The reaction of the Taliban far out ways the action of the mentally unstable usa solider.

The Russians must be absolutely laughing their cocks off at the incredible folly of yet more Westren muppet leaders actually being so deluded, and so ignorant of or oblivious to history, as to convince themselves they could ever achieve a single thing in Afghanistan.

The majority of the Taliban is made up of people indigenous to Afghanistan. Many fled from the Soviet invasion and ended up in the huge number of squalid refugee camps on the Pakistan border where starved and brutalised they fell into the arms of various ideological entities who have used them as tools ever since.

Some are Taliban by virtue, others by design. Most have no wider political aspirations than self-determination. Let me quote Jason Burke, arguably the most informed Western journalist on the subject of Afghanistan:

[i” [The Taliban are a local movement with limited knowledge of the outside world, Islamic or otherwise, and profoundly parochial ambitions”[/i

So, yes. Whilst they do not represent the entire population they are still – for the most part – the people of Afghanistan. How else do you describe people born and/or raised in Afghanistan? Ideological outlook doesn't obliterate one's nationality. No one suggests British born Catholics are Catholics and not British.



Give over. You make it sound like it is some kind of monolithic Foreign Legion theocracy run on a top-down basis like a corporation. Let’s look at the facts – not state-invented propaganda. The Taliban is an amorphous and disparate group of ethnic identities, vacillating loyalties and political ambitions which often results in ironic and bizarre outcomes. This makes it possible to strike a deal with one group whilst warring with another. Both General McChrystol and Petreaus have admitted such on numerous occasions in the past.

There's a very good argument to say the term "Taliban" is a hopelessly indefinite conceptual creation and arguments that state there is a pressing need to take the battle to such are at best meaningless and at worst disingenuous.



Again, this is nonsensical. Whilst it is true to say the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda when the fled Somalia they were hardly busom buddies. Once more I'll quote Jason Burke:

[i“ After the arrival of Bin Laden in Afghanistan the Taliban became extremely uneasy. Despite being grateful for the assistance Bin Laden lent during the Soviet occupation they felt – particularly in the wake of the bombing of the USS Cole, he was bringing too much heat down on them from the international community (preventing them being recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan within the UN). Mullah Omar had little time for OBL's internationalist Jihad movement and instructed him to stay out of Afghanistan's affairs.

The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden dissolved to the point where they agreed to hand him, Ayman-al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atef and the rest of Al-Qaeda over to America via Saudi Arabia (verified).

The deal fell apart when Clinton decided to distract attention away from his extra-marital affairs by launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan & Pakistan. Following these strikes the Taliban walked away from the table. They refused to hand AQ over because they would have lost face with their Pakistani paymasters."[/i

The 9/11 bombers are dead. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the bombings is in custody. Al Qaeda has been decimated in Afghanistan and the Taliban are more interested in self-determination than any expansive terrorist policy. There is simply no justification for the trillion dollar expenditure wrapped around the US (and UK) taxpayer’s necks.



Actually, legal justification for imperial international adventures is incredibly relevant. People have been sent to the gallows for lacking such.



Given the sobering casualty rates quoted by various independent organisations for Afghanistan I’d say the US and its NATO allies are primarily in the business of killing civilians. I mean, on the one hand we are asked to believe modern “smart” munitions have never been so accurate. Yet the civilian casualty rates are astronomical.



According to Daniel Davis (whose report you should read) we are in the same boat as the Russians. But this was ALWAYS going to be the outcome. I mean, we had plenty of accurate data from the eighties on the success rate (or lack thereof) of a modern, hi-tech military juggernaught. The war was unwinnable from the start. The surprising thing is people actually believe those in power who initiated this plan thought it was in the first place.

Cronus phrased his point badly. It seemed the question was really whether the people of Afghanistan represented The Taliban, rather than The Taliban represented the people of Afghanistan. Two quite different things. I'm sure you realised that though.

As I recall, the Taliban were essentially drawn from the Pashtun tribes which at 30% are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. A fair number, but hardly the overwhelming majority you appear to initially claim. And I would guess tribal loyalty would come a long way before any notion of Nationality.Burke's dismissal of their knowledge of Islam is puzzling in the subsequent light of their very strict interpretation of Sharia Law.


