Afghanistan 2011

[sky's the limit]

Cheez,

I'm not sure you are grasping what exactly it is I'm talking about in obtuse terms.

The use of language, and how it has been contorted is a grave issue, and one that is very easily used to misinform and skew information, if not hide it altogether, while creating a single dogmatic way of understanding a given issue. Additionally, there are some serious concerns with perspective, because I can tell you that from the perspective of the Palestinians for example, or some of the Afghans I've spoken to, "terrorism" is exactly what is happening to them. Keep in mind, that is their perspective, and only one to add to the pot when looking at things like this.

You seem to believe that your perspective is the correct one, and the only one - frankly, it is I who is somewhat surprised as I would have thought you could understand that one story does most certainly not fit all. Who is right? Who is wrong? Well that's the million dollar question now isn't it? Getting to answers requires a much more open mind than what you have displayed in your post, regardless of how close the issue hits home. A close high school friend was lost to said "terrorists," and I will be spending the next couple of days walking along those same roads following a couple of missions, so I can assure you, I am not that far removed from it myself. However, that should never preclude me thinking about it, or discussing it, even if those thoughts and discussions are uncomfortable.

If the definition of a single word that is bunted about by politicians and media with frightening regularity cannot be understood, and agreed upon, then where does that leave us with the greater issue to which it has been applied? It doesn't. It leaves the issue muddied and opaque, with opinions made and held on precious little understanding. This must change.

While I am far too tired atm to fully go into it, suffice it to say, the argument of soldiers in uniform being excluded from "terrorism" is fatally flawed on a number of levels. Following orders does not exonerate one from "terrorizing," nor are those issuing the orders immune either. There are endless legal, moral, and ethical implications of using deadly force, and while I understand how this seems to be raw nerve for you, I do not understand how we cannot be allowed to follow this line of questioning to its logical extension, as you would imply.

The word "terrorist" has a long and sorted history, with a few very notable highlights as it pertains to this discussion. To assume that its use be reserved for "suicide bombers" and those fighting outside of a uniform in their own country exclusively, borders on dogmatic and is a frightening concept.

Keeping in mind the rather malleable definition of the term depending on who is using it, I would suggest that in the case of the combatants on the other side of this conflict, it has been unfairly applied. How can fighting foreign forces and local government with some serious legitimacy issues in ones own country be construed as "terrorism?" Is it the IED's? The suicide bombs and attacks? Is it the method that is at issue? Or is it simply that there is no uniform by which to identify them? Would this apply to me were Canada invaded and I took to arms? Did it rightfully apply to the Americans during their war of independence? Because according to the British, it most certainly did...

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," or so goes the saying. What then of the support given to these groups by our governments in the West? Do the billions of American dollars funneled into Afghanistan through the Pakistani ISI in the 80's to fight the Soviets constitute "terrorism?" By your definition, yes, it does. The American administration would agree too - but only as it applies to others, of course. As it would in a myriad of other examples across the globe. You see, the problem goes a whole lot further than uniforms and choice of ordinance, and it is something that needs clarification, desperately. I will say however, and with certainty, that the word and its use is surrounded in hypocrisy.

Anyway, I am glad to have read the various responses on here so far. The point is to stimulate conversation and thought, if we can accomplish that, then we are getting somewhere. I'm going to be out the next few days, both flying and on the ground, so with any luck I'll have a few shots to share with you from both perspectives.


stl

[niss]

Former Israeli FM Tzipi Livni's take on Terrorism:

LIVNI: There's a difference between freedom fighter and between a terrorist who is looking for children to kill, for civilians, for a restaurant to kill people. And between those who are fighting army.

DONVAN: "But what you're saying is that if the Palestinians - if Hamas only used suicide bombers against Israeli soldiers, you might not call that terrorism."

LIVNI: Yes.

DONVAN: You might call that freedom fighting?

LIVNI: I cannot call it freedom fighters because I believe - but - you know, don't push your luck. But, in a way, it is more legitimate than - it's a legitimate fight. But they're looking for killing babies and civilians and women and people in the street. This is something unacceptable. And I believe that the international community should make the same distinction. … Somebody who is fighting against Israeli soldiers is an enemy. And we will fight back. But I believe that it is not under definition of terrorism.

[Hedley]

The victors write the history books. If the revolution succeeds, when they write their memoirs, they describe themselves as rebel patriots. If the revolution fails, then they are called all sorts of nasty names by the old guard whom they failed to unseat.

It's important not to believe too much of what you hear from the media. Ever actually been someplace that something happened? Then you read the media reports, and you think to yourself, "They got it all wrong". Of course they do. Every time the media reports that a twin-engine Piper Cub plunged 35,000 feet killing all 12 occupants on board, we all roll our eyes here.

Keep that healthy skepticism when you read or hear anything from the media, because if they didn't screw it up accidentally, they probably spun it to suit their slant. And if they couldn't spin it, they probably didn't bother reporting it at all.

