Skip navigation

Captured Afghanistan outpost torn down

JESSICA LEEDER

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:47 PM EST 13/05/09

Hard-won ground given up in change of priorities in Afghanistan ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: It it is not of strategic importance or cannot be kept secure for use by the Afghan Army/NATO it only makes sense to tear it down and not leave as a shelter for the Taliban. With the summer fighting season coming nothing should be left behind that will be useful to the terrorists.
  2. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    The Media kills me.
    War logistics shift daily. Much like the Afghan sand.
    That is the reality of war, but don't let that get in the way of the media and their need for drama.
  3. sean smith from Canada writes: Just another day in Afghaninam.
  4. Lee Hiller from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Time to wrap it up in Afdrugistan and go fight Somali pirate/terrorists.
  5. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Lee Hiller from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Time to wrap it up in Afdrugistan and go fight Somali pirate/terrorists.

    ==============================================

    I just read that Yemen is about to collapse because of terrorism.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/aponremiea/mlyemenal_qaida

    So much Caliphate to fight, so little time.
  6. Chuck in Edmonton from Canada writes: Sorry - as someone who participated in and supported our involvement in Afghanistan, anyone who pretends that this is not a significant setback is in serious denial. Retreat is retreat - pure and simple - and ceding territory to the Taliban is a major setback.

    Between the deteriorating state of Pakistan, and the reversals in Afghanistan, it is very much starting to look like we are not only being bled out, but we are now losing the war. Unbelievable when you think about it.

    And incredibly dangerous.

    Pulling out is actually less of an option in these conditions, but it is well past time that the whole approach is reviewed and adjusted.
  7. sean smith from Canada writes: Chuck people generally get a little upset when foreign countries occupy them. In Afghaninam, the British Empire, the Russian Empire and now the American Empire is finding it out the hard way.

    I do agree we need a serious re-think about where we're going and I would suggest the first subject should be whether we want to continue being an American colony dragged into their collapsing empire or an independent country like our founders envisioned. Scrapping the SPP would be a good place to start.
  8. sean smith from Canada writes: Oh and lil stevie cave dweller - why are you still here? Put down those GI Joe dolls, leave your parents and enlist! Your fuhrer needs you.
  9. Chuck in Edmonton from Canada writes: sean smith from Canada writes: Chuck people generally get a little upset when foreign countries occupy them. In Afghaninam, the British Empire, the Russian Empire and now the American Empire is finding it out the hard way.
    =====
    Sorry, Sean - you are entitled to your opinions but that does not change what it is - simplistic, ill informed, and historically incomplete.

    In 2001 there were no troops from any 'empire' in Afghanistan. This did not prevent them from being a haven for a real and quite sophisticated organization of terrorists - providing them with the geography and the links to build training bases, support mechanisms, finances, and opportunities for recruiting and retaining those needed to launch attacks. And due respect, but that is an unacceptable situation no matter how you choose to label the US.

    So it is no surprise that the UN supported the invasion or occupation. And once that started, it is also a no-brainer that a serious attempt to restore some sort of working state was necessary.

    None of which changed the fact that the sort of hybrid occupation we are attempting now is not working.

    But the alternative is likely to be distinctly more violent than most in the west would support.

    And leaving, while palatable to those who like to stick their heads in the sand and their rears in the air, comes with very predictable results.

    For all of us.
  10. Chuck in Edmonton from Canada writes: sean smith from Canada writes: Oh and lil stevie cave dweller - why are you still here? Put down those GI Joe dolls, leave your parents and enlist! Your fuhrer needs you.
    =======
    Once again proving the rule that within a defined period of time, the desperate will result to reference to the Nazis to 'strengthen' the emotional appeal since they lack the substantive suggestions to deal with the situation.

    Of course, at the same time losing any credibility they might have with anyone who was not already on that extreme bent.
  11. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    'Sorry - as someone who participated in and supported our involvement in Afghanistan, anyone who pretends that this is not a significant setback is in serious denial. Retreat is retreat - pure and simple - and ceding territory to the Taliban is a major setback.'

    But that's not how the Canadian Forces is spinning it, Chuck. According to the embedded reporter, 'Staffed by 60 Afghan soldiers and a small, rotating team of Canadian mentors, Mushan was deemed no longer strategically important for either army.'

    It seems the Canadian Forces doesn't agree with your view. I do, mind you, but then that should further rule out the possibility that you're correct.

    'So it is no surprise that the UN supported the invasion or occupation.'