I'm not sure of the point you're making here. Surely it is within the wit of the Nato Commanders to broker a localised deal with whatever blend of Taliban supporter has the most influence in the district?


Really? and what snappy, easily understood one word would you offer up to describe the aformentioned?


Oh, I'd say the relationship between the Taliban and AQ was a lot more than simply accomodating. Again,there is evidence that in the first instance, the Taliban offered to hand over BL to the Pakistani Authorities, who declined. There were other attempts by the Taliban, eager to avert the gathering storm, by offering him (with conditions) to America, who also declined, no doubt secure in their ability to secure their military objectives.


I wonder where you get your figures on civilian casualties from? For those more interested in [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics#dataFACTS[/url than rhetoric

I said the overwhelming majority (as opposed to foreign nationals who join for various reasons) are indigenous.



Burke is saying they have little knowledge of the Islamic world [ioutside[/i of Afghanistan. Which is in line with his argument that they have little to no internationalist agenda.



I'm saying we need to get away from this concept of a monolithic Taliban. Over the past twelve months the military appears to have embraced this idea (to an extent).



I wouldn't.



As I said, the Taliban were grateful for Bin Laden's assistance during the war. Or at least certain elements of them were as there is a division between those that fought the Russians purely for reasons of self-determination and those who were ideological warriors sponsored by Bin Laden, the Saudis etc.

But as Burke says, there is very little evidence the Taliban care about much beyond Afghanistan.



I notice you don't include Iraq. And as HRW says - it can only determine a fraction of the true figures in a dangerous country such as Afghanistan. And, of course, no mention is made of the number of people who've died as a result of, say, starvation fleeing the violence. Especially as Afghanistan is currently experiencing one of the worst droughts in its history (one of the reasons opium production has sky-rocketed, I should add)

Absolute rubbish. 'The people of Afghanistan' are around 29.8 million multi-ethnic and multi-lingual Afghans, including 2.7 million refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and consisting of different groups such as Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Turkmen, Baloch, etc

The Taliban is an Islamist militant and political group made up of predominantly Sunni Muslim Pashtuns, and opposed by Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks, and Turkmen. They are not 'the people of Afghanistan'. They are 'some people of Afghanistan' who are not positively supported by the majority of the population. It's a bit like calling The English Defence League, 'the people of England'.

As for their origins and interests, I don't believe I ever said otherwise.


No, there's not a good argument for that at all, given their well documented and well organised history. Such a 'hopelessly indefinite conceptual creation' could never have waged an efficient campaign that saw them take swathes of the country and finally Kabul. That they and they supporters may be currently fragmented due to foreign forces in their midst is irrelevant. The movement still has its clearly defined leaders and determinations and immediately the West leaves, they will reform into a more definite group.


Bin Laden was incredibly familiar with the Taliban - of course he was, he fought with and financed many of them as part of the Mujahideen. The Taliban, as the de facto government, were stuck between reigning Al Qaeda in and building international relations, but given a choice between the infidel West/Great Satan and loyalty to a fellow Islamist group, Al Qaeda was always going to win. Regardless of differing outside interests.

And yes, it's true the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over (with conditions) - but this was done very reluctantly, and there's no evidence they weren't simply stalling for time, especially in 2001 when they knew a storm was definitely coming yet they still tried to negotiate and make deals. Plus at all times they had the ISI in the background snapping at their heels and working to their own agenda.

On the ground many Taliban (especially foot soldiers and those not in the top echelons of power) disliked Al Qaeda simply because Al Qaeda were mainly Arabs who threw their weight and money around. Indeed, there were indications around 2005 that even Al Qaeda was going through a split along these lines as Central Asian AQ began to severely resent Arab AQ, who had been hiding on their patch for years, yet treating it as their own.


That is true. But whether NATO forces wish to fight the Taliban or not, they are being attacked by them on a daily basis. The legal justification kind of takes a back seat when Taliban mortars are landing in the dunny and Taliban IEDs are so prevalent, and when Taliban fighters are throwing their weight and intimidating locals as soon as NATO forces are out of sight.