If you want something funny, read cnn.com for the Democratic Party view, and foxnews.com for the Republican Party view. It's hilarious how they will so differently cover the same event - or ignore it entirely - all the while claiming to be unbiased, professional, etc. Uh huh.

[TheCheez]

Cheez,

I'm not sure you are grasping what exactly it is I'm talking about in obtuse terms.

stl

Rest assured it's not a reading comprehension issue on my part. I don't believe that, as a professional soldier, I am not a terrorist. I know as much. To say that what I and my brothers in the CF do is terrorism is an extreme stretch of 'perspective' and one that I reject outright. Call it prejudice or closed mindedness or whatever you want. Anything else of value you might have to say is lost in the idiocy of this stance.

[sky's the limit]

Actually,

You have just proven that it is indeed a reading comprehension issue. That is not what I said, go back and read it. It's a matter of the interpretation of language that I was trying to articulate... Good grief.

I'm sorry you cannot leave an emotional reaction to a misread paragraph at the door. Too bad, otherwise you might have something of value to add.

stl

[Beefitarian]

Is there much General Aviation there? What are the common single engine planes?

[Posthumane]

There is always going to be different terms used for different people depending on which side of a conflict you happen to be standing on. When Group A battles Group B, then the media of group A will report group B as terrorists, insurgents, the enemy, etc. while group B will call themselves the resistance, freedom fighters, etc. Which side is right? Probably a bit of both and a bit of neither. Both sides are doing what they believe is right based on their values. To say a terrorist doesn't receive orders and doesn't act on a plan is inaccurate - most of the people carrying out the attacks are merely pawns. They either voluntarily train at camps and join the organization to carry out the bidding of the leaders, or they are involuntarily force into the attacks by threats on their family. It's true that they don't wear an identifiable uniform, but of course why would they? That would make their tactics much less effective.

After the initial attack on the US, which I believe can safely be called a terrorist attack since it targeted civilians on their homeland going about their business and was arguably unprovoked, "the west" went into Afghanistan to exercise the ruling government and replace it with one that was more favourable to them (i.e. didn't support groups like Al Queda). The mission wasn't quite as easy as expected since the group being exercised does have a lot of popular support. The reason that Canada and other western forces stayed there is, to some extent, to avoid the mistake made in some earlier conflicts where the unwanted government was eliminated and then everyone retreated leaving a nation in shambles to fix itself. A war torn nation cannot just recover from a conflict, however, and usually a controlling power steps in with the promises of a) improvements, and b) revenge against the people responsible for the destruction. Tasks like training the government, the army, the police force, and others responsible for security to act fairly is an important step, as is rebuilding of schools, roads, hospitals, etc. The provincial reconstruction team does a great job on the latter tasks, although their job is made quite difficult by the fact that the opposing group is still in country and still fighting back. The former set of tasks is much more difficult and I think they are having a harder time with that.

I look forward to reading more of your reports STL. I hope to go see things there first hand one of these days. I would like to do it as an independent free agent as you are doing, but that is not a viable option at the moment.

[Expat]

Is there much General Aviation there? What are the common single engine planes?

The drones!!!

[Hedley]

"the west" went into Afghanistan ... the mission wasn't quite as easy as expected

That's a very strange spin. I think it would be fair to say that the US performed spectacularly in Afganistan in 2001, compared to say the Soviets 20 years before.

Not sure why you are begrudging the US their incredible military victory there - is that typical anti-americanism? Are you denying that the US learned anything from Vietnam?

To be sure, the Taliban, operating out of Pakistan, has certainly made life difficult for them, since. But if the west leaves Afganistan, as so many people here desire, the Taliban will walk right back in and take over again. Is that what you want? Or do you just not care?

[Expat]

Cheez,

I'm not sure you are grasping what exactly it is I'm talking about in obtuse terms.

stl

Rest assured it's not a reading comprehension issue on my part. I don't believe that, as a professional soldier, I am not a terrorist. I know as much. To say that what I and my brothers in the CF do is terrorism is an extreme stretch of 'perspective' and one that I reject outright. Call it prejudice or closed mindedness or whatever you want. Anything else of value you might have to say is lost in the idiocy of this stance.

Cheez,

All is not that simple. For many of us in the west, all heads wearing turbans are potential terrorists, or at least a risk... They have no uniforms, and they all dress alike, and all look mean. Right?
The same applies for the poor guy here. He sees the coalition forces doing their raids, often mis-guided, or botched, because of the unreliability of the informants...
He also sees the PRTs doing their reconstruction work,also in uniforms, and doing patrols, and always armed to the teeths. He sees, the special forces doing their ... well... special ops, kidknapings, targeted killings, and also a lot of blunders. And all this happens in his village, in his country. That poor little guy is well informed, however. Each operation that results in collateral damage, is publicized, and used as propaganda. That poor little guy, gets afraid of the western monster, that does not believe in his prophet, occupies his land, kills people, puts even more in jail without trial, tells his government what to do, etc...
That little guy, at one point, will think that his situation is not good at all.
Even the mullahs tell him every friday that the occupier is an infidel, and the influence of the western culture will be fatal to his culture, and his country.
So that little guy, and myriad others, will come to detest the invaders, and label them as terrorists, as they kill indiscrimately, etc...
That little guy has no more access to the real information, than western people do. He believes what others tell him, what the press here says... He will provide assistance to the ones fighting the occupier, etc... He will smile at the passing convoys of troops, but in his mind, will think: "When are they gona leave?"