    Crafty use of the qualifier there. The United States applied for UN Security Council permission to invade Afghanistan and was denied. But of course, you knew that.

    'And once that started, it is also a no-brainer that a serious attempt to restore some sort of working state was necessary.'

    A no-brainer attempt at a no-brainer choice: it has the USA's fingerprints all over it.
  12. sean smith from Canada writes: Chuck - did you even read what lil stevie wrote: 'So much Caliphate to fight, so little time.' Replace Caliphate with Elders of Zion and tell me how this trumped up fascist who wants to wage a war against an entire religion / race is any different than those scum we fought against in WW2?

    I suggest you seriously check out the company you're keeping and the dark places biggoted views like this lead to. Seiously dude think about it.
  13. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: The idea that the area had ceased to be of 'strategic value' is nonsense. Did the Afghan citizens in the area suddenly become worthless? That it was an Afghan decision is also rubbish. We're told regularly that the CF is in command so how can a decision to abandon a village to the Taliban be passed off on the Afghans?

    It's time to bring the troops home. They are accomplishing very little at great cost and now are abandoning even more of the province to the Taliban despite incoming US reinforcements. I can't see how they will be of much help as they pull back to Kandahar City. I get the impression that the mission of the CF is now force protection and defeating the Taliban has been abandoned as a goal. The entire mission has been botched and it's time to cut our loses.
  14. Ted Arnold from Canada writes:
    END THE OCCUPATION!
    ALL FOREIGN TROOPS OUT NOW!
  15. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: What the ? Change of priorities ? It isn't a retreat , it's a strategic withdrawl , Nato isn't losing , it's winning backwards.
  16. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Well done armchair generals!!!!!!!
  17. Stude Ham from Canada writes:
    CANADA - GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
  18. Did you Know Canada?!? from Canada writes: Chuck in Edmonton from Canada writes: Sorry - as someone who participated in and supported our involvement in Afghanistan, anyone who pretends that this is not a significant setback is in serious denial. Retreat is retreat - pure and simple - and ceding territory to the Taliban is a major setback.

    Chuck, military warfare cannot have 'ego'! We will leave that for Hollywood commandos with several stunt doubles.

    You have to make the best decision to keep our fighting capabilities in tact. If the SWOT(Strength, Weakness, Opportunity & threat) analysis doen't rule out in our favour then we need to pull back. Underestimating your enemy will get you killed in the battlefields.

    I have friends in military and from what I've heard, Canada has been doing an exceptionally good job in Afghanistan. Kandahar region has been stabelized for years now. Canadian soldiers have been also involved in many social programs building much needed infrastructure.

    It is much easier to comment from the comfort of our home but the ground realities with bullets and bombs is bit 'tricky'.
  19. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: What was torn down was an outpost that could not safely be resupplied by land and was dangerous for the ANA that were manning it. Having them stuck in the outpost serves little purpose if they are unable to patrol to any extent. They can be put to better use than sitting trapped in an outpost. It makes sense not to leave a building that can be used by the terrorists.
  20. Nick B. from Canada writes: This isn't the first outpost that has been closed down for similar reasons. If the resupply/reinforcement situation isn't viable than the outpost is not worth keeping. It can't be effectively resupplied by road, therefore far better to dominate the area from elsewhere. ISAF has done this with outposts before where newer, larger Forward Operating Bases are serving the purpose well. There are large posts elsewhere in Panjwayi which allow for patrolling of most of the Pashmul region anyhow. And with Americans forces also coming into Kandahar province there should be no concern really. It was just a decision to consolidate to better ground. Nice media spin though.
  21. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: .

    I remain impressed with the ability of the media to deflect the truth about Afghanistan. We are losing there. NATO will be chased out like the Russians and will end up looking simply goofy.

    It would be amusing, except for the wasteful loss of life.

    Which brings up a question -- since Rotten Harpo has already declared our deployment there to be futile, ethics demand that he remove our troops from harms way. Every Canadian soldier's death there now is blood on his hands.
  22. Nick B. from Canada writes: Another vicious, he didn't declare our deployment futile. He says that the Taliban cannot be beaten by military force. Which is true, and that has been obvious to the CF for a long time. The only way to beat them is to remove any incentive for Afghan youth to join them - by creating conditions for economic development, and opportunities for the country to develop a better educated population which can build itself out of poverty. When that happens, when there is a better life for Afghans than accepting money to fight 'infidels', then the Taliban will fade away because there will be no need for them.