Smart munitions are incredibly smart, but they're only as accurate as the person aiming them. We want 'our boys' safe from harm's way and out of the firing line, yet we baulk at the inevitable consequences of firing munitions on the basis of long-range drone/aircraft footage. We can't have it both ways.

As rumplestiltskin already posted, you seem to avoid [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics#datathe facts.[/url And I'm not sure why you brought up Iraq in your response to him, when your statement concerned 'casualty rates quoted by various independent organisations for Afghanistan'.


The war, to all intents and purposes, was won. The Taliban had been deposed, Al Qaeda all but destroyed, their financial backing wiped out, the central figures sent into hiding. The mistake we made was not to kill Bin Laden early on at Tora Bora when we made the mistake of trusting an Afghan warlord and his militia to support the operation, when instead they shied away from danger and instead let so many slip the net.

Our Western mindset is so fragile we recoil from the thought of absolutely ruthless action and the risk of TV footage of body bags. We're also obsessed with 'rebuilding', as if Afghanistan was in a pristine state before 9/11. If we'd really wanted to finish the job what should have happened was thousands of troops dropped along the borders, the mountain passes and roads secured, strike forces dropped in Al Qaeda hotspots, the Taliban wiped out and Al Qaeda encircled and destroyed. Job done, out we get, leave them to it. Yet we are so sensitive to media exposure and press disapproval we set unrealistic limitations on our armed forces and expect the world - and that's why we've ended up in the quagmire.

As it happens, we might have just been handed to perfect exit strategy. Karzai wants Western forces out of rural areas and a quicker transfer of power to the Afghan army, and the Taliban aren't talking. Fine, give them what they want and get out. They can get back to their usual tribal and Islamist in-fighting.

The only guarantee is that Afghanistan will get a lot worse and the West will kop the blame for the next 50 years, whatever happens.

You're right. Disgusting, degenerate behaviour to care about human beings being killed. They don't matter in the grand scheme. The natives aren't worth anything and the soldiers' families should be proud they've sacrificed their children (and let's face it, most of the ordinary squaddies are from pretty chavvy backgrounds, so at least this way, their lives have served a useful purpose).

As you say, such concerns are the result of a "fragile" mindset.

That's ok then! Just heard the attorney of the US soldier civilian murderer. He reassures Joe Public that the soldier and his family weren't at all anti-muslim....That's a relief then!

More to the point might be that he was on (if memory serves) his third tour of duty in Afghanistan, had been injured twice, was dreading a fourth tour and had seen his mate's leg blown off the day before.

Goes with the territory. He's collateral damage. Just like the 7 adults and 9 children he murdered.

Your attitude is far too namby pamby Western fragile.

Do something about it.

The point (as I think you probably understand) is that we elect leaders who decide to send us to war, though we're not willing (or able?) to accept or even truly understand the inevitable consequences - those being body bags, civilian deaths, mutilated and cripplied bodies, atrocities, 'collateral' damage, etc, etc, etc. Our military do their jobs and are reigned in when the press get hold of images or footage or incidents occur that we deem unacceptable, even in a conflict.

We want it both ways and that just isn't possible.

Perhaps sarcasm is the solution.

Actually, I can't remember the last time a political party in the UK stood for election on a manifesto that included going and killing people and allowing a few of ours to be killed too.

And when a party that was in government stood for re-election, having taken us into war on the back of lies and Murdoch-backed spin, then personally I didn't vote for it – or for a leader who would take us to war. Indeed, my decision on how i used my vote was in substatial part based on support for that war. But then – how did you so intelligently phrase it? – ah yes: I obviously have a "fragile" Western mindset.

Perhaps you [idid[/i vote for such a party/government/leader and are 'willing (able?) to accept and truly understand the inevitable consequences'.

How does it feel, voting for a government that would (is) send people to their deaths while killing others, including entirely innocent men, women and children?

