rational geekery

Afghanistan has been used as a pawn in a power game of empires - eg British, Russian, American.

Democracy should not be imposed through the barrel of a gun.

Get off your asses come here, see what is going on and maybe you can print something worth reading. The Taliban will not be taking over Kabul. Democracy was not imposed here it was embrassed by the people who want a better life and it is working. Mike. International Security Lead. Fayzagad Afghanistan

Well Mike.

I don't advocate pulling out.

If it could be arranged, I would be happy to see for myself. Maybe people should hear about Afghanistan from another source but the Mainstream Media?

If you would like this writer to travel and write about the real Afghanistan, please get in touch.

I second Mike.

It is, and has been, impossible for the Taliban to resume control of Kabul.

The people want Democracy. No one made them vote.

Come on over and check out the situation with your own eyeballs. The lying press isn't giving you a clear picture.

SGT White
Kandahar Air Field

[...] I am sorry to see at : http://tygerland.net/2006/11/26/no-chance-of-victory-in-afghanistan/#comments  that there are still people who think that Afghanistan should not be left by itself. The blunders with Afghanistan started by the Russian invasion followed by the American invasion. But the most important of them all was the ancient colonisation of the country. Colonial powers made that Afghanistan prolonged for so long its access to what we call civilisation. It was not convenient that they were given the appropriate education and it appears now that all those mistakes are wanted to be fixed up now. Why? Afghanistan is strategically situated and has important natural resources - as may be oil. As happens with Iraq Bush’s America wanted Afghanistan to “enjoy” the marvels of his democracy. And a democracy they imposed in Afghanistan. As a sui-generis democracy is also imposed in Egypt, or Morocco(phosphates) or any other Middle East country, including Israel. [...]

Bill Roggio is the most recent blogger to have come over here as an embed. If you want advice on getting that done, he's probably the guy to ask.

Thanks for your contribution Robert.

Sounds like an exciting opportunity.

http://billroggio.com/

I may just contact Mr. Roggio.

The invasion of Afghanistan, in the same way as the illegal invasion of Iraq, was made to protect the USA's commercial interests and the interests of their partner in the Middle East. It's certainly not a place where NATO troops should be deployed, NATO should not be fighting for American hegemony.
Before the invasion of Afghanistan there was concern that the large gas and oil deposits would be channelled eastwards to China.

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the Bush administratino began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a US expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of US intelligence organizations, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The last meeting between US and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the US government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.

Michael,

"American Hegemony." Wow. Talk about dusting off the late 60's playbook. BTW, mind citing what law was broken by invading Iraq?

Thing is, we'd like nothing better than for any oil/gas found in Afghanistan to be funneled toward China, or Russia, or India. Beleive it or not,that's in our best interests. Best interests of everyone actually. Iraq's oil too.

NATO is going to have to step up more and more. The UN has long ago (with abberations in 1950 and 1991) abdicated via neglect, its constituted warmaking powers.

"American Hegemony - the late 60's playbook".

Yes Robert, and that has been transformed into early 21st Century US "Full Spectrum Dominance" - along with pre-emptive nuclear strikes and militarization of space.

Go on Robert, look it up. It's an education, rather than indoctrination.

Robert asks "what law was broken in invading Iraq". The answer is of course that since there was no UN Resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq International Law was broken. You see Robert it's against International Law for any country to invade another, if it wasn't that way the world would be in even a more chaotic state than it is now.
You also seem to be totally unaware of the increasing competition for oil and gas reserves, whilst you obviously see nothing wrong with Afghanistan's oil and gas being funnelled towards China, India and Russia I'm afraid the loony in the White House would disagree with you.
Today's world is nothing like what occurred in the 1960's to start with there's unfortunately just one super power in the world when it comes to military spending and that super power is abusing that position.
NATO is clearly working outside its remit, which is simply to protect NATO countries from attack. We now have a situation where the USA's economic interests are being subsidised by the EU taxpayer. It occurred simply because the USA simply couldn't handle the resistance in Afghanistan, wanted to reduce their presence and the USA controlled NATO stepped into the breach. NATO in my opinion should be disbanded and an EU Army formed.
The UN of course is what we make it, when I say "we" I mean the countries that form the Security Council. Once again the USA has used the UN , just like NATO, for their own economic and political interests. The UN will not become effective until either the USA's membership is terminated of the VETO powers of the Security Council members reduced or cancelled.

