Countering Afghanistan's Downward Spiral - Gen. David Petraeus

[xSege123x]

pay attention to 3:59 - 4:09. lol pay close attention to those words. think about what he just said and then explain what he actually means when he says

"so our troops must be employed wisely to avoid being seen as outsiders bent on conquering it(afghanistan)"

lol seriously?

[xSege123x]

"THEY MUST LIVE OUR VALUES". really?? lol

[HelmutHedd]

Until the idiot in the White House is removed, Afghanistan will continue spiralling down. Losing is what the left wants.

[judgerofwars]

@HelmutHedd well bush couldnt win the war in iraq for 8 years.....bush and cheney made a ton of mistakes in iraq. obama is better than those two chicken hawk clowns

[badmoonryzn]

Oh Man, Vistavision is a piece of work. Why are you wasting your time to even argue with such a doorknob? If you said black he would say white.He is not interested in a resolution; he is only texting a bunch of white noise to irk people. It has no value at all. When he asked what you were doing in 1981 like he was there and had some vested interest or the inept comment about the mujahideen being Taliban showed immediately he is totally nuts. For goodness sake, please quite feeding the squirrels

[ferrozm]

I've got a better solution general betray-us! Stop nation building! Bring our troops home

[ONQproductions]

OMG! Is he reading from a script? Who's telling him what to say? Who wrote his words? Was it Barak Obama? Can't Obama spare a teleprompter so the general can enter the 21st century?

[humanist7117]

Job #1 Elimination of corruption in the Afghan government at all levels. Corruption is the major complaint of the population.

[l1011l]

'nuke them from orbit, its the only way to be sure'

[edewit08]

I love the U.S Republic and pray for you constitution.

But dislike the U.S Imperialism.

God Bless Ron Paul

Greetings from Finland

[thpt]

Didn't we already learn -- and are beginning to admit -- that occupying & shooting up a country is not a good way to mellow terrorism? It's kind of like drinking for sobriety.

[Re5Publica]

The biggest defeat dealt to Al-Qaeda was in Iraq.

Iraq was only occupied for 14 months, and Afghanistan was never occupied, elections were held immediately.

[VivekisV]

Is this information accurate?

[chunkybutt420]

not in the slightest

[Re5Publica]

Well, vivekis, you have options, you can check the facts and see if i'm correct, (the U.S. installed an interim government in Iraq for 14 months and then held elections, and occupation is used to describe a military force in control, and hostile towards the civilian population or government, this is the distinction made in WW2, when the germans "occupied" France, and Americans "liberated" it), alternatively you can take the word of this guy named chunkybutt420.

[VivekisV]

I would very much like the name of the source of this information.

[Re5Publica]

Well, I don't have a "deepthroat"-esque source for the information, it's collected from a bunch fo soruces, the dictionary is one source I used for the defintion of occupation, and look up the Iraqi interim government and when it ended, and look up when elections in Afghanistan were held. That's all you really need.

[Re5Publica]

*** the "Coalition Provisional Authority" was the occupation government, and then they installed the interim government made up of Iraqis after 14 months.

Afghanistan agreed upon an interim government right after the U.S. ivnasion of Afghanistan.

[ferrozm]

What sources are you using? becuase the general clearly mentions that al-quaeda is energized in Pakistan. This is because of the resentment of our invasion in Iraq.

[Re5Publica]

I did say they were defeated in Iraq. That was the biggest defeat they've suffered.

They're energized in Pakistan because they're supported by agents of the ISI and given free reign in the Pakistani tribal regions.

If some Muslims are mad at the U.S. for deposing the Taliban and want to fight U.S. troops for that reason, then let them, they should be fought, they're obviously part of the problem.

[vistavision2]

re5publica, AQ at is peak in Irqaq was only 3K personnel

USA has 168K military and 130K PMC not including the coalition forces.

Iraq's FSF was 130K and its military was another 115K personnel.

Al Sader's militia went from 300 men to

3K; then from 3K to 60K.

If in your reality the war was between 3K AQ to 500K+ US, Coalition, * Iraqi troops then your suffering from information deficiency and disconnect from reality.

[Re5Publica]

Well, it's a good thing I don't think that.... and never said anything like that.

[vistavision2]

AQ has engaged every nuclear power one earth simulataneously.

Of course you did say that as if they operate like a foriegn occupation force by military might alone: or a proxie force of a government under a "coalition command" as the forign forces in Iraq.

1 "given free reign in Tribal areas" as they are a proxie force of a government when in fact AQ engages the Pakistan government with equal determinaton as it does to all its opposition.

[Re5Publica]

Oh, but don't you know Pakistan capitulated and gave the Swat valley to al-Qaeda's hosts? Don't you know how agents of the ISI are funding and arming Taliban?

It is true indeed, that hundreds of Pakistani troops have died fighting them in the tribal regions, but it was either they did that, or face the prospect of U.S. military invasion or bombing, which Musharaff details in his book. To believe that there really was an effort to crush Taliban and AQ in the NWFP, is a bit naive.