Did you consider those who were appalled about and protested against the Iraq war, with it's images of small children with their heads blown in half (bloody interfering media) as having minds that had become "fragile" in a particularly Western way? (BTW, this doesn't half sound like religious nutters railing at the degenerate West)

And if some government – even our own – did that to your family, presumably you wouldn't be at all "fragile" yourself, but would shrug a bit and accept it? After all, we elect leaders who decide to send us to war – and presumably others do the same.

And "sarcasm"? Well, what do you expect from "fragile" sorts, eh?

Did I say a political party had a manifesto for war? No. Yet somehow war keeps cropping up. Why? Because events occur and our politicians have made the decision to go to war. And who voted them in? We did. You, as an individual may not have, but we, as a nation, did.

The military are there to do a job which at the sharp end involves killing people, and almost as inevitably, taking casualties. I recall a military commander saying that in WW1, the loss of even dozens of troops in a single day was often barely considered worthy of mention on the larger scale. It was considered and accepted as a consequence of war. That lessened slightly in WW2 as the collective memory recalled the numbers lost only 20+ years earlier. As time went on, amongst other instances we saw the enormous impact of media footage in Vietnam and how the 1991 Gulf War ground to a premature halt thanks largely to footage of the 'Highway of Death'.

6 British troops died recently in one explosion and there was almost a national outpouring of grief. That's how the collective mindset has changed - I'm certainly not saying it's a bad thing but what it does do is make the widespread perception and expectation of war completely unrealistic.

I actually think you understand the point. But keep on ranting, it's entertaining.

On the rare occasions I pop in here, invariably La Mint is having an attack of the vapours over something. Anything. Animal, vegetable, mineral. It doesn't really matter, she'll be off on one!

Is such behaviour the norm dahn sarf?

So the "leaders" you mentioned that we elect are not connected to political parties, manifestos etc?



Gee. That must have taken a bit of working out.



Yeah. Political parties. The ones you didn't mention.



More rocket science.

I can't see anyone who has disputed that. This issue is whether they should be there in the first place. Because "events occur" – like lies, that sort of thing.

You, as you have made quite clear – think that this war has been a rip-roaring success. Plenty of others do not. And therefore, they are particularly likely to consider that the lives that have been lost have been wasted. It is not "fragile" to think so. We are supposed to have learnt stuff and grown up a bit and realised that war is not the solution to every problem. Unfortunately, some people haven't – and as long as that's the case, more lives will be wasted.



You mention the increase in footage: it's a legitimate point. I'd add the immediacy of news coverage etc as well. And there might be something else at play here – such as what sort of percentage of the public sees the conflict in question as legitimate or sees the reasons given for that conflict as lies or as illegitimate or don't fall for the jingoism etc.

But to consider the human cost of war as 'wasted lives', for instance, and to be appalled by it – particularly if one does not consider the conflict legitimate – is not the sign of a 'fragile' mind.



Actually, I don't think you realise how pathetic it is to read someone declaring that people who find the waste of life appalling – and a waste – are "fragile". And how much some of your other comments suggest someone who thinks war is always acceptable and, with it, such a waste.

This is just tedious. The "people" of England fought Hitler's Germany. Does this mean each person picked up a rifle, stuck a bullet in the chamber and fired? No.

Regardless of whether the Taliban are representative of the entire population they certainly form a significant element of it. And let's not pretend their politics, religious views etc. differ all that much from other Afghans - with the exception of those living in the cities who are (largely) protected and live more Westernised existences. As Burke says in his book - it is a mistake to think the Taliban's practices are anything new. They are not. So yes - the people of Afghanistan are fighting invaders. Not all of them. But a good deal, yes. And a good deal more sympathise with them - which is why the Taliban can blend in and out of the surrounding regions. If they were so far from the norm they couldn't and wouldn't.



Well, that's not what Burke says. And I'm willing to bet my house he knows a hell of a lot more about Afghanistan than you do.



Really? He fought in Afghanistan. Provided finance. Munitions etc. And he was familiar with them? Give over!

The issue here is the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban (especially Mullah Omar) around the time of 9/11 - NOT when he was admitted to the country (even then he was viewed with suspicion). Burke (and Robert Fisk) have both talked extensively about Omar's disdain for Bin Laden and there is at least some evidence they attempted to bump him off after he messed once too often in domestic affairs (assassinations, kidnappings etc.)