[Expat]

"the west" went into Afghanistan ... the mission wasn't quite as easy as expected

That's a very strange spin. I think it would be fair to say that the US performed spectacularly in Afganistan in 2001, compared to say the Soviets 20 years before.

Not sure why you are begrudging the US their incredible military victory there - is that typical anti-americanism? Are you denying that the US learned anything from Vietnam?

To be sure, the Taliban, operating out of Pakistan, has certainly made life difficult for them, since. But if the west leaves Afganistan, as so many people here desire, the Taliban will walk right back in and take over again. Is that what you want? Or do you just not care?

Where did you get that stuff?
At present, even with the surge US troops during the past year, and especially as a result of last year's delayed spring offensive in the south, the bad guys have spread to all 34 provinces! Even the quiet north is now infected...
There is growing feeling here, that the surge, and the subsequent offensive were designed to do exactly that! Spread the insurgency country-wide. Fait accompli!!!
Now, the US will build permanent bases in two areas where there were no insurgents two years ago...
That seems to be what the surge was all about. The location of the bases is another debate all together...

[Hedley]

Where did you get that stuff?

Are you claiming that Pakistan isn't relevant as to what has happened in Afganistan for the last 10 years? Wow.

[Expat]

Where did you get that stuff?

Are you claiming that Pakistan isn't relevant as to what has happened in Afganistan for the last 10 years? Wow.

Pakistan is very relevant, and their contribution to the continuation of this war is well received. For that, they get new weapons, and 4 billions a year as a reward...

[bizjets101]

Oh look it's an Afghan Cessna . . .

[Posthumane]

Hedley - either I wasn't clear in what I wrote or you misunderstood it (probably the former). I think both the US and Canada are doing a good job at the task that they have been given. I said in my earlier post that to leave now would be a mistake - one which has been made in the past by other nations at war. Although I have not been there personally, my work supports the mission and many of my colleagues have spent time there so I have the benefit of hearing some of their stories. To say that I don't care is certainly missing the mark as I have a larger involvement than the average Canadian (though obviously less than the troops on the ground).

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm anti-american. My reference to "the west" was simply to avoid typing out The Coalition of the Willing, or The US, Canada, Great Brittain, Poland, Germany, etc. The US certainly has contributed the largest number of troops to A-stan now that operation Iraqi Freedom is coming to a close, and Canada has deployed a high percentage of its capability.

The mission at hand is certainly not an easy one as it requires a balance between public relations (for lack of a better term) in Afghansitan, hard fighting, reconstruction and aid, and to some extent PR on the homefront so that support from Canadians doesn't wane. Some people expected that the troops would be able to walk in, defeat the combatants, and things would become rosy. Now they are crying to "get us out of there" and "bring the troops home" without much thought to the repercussions.

[bizjets101]

It was the Carter administration that authorized funding in July of 1979 to fund anticommunist guerrilla's in Afghanistan. The USSR invaded on December 27th and had successfully completed their invasion in 24 hours.

It was the USA that recruited, trained, armed, and funded the mujahideen. This included Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed Omar, who after the Soviet retreat, and Americans lost interest - had all their weapons and supplies cut off in the middle of a war.

They fought on without the USA - for 3 years and ended in somewhat of a stalemate.The remnants of the US back muhahideen formed el-Qaeda. Nice... it's still in question whether it was directly or indirectly formed by America.

During the Civil War - which only ended in 1992 - and as a direct result of Soviet and American backed fighters - they managed to kill somewhere between 1 and 2 million Afghans, over a million soldiers, and over 3 million non-combatants were maimed - we the West (USA) funded pretty much the total destruction of the entire country. In the 80's one half of all the refugee's in the world - were Afghans.

Fortunately for us - we didn't have to fight a Russian backed Taliban in 2002 - of course our mandate was to get Osama as the Taliban refused to hand him over to the UN.

By the time we hit the ground in 2002 - our goal was get Osama, get Omar, chase out the Taliban, and deprive el-Qaeda a safe haven.

The helping people part is to secure support at home - our chance to help was 1979 and 1989-1992 - guess we were busy.

So now, we've managed to assist in killing close to 18,000 people since 2002 and maimed thousands upon thousands more - and somehow we still ask if their better off.

If the West and the Soviets hadn't fought it out in 1980 and beyond - the Afghans would have been fine, we'd have never heard of Osama, Omar, the Mujahideen, the Taliban, and el-Qaeda - and millions of people wouldn't be dead or maimed.