    NATO will not be chased out like the Russians. Most Afghans want the help, want the security, want the future that we're promising them.
  23. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Having them stuck in the outpost serves little purpose if they are unable to patrol to any extent.

    AND Nick B. from Canada writes: It can't be effectively resupplied by road, therefore far better to dominate the area from elsewhere.

    ___________________________________

    You two oughta work for `Stars and Stripes'!

    In plain English, what you are really talking about amounts to this: The Taliban are in control of that area to such an extent they can destroy landbased attempts at resupply. Resupply by helicopter is expensive, and the unit can't leave the outpost anyway, because they'd get their asses kicked. So let us retreat (calling it a redeployment) while we spout a lot of nonsense about dominating the area from elsewhere, ie. a larger base from which the Afghan army will not venture in future, for fear of getting their asses kicked on an even larger scale.
  24. Nick B. from Canada writes: Boreal Moose - Never been there but from what I understand, there's not much for roads in that area, they can't support major movements. Most of the area there is walled up compunds of grape fields which are all excellent ambush locations as well so movement there is difficult. I can't comment on what other considerations were made, but NATO/ISAF/ANA have made numerous similar other moves and closures of outposts, so I don't see what the big deal here is.
  25. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Another vicious - the ISAF/NATO is not an invasion force. And no, the Taliban will not be 'defeated' by foreign military forces. However, once they have been cut down to a small group no longer able to provide support for Al-Qaeda they will no longer pose a major threat.

    Also,with time the ANA and ANP will be trained and enabled to enforce rule of law and protect their own country from the remnants of the Taliban. By establishing a political process they hopefully will avoid becoming a failed state again as the result of infighting.

    In the meantime, Al-Qaeda will be forced out of Afghanistan and probably Pakistan (which will also require some assistance in terms of nation building). With help, the political process that has been tried will finally succeed in Pakistan as well. Although Al-Qaeda has contacts and cells elsewhere, there really is no place where they can expect to operate and train with the degree of freedom and safety that they have had in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  26. Ron MacGillivray from Flatbush, ab, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach ...In the meantime, Al-Qaeda will be forced out of Afghanistan and probably Pakistan...'

    You are making way too much fuss over Al-Qaeda and its alleged influence. The truth is if you were to wave a magic wand and Al-Qaeda disappears from the face of the earth nothing would change on the ground in A'stan. The conflict in A'stan is basically a civil war between ethnic factions.

    Remember now the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, in the months leading up to 9/11, the Bush Administration was in constant contact with the Taliban, lobbying for pipelines deals, etc.
  27. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to sean smith from Canada writes: Oh and lil stevie cave dweller - why are you still here? Put down those GI Joe dolls, leave your parents and enlist! Your fuhrer needs you.

    ============================

    Ah yes, the babbling of an unhinged leftie.
    Carry on.
  28. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Stude Ham from Canada writes:
    CANADA - GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!

    ==================================

    The preceding announcement was sponsored by the Canadian branch of the INFIDEL GO HOME COMMITTEE.
    Office HQ: Scarborough, Ontario
  29. sean smith from Canada writes: Are you still here lil stevie? How come you haven't enlisted yet? After all there is a whole 'Caliphate' for you to fight.

    Or are you just another neo-con chickenhawk who bleats for war and then runs away when it comes time to enlist?
  30. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: The U.S. invades other countries on totally false pretenses. The U.S. exterminates 2 MILLION Vietnamese in a fake, surrogate war on ideology.
    The U.S. Imperial armed forces occupy hundreds of other countries, extending the protection and dominion of the Caliphate.
    The U.S. makes up it's own rules and laws ignoring the Geneva convention whenever it is inconvenient.
    The U.S. restricts the rights of its own citizens enacting draconian police state measures under the dubious guise of 'national security'.

    No, that doesn't sound anything like nazi germany.
  31. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to sean smith from Canada writes: Are you still here lil stevie? How come you haven't enlisted yet? After all there is a whole 'Caliphate' for you to fight.

    Or are you just another neo-con chickenhawk who bleats for war and then runs away when it comes time to enlist?

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

    Didn't realize I was to enlist???
    What commission do you get as an enlistment officer?