Yet Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were presented in the media (at the behest of US and UK governments) as joined at the hip - ideologically speaking. Without that link and sans AQ as an effective fighting force (which Burke's research puts at 2004!) there is now no reason to be in Afghanistan. None.



See above.



All this is meaningless without numbers. HOW MANY is "Central Asian AQ"? And who is providing the numbers?



We can have our boys safe by not putting them in harm's way in the first place.



I brought up Iraq because it was part of a two-front campaign predicated on similar lies. And what rumplestiltskin provided was a very small subset of the overall figure. As HRW (and other groups) freely admit - the true figures are much higher (and not solely because of munitions).



No, we ended up in the quagmire because we chose to walk into it. Period. And it's not like we didn't know the quagmire existed. Afghanistan 's terrain and conditions have been a great equalizer - from the British through to the Russians and now to us.

As for fighting the war differently, you're making a classic error in reasoning by constructing your optimal tactical solution after the fact and without any consideration given to whether the other side might have ideas of their own. We could fight a hundred different ways and still end up where we are today. As for "public sensitivities" (do I hear Colonel Kurtz in the background?) - the lack of such didn't do the Spartans many favours, nor the Third Reich.



Don't be silly. Western forces are going nowhere. For a start the Afghan army (as the Pentagon's own man clearly states) is effectively useless and is just as likely to turn on its master as anything else. Sure, US and UK forces might pull out. But only because Rumsfeld laid the groundwork for privatised warfare meaning the same guys will be fighting and dying there for another decade - but this time wearing the colours of "security" (mercenary) corporations who, unlike the military, are completely beyond the reach of domestic justice, not counted in death and wounded statistics etc. etc. Consider the number of mercs currently running around in Iraq.



As it should.

To be honest Mugwump, I think you've nailed your colours too firmly to Burke's mast.For an alternative and possibly more realistic viewpoint, have a read of Max Benitz's excellent "Six months without a Sunday" which is an account of the Scots Guards six month tour on Operation Herrick 12. I recognise a lot of what he says about both the military/social/political setup in Afghanistan, as I have a son serving over there now on Op Herrick 15.

The ISAF troops will most certainly be out in two years, with possibly a small training detachment being retained at Camp Bastion for a timescale measured in months, rather than years.

How will the Afghan Army perform without ISAF? Well, they're certainly brave enough when the proverbial hits the fan, but as with all things in Afghanistan, todays ally can flip over to the other side overnight, and to them, that's normal behaviour. Even for the Taliban. The bigger problem will be the Police Force. Almost universally distrusted, poorly paid, mostly illiterate and staggeringly corrupt, this happy band has the potential to cause a lot of grief.

I suspect that after we leave, within two/three years the Taliban will control some of the Northern Provinces, but that will be all. Karzai and his cohorts will hold the Capital and surrounding areas, and the more prominent Tribal Leaders/drug barons will have there own little fiefdoms.The Army will remain fairly loyal, whilst it gets paid, otherwise i can see it split along tribal lines.

Afghan will revert to its usual traditional ways, with either an AK 47 or a new alliance settling the problem. Pakistan will have a very sticky finger in its internal affairs, and the Chinese will hoover up all the available oil and minerals.

Makes you wonder why we bothered really.

Burke knows the region well. He's one of the few Western journalists who has covered the region extensively for years, speaks the lingo and has excellent contacts across the entire political spectrum. But most importantly he operates independently and thus outside of the embedded coalition propaganda machine.

But there are other excellent journalists. Fisk's region is more towards Israel/Lebanon - but he too has excellent contacts and met Bin Laden twice, I think. Others write for English language publications in India. And then there are guys such as Christian Parenti who, whilst only visiting occasionally, publishes first rate work.