Personally we shouldn't have to be arm twisted into killing people to appease America - so we can keep all of our trade flowing - Keeping it real.

I support our troops 100 percent, but have zero support for their mission when they went in, as it changed, or them remaining until 2014.

I also don't believe we do nearly enough for our troops returning - and as far as our injured troops - we should be looking after them ten fold compared to what we are.

As a Canadian I'd even accept a tax - just to fund looking after our veterans - and that is from someone who didn't even support their mission!!!!

my 2 cents.

[sky's the limit]

Well, I must say, this is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping for with this thread, even Cheez's comments serve to highlight the point I'm trying to make about understanding this conflict, its complexities and the need to approach it from many different angles and to question everything, despite whatever beliefs one may already have. However, a few things should be cleared up fact wise:

- The American involvement in 2001 was small, very, very small in terms of boots on the ground. The Northern Alliance who are the same people who were called the Mujahideen during the Soviet occupation and were financially supported by America and Saudi Arabia through the Pakistani ISI, did the lion's share of the ground work. That was the model as the build up to the war in Iraq had already begun in the White House as early as late-Sept 2001.

- In 2001 the Taliban were indeed the "government," but as Expat mentioned in his post, their control of the country was limited to the South, and up to Kabul. The rest of the country was Taliban free as the Northern Tribes had been engaged in fighting them heavily since around 1993 when the old socialist government finally gave way to the Taliban some five 5yrs after the Soviets left, and prior to that as the Talib movement grew from its beginnings in the south.

- With the American lead invasion in 2001, and subsequent fighting through 2002, the Taliban were effectively muted. It was at this time the puppet government of Hamid Karzai was set up, and there was a great deal of hope and excitement bordering on euphoria according to several Afghans I've spoken with over the years. It was also the biggest opportunity to right the ship here, so to speak. An opportunity missed.

- It was through the years of 2003-2005 when the Taliban were effectively benign that we, the west, made our biggest mistakes. The locals here were filled with promises about how Afghanistan would be resurrected and how not only the rule of law would be established, but the country would be brought into more modern times through reconstruction and aid. "This did not happen," to quote directly from an Afghan working in reconstruction and whose Father was a Minister in the Karzai gov't in 2008, "and the euphoria turned to frustration, and then despair. We realized things were not going to get better." Afghans are survivors he told me, and will throw their hat in with whoever they see as the major power at a given time - since 2007, that has been the Taliban. (Also, as Expat mentioned, the Taliban are Afghans, and at the end of the day Afghans want us out regardless of their politics/loyalties. They will deal with their own politics and power struggles among themselves when the time comes, but our occupation of this country does not sit well with them)

- There are a number of reasons for this, not all of which fall on the shoulders of America and its allies, although that is a very large part of it. By doing the deal with the Northern Alliance in 2001, the Americans rearmed them extensively and once the Taliban were defeated, this left the area with several very powerful and extremely well armed tribes who understood the power dynamics all too well. Had Karzai stood up - with American support - and said "no" to their demands to be included in prominent roles in the new government, there is a good chance this place would look significantly different today. He did not, and the door was opened to strong arm politics, corruption, and power brokering. It has continued this way ever since.

- With the opportunity to get regular Afghans on board missed, the Taliban were able to regroup, rearm, and come back stronger than when they were defeated in 2001. Recruitment became easier for the Taliban as there was really little in terms of options on the table for the average Afghan, this trend has continued with a great many Afghan now supporting the Taliban, hence their ability to operate at all, and the difficulty with rebuilding the ANA and ANP (Army and Police) By 2006 the fighting had well and truly ramped up again, and as I'm sure you all know, has steadily grown worse to this day with Gen Patraeus stating just last week that he expects 2011 to be tougher than 2010 which has been the worst year to date in terms of casualties on both sides. In the hard winter of 2008 5 million Afghans were technically "starving," who primarily came to their aid? The Taliban.

- We were never here to Nation Build, and the goal has never been to bring Afghanistan up in standing, so can we please just let that go? This is pure, unadulterated fiction written by the governments involved and lapped up and disseminated by the press.

- We are not making Afghanistan a better place for the average Afghan, despite some good things that are happening in small quantities. This is a fact. It is considerably more violent than it was before we arrived, and by perpetuating a war we have significantly decreased the standards of living, and the situation for women and children is at an all time low. That we are not really helping is not an enormous concern however, as it was never the intention and as long as enough of the people back home believe this is our reason for being here, the optics play well. That is NOT TO SAY there are not a great many good people trying to the absolute best of their ability to effect positive change, including a great many military people - but it is just not happening, nor will it given the conditions. Any balanced look at this country will convey this message loud and clear.