"NATO is going to have to step up more and more"

says Robert, the reality is something quite different. My view is if the USA wants to control Afghan oil/gas they should fight for it on their own.

From the http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2018685.ece/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Indi: -

Nato urged to plan Afghanistan exit strategy as violence soars

Nato's fragile unity over Afghanistan has begun to crack ahead of an important summit - with one public call to discuss an exit strategy from the Allied forces' bloody confrontation with the Taliban.

While heads of government are to make a show of unity over Afghanistan at tomorrow's alliance summit in Riga, Belgium's Defence Minister has questioned the future of Nato's most important mission.

And heads of the alliance's 26 nations are unlikely to agree to send reinforcements to Afghanistan - dealing a blow to Tony Blair's hopes that others will take up more of the increasingly heavy burden.

In the bloodiest day of violence to grip the country in many weeks, a series of fierce clashes between Nato forces and Taliban fighters and a suicide bombing left 76 people dead and more than 45 injured yesterday, many of them children.

Though Belgium only makes a small military contribution to the Nato mission, the Minister's comments will alarm senior figures at the alliance's headquarters where there is already concern that France is getting cold feet about its role in Afghanistan. Paris has remained publicly committed to the mission but Nato sources are concerned about the possibility of an eventual French withdrawal. They are pressing for an enhanced UN profile in Afghanistan to reassure the French who are suspicious about an expanded role for Nato because of Washington's hold over the alliance.

André Flahaut, the Belgian Defence Minister, brought anxieties about the Afghan mission into the open when he suggested that, at the Riga summit, "we finally reflect on an exit strategy". Five years after the start of Western involvement in Afghanistan, Mr Flahaut calls into question its prospects of success.

In an interview with Le Vif-L'Express magazine, Mr Flahaut argued: "The situation is deteriorating and, over time, Nato forces risk appearing like an army of occupation." Discussions of an exit strategy are the last thing the Nato top brass wants to hear because it is hoping to use this week to reinforce a message of unity on Afghanistan.

The summit in Riga - the first to be held on ex-Soviet territory - will be attended by, among others, George Bush, Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair.

The rising violence in Afghanistan could be seen yesterday, with Nato reporting the loss of one soldier and 57 insurgents killed during four separate attacks in the south. Local people said at least 12 civilians died during an air strike.

Just hours after the fighting in Oruzgan province, a suicide bomber destroyed a restaurant in the Orgun district of Paktika. The blast is believed to have been aimed at an Afghan military commander but among the 25 dead and 20 injured were a number of children.

With 37 countries, including a host of non-Nato nations, contributing to the operation in Afghanistan a total of about 32,000 troops have been assembled .

In Riga, Nato is hoping for progress on one of the main problems facing commanders in the field: restrictions placed by national capitals on the use of their troops

What reduced US presence? At no time since 2001 have US force levels dropped. In fact they have risen and continue to rise. From 7,000 in 2001 to 21,000 today.

You'll never make it as an International Lawyer. The Gulf War never concluded. Thre was only a cease-fire. UNSCR 678 can easily be argued to still have force, especaillay in every succeedign resolution it was cited. UNSCR 1441 also cites as authority UN Charter Article VII, which is the language cited for authorizing force. Nothing in International law makes the acto of invasion illegal. Only intent is a problem under international law.

If we don't want oil and gas going to China, Russia and India, why isn't Iraqi oil going to the US? Maybe you ought to find out where it is going.