I don't know anything about Benitz but if he's embedded I'm really not that much interested. He may well be a perfectly decent guy but journalists attached to, and thus entirely dependent on, the military are automatically suspect. Movie studios don't throw huge junkets for critics because they like them. They do it because they know it will make a negative review much less likely. The same principle stands for war correspondents. If you eat and sleep and fight alongside a bunch of guys who you get to know and like over a period of six months it will take tremendous character to trash them if they deserve it. And if you do possess such be prepared to see your media accreditation revoked at CENTCOM.

In any case, what better viewpoint of the military campaign can you take than [url=http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdfDaniel Davis' report?[/url The Lt. Col. did two tours of Afghanistan (as well as two in Iraq) and his job was to assess the success of the campaign to the Pentagon. I should point out that Davis is not far from the age where he is entitled to retire with full benefits. With this report he not only risks his job but his pension, too!



I expect ISAF will leave pretty soon. But the merc army will stay. The geopolitics of the region mean it's too important (in the eyes of the US) to walk away. Once Obama is re-elected or the Republicans get in we'll be gearing up for some heavy-duty Iranian action and there's simply no way they'll leave Iran under sanctions with an open border. It's estimated there are anywhere up to one million unaccountable mercs running around in Iraq. We may see a similar figure in Afghanistan.

For those who haven't followed the link - here is the opening paragraph of Davis' report:

[i"Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan. It has likely cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars Congress might not otherwise have appropriated had it known the truth, and our senior leaders’ behavior has almost certainly extended the duration of this war. The single greatest penalty our Nation has suffered, however, has been that we have lost the blood, limbs and lives of tens of thousands of American Service Members with little to no gain to our country as a consequence of this deception."[/i

That's about as damning an indictment of a senseless war as you'll find.

Hmmmmm. Middle ranking officer goes on one man crusade after talking to his Pastor, and deciding he knows better than anyone else, could just as easily be the headline. I'm sure there's an element of truth in what he reports, but in the final analysis, its simply one guys personal [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/army-colonel-challenges-pentagons-afghanistan-claims.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=scott%20shane&st=cseopinion[/url, and has not attracted a great deal of support, either in Washington or, as you would expect, further up the [url=http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/pentagon-counters-dim-assessment-of-afghan-war/military[/url food chain. Surely, it is to expected that the best possible spin would be applied to any information released to the public, despite this campaign being the most open and media scrutinised than anything previously reported?

The overall lack of progress is there for all to see, but it would take a couple of generations before you could bring about a mindset change in a country as large and poor as Afghanistan. You would have to be extremely naive to expect a one size, instant fix solution to work in this part of the globe. I expect the good Colonel's outrage may in part be fuelled by both the cost in dollars and Army casualties, as much as anything else. After all, is there any Military more Gung Ho/Can Do than the Americans? It would be interesting to see what actual boots on the ground combat experience Davies has under his belt. I suspect he may be what our Stateside chums so charmingly call a "REMF"

There is however, well documented and visible evidence in many areas of a return to normality, with the expulsion of insurgents and security being handed over to Afghan Forces. There is already a shift in Military thinking from pursuing an anti insurgency policy, which is very labour intensive, to a more focussed anti terrorist operation.

Which is where we came in....

Davis isn't the first officer to come to this conclusion. There are several other well-researched reports if you care to look. I'm not sure what relevance discussions with his pastor have. Maybe you could tell me?

And, seriously, what do you expect the military's response to be? There are an awful lot of careers at stake here - not to mention billion dollar arms deals, industry jobs, geopolitical ambitions etc.

There were ample well-researched reports writing the Vietnam campaign off as early as the introduction of ground troops. How many saw the light of day until Daniel Ellsberg blew the lid off the deception? Even then they weren't taken seriously. Hell, I could go back to the Battle of Jutland where Jellicoe laughed off criticism of his handling of the Grand Fleet and even went so far as to suppress the report which proved why half-a-dozen of his dreadnoughts blew up with nary a shot being fired in anger. Secrecy and the military go hand in hand.

Look, it really comes down to who you think is more likely to understand what conditions are like on the ground in Afghanistan. Newspapers such as the New York Times (commonly referred to as American Officials Say - even by other journalists!), five star generals (many of whom have either limited or no combat experience), the TV or the combat veteran with complete access asked to submit a full appraisal of the entire conflict? Surely a middle-ranking officer is the man most likely to see the entire picture?