-------------------

The biggest surprise in 2008 on my first visit was how freely those in power positions within the US command talked about this. My partner and I have extensive notes that I never in a million years thought I'd get. Through various books, this concept is being spread, but unfortunately main stream media has failed mightily to convey this fact in the daily papers or on the news. We are here simply to be here in a strategic role to serve the greater security and projection of power of the United States, and be present in the region with little fear of being asked to leave. That this occupation only serves to compound America's security problems seems not to matter, in fact one Colonel told me off the record (which I can never publish due to embedded reporting contracts), that there is a key balance to be struck in terms of loss of American lives and public opinion, ie. lose too many and the public will not stand for it, create too secure a situation and lose the ability to command the types of budgets the military has over the last decade. Take it for what it's worth.

Why then do we stay? We stay, and will stay far beyond 2014 because of strategic importance. The rest is window dressing. Pakistan and America have a long and complex relationship (which is a fascinating story on its own), and there is not a chance the Pakistanis will allow a strong Afghanistan to materialize with India being their primary concern.

Several posters have insinuated anti-Americanism or lack of support for the troops... this is exactly what I was talking about several post ago. The labeling of dissenting voices despite the overwhelming evidence that this is not working, and that a great deal more harm than good is occurring here. Expat's post in response to Cheez is spot on, and until we get comfortable with the discomfort brought on by discussing these issues free of propaganda and some misplaced national pride, we will never be able to hold a functional discussion on the topic.

That we have good people trying hard within this framework is not enough. The frightening regularity with which people ignore evidence that is contrary to already held beliefs is truly one of our great downfalls as a species. It also allows those with agendas to find fertile ground for ideas that may or may not be true, positive, or ethical. Discussing this with several close friends in the military is an interesting thing as there are varying levels of comfort with the conversation depending on the person, and I value each of their perspectives, but am mindful that they represent only one side of an extraordinarily complex story. That will always be the case with anyone involved in the Armed Forces, it has to be. It is also the case with anti-war folks, much of the media, a the average citizen. Getting into the varying sides of the equation is the key.

I sincerely thank everyone for engaging in this as it is my major area of interest and I feel it is enormously important to get this discussion rolling once again.

stl

PS Just saw Bizjet's post, excellent and pretty much right on. Some duplicate info in mine. Internet here comes and goes, lucky to have it in my room at all though.

[TheCheez]

Cheez,

I'm not sure you are grasping what exactly it is I'm talking about in obtuse terms.

stl

Rest assured it's not a reading comprehension issue on my part. I don't believe that, as a professional soldier, I am not a terrorist. I know as much. To say that what I and my brothers in the CF do is terrorism is an extreme stretch of 'perspective' and one that I reject outright. Call it prejudice or closed mindedness or whatever you want. Anything else of value you might have to say is lost in the idiocy of this stance.

Cheez,

All is not that simple. For many of us in the west, all heads wearing turbans are potential terrorists, or at least a risk... They have no uniforms, and they all dress alike, and all look mean. Right?
The same applies for the poor guy here. He sees the coalition forces doing their raids, often mis-guided, or botched, because of the unreliability of the informants...
He also sees the PRTs doing their reconstruction work,also in uniforms, and doing patrols, and always armed to the teeths. He sees, the special forces doing their ... well... special ops, kidknapings, targeted killings, and also a lot of blunders. And all this happens in his village, in his country. That poor little guy is well informed, however. Each operation that results in collateral damage, is publicized, and used as propaganda. That poor little guy, gets afraid of the western monster, that does not believe in his prophet, occupies his land, kills people, puts even more in jail without trial, tells his government what to do, etc...
That little guy, at one point, will think that his situation is not good at all.
Even the mullahs tell him every friday that the occupier is an infidel, and the influence of the western culture will be fatal to his culture, and his country.
So that little guy, and myriad others, will come to detest the invaders, and label them as terrorists, as they kill indiscrimately, etc...
That little guy has no more access to the real information, than western people do. He believes what others tell him, what the press here says... He will provide assistance to the ones fighting the occupier, etc... He will smile at the passing convoys of troops, but in his mind, will think: "When are they gona leave?"

Look I understand that locals might think the soldiers there are terrorists for a myriad of reasons. It doesn't make it correct nor is it something that should be taken as gospel and spread around. Occupiers; yep. Invaders; yep. Terrorists; absolutely not. It is as misguided as the domestic racists who think every brown guy is secretly planning ways to blow up city hall and rape his wife.

The term terrorist has been thrown about so much in the past decade we are desensitized to it and applying it in so many ways that aren't correct. Just because John Q Afghan or Fox news calls something terrorism or a terrorist doesn't make it so. To give that idea credibility enough to propagate it around on this forum and potentially other places is grossly insulting to the men and women in uniform. Essentially you are taking voices heavily influenced in the way that expat explained above and running with it as the untainted, unmoderated, agenda free view from the other side. Funny enough I agree with expat. What I don't agree with is that stl would present that Canadian soldiers as terrorists is a legitimate and credible point of view. It is factually and unilaterally not true. You are rejecting Western propaganda while at the same time eating it up from the other side. It is akin to saying there is real controversy about global warming because 1% of scientists will say it doesn't exist.