    'neo-con' chickenhawk'???
    Nothing new about this con.
    Chickenhawk ...... I leave it to Foghorn Leghorn or your Prophet Mohammad.
  32. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: The U.S. invades other countries on totally false pretenses. The U.S. exterminates 2 MILLION Vietnamese in a fake, surrogate war on ideology.
    The U.S. Imperial armed forces occupy hundreds of other countries, extending the protection and dominion of the Caliphate.
    The U.S. makes up it's own rules and laws ignoring the Geneva convention whenever it is inconvenient.
    The U.S. restricts the rights of its own citizens enacting draconian police state measures under the dubious guise of 'national security'.

    No, that doesn't sound anything like nazi germany.

    =================================

    It doesn't sound like Nazi Germany.
    Nazi Germany existed circa 1930's - 40s in the nation of Germany.
    Goofball comparisons don't cut the mustard.
    Nazi Germany was socialist if you didn't already know that.
    The National Socialist German Workers' Party.
    But don't let reality get in the way of a good leftist rant.
  33. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: The United States is socialist. In fact, every western democracy is 'socialist' to some degree - where do you think all those taxes are going?
    D'uh
    Quite the brain-donor you are...
  34. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: The United States is socialist. In fact, every western democracy is 'socialist' to some degree - where do you think all those taxes are going?
    D'uh
    Quite the brain-donor you are..

    ==================================

    Being the brain donor reject that you are (too much tumors) you must realize that the US by nature is NOT your typical Trudeau Euro wanna be socialist nation.
    Not until Obama arrived however.
  35. Concerned Taxpayer from Canada writes: Why is this news? Patrol bases, strong points and police substations open and close all the time. Ground is taken and ceded frequently. With the ISAF and ANA presence pushing out in all directions, not just in Kandahar province but elsewhere in the sout, areas of less significance will be abandoned while others are established or reinforced. There is a finite number of troops; they are put where they will be of mose effect. Not much news here.
  36. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: Well, yes, but it's just a feel-good story to make stupid Canucks think we are accomplishing something in the Stan other than wasting money and killing young people.
    You know, war and glory, hurray for our team, and all that rot.
  37. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: You know, war and glory, hurray for our team, and all that rot.

    ======================================

    Works for me.
    Beats the Neville Chamberlain approach of appeasement.
    How is that for another example pulled from the WW2 vault?
  38. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Ron MacGillivray - it might make you feel better to continue to believe that this is simply a civil war between ethnic factions but it isn't. The Taliban may not have had anything to do with the Sept 11th attacks, but they did provide a safe haven for Al-Qaeda where they trained fighters from many other countries at Tarnack Farms.

    The Afghans were fighting the Taliban long before any other troops were in Afghanistan. The Taliban were then receiving support from Pakistan. Many of the resources they have now - aside from those paid for by the drug trade - come from Al-Qaeda who has had the money to purchase shelter and space to train fighters in Pakistan. They are the ones who taught the Taliban about using suicide bomber and building and using IEDs. Neither of these were part of the picture prior to Al-Qaeda being forced out of Afghanistan. They need the win because the brains and foreign fighters have no place to go where they would be welcome. They are a key part of the problem.
  39. Ron MacGillivray from Flatbush, ab, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach...This Al-Qaeda angle is being blown out way out of proportion. It's part of the fear mongering that's been going on since the days of the cold war.

    Sure there are lots of 'foreign fighters' on both sides of A'stan's civil war, including thousands of NATO troops who are siding with the U.S.-backed gov't dominated by the Northern Alliance. So what's the big fuss over a few Al-Qaeda types getting in on the frey?

    There's seems to be a lot of confusion on the role of Pakistan. Half of the Pashtans are located on the Pakistani side of the border and really don't recognize the international borders which was imposed by the British in 1948.
  40. Ben Franklin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: The U.S. invades other countries on totally false pretenses. The U.S. exterminates 2 MILLION Vietnamese in a fake, surrogate war on ideology.
    The U.S. Imperial armed forces occupy hundreds of other countries, extending the protection and dominion of the Caliphate.
    The U.S. makes up it's own rules and laws ignoring the Geneva convention whenever it is inconvenient.
    The U.S. restricts the rights of its own citizens enacting draconian police state measures under the dubious guise of 'national security'.