And I should make the point that Davis is by no means a radical lefty. He's as much a part of the establishment as anyone else even if he does have disagreements. TBH, I don't think he goes far enough.



Well, I've provided some of my evidence. Perhaps you can show me some of yours? Who has provided your "well-documented" evidence? How do you define "normality" etc.? I mean, according to guys like Burke attitudes such as the Taliban's are not that far from normality anyhow.

I could speculate that perhaps he had some sort of epiphany, which was reinforced by his subsequent viewing of his favourite movie, which then provided the impetus for his one man campaign. The only two people who really know are Davis and his Pastor
.


I excpected the response to be exactly as I've previously stated, they'd put the best spin on it.



Your last sentence raised a smile. It is the nature of the beast. In any case, isn't Truth the first casualty of War? Personally, I'm a tad disappointed you didn't offer up an explanation for the missing 9th Legion....



If that middle ranking Officer could be shown to have an extensive combat background, backed up with a good military record throughout his career, then I would tend to agree with you.
However, I'm still not fully convinced about Davis. One item in particular shows his lack of front line experience. He complains about the Taliban kidnapping and killing an Afghan Police Officer, 500 yards away from their compound, and witters on about the American influence not even extending as far as you can see.
Any soldier that has been in combat over there knows that the insurgents are very good at setting their ambushes, and live IEDS have been found placed within 10 yards of Patrol Bases. Here's a more [url=http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/20/lt_col_davis_afghan_report_he_talks_a_good_game_but_there_s_not_much_to_itROBUST REBUTTAL[/url



As I recall Mugwump, you were provided with the facts which showed your claims, re Afghan civilian casualties, were simply a product of your own fertile imagination! Your subsequent sidestep to attempt to include Iraq was duly noted.

I refuse to believe that you have never watched a documentary,or read an informed newspaper column detailing the ongoing improvements in Afghanistan over the last few years.

If you can hold on for another 3 weeks, our Nick can give you an up to date resume, complete with photographs. I could link you to various MOD blogs/videos, but I suspect they're not your cup of tea. Or point you in the direction of official UN stats that show the staggering number of refugees, encouraged by the improving situation, returning from Pakistan back to their homeland.

I could,.....but as penance for your left wing rhetoric, I think you should do your own googling. Something along the lines of "Improvements in Afghanistan since 2001" should suffice.

I'd also have a small dish of salt to hand.....

I *could* say you're attempting to muddy the waters by spinning an irrelevant point into an implied character weakness.

Oh, I did.



Isn't four combat tours enough?



And this proves we're in control in what way?



A robust rebuttal written by the former special assistant to Paul Wolfowitz, speechwriter for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one of the architects of the Iraq war? You're really bringing out the big guns insofar as objective analysis is concerned.



BTW, how many combat tours has Collins served in Afghanistan? Indeed, has Collins served a combat tour [ianywhere[/i? From my - albeit brief - research he appears to be a retired career staff officer.



You provided a small subset of what *all* organisations estimate to be a huge number of civilian deaths. If you dispute this you can't be taken seriously. And as one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was a phoney link to the same group we are engaged against in Afghanistan it is entirely relevant.



I've just supplied an informed and detailed report - written by a four combat term veteran with complete access. I can supply others, too. The only evidence you have supplied so far is a critique written by Paul Wolfowitz's Washington stooge and mouthpiece. He may even be the same Joseph Collins linked to Aegis LLC and Tim Spicer, who the Americans describe as [i“an individual with a history of supporting excessive use of force against a civilian population [who vigorously defends [human rights abuses”. [/iClassy.
[/i



Or are we playing a game where my evidence is speculation whereas anything you provide is "informed"?



MOD blogs?



And "our Nick" is employed in what role, precisely? Does he have the same level of experience and access as Davis? Or does he work for Aegis knocking over democratically elected governments for corporate gain?





Point me in any direction you like.



And I'll get, erm ... improvements? Are the contrary suddenly not important? If we could judge both quantitatively and it were found the former outweighed the latter would it suddenly not matter?