NATO had three purposes when it was created. Keep the US in Europe. Keep the USSR out of Europe. Keep Germany down. Which of those goals is still relevant today? It is about member defense but those defensive needs have obvioulsy changed. The evolution is clear.

Iraqi oil, despite now being nearly 4 years after the illegal invasion, still remains un metered. Metering is not expensive and neither could it be due to action by Iraqi resistance, because the pipeline ends outside Iraqi territory. The USA is stealing Iraqi oil, no record of how much is produced and therefore no record of how much it's being sold for.
The USA's intention of course, was to boost Iraqi production to an extent where OPEC could be undermined therefore reducing oil prices. Thankfully this has not succeeded.
NATO troops replace American ones in Afghanistan.

Perhaps in that case Robert you can explain why the USA went to the UN with a pack of lies trying to get UN authorisation for an invasion of Iraq? Even Colin Powell now admits that he feels "embarrassed" about it, you should be too.
Frankly Bush's invasion of Iraq was as about legal as Hitler's invasion of Poland.

UN Resolution 678 merely authorised Iraq's removal from Kuwait.

Resolution 1441 did not include the critical words "all necessary means". They are important words because they are the formula used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorised. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti.

Nevertheless they claim that Resolution 1441 itself gave authorisation for this illegal war. But if you look at the relevant part of 1441 it says that "the Security Council decides …to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime…" It also says that non-compliance "will be reported to the Council for assessment" and directs the Security Council "to convene immediately" on receipt of the weapons inspectors’ report "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions." Resolution 1441 further "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

That’s it. To anyone vaguely familiar with the English language this can only mean that it is the responsibility of the Security Council as a body -- all fifteen members including each of the Permanent Members with a veto -- to decide whether and to what extent there has been compliance and what to do about it. It’s not the American government that has to be "convinced" according to 1441; it’s the Security Council.

Indeed if you look at comments made by members of the Security Council during the debate regarding its approval, it's clear that all of the Security Council, obviously with the exception of the US & UK, specifically stated that Resolution 1441 should not be used an an authorisation for an invasion. It is clear therefore that the USA did not only lie in an attempt to get a second Resolution but they also lied to get Resolution 1441 approved.

The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of “automaticity” for the use of force had been eliminated.

The representatives of China and the Russian Federation stressed that only UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the authority to report violations by Iraq of the resolution’s requirements.

JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom )said there was no “automaticity” in the resolution. If there was a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the Council for discussion. He expected the Council then to meet its responsibilities.

ADOLPHO AGUILAR ZINSER (Mexico) said "Those who had advocated the automatic recourse to the use of force had agreed to afford Iraq a final chance, he said. Iraq was now obliged to fully comply with its international obligations. The resolution had eliminated “automaticity” in the use of force as a result of material breach.

RICHARD RYAN (Ireland) said that the unanimous adoption of the resolution was a strong statement of the Council’s unity. The resolution was about disarming Iraq without the use of force.

SERGEY LAVROV (Russian Federation) He emphasized that the resolution did not contain any provisions for the automatic use of force and underlined that the sponsors of the text had affirmed that today.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) His country had voted in favour after having received from the United States and United Kingdom, as well as France and the Russian Federation, reassurances that the resolution would not be used as pretext to strike Iraq and did not constitute a basis for “automaticity”.

There is no worse deaf than that who does not want to hear, Michael. And this Robert from Afghanistan (?) sounds like one of those deaf.

It is clear even to high officials in the US, members of the Houses, that the US broke international laws by invading Iraq, but this Robert of Afghanistan seems to know better.

Or is it perhaps that he is intent on crashing the truth, because as you know truth hurts?

Zealots have been and still are. You cannot prevent that, the only way to deal with them is just ignore them, as we ignore lunatics as long as their dangerousness will not harm us.

Not Robert From Afghanistan, Robert in Afghanistan. See the difference?

It's these kinds of things that lead one to think they understand international law too, when it's misreading, and interpretation despite, rather than from, the text.