    No, that doesn't sound anything like nazi germany.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Who said the pentagon can't learn???
  41. Al Walsh from Canada writes: Richard: Do you believe that the war in Afghanistan is illegal by UN standards?
  42. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Catherine Medernach , are you suer AL q-aeda taught the Taliban about suicide bombers and IEDs ? Until GW Bush was stupid enough to invade the place , neither of those tactics were appropriate .Maybe the Taliban learned about IEDs the same place you and I did, listening to news reports from Iraq, and about suicide bombers from the Palestinian/Israeli conflict ? These are hardly secret tactics .
  43. Richard Roskell from Canada writes:

    Hi Al, fully addressing that question would take a few posts at least. Could you give me some context and maybe I can to your point right away?
  44. Al Walsh from Canada writes: Richard Roskell: curious as to whether you believe the US had a right under article 51 to attack Afghanistan?
  45. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Ron MacGillivray - for one thing, many Pashtuns do not support the Taliban and were fighting them before Sept 11th. The fighters being trained in Afghanistan under al-Qaeda were from all over the work and swore fealty to bin Laden as a requirement of becoming a member. There were thousands of them and no one quite knows where most of them disappeared to. The Al-Qaeda fighters are not fighting for their home land - Afghanistan or Pakistan - most of them are not from either country but other Muslims countries including Africa and the Balkans. They are not really welcome by the average Afghan or Pakistani either. And it was Iraqi Al-Qaeda fighters that taught them to use suicide bombs and build and use bigger IEDs. This has been documented by more than one writer. The Taliban is not fighting for their country but for the Taliban - many were orphans and have no real ties to either Afghans, Pakistan, tribal units or Pashtuns. They're only loyalty is to the Taliban - not any country.
  46. Earl Street from Petawawa, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Ron MacGillivray - for one thing, many Pashtuns do not support the Taliban and were fighting them before Sept 11th.
    ----------------------------

    President Karzia is Pashtun, fighting against the Taliban in Kandahar region.
  47. Jim Terrets from Vancouver, writes: NATO's strategy of 'running away' is a time-honoured way of winning wars. That's how we beat Hitler: rather than taking the fight to the Nazi army, our armies ran away to safety. Victory is assured!

    On a more sober note, the abandonment of this outpost is an apt symbol for the entire war in that many people have died for nothing. Watching this war unfold and seeing the explanations and behaviour of our politicians and generals has been a disconcerting and thoroughly unpleasant experience. Our leaders have no ethics, no morals and no respect for the law.

    And Catherine, your comment is full of nonsense. The Taliban are not 'non-Afghan orphans'. The Globe did a great multimedia series called 'Talking to the Taliban' featuring videos of Taliban fighters explaining who they are and why they fight. The Taliban fighters who were interviewed are all local Afghans who were fighting for their country and their religion. I urge you to read the story and watch the videos, you will gain a lot from doing so.
  48. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: What a pity -the structure could have been taken over by the American troops and used as an advanced Christian Church, an outpost to heaven. al Jazeera reports : 'The US's highest ranking military officer has said it is not the US military's position to promote any specific religion, after Al Jazeera revealed footage of troops apparently preparing to convert Afghans to their Christian faith. The US military has also confiscated Bibles that Christian US soldiers in Afghanistan had apparently intended to give to local Muslims, a military spokesman told Al Jazeera.In addition, some of the soldiers who appeared in the video have also been reprimanded, US government and military officials told Al Jazeera's James Bays. The video, shot about a year ago, appeared to show military chaplains stationed in the US air base at Bagram discussing how to distribute copies of the Bible printed in the country's main Pashto and Dari languages. US troops urged to 'witness for Jesus' in Afghanistan. In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, tells soldiers that, as followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility 'to be witnesses for him'. ' We as Christians, hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down,' he says. 'Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business.' Nice to know that God's business is conducted at the end of a gun...
  49. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    Yikes, David. In Afghanistan, that is some seriously bad mojo.
  50. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    Al Walsh asks, '...curious as to whether you believe the US had a right under article 51 to attack Afghanistan?'

    No, of course not. Article 51 gives every UN member nation the 'right' under the UN Charter to defend itself against an armed attack, until such time as the UN Security Council can take appropriate measures.

    At no time did Afghanistan attack the United States, nor was an attack by Afghanistan pending, nor did a single Afghan citizen attack the United States.

    Neither does Article 51 authorize Nation A to invade and occupy Nation B, even if Nation B attacks first. Article 51 gives nations the right to defend themselves, not to invade and occupy other nations.

    Concerned about terrorists plotting against you while on another nation's soil? You have the right to deal with the terrorists, not to destroy the country they're living in.

    Every nation on the planet understands this fundamental principle. Only two nations consistently ignore it: Israel and the United States.