[vistavision2]

Re5, Ignorance to see the world by projecting your beliefs on rest of the planet:

1 Pakistan government NEVER had an governance over the Tribal areas

2 To believe Pakistan government or any other person of Pakistani, Iraqi, Afghani of nationality shall act in proxie for US interests is IDIOCY becasue it ignores the fundamental cultural differences

3 Only 3 groups of people on the planet operate/think in self-same manner- everyone else is the enemy: Military, Tribal, & underworld

[vistavision2]

Who is "Pakistan"?

You speak as is if 60 million people of the State of Pakistan are homogenous that you can personify peoples and define the issue as if it were a conflcit between two persons.

Pakistan will never act to destroy the Taliban as it is Pakistan's government fallback position of strategic depth should any war break out with India .

Anyone that thinks that Pakistan will destroy its fallback position tis a 100% idiot: It would be policide.

[Re5Publica]

"You speak as is if"

Why don't you just use my words instead of embellishing everything i've said. You're arguing semantics. You chose not to understand "Pakistan" as meaning the Pakistani government, and chose to pretend as I meant everything the term "Pakistan" incorporates. Maybe I meant "Pakistan" as in the geographical location, sand, grass and rivers. Please.

You made my argument for me, about Pakistan.

[vistavision2]

Your confused:

1 Your prmise that the Pakistan government's sole pupose of existence is to furhter US interests in fact would SUPPORT  any military/policial challenge on that government by its people to REMOVE it.

2 Or that you believe that Pakistan government's political leadership are that stupid to destroy there own fallback position exposes your own idiocy and destroys your own self-acclaimed genius.

3 Quoted: Define- it's your premise and NOT a logical assessment

[Re5Publica]

1. That wasn't my premise.

2. I never claimed to be a genius, and never said the Pakistani government was stupid, I said they were unwilling, which you seem to agree with.

3. It's not hard to quote what I say and form an argument based on that, but you instead raise these strawmen which forces me to repeat basically what i've been saying from the start. It turns out we agree on Pakistan's (the government, not the soil) intentions.

[vistavision2]

4 Hey genius, If you had considered the GEOGRAPHY with the international politics AKA GE-POLITCS

5 Or LISTENED to what Gen Petraeus stated

6 You may begin to grasp the individual/regional/global MATRIX of international relations that are 100% fluid.

7 USA supported the Taliban vs Russia; and the threat is NOT AQ but China in that area and Russia over the hill in Georgia: Both are not coincidental but the result of every states' respective strategic posture. Hasta!

[Re5Publica]

Since most of that was jargon and jibberish, i'll address the one thing you said that was clear, and thankfully for me, completely false.

The U.s. supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, they didn't support the Taliban, as you might not know, there were mujahids like Ahmed Shah Massoud who fought against the Taliban, and there are still currently former mujahideen fighting against the Taliban.

The Taliban was formed later by certain, and by no means ALL mujahideen.

[vistavision2]

Now your fabricating groups: What is a Mujahid?

That region is still tribal and that is what have not grasped: Loyalities are to respecitive tribes/clans and NOT a nationality of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The present context is basically that the alliances that at PRESENT sponsored by USA which administrate Afghanistan is the self-same confederation of that supported the USSR of which the Mujahadeen fought against.

NO, there are NOT any moujahadeen fighting the Taliban.

[Re5Publica]

... mujahid means "holy warrior", it's the singular form of the plural mujahideen..., the mujahideen were not a political or tribal movement like the Taliban, they were a hodge podge of Afghans, Pakistanis and foreign fighters from Muslim lands.

Ahmad Shah Massoud fought the Taliban, until he was assassinated by Al-Qaeda. He was a famous and reknown Mujahid, his followers continue to fight the Taliban.

Anyone is welcome to search for" Mujahideen in Afghanistan" and see if i'm fabricating it.

[vistavision2]

Yes, your fabricating:

1 The Mujahadeen are a political movement but not a tribe;

2 The Taliban are NOT a tribe but a political movement

3 There is no such thing as a "singular mujahid" becasue the religious aspect "the way of life" not permit individuals to operate without a fatwa.

Whom do you think recruit, train, and case manage such persons as part of contextual US Defense policy ?

[Re5Publica]

?????

The Mujahideen was a militia, not a political movement, the mujahideen split up into political movements after the Soviets withdrew, and fought eachother.

"There is no such thing as a "singular mujahid" becasue the religious aspect "the way of life" not permit individuals to operate without a fatwa."

Well, i'll leave it to those reading to search "mujahid" and "mujahideen" and see which of us is telling the truth or COMPLETE nonsense.

[vistavision2]

The moujahadeen:

1 Was & is a political movement: Poltiical movement was the LIBERATION of Afghanistan from non-muslims, e.g., then Soviets

2 Just because someone assigns a name; For example Gen Petreaus' "Associate Syndicate of Extremists [ASOE]" in attempt to describe their understanding does not make it so of actuality

What is this "search" you keep on refering to?

What were you doing in 1981 when some of us entered the game?

How many moujahadeen do you personally know?

[stpap]

I agree with this view I think... People here have posted responses implying (as I read them) that there is democracy in Iraq. I say the elected government has very little choice but to go against the will of its people in order to survive. Specifically, the vast majority of Iraqis want the US troops out but the Iraqi government will not force the issue because it needs US troops to maintain order; a democracy where the government does not follow the will of the people is no democracy at all.