Hard News: The question of Afghanistan becomes more urgent
74 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
One thing that struck me was the bizarreness of how the fairly minimally equipped, outgunned and technologically primitive insurgents could hold the might of the US at bay not just for weeks or months, but years. E.g. The americans had helicopter gunships and the insurgents had rifles and radios.
Been happening since the end WW2: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq were all the result of US overestimation of the force of their technology. As soon as an enemy decides to change the rules the self-assumed US advantage has been neutered.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
The terrain is impossible. That's one of the things that divides the country into so many segments.
It's the reason historically armies stopped before incorporating Afganistan into whatever empire they happened to be forming at the time.
Hasn't stopped them Kiwis, brave little blighters.
-
Islander, in reply to
t's the reason historically armies stopped before incorporating Afganistan into whatever empire they happened to be forming at the time. Army rides up looks at the mountains and says "yeah, nah".
Report
Including Alexander's (after being whopped.)
-
tussock, in reply to
But it’s delusional to imagine that the Taliban are some high-minded freedom fighters. Their record in power was truly hideous.
It was much better than the guys that came before them, who it’s difficult even for me to talk about in polite company. The support for the Taliban then and now is because there’s worse things than medievalist religious nutbags to live under, which includes our occupation.
But what in the hells does being high-minded have to do with being a resistance fighter? The French resistance to Nazi occupation were cold murders of anyone who so much as looked at them funny, and the Polish resistance was much worse. The communist resistance in Vietnam murdered a whole lot of innocent people. The Chechen resistance are flat out suicide terrorists.
Resistance fighters are not, and never have been high minded. That would get them all killed, especially against modern tech. But the resistance to our (US-lead) occupation is what we’re fighting in Afghanistan, and it pisses me off when people try and reserve that for people on “our side”, particularly the US military propaganda machine. Syria is an insurgency, Afghanistan is not.
The people in each region view themselves as distinct from people in other region.
In that they speak different languages and such, yes. But Afghanistan has been functionally united since at least the 18th century and had it’s current borders since 1823, which is longer than, say, Germany at 1918, or most modern nations on earth really, certainly our own.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Including Alexander’s (after being whopped.)
There IS a reason people still talk about him. Seriously how loony do you have to be to think that was a good plan.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
and had it’s current borders since 1823
Um just because some European drew a circle around that bit on a map and called it a single name does not mean it was a single country. The people within that circle still considered themselves mortal enemies of their neighbours.
I get your point that some/most/a few of the people living in that land look at the kiwis and think they are aliens.
But thinking about the Afgan people as one united group has been one of the major problems with the Western worlds failure to understand and interact with the country. It does no good to pretend they are all one people with all one ideology.
-
Steve Withers, in reply to
Tussock: Thanks for posting. Occasionally more accurate vocabulary intrudes into the flow of the approved narrative....which tends to have captured the language even among people who do not agree with the approved narrative. I don't use the world "insurgents". It's the new version of "radicals" and "extremists"......which used to be used to dismiss and deride anyone who opposed the Western agenda in a particular state.
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
Syria is an insurgency, Afghanistan is not.
When the government is shelling cities with tanks and artillery - not an insurgency.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It was much better than the guys that came before them, who it’s difficult even for me to talk about in polite company.
Effectively, there weren't any guys immediately before the Taliban, just warring militias backed by the Saudis and Iran respectively. The interim government never really had a chance.
Yes, the Taliban were organised and able to govern in some sense. They also slaughtered civilians literally by the thousand and deliberately allowed many more to starve to death.
The support for the Taliban then and now is because there’s worse things than medievalist religious nutbags to live under, which includes our occupation.
It's actually very hard to find any research that shows majority support for the Taliban amongst Afghans. And I frankly think it's impossible to square your characterisation of them as a "resistance" with their current campaign of slaughter of civilians.
But I guess we can agree it's clear that not all Taliban are the same, and any remotely orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan will require negotiation with the "good" Taliban.
-
tussock, in reply to
But I guess we can agree it’s clear that not all Taliban are the same, and any remotely orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan will require negotiation with the “good” Taliban.
At some point the US will "declare victory" and withdraw, as they could have done any time since about 10 days into this thing. The people who they leave in charge will be whoever can apply the greatest breadth of military force, which will be the same guys who ran the country before the US got there, the Taliban. The US will pretend to "negotiate" so they can sell it to the people at home, not because it's anything other than a failed attempt to produce another client state around Russia's borders.
It’s actually very hard to find any research that shows majority support for the Taliban amongst Afghans.
Really? The last decade of constant anti-Taliban propaganda doesn't give them glowing references? I'm shocked. You know we're at war with them, right? That embedded journalists don't actually get both sides of the story?
Though they are a very poor government, so that's probably true anyway. The National party here doesn't have majority support, and they're an incomparably superior government to the Taliban. The best choice available is not always going to be a nice one.
@Angus, I often forget to reiterate, but the Syrian government are also very bad people, with the mass murder and so on, though civil wars have always been pretty horrific like that. Either way, insurgent is not a synonym for "bad guy". At all. Just like resistance is not a synonym for "good guy".
There really aren't any good guys in war time. They give you medals for killing more people than they expected you to, and going crazy and killing a score or two civilians is just one of those things. Dresden? Hiroshima? Medals! Well planned, well executed, murder of tens of thousands in a day.
-
tussock, in reply to
Um just because some European drew a circle around that bit on a map and called it a single name does not mean it was a single country. The people within that circle still considered themselves mortal enemies of their neighbours.