And just so we're clear where I'm coming from here I don't think the Afghans who are fighting against NATO are terrorists. No more than Palestinians fighting the IDF. As soon as someone's involved in activities against civies, blowing up planes, buses, subways, themselves in a crowded area etc that is terrorism and it is not what professional soldiers are engaged in.

You might think I'm nitpicking or splitting hairs here but dropping lines liking F15 and drone pilots to suicide bombers is fully offside.

Sorry I couldn't get back to your earlier while you piled on, I was busy at terrorist flight school.

[Hedley]

As soon as someone's involved in activities against civies ... that is terrorism and it is not what professional soldiers are engaged in

Uh, hold on a second:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II - 42,000 civilians dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II - 17,000 civilians dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II - 23,000 civilians dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki - hundreds of thousands of civilians dead

By your logic, the current British and American military are terrorists. Not sure I buy that.

[sky's the limit]

What I don't agree with is that stl would present that Canadian soldiers as terrorists is a legitimate and credible point of view. It is factually and unilaterally not true. You are rejecting Western propaganda while at the same time eating it up from the other side.

You might think I'm nitpicking or splitting hairs here but dropping lines liking F15 and drone pilots to suicide bombers is fully offside.

Cheez,

Have you gone back and read what wrote? All of it? I don't think you have because you would see that I am simply presenting more than one way to view anything. "Terrorism" as you seem to agree, is a very fluid term, and one that rightly or wrongly is used by many people on both sides of the equation.

Do I believe the NATO forces are "terrorists?" No more than I believe that the Afghans fighting us are. But, that is only my opinion, and there are many people from either side who would vehemently disagree with my assessment as they would feel strongly that yes, indeed, both sides are engaged in a form of "terrorism." Whether or not you find that palatable as a member of the CF is really inconsequential to the discussion.

You do seem to understand the difference between those operations against our soldies and those targeting civilians. However, there are two separate issues there; one is a war against invaders, the other, an internal struggle for power and influence. I think we can agree that the market suicide bomber is indeed a "terrorist" in every sense of the word. Where I personally do not agree with the rhetoric emanating from the various governments and militaries, is when the word is applied the those fighting ISAF/NATO. That we do not target civilians does not change the fact that over 40% of Afghan civilian casualties are the result of coalition operations.

Unfortunately, while you seem to agree with me on that point, the governments who dictate the rules of this conflict do not. The fighters are routinely referred to as "terrorists," and are nor afforded rights of combatants, and I cannot in publishing refer to them as "Prisoners or POW's." They are to be called "detainees," as that does not have the connotation that they are afforded ANY rights under any law. Indefinite detention ring a bell? I see this as wrong, as do many others. The rule of law that is so stressed here is something the American administration has suspended in its own country with the concept of "indefinite detention" and military tribunals, but that again is another story.

Please stop perpetuating the idea that I called the CF terrorists full stop, I did not. But that does not change the fact that many people would, which I referred to multiple times, or that it could easily be construed as true depending on where you are sitting, as Expat and I suggested. You may find it "fully offside," but I would respectfully submit that it is only your side which would find it so - perhaps some time reflecting on the other sides involved will show you this. What is it that you find to be a "legitimate and credible point of view," if not the view of those here living it?

The entire point of several posts now can be boiled down to this: There is a pressing need to acknowledge and allow various sides of a given story to be told, their contexts taken into account as Hedely's last post suggests, and more importantly heard. Your reaction to this is telling, and I suggest that it is exactly what I was speaking about.

stl

Edited to add: Enough with the "terrorist flight school" stuff, it really isn't becoming, and it does little to legitimize your point of view or argument. Next time I will edit it out as it serves no function.

[TheCheez]

As soon as someone's involved in activities against civies ... that is terrorism and it is not what professional soldiers are engaged in

Uh, hold on a second:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II - 42,000 civilians dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II - 17,000 civilians dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II - 23,000 civilians dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki - hundreds of thousands of civilians dead

By your logic, the current British and American military are terrorists. Not sure I buy that.

Targeting civies was considered fair game in WWII. Obviously things have changed since then. You could definitely say, at the time, they were terrorist acts. Was that not exactly their purpose? The term and ROE has evolved though. Did the notion of terrorism even exist 70 years ago?

[Rowdy]

Glad to see a somewhat hot topic be discussed in a relatively civil manner within the confines of avcan. It doesnt happen often.

Thanks to all for the info, it is muchly appreciated and interestng to see just how incredibly distorted the view has become by the general north american public on the entire topic. Not surprising in the least, but still interesting.

STL, I always love the clarity and tone in your posts. Not to mention the fantastic pictures. Stay safe out there brother!!

I have nothing to add other than the above as I'm generally uninfomed on the topic.. kep the info coming, I'm all eyes and ears..

