning All Illusions

Quote:

"Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of [Noam] Chomsky, [Edward] Herman, [Howard] Zinn and [Susan] George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply 'can't be true'. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again."

David Edwards - Burning All Illusions

Setanta likes to posture that he has an open mind. But why all this ancient history. Why does he avoid the pertinent background material? Because he isn't capable of facing the truth, he isn't capable of putting an honest foot forward. It's just deception after deception.

Noticeably absent in his historical accounts is the role of the USA in Afghanistan. Why would this be?

Quote:

The Democrats need some guts, and the republicans need some brains...

And who, oh Great Oz, shall have the heart?

As Set said, his comments were in response to a question from me about HISTORICAL events.

Afghanistan is one hell of a buggered around with country....both by every major imperialist power in the last couple of centuries,

If the United States withdraws, and especially if the Taliban look like taking over again, there is little doubt that the Tajiks, Uzbeks and any Shi'ites in Afghanistan will take up arms against a fundamentalist, religious regime, and one which they justifiably see as racist. Certainly the Taliban would be ruthlessly anti-Shi'ite. Even if no one else interferred, the Persians would certain take steps to support Shi'ites in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden,
and the Taliban

by Phil Gasper

International Socialist Review, November-December 2001

The U.S. war on Afghanistan is a brutal attack on a country that has already been almost destroyed by more than 20 years of foreign invasion and civil war.' The Soviet occupation, which lasted from 1979 to 1989, left more than a million people dead. Millions still live in refugee camps More than 500,000 orphans are disabled. Ten million land mines still litter the country, killing an average of 90 people per month. At 43 years, life expectancy in Afghanistan is on average 17 years lower than that for people in other developing countries. The countryside is devastated and is currently experiencing a severe drought, with 7.5 million people threatened with starvation. The death and destruction wrought by the U.S. bombing campaign-and the cut off of food aid deliveries it has caused-have already killed hundreds and produced thousands more refugees scrambling to escape into Pakistan.

But not only is Washington attacking one of the poorest countries in the world, past U.S. government actions are in no small part responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration claims to be targeting Osama bin Laden, who it says masterminded the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (even though it has offered no concrete evidence to back up this accusation), and Afghanistan's Taliban government, which is sheltering him.

But as the Economist magazine noted soon after September 11, " [U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." An examination of this history will reveal the extent to which U.S. foreign policy is based on hypocrisy, realpolitik, and the short-term pursuit of narrow interests.

read on at,

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

My comments on Afghanistan in history, as seen by others, was in response to a request from the author of this thread. I don't give a rat's ass how others respond to it.

Why has one of the poorest countries in the world been soaked in blood for over 150 years, as three major powers -- Britain, Russia and the United States -- have sought to control it?
The lesson of history, taught time and again, is that Afghanistan will always be the graveyard of empires.
John Rees, a national officer of Stop the War Coalition, presents a short video history of imperialist intervention and local resistance, bringing the story up to the present day, when America, Britain and their allies are fighting yet another unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
The 20 minute film is part of the Timeline series produced by the Islam Channel.
The transcript of the film, is printed [at this website ; video there too]


http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1351/195/

I think we should burn the poppy fields ...

Steeper Pullout Is Raised as Option for Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s national security team is contemplating troop reductions in Afghanistan that would be steeper than those discussed even a few weeks ago, with some officials arguing that such a change is justified by the rising cost of the war and the death of Osama bin Laden, which they called new “strategic considerations.”

These new considerations, along with a desire to find new ways to press the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, to get more of his forces to take the lead, are combining to create a counterweight to an approach favored by the departing secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, and top military commanders in the field. They want gradual cuts that would keep American forces at a much higher combat strength well into next year, senior administration officials said.

The cost of the war and Mr. Karzai’s uneven progress in getting his forces prepared have been latent issues since Mr. Obama took office. But in recent weeks they have gained greater political potency as Mr. Obama’s newly refashioned national security team takes up the crucial decision of the size and the pace of American troop cuts, administration and military officials said. Mr. Obama is expected to address these decisions in a speech to the nation this month, they said.

A sharp drawdown of troops is one of many options Mr. Obama is considering. The National Security Council is convening its monthly meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan on Monday, and although the debate over troop levels is operating on a separate track, the assessments from that meeting are likely to inform the decisions about the size of the force.