Atleast,things are happening in the same way ,which I was scared about.Taliban militiamen are tightening their hold.This is despite the mighty strength of NATO.
pls read through these lines.
(It’s reached the point where neither side has gained an advantage," Scales said, adding that he believes the south — particularly in the opium-producing Helmand Province — is the area with the greatest potential for U.S. gains against the Taliban, especially with more U.S. forces due to deploy there.
The rising violence in Afghanistan is conducted by militants who operate out of sanctuaries in Pakistan tribal regions along the border of the two nations).
Re: U.S commander talks about the grim situation in Afghanistan
^^ Why don't the seal the border and increase the border the patrol instead of directly attacking Pakistan and killing people indiscriminately and creating more rebels out of them.
I guess the strategy is not to control the taliban in Afghanistan, it is just to blame somebody else to hide their own short-comings.
Re: U.S commander talks about the grim situation in Afghanistan
^^ Apparently, these So-called terrorists, who have created so much fuss for NATO + American Forces, seems to be OK with the presence of 12/14 Indian consulate houses on the Pak-Afghan Border. I wonder Y?
The 12-14 consulate claim always seems to come from non-government sources in Pakistan - I’ve yet to see the Pakistan government say that. Can you name the cities in which these consulates are?
As far as I’m aware, India has 1 embassy (Kabul) and 4 consulates in Afghanistan; in Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad and Kandahar.
These are the exact same cities and town in which Pakistan has its embassy and consulates.
The Daily Times in Pakistan also described claims of 13 Indian consulated in Afghanistan as being incorrect. Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan The TV channels in Pakistan are incorrectly pointing to 13 “new” Indian consulates in Afghanistan.
Of course, the question that arises is that given how few Indians actually live in Afghanistan, why does India need an embassy and 4 consulates? That number of sites does seem somewhat excessive.
Indeed, in the whole of the UK India only has 1 embassy and 3 consulates - 1 consulate less than in Afghanistan, despite the massive Indian population in the UK.
One can only imagine that India has need of so many sovereign sites in Afghanistan for more nefarious purposes.
Re: U.S commander talks about the grim situation in Afghanistan
What is taking so long for US to remove the opium fields? Why can't they carpet bomb those areas? What is stopping US from that? Why has US/coalition failed so miserably in securing Afghan borders?
What is taking so long for US to remove the opium fields? Why can't they carpet bomb those areas? What is stopping US from that? Why has US/coalition failed so miserably in securing Afghan borders?
NATO now has the authority to use force against the Afghan drug trade used by Taliban, this is recent policy change only coming into effect in the past few months. Afghanistan's neighbors need to play a more active role in stabilizing the country, it's their long term security that is at risk as well.
Re: U.S commander talks about the grim situation in Afghanistan
India is seen as crucial to any U.S. effort to stabilise Afghanistan where it has built roads, power lines and is among its top aid givers.
But Pakistan fears growing Indian influence there, suspecting an attempt by New Delhi to encircle it.
well india isnt there for charity.
at best, india is there to create a market for its products, and at worst, it is looking for bases and intel operatives in pakistan's western provinces (which right now is easy picking if you see how mad the avg afghan is at pakistan).
NATO now has the authority to use force against the Afghan drug trade used by Taliban, this is recent policy change only coming into effect in the past few months. Afghanistan's neighbors need to play a more active role in stabilizing the country, it's their long term security that is at risk as well.
What do you mean by "drug trade used by Taliban"? Are you saying only Taliban are involved in cultivating opium and selling it? How long will it take for US to "cleanse" opium fields? How long did it take for US to think about it?
at best, india is there to create a market for its products, and at worst, it is looking for bases and intel operatives in pakistan's western provinces (which right now is easy picking if you see how mad the avg afghan is at pakistan).
at best, india is there to create a market for its products, and at worst, it is looking for bases and intel operatives in pakistan's western provinces (which right now is easy picking if you see how mad the avg afghan is at pakistan).
Exactly.
I dont think thats a point of debate at all :) Obviously, there are political & economic considerations.
Pakistan supported the anti-Soviet mujahedeen and then the Taliban to ensure that in the event of conflict with India, Afghanistan would provide Pakistan with support and use of its land and air space if needed. India hopes to counter Pakistan's influence in Kabul.
For India, Afghanistan is also a potential route for access to Central Asian energy.
What is taking so long for US to remove the opium fields? Why can't they carpet bomb those areas? What is stopping US from that? Why has US/coalition failed so miserably in securing Afghan borders?
The US has been agitating to spray the drug fields with pesticides for several years; but Britain has been leading opposition in NATO to that on the basis that destroying the drug field (the main crop in those areas) would push the population int hose areas into supporting the Taliban, as NATO would be destroying their entire livelyhoods.