[Slats]

This picture was taken in San Clemente, California. It caused quite a stir because people thought it was some kind of secret rocket launch. It led to all kinds of wacky assumptions and conspiracy theories. Of course, the fact of the matter is that it was a simple contrail. However, viewed from the perspective in San Clemente, it could have been mistaken for a rocket launch.

sky's the limit wrote:
Cheez,
I'm not sure you are grasping what exactly it is I'm talking about in obtuse terms.
You seem to believe that your perspective is the correct one
stl

Most people do believe that their perspective is the correct one. No one here, including yourself, seems to be immune to that. But the thing about perspectives, is that while everyone is entitled to their own, that does not automatically validate conclusions that that perspective may lead them to. Facts are facts, regardless of perspective. Perspective forms our opinions, but has no effect on facts. So really, a terrorist is a terrorist and a soldier is a soldier. What separates the two? The best answer I can come up with off the top of my head is mindset, mission and methods. When you analyze based on those criteria, it becomes easy to delineate a terrorist vs. a professional soldier.

Who are the Taliban?

Why did we go to Afghanistan in 2001?

Why are we still there?

Are the answers to the first two questions the same?

What is to gain through our presence there?

Are we effecting any real positive change?

Do you feel informed by the media or governments involved on the topic?

Do you see these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as connected to anything else that's going on in the world?


I’d like to take a crack at these questions in my own simple way.

The Taliban were the governing group in Afghanistan from the latter half of the 90’s until the early 2000’s. Their deep seated misogyny and related insecurities and complete inability to accurately interpret the fundamentals of their own religion led them to strip most civil liberties from the male half of the country’s population and completely remove even the most basic human rights from the female half of the population, who previously had made up 70% of the country’s school teachers, 60% of teachers at Kabul University, 50% of the student body at said university and 40% of the doctors in Kabul. After all, according to one Taliban leader, "There are only two places for Afghan women: in her husband's house, and in the graveyard." They also banned most forms of entertainment because they believe that “"Time should be spent serving the country and praying to God. Nothing else. Everything else is a waste of time, and people are not allowed to waste their time" according to Sher Abbas Stanakzai, former Taliban deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Anyone who dared to disobey their rules faced, at best, brutal public punishment and at worst, a savage public execution. But really, what else would you expect from a group responsible for other great quotes such as these:
"You were already informed by us to close the school and not mislead the pure and innocent girls under this non-Muslim government ... This is the last warning to close the school immediately ... If you remain in the province, remember that you along with your family will be eliminated. Just wait for your death."
"We Taliban warn you to stop working, otherwise we will take your life away. We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner. This will be a good lesson for those women like you who are working."
"We warn you to leave your job as a teacher as soon as possible, otherwise we will cut the heads off your children and we shall set fire to your daughter."
Clearly these dudes don’t want their women-folk workin’ or book-learnin’. A more exhaustive list of things they didn’t care for can be found on this website by Afghan women: http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm. Clearly these guys are the no-fun police, yet surprisingly, many people think we should bail on the millions of Afghan women who would have the most to lose when the Taliban almost certainly would regain power. Funny how we might see things differently if the discriminatory lines were drawn along race, religion, tribe, etc.
Explaining why we went into Afghanistan in the first place is where things start to get a little muddy. Some shit went down with our best friends and neighbours when some house-guests of the Taliban, al qaeda, snuck into their neighborhood and killed a couple thousand people. Our pal America was rightfully pissed, and since there was no real organization with the cojones or wherewithal to get the bad guys responsible, they decided they would go wipe the bastards out themselves. Of course they called up their pals for help, including us, and we obliged. They told us we were off to a place called Afghanistan to get these al qaeda guys and while they were at it, they were gonna evict the Taliban becaue they wouldn’t turn the pricks over to us. Also, it probably didn’t hurt that, despite the fact that compared to us, they kinda lived in the slummy part of town, their property was strategically located near a gas station among other things. They probably figured they could get cheap gas and a buddy of theirs who owned a construction company might be able to make a buck or two fixing up the place after the dust settles. Who can say for sure exactly what they were thinking though?
Anyway, that was then and this is now and we’re still there. Things didn’t go quite as smoothly as planned. We stormed the place and for a while things weren’t too bad, but those pesky Talibs are still hiding in the dark corners of the basement or next door and still taking potshots at us. And the buggars are getting braver. If we really wanted to we could burn the place to the ground, it would really be about the only way to REALLY get rid of them, but even that isn’t totally effective and the people back home would never go for such dramatic measures. And so we stay. If we left now, the bastards would just take over the place as soon as we were gone and get back to doing drive-by’s on our nice neighborhoods and just generally bringing people down. Not to mention, despite the fact that it’s bankrupting the future, occupying this part of town is paying off nicely for the well-connected. Either way, we’re in too deep now.
It’s tough to say, if it’s a good thing that we’re here or not. I don’t mean for us, but for the people in that neighbourhood. They sure have to put up with a lot of violence and gunfire these days. But little Johnny doesn’t have to worry quite as much about getting his hand chopped off for stealing some penny candy from the convenience store and his mom doesn’t have to worry about getting gunned down in the street when he’s sick and she tries to rush him to the doctor without a non-existent male escort. If I had to guess, I’d say women are happier about the current situation than the men are. Not that they aren’t still targeted.
Really the whole thing is a big bloody mess, but again, we’re in too deep now. The problem is essentially unsolvable, and it would be nice if we could just cut bait and get out, but it ain’t that simple any more. The problems are destined to follow us now, so we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Well, that's my simpleton's dumbed-down take on it. I admire your committment to this issue, especially undertaking this on your own dime, but I do have a question for you STL: are you over there seeking confirmation or proof of the views that you already clearly hold? Or are you there truly with an open mind, hoping to find something new that you don't already know or that may contradict what you think you know?