  51. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: I'm getting tired of calling all who fight against the occupiers of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as all Palestinians that choose to resist Israel in any possible way they can, as 'terrorists.' Never has a word been used so freely to describe the 'enemies' of the West. A more judicious use of the word might do a lot in changing perceptions of the conflicts besetting the world.
    If not, perhaps 'Angels of Mercy' would be an an equally ridiculous moniker to apply to the US,NATO et al...
  52. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Jim Terretsthe - the ' abandonment of this outpost ' is not a symbol of anything. It could not be resupplied safely and the ANA were unable to accomplish much when tied to one spot. Also, with the US moving in, it is better to pull back to Kandahar which must be heavily defended as it is key to Taliban strategy to regain control in Afghanistan.

    The Globe series 'Talking to the Taliban' was one of the worst examples of research I have seen. At times questions were leading and they were not consistent from one person to another. Many were illiterate and had been isolated and had no basis for sorting things out for themselves - they memorized the Koran in Arabic which they did not understand and did what the mullahs told them to do. Very few sighted revenge - and many spewed what they have been told to believe. Many were orphans raised in Madrassas and had no ties to the community and no knowledge of the history or culture of the country they destroyed.
  53. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Jim Terrets - the much more recent 'Pakistan's Taliban Generation" provides a much better view - without claiming to be a 'research project' and is done by a Pakistani woman. It provides the perspective of many different people, including a Taliban who considers children 5-7 years old as 'tools' that carry his weapons. Their death has no meaning to him. In fact they have no problem with death of civilians (Afghan or Pakistan) or the security forces of either country. Their overriding loyalty is to their twisted version of Islam and their mullahs - not to any country or tribe. Mostly they destroy the economy and culture by imposing their rules.
    In Pakistan they have indicated they will support bin Laden/Al-Qaeda. Often the foreign fighters recruited by Al-Qaeda fight in their own groups - especially the Africans. It also shows that two people having the same experience may respond in different ways and blame/fight for different sides.
  54. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Seems as though the Canadian refusal to allow someone ( George Galloway for instance )into the country is catching on in the UK. A list of those refused entry has been released and it includes: Michael Savage US extremist right wing radio talk show host; American Baptist pastor and his daughter ; Hamas MP Al -Astal ; Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, ;former Klu Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen Donald Black ; neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe; 5 Muslim preachers and two terrorists.

    Maybe the trend can be expanded to embrace those' financial wizards' who ran off with other people's money; Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for-you-know -what; Bush because he's Bush (a unique specimen)) and, for starters among the hate columnists, Ann Coulter. Note the absence of Canadians - more due to their non -impact in today's world. Good middle of the roaders...
  55. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Am I the only one left on this site? Or is it just me and Catherine? Here's something for you to ponder, Catherine: The Red Cross says air strikes by US forces in Afghanistan on Tuesday are now thought to have killed dozens of civilians including women and children. The organisation says the civilians were sheltering from fighting in the province of Farah when their houses were struck. Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he has ordered an investigation. The Afghan president has repeatedly urged Western forces in Afghanistan to reduce the numbers of civilian casualties. Our correspondent (BBC) in Kabul said local officials had told him they saw the bodies of about 20 women and children in two trucks but a spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said a team of observers sent to the site of the air strikes saw houses destroyed and dozens of dead bodies, including women and children. There is little hope for our forces to make headway in Afghanistan if the US persists in killing civilians at random. Why is it that our commanders including Harper don't make this a serious issue with the Americans? Of what value is our involvement if it is going to get swept away by our Allies? (And they haven't even started their surge yet) A very good reason for bringing our troops home I would think.
  56. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Bring our troops home when they have been quite successful in their area in terms of dealing with the local Afghans and disrupting Taliban activities? That would just leave more damage for the US to do.

    While I do not dispute the killing of civilians in the incident you are referring to, it puzzles me as to why those two particular structures were targeted when people seemed aware that the most vulnerable were taking shelter there? Could it have been the result of somebody passing on misinformation? It would fit in with the Taliban objective of turning the locals against US/NATO troops. Sorry, sometime such coincidences make me suspicious - what appears to be obvious is not always the full story - or even the real one. Many times the real truth never gets told. This is not to say I defend the US troops but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt in certain situations. I know the Taliban have tried to lure CF troops into just this type of incident on more than one occasion.
  57. Scott Gartner from Canada writes: Mushan was a corner piece for 2 routes that never got completed, it wasn't required anymore.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top