Rubbish. Go educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AfghanistanIt's almost always the centre of a large state covering it's current ground and some extent of the surrounding nations, all the way back into pre-history, and Afghanistan just happened to be strong enough to tell the British where it's own borders were in the 19th century, at least for a while.
It was at war? Really? You might also like to compare with the History of Germany (which has been a country now for all of 20 years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_germanyMany tribes, languages, civil wars, genocides, and ever-changing borders that have only very recently been settled on, for now.
-
Brilliant programme this morning Russell.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Brilliant programme this morning Russell.
Thanks! Here's the episode on-demand.
-
Grant Duncan is great talent - an academic who tells it like it is. More. And I admire how fair and respectful Nicky Hager is on this topic.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Grant Duncan
his blog seems more philospophical in tone.
-
I enjoyed all the interviewees: Jon Stephenson, Grant Duncan (a new face to me) and especially Nicky Hager. Did anyone see The Nation beforehand?
I admire Rachael Smalley but she did let Stephen Joyce go on and on, so much so that it became very boring. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
It’s almost always the centre of a large state covering it’s current ground and some extent of the surrounding nations, all the way back into pre-history
That is surely more to do with geography rather than political influence. It begs the question of what exactly is a country, is a country defined by its people and in turn are a people defined by their leaders?. Historically the concept of a country is derived from a kingdom, an area under the control of a family or a collective of powerful people. This is, more often than not, further defined by its geography influencing the physical boarders.
So its a bit like that broom your Grandfather handed down to you, its had two new handles and a new head but it’s still the same broom. -
The content of the show was great....
a technical/production matter however.... the lighting seemed lacking to this non-expert viewer.
I know its not a studio but a converted venue, and you've mentioned the budget is tight... but the guests faces were at best, only marginally well lit, and yours (Russell) was positively in the shade...
I would have preferred brighter all around, but at least having guests and host lit equally would be a positive step.
But, yeah, great show and looking forward to more.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
a technical/production matter however…. the lighting seemed lacking to this non-expert viewer.
I know. It's actually better than it was last week. This stuff is surprisingly difficult in this sort of setting.
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
Grant Duncan is great talent - an academic who tells it like it is. More. And I admire how fair and respectful Nicky Hager is on this topic.
Yes, two very worthwhile segments, as was Tracy Watkins talking about polling- which I suppose will become more important for me to get to grips with eventually, despite my aversion to them.
A good episode indeed. It's just a shame it's on so early, but hey, there's always TV3OD
-
Lilith __, in reply to
It’s just a shame it’s on so early, but hey, there’s always TV3OD
Before the crack of noon! Ungodly. ;-)
-
Let me get this straight, the legitimate Mullah Omar lead government are the baddies eh Russell? Even though amerika invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because amerikans wanted an easy head to kick after the anti-globalist world trade centre action and they picked what they thought was an easy target.
Forget that no Afghans were anywhere near the WTC or the pentagon when amerika was getting some payback, George Bush & co selected them so they had to go.
I remember Mullah Omar, the legitimate president of Afghanistan, at that time a sovereign nation, offered to allow the bunch of Saudis that the US had framed for the job, to be extradited if amerika could just put up some evidence.No, not the made for TV fantasy translations of Osama bin Laden giving his opinion as a structural engineer of what caused the two towers to collapse, actual usable in a court of law, objective proof. Just like with Kim Dotcom really.
Omar was under no obligation since his government hadn't signed any ass licking treaties. But that didn't matter Afghanistan was selected and copped the brunt of amerikan angst at finally receiving a little payback for the millions of humans slaughtered across the planet to further US interests.
But according to Brown the subsequent invasion; the rape slaughter and looting by assorted mercenaries from any country eager to kiss bush butt, wasn't the problem, the Afghan administration was.
I suggest you read a book by a bloke called Abdul Salam Zaeef "My Life with the Taliban"
Zaeef was with the Taliban right from the beginning, he is a devout man of great character and honesty who eventually won the respect of his captors in Guantanamo Bay - oh so he must have been a terrorist then? No his crime was that he was a diplomat, he reluctantly agreed to take the role of Afghan ambassador to Pakistan. The amerikan agents who treat Pakistan like it is their personal fiefdom, arrested him, ignoring his diplomatic status and shipped him off to Guantanamo Bay. Big mistake because the man's popularity among Pakistanis and Afghans is so high even the amerikan installed puppet government of Afghanistan demanded his freedom!
Anyway the book documents the rise of the Taliban, how it came into being and exactly the awful state the US gangsters left the nation in after it was no longer needed for a battleground against Russia.
Read it and you may begin to comprehend the injustice that New Zealand has been party to for the last 11 years.
Lying liars tell a mob of garbage about the Taliban. Just this morning on TVOne an englander televison 'personality' interviewed an englander 'Otago uni security expert' about Aotearoa's involvement in Afghanistan. It was pitiful. My old man who got sucked into fighting for englanders for 6 years would have rolled in his grave, it was so bad.
In typical englander fashion the fault for the kiwi deaths lies at the feet of guess who? The Hungarians. Disgraceful and yet so so typical. Exactly the same type of thinking that will have englander 'commentators' whining about cheats or 'sledging' when they get dicked at Lords today. Everything is someone else's fault.
How did NZ come to this where we let those types back into our decision making processes? -
It occurs to me that if a few soldiers didn't die in wars, we wouldn't have the justification to spend $75mln on the Buckle St tunnel/memorial park.
Although we'll always have a steady stream of troops killing themselves in accidents, a 'military accident memorial' doesn't have the same ring.
-
Sacha, in reply to
englander
?
-
Danielle, in reply to
amerika
Whoa! Retro.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.