One last aside, with regards to this comment
Quote:
Edited to add: Enough with the "terrorist flight school" stuff, it really isn't becoming, and it does little to legitimize your point of view or argument. Next time I will edit it out as it serves no function.
While I realize your authority as mod here, don't you feel that this topic might be a little close to home for you to be acting as judge, jury and executioner of what gets through? I'm not saying the comment in question was totally constructive, but perhaps since you are so involved with this discussion it might be better for you to take the mod hat off for this one and leave those duties up to one of the others? Just a thought. Really enjoying this topic and discussion though, and appreciate your unique take on it.

Some interesting reading for those interested: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mvcarmac/women2.html

[sky's the limit]

Slats,

First off, thanks for taking the time to write all that, I am almost certain we are setting a record for word-count on this thread... Some great posts so far.

Well, that's my simpleton's dumbed-down take on it. I admire your committment to this issue, especially undertaking this on your own dime, but I do have a question for you STL: are you over there seeking confirmation or proof of the views that you already clearly hold? Or are you there truly with an open mind, hoping to find something new that you don't already know or that may contradict what you think you know?

One last aside, with regards to this comment
Quote:
Edited to add: Enough with the "terrorist flight school" stuff, it really isn't becoming, and it does little to legitimize your point of view or argument. Next time I will edit it out as it serves no function.
While I realize your authority as mod here, don't you feel that this topic might be a little close to home for you to be acting as judge, jury and executioner of what gets through? I'm not saying the comment in question was totally constructive, but perhaps since you are so involved with this discussion it might be better for you to take the mod hat off for this one and leave those duties up to one of the others? Just a thought. Really enjoying this topic and discussion though, and appreciate your unique take on it.

Some interesting reading for those interested: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mvcarmac/women2.html

To answer your questions:

I came here originally to seek as much, and varied information I could on what is happening on as many fronts as possible - that remains the goal. I wish to confirm nothing, and that is the honest truth, but it does not mean confirmation will not occur. With the glaring exception of not being able to accompany the Taliban at this point in time, I'm pretty happy with how I've been able to spend my trips here with a broad cross-section of the people involved from military to civilian, foreign or local. There is always room for improvement or expansion of that cross-section, and the situation is very dynamic, which is essentially why I keep coming back. One can never stop learning.

Now, keeping an open mind is the most important thing - however, it is a thing that gets increasingly difficult to achieve as one gathers more and more information, sees trends develop and repeat over and over, and hears the same stories time and again, often in entirely different contexts like Afghanistan, Haiti, Vietnam, or a number of other locations, with the same end results. Do I have views that are becoming increasingly steadfast? Yes, of course I do, it is unavoidable and in fact important that I do as to not learn and progress in ones thinking from these experiences would be, well, simpleminded. Does that preclude openness to new information? Absolutely not, that is where the distinction lies, and it is a critical one. I do not pretend to have all the answers, in fact I have taken great pains to point that out, however in order to have a discussion about this issue there needs to be a certain increase in the level of understanding, which for the most part, has occurred here from a variety of sources. I hope it will continue.

What is difficult to accept are the entrenched views of people who either have very little actual knowledge, or knowledge that is very narrow in scope or inexorably tied to one notion or idea of "truth." What I am hoping to accomplish here is an expansion of that understanding, of that "truth" as it pertains to any number of the sources from which it may come, and to promote an openness to interpretations of the situation from various informed quarters.

As to your mention of modding, I agree 100%, that is why I have not touched a post here yet, despite there being one that should be edited. However, I am not interested in spending the amount of time I have on this topic only to see it go the way of so many in the old Misc format, and if that requires removing a statement that is only meant to aggravate, does nothing for the discussion, and purposely misrepresents an idea, then I shall do so. I can't imagine many of the other Mods are taking the time to read all of these posts through and through. It's either that, or lock it and walk away which would be accomplishing little.

I hope that helps.

stl

[Hedley]

"terrorist flight school"

The word terrorist is such an over-used propoganda pejorative it has lost all meaning to me. Weren't there a couple kids who pasted lite-brights in Boston on the walls a couple years back, accused of being domestic terrorists? WTF?

The word terrorist doesn't inflame me. It's just a warning that I'm listening to someone's propoganda, and like a resume with one phony PhD on it, is probably all garbage.