An explanation of the handle: I'm an Oklahoma National Guardsman (named Robert) in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The reality of this place is outside my tent flap.

Robert time to face reality perhaps, if Kofi Annan says the invasion of Iraq was illegal, it was illegal. Please answer why you think the USA tried unsuccessfully to actually get a Resolution authorising an invasion of Iraq, but then went ahead and invaded anyway?

As I wrote previously, it was as legal as Hitler's invasion of Poland.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
· Summary of Article VI.
· :“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [US Constitution]
· The UN Charter is of course one of those Treaties refered to in the US Constitution.
In the UN Charter it states;
Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.
· Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” [UN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]
·
· AND
·
· Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.
o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force. [UN Charter]

Michael, you'll have to show me where inteh UN Charter the Secretary-General gets to make binding determinations of that sort. As it is, his comments were simply an opinion and a shockingly ignorant one at that.

It would have been best to have a clear and unambiguous statement from the UN, so you try to get one. When it isn't forthcoming, it's okay, because teh statemetns previously are good enough, just not as straightforward as one might wish. Leads to conversations like this one.

You probably ought to look up the Nuremburg transcripts to see why Hitler's invasion of Poland was found to be illegal.

Anyway, I covered this stuff long ago. Here's a link. http://signaleer.blogspot.com/2004/09/kofi-annan-says-iraq-invasion-illegal.html

And in case you're tempted to think I'm the typical conservative UN basher: http://signaleer.blogspot.com/2004/07/why-i-dont-like-un-and-why-we-should.html

Incidentally, a point you made a while back that deserves to be addressed: "all necessary means" as a phrase, does not appear in 1441. It did appear in 678 and the resolution for the Korean War. There is no requiremnt for this formulation and no clear indication that this should or even could constitute some kind of precedent.

Robert you fail once again to answer my questions, here it is once more "Why did the USA go to the UN to try and get a further UN Resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq?".
Of course UN Resolution 678 contained the words "All necessary means" because it authorised the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait, but that's all, it certainly didn't authorise an invasion of Iraq 13 years later. Resolution 1441 also says that non-compliance “will be reported to the Council for assessment”. It's for the UN Security Council to decide if an invasion was required. That of course explains why the USA tried with a catalogue of lies and fabricated evidence but was unsuccessful. As I've pointed out already by contemporary comments made by members of the Security Council, there was an expressed intention that UN 1441 would NOT be used to authorise an invasion without referral back to the Security Council.
I'm afraid Robert that neither Bush or yourself has leg to stand on, Bush is a war criminal without any doubt. I would also like to point out that Kofi Annan knows far more about International Law than I do or some dumb grunt sitting in Afghanistan. After all a recent survey suggested that around 80% of these dumb grunts in Iraq thought that Saddam really had WMD even now.

Do you understand this?

Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.
o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorised to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorise the use of military force. [UN Charter]

I emphasise this bit
"only the UN Security Council can authorise the use of military force"

Robert you fail once again to answer my questions, here it is once more “Why did the USA go to the UN to try and get a further UN Resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq?”.

Did you miss it? Here's teh answere as suscinctly as I can put it: PR.

I emphasise this bit
“only the UN Security Council can authorise the use of military force”

You missed my point here too? They did.

Well obviously Robert you live in world where black is really white and lies are really the truth. The UN did not authorise an invasion of Iraq. it was vetoed by members of the Security Council (thankfully) , the attempt by the USA to try and get a Resolution authorising force failed miserably.
I'm hopeful that with the demise of the US$ on account of its continuing devaluation and the huge trade deficit which is clearly unsustainable, that the USA will have no alternative but to release war criminals such as Bush, Cheney, Rice up to the International Criminal Court. After all the arrogance we now see from the USA and Americans in general was probably the same as the Germans in 1939. I wonder how many of those could foresee the Nuremberg trials happening 6 years later.

[...] The ongoing debate on Afghanistan. Share this post with the world...These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]