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.

musharaf

musharaf looked pretty embarrassed recently, he knows i have a hell of an impression of him, and ofcourse next to his other worrys its not easy to get the extra ethical and emotional show going to show every such quality to everyone.

ANd then he is under severe fire. AlJ dont really liked my comments on the case,
wich must be because i have a strong admiration for the mans political (not so much diplomatical) skills. He is not a fortunate man for politics, because his skills are unevenly distributed, if he had a quarter of the charisma that he has compassion he would probably be fine, but he only has like a fifth. he is a military and civil organiser of high quality and great conscience, yet he is said to display quite some repression, (i didnt witness it so much, when i was more into pakistan, there was rili no indications of files of disappeared persons in pakistan, some repression must be expected in the destabilised region, i liked that they bombed the red mosque in a show, like i like russia made a deliberate win over georgia if u do it, do it fine and if u do it and do it fine, do it good, matter of being fair about things. Plays a role i distinctly disliked his 'young martyrs' and (perhaps naive, considering the general malreporting of the media his speeches, also the fact a big city and governmental stability was in play, (security issues) played a role.

nuf said, probs was me who cooked it up, not sure, usia agreed, mush was not left much choice, guess he had the fun as well. Great, fair. we are the killers, we have all the arms, but the right of the person on the person goes over everything.
even the right on freedom of belief.
A belief is not free when the person is not free, so that is just plain and logical.

The pakistani army has behaved up to every expectation, if musharaf needs and wants i think he can count on it. Not to forfill his ordres, but to save pakistan or his skin. The impulse to apply this compliment to russia concerning the methods and scales applied against georgia is strong, but let's say there is still alot of smoke over the battlefield to go that far. i think it is a great compliment although i am not always as happy with their deployment.

Musharaf is really a fascinating person. his military genius is more tactical and political then strategical tho, he's rather a strategic failure i think. But he well knows after a few mistakes, and also in the geopolitical respect he has been showing a lot of reason the past few years. His tactical and political military quality itself again is quite huge. i would trust him a mobile position over an offensive or perhaps even defensive. So even musharaf is a man of limited capacitys, when it is about pakistan, the region, or matters of more general international importance he can be trusted, when it is about the greatests of geopolitical questionmarks, indias position, nucleair capacity and probably about his actual methods of control but i am not sure, to some extend sharif and zardari already did everything else noone ever wanted, fire up the war in the north, i might prefer anyone else.
then again like i said he seems to have left militairy roads in huge geopolitical questions wich is the sensible thing to do.

For him more so because he can operate on the level he is best at.
Basically saving the pakistani nations. It's where the english analysts got now,
sheet he saved teh poor blokes past decade, and what else could keep sharif or zardari in check.. very outspokenly so, mh.. could have sth to do with some major bookkeeping of mine, fun that. thumbs up blokes that's pretty great.
Quite a feat really.

Perhaps i think it is an hallucination tho. Whatever, and they check on musharaf? well it makes sense, what else then an institute that can moderate military measures,
and prevent abuse of law could check such a situation, altho i doubt sharif or zardari should be considered for such great dignification.

That besides, and then? who of them will become president? Sharif knows his cards are well, he is identified with the muslim aspect. well perhaps musharaf doesnt rili have that ambition, and even perhaps sharif is not unsuit in that role, personally i think musharaf a better representant of the wahabi kind of moderate modern islam i like most. (i like the synthetic one) i also admit i dont rili care much about religion, but i insist i admire inspiration.

Zardari for his part would bet he wins because the international backers would have no options left, it means sharif would win because if the international backers weighted into the pakistani scales firstly westerners would have a very much fascinated and probably negative opinion about the lawyers, not just cheer because they protest musharaf over formalitys when so much is happening, it's a bit weaker perhaps because musharaf at some point claimed state of national emergency, wich constitutes to much of a wrinkle in the surface of procedure, untill that point the developments should have been evaluated, and it is hard to understand not all the world got interested ,(see there the reason btw. for the idiotic reporting and lack of fantasy)

so that old pakistani grudge at least has been solved..
its not for no reason i am so anti islam in this post, i almost included some dedicated declaration of non-islamism in this post, but there is no need, atheism and secularism should suffice.
i am as dedicated anti christian as china, probably more. And chinese are not supposed to waste food on dead people either.

Don't you think bush is a hypocrit?
You think you can be a "christian" in the 20th century? when ur the sun of a president???
i don't, yeah maybe in malaysia or Jemen, not in the usa. What bush thinks about the saakasvilli, is almost directly related to what i consider his perceptions of religion, he thinks: you would think , if you think it is mad what he is doing, it is the same kind of things in him that in me you think are mad i am doing. Well he's got some pretences, but as mad as he is doing over religion and indeed nationalist fears etc. , is exactly mad enough. The problem is despite i always disliked bush policy's, i always refused to consider him an outright madman, for the dumb reason that sometimes when i made sense it made sense to him. So what i think maddest at him is his war speeches etc. the idiotic comparisons, axes of evil, etc. allies..
and terrorists, being like that, always expressing a hypocrit picture of pittyfullness and hurt interests, and declaring the rest of the world is a collection of mediocre bastards, that i think maddest.

so he is mad, limited even, but to some extend he makes sense, i dont give a damn to bomb ppl that lock themselves up anyway and turn their kids into medieval persona, makes some sense. I don't give a damn about tribal and burocratic positions would have been nice to, but the west is a bit dumb, and thinks like : a servant is a servant and then it will be ok.

so despite he is not in ordre he's been trying to make some starts, he himself has probably been a greater levy on taxmoney then individual freedoms in usa, for his symbolic value.

He can be rather funny too, he is not very narrowminded like many people.
war on drugs..
hilarious
war on terror is plain sad from my pov.
mordor

we are the only ones allowed to terrorise...
insane
all the drugs are ours...
yeah some get that

that's with bush, sometimes you still agree, he would be as lousy a president for georgia as saakasvilli.