Afghanistan

In fact this covers some conflict in pakistan as well, nowadays.

Afghanistan is a country struck by death and destruction through the past 60 or so years. dictators, occupations, absolutism, occupation.

Meanwhile it is hard to figure out what exactly would justify the occupations. The sovjet one was the typical sovjet one, with attention to social services etc. but it also remained a period of, partly civil, war.

At one point, i for me still don't quite get why, i think it were the budha's,
the propaganda that emphasized the harsh circumstance for women, and the absolutist , 'undemocratical', aspects of the Taliban rule was quite succesfull once again to start a bush instigated war, as if he hadn't had his revenge ahead in irak.

Basically reason would be to await quite some incidents before a thus violent war.
Try to adopt measures in between etc. but not feature the 'reichstag promise'.

I forgot the incidents, but i once saw a list of how almost every usian war was preceded by suspect incident, so perhaps a better name is "9-11-syndrome".

These are well known and ancient tactic anyway, false flag operations, provocations, false accusations and complicity. Usia is not the only one guilty, and probably also not in historical times. In kongo for example, the accusation of provocation was/is mutual. Things in danger of escalation, would rightly or wrongly usually happen after something concerned a provocation, but it's a distraction, in a way, in congo there are more villages and the people are more unsettled.

So what happened is Nato bombed afghanistan. The fear to be considered inhumane by the usian public (i figure for eternity or for military reasons) and the fine promises that made the dutch politicians smile, or perhaps the engagement with suffrage and women's right's , the fear for a future where women wouldn't have tehse rights in some or many parts of the world, whatever.

My most severe problem in completely opposing any argument is that i think a free future is the place to be for any human. dress requirements don't even fit free here,
and we are a 100 year of of the puritan kind of dress requirements we had, wich weren't necessarilly quite as bad.

Anyway, war is an unpleasant thing. The afghans well realised they stood no real chance (much better then saddam), and tried to negotiate untill the end.

Instead of countering an offensive directly, they actually fled most of the time, trying to stay alive. The (complete once again) air superiority destroyed any kind of troops they could have had, and after a few days thus, the socalled war was won.

Colums made it into Kabul, undoubtedly meeting brave and quite utterly vain resistance at some points. I am not sure of there was something of elections, it was bush2 after all. I think Karzai got installed, similar to maliki (irak).

Afghanistan is a very rough landscape so quite some resistance apparently had escaped to certain regions and the usians decided to persecute "al kwaida" and "the taliban". It translates into: the popular resistance and the people, so you can imagine it was quite indiscriminate.

Nato tried to adapt (mh, i spoke 'peace' soldiers, their head was full of crap),
the military requires an attitude that is neither consistent with human dignity , nor
allowing itself to adapt it's policy's different from the propaganda as it presents the case to the (western) public.

That's: it is functionally dependend from ordres higher up in the hierarchy and for netherlands eg. depends on a mandate that a certain harry potter aka Balkenende rewarded after hiding up the reports that might have made the parliament think quite differently.

perhaps because he is a "christian" , raised a christian, litterally pumped quite full of the crap. Christians do have an instinctive , and when i was a kid, explicit hate against islam. When you meet it, it is like their second instinct, ooh islam,
well kill them, attack them, bomb them, it's a good idea, is how a christian feels deep inside.

problem here ofcourse, for an atheist, islam does exactly the same to its people, and is thus equally scary. It's less scary in the sense that it is badly armed, and a 100 year backward at least, or so it seems, but it is more scary since they/islam are very much more commited to the notion of belief.

in my world, the european world, religion is sometimes ok, sometimes second-rate, sometimes not necessary. Wherever u go, russia, england, norway, italy, any european nation, there are mainstream representations of non-believers.

Ofcourse i observe religion is still used as an excuse for political control, as an asset of conservatism, but i also know, the usual 'believer' wouldn't understand this, or think about such things (and actually prefer not to 'belief' it).

Anyway, this reasoning apparently turned the afghani in devote muslims, and they were making a biggest clownery of nationwide proportions, embarrassing the former colonialist who once had all the time tried not to show such was the source of their contempt.

What happened after this is hard to grab. First mistake of the nato was to choose several groups over the others. that started of at karzai ofcourse, and in a sense it so couldn't be helped. Anyhow, that allowed for a messy situation for a year or more, then the taliban united, (that was a peace effort) and started negotiating karzai, but it was still not ok. So , i think you will agree, the nr of high profile atatcks rose, one of them i think was ridiculous, a failed bomb attempt on a 100% unharmed parlementarian, it reminded me of reichstag promise. Brutal.

So that's not obvious, anyhow, by now the nato could have left afghanistan on her own, but they don't. instead they trained 100000s of soldiers. Also they maintained operations against groups of people perceived taliban, or otherways allied with anything not allied to usia.

it is many months later now, the above thing is somewhat to expanding, but for most of it i think it is still usefull that it is said. I tried to compile a description of afghanistan atthe time i started this article, one that would hint at the option to seek security not in armament, and to seek our subjective safety in afghanistan not rhough police forces.

however, obama changed that all, he took the notion that as karzai was not able to keep to a woman friendly politics, the whole of afghanistan was still in dire need of education, and perhaps he thought of that usian soldier that said: "i don't think this will work for this generation of afghans, but maybe it will for the next".

he got a lot of roundabout support for that step, a green future, equal development, it stands and falls among other things with 51% of the population that is woman.

geopolitically there is a downside to this story, but at the moment i don't really care, generally spoken it is a matter of money towards facility , and most can be bought that way. also the general trend, in particular cases, and in the wider picture is one of exchange over mere trade limitation, at least bottom up. the rich nations should really provide that green exchange to offset the unbalance.

i myself am maybe even worse, eg. if i basically believed it was environmentally proficient and lucrative, i suggest pipelines can be build evrywhere, altho with the current status quo limitations to acces might be necessary, and dealt with beforeheand.

if for some reason that trajectory serves only the opposite use, to exclude the environmental routes to monopolise efforts, likewise i consider them unnegotiable.

there is one more very important thing about afghanistan, and that is pakistan. 10000 and more pakistani have died fighting the war for terror, and the pakistani situation is completely escalated.

the pashtun and northern alliances have been outlawed to an even greater extend, and their likewise reaction is one of (well targetted usually) attacks.

i don't believe isi plays a big role in these. Allthough pakistan as a whole is much served with targetted attacks over random and desperate suicide explosions, etc.
in that sense perhaps isi has different operational motives from cia.

the problem in the decision to occupy afghanistan untill the situation for woman is settled foregood, is not in afghanistan, the current protocol is btw not sufficient, it seems to me, accidently with this scale events you would want to offer people an opportunity to develop such different visions, and bombing for opium , continual observation and the surrounding capitalists eyeing afghanistans mineral resources,
if anything that comes of the ground, nobody there is really very much impressed.

the soldiers would perhaps be better prepared for their task, when they could think of taliban as a football(or baseball) club, that for lack of grass defends rocks with guns. not like some evil enemy, not like an anonimous ideology.

just like western kids stick to their coca cola and hardcore, inhabitants of deserts cling to prayer ( for rain), and householdslaves.

before they will want to hold onto something else it should be obvious it must be a generous offer. some miners, and heaps of police and army are not the kind of freedom pashtun have allways have to fight for, and chances they will accept violent methods for real are nill.

with an open mind you really only have to look at irak, to see how right they are.

that tehse people have a moral and customs we perceive as at least a century backward, does not mean they are stupid, when they are preserving their identity in this, it should be valuable for all, and not be a reason to be at war.