Farmers in those areas don't make money on the drug trade (only the drug lords do). Farmers take loans to buy poppy seeds, and with the sale of opium they pay back the loans and meet their living costs such as food.
Destroying the opium fields would leave the farmers enraged as not only would they now be unable to repay their loans, but unable to afford food for their families. That would push them into the Taliban's arms for revenge.
The US, in turn, is opposing other suggestion, such as for NATO to buy up (and then destroy or use for painkiller production) the opium output of Afghanistan. For ideological reasons the US is against using taxpayer money to buy up illicit drug production, and favours exterminating production instead.
So basically, the UK refused to let the US destroy opium fields arguing that it would turn the people more against NATO.
But the US refuses to permit any solution other than destroying the drug fields, which the UK doesn't allow.
So as a result, NATO does nothing about the opium fields.
When would the world learn? There is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to these problems. They will continue as a cause and effect. You kill more people, their brothers, sons, cousins and friends will become ‘militants’. The indiscriminate use of military power created the problem in the first place.
Its again an old story when Israel attacked Lebanon back in 2006.
“He told me his 7-year-old son, Mohammed, approached him last night to announce that when he grows up he’s going to get a gun and go fight the Israelis. It wasn’t fair, Mohammed reasoned, that he had only been playing with his cousins a day earlier and now they were gone forever.”
Who knows this kid is now getting trained to become a ‘mujahid’?
What do you mean by "drug trade used by Taliban"? Are you saying only Taliban are involved in cultivating opium and selling it? How long will it take for US to "cleanse" opium fields? How long did it take for US to think about it?
I mean come on dude.
I'm saying drug trade that is benefiting the Taliban in some way will be targeted. Now you also have drug trade going on that doesn't give kickbacks to the Taliban which at this point won't be targeted (but reports show that there are disagreements within NATO whether all drug operations can be targeted regardless if it has a Taliban connection or not). The problem with targeting all drug operations at once is that over 50% of Afghan GDP is from the drug market thus targeting them all would make a lot of people who do not support the Taliban upset as that is their living. There are no easy answers, stopping the Taliban from cashing in on the drug trade (est. to bring them in over $300 million annually) is a necessary and well overdue starting point. Creating a viable and sustainable economy is key so alternatives to the opium drug trade are available for the people so the remaining opium operations can be destroyed without losing the support of the people.
The US has been agitating to spray the drug fields with pesticides for several years; but Britain has been leading opposition in NATO to that on the basis that destroying the drug field (the main crop in those areas) would push the population int hose areas into supporting the Taliban, as NATO would be destroying their entire livelyhoods.
Farmers in those areas don't make money on the drug trade (only the drug lords do). Farmers take loans to buy poppy seeds, and with the sale of opium they pay back the loans and meet their living costs such as food.
Destroying the opium fields would leave the farmers enraged as not only would they now be unable to repay their loans, but unable to afford food for their families. That would push them into the Taliban's arms for revenge.
The US, in turn, is opposing other suggestion, such as for NATO to buy up (and then destroy or use for painkiller production) the opium output of Afghanistan. For ideological reasons the US is against using taxpayer money to buy up illicit drug production, and favours exterminating production instead.
So basically, the UK refused to let the US destroy opium fields arguing that it would turn the people more against NATO.
But the US refuses to permit any solution other than destroying the drug fields, which the UK doesn't allow.
So as a result, NATO does nothing about the opium fields.
US/UK can use millions and billions in bribing warlords to join or leave Taliban but when it comes to actually solve a problem they can't come to a resolution? Very convenient excuses.
I'm saying drug trade that is benefiting the Taliban in some way will be targeted. Now you also have drug trade going on that doesn't give kickbacks to the Taliban which at this point won't be targeted (but reports show that there are disagreements within NATO whether all drug operations can be targeted regardless if it has a Taliban connection or not). The problem with targeting all drug operations at once is that over 50% of Afghan GDP is from the drug market thus targeting them all would make a lot of people who do not support the Taliban upset as that is their living. There are no easy answers, stopping the Taliban from cashing in on the drug trade (est. to bring them in over $300 million annually) is a necessary and well overdue starting point. Creating a viable and sustainable economy is key so alternatives to the opium drug trade are available for the people so the remaining opium operations can be destroyed without losing the support of the people.
All I can read is that people who are not paying kickbacks to them or not favoring them will be targetted.
All I can read is that people who are not paying kickbacks to them or not favoring them will be targetted.
I'm not understanding your response, It's just the opposite. If one is a drug runner, producer, seller, or operator for the Taliban then NATO views such a person as a legitimate target.