Base assault in Afghanistan, 10 Coalition killed, 13 captured [Archive]

khad

4th October 2009, 17:41

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/04/afghanistan.troops.killed/

The US military is still pathetically underprepared, and the Afghan forces are horrendously undertrained. Battle of Hill 3234 this wasn't.

At least 8 Americans and 7 Afghan police killed, 15 Afghan police captured. No information on wounded. Expect more details to be uncovered in the days to come.

8 U.S. troops killed in battle with militants in Afghanistan

* Story Highlights
* NEW: Battle lasted 12 hours as hundreds of militants fired on outpost, official says
* Eight U.S. troops, two members of Afghan National Security Force killed in fighting
* Coalition forces say they called in airstrikes, repelled attack from militants
* Incident marks deadliest day for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2008KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Hundreds of militants attacked American and Afghan troops in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, opening fire on an outpost from multiple locations with rockets, mortars and heavy-caliber machine guns, according to an initial U.S. military report on the battle.

At least eight American troops and two members of the Afghan National Security Force died -- the largest number of Americans killed by hostile action in a single day in more than a year, according to CNN records.

At least 13 Afghan police officers were captured in the attack, according to Haji Abdul Halim, the deputy governor of Nuristan province, where the battle took place.

The fighting lasted about 12 hours, with the militants firing down on the joint U.S.-Afghan outpost from ridgelines above the base, a senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the first reports told CNN. The official said the report was preliminary and subject to change as more information came in.

The official said portions of the outpost burst into flame and burned down, but was not able to say if the blaze caused injuries or deaths.

The militants also fired from a local mosque, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said.

The Afghan Ministry of Defense said hundreds of militant fighters surrounded two outposts in the attack.

The terrain and the weather worked against U.S. troops, the U.S. military source said. The attackers' firing positions in the mountains made it tough for U.S. troops to fight back, and bad weather made it hard for troops to fire back effectively, the source said.

Coalition forces repelled the attack, inflicting "heavy enemy casualties," and calling in airstrikes, the alliance said.

The military source said air support arrived within 30 minutes, and that the attackers did not succeed in getting inside the outpost.

The official asked not to be identified because the incident is under investigation and the Pentagon is trying to ensure families of the deceased are informed before the military says more.

"My heart goes out to the families of those we have lost and to their fellow soldiers who remained to finish this fight," said Col. Randy George, commander of Task Force Mountain Warrior. "This was a complex attack in a difficult area. Both the U.S. and Afghan soldiers fought bravely together; I am extremely proud of their professionalism and bravery."

ISAF withheld the identities of the deceased until family members were notified.

The U.S. does not have any indication that the death toll will rise, a U.S. military representative in Afghanistan told CNN.

Before Saturday's incident, the U.S. had announced plans to leave the post that came under attack.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has said he wants to focus more on protecting Afghan civilians rather than holding remote outposts like the one that was attacked Saturday.

The last time American troops suffered so many casualties in a single day was July 13, 2008, when Afghan militants attempted to overrun a base in the village of Wanat, also in eastern Afghanistan.

At least nine Americans died that day, and the base was abandoned days later.

Militants "attempted to break into that base," said Mark Laity, a NATO spokesman, a day after the attack last summer. They did make some penetration, he said, "but overall they were repelled and they took very heavy casualties themselves."

Two days later, the base was "disestablished," ISAF said.

The Wanat attack was the deadliest attack on U.S. troops in three years, and prompted a Pentagon investigation.

The U.S. Army unit that came under attack didn't get enough intelligence that 200 insurgents were in the area and poised to attack, two officials told CNN in the wake of the battle. However, the failure of intelligence is only one angle the Pentagon investigated. The report has not yet been released.

The U.S. military in Afghanistan declined to comment on comparisons between the Wanat attack and the one on Saturday.Update: This source claims 7 Afghan troops killed and 15 captured:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33160876/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

8 U.S. troops killed in Afghan battle Attack near Pakistan border was one of fiercest in troubled eight-year war
The Associated Press
updated 12:49 p.m. ET, Sun., Oct . 4, 2009

KABUL - Militant fighters streaming from an Afghan village and a mosque attacked a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistani border, killing eight U.S. soldiers and as many as seven Afghan forces in one of the fiercest battles of the eight-year war.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the deadliest attack for coalition forces since a similar raid in July 2008 killed nine American soldiers in the same mountainous region known as an al-Qaida haven. The U.S. has already said it plans to pull its soldiers from the isolated area to focus on Afghan population centers.

Fighting began around dawn Saturday and lasted several hours, punctuated by American airstrikes. Jamaludin Badar, governor of Nuristan province, said the two outposts were on a hill — one near the top and one at the foot of the slope — flanked by the village on one side and the mosque on the other.
Nearly 300 militant fighters flooded the lower Afghan outpost then swept around it to reach the American station on higher ground from both directions, said Mohammad Qasim Jangulbagh, the provincial police chief. The U.S. military statement said the Americans and Afghans repelled the attack by tribal fighters and "inflicted heavy enemy casualties."

Airstrikes, prisoners

Jangulbagh said that the gunbattle included U.S. airstrikes and that 15 Afghan police were captured by the Taliban, including the local police chief and his deputy. A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, said a council would decide the fates of the police, confirming the capture of the two top local officers.
Badar said five or six Afghan soldiers died, as did one policeman.

Afghan forces were sent as reinforcements, but Jangulbagh said all communications to the district, Kamdesh, were severed and he had no way of knowing how they were faring Sunday. The area is just 20 miles from the Pakistani border and 150 miles from Kabul.

"This was a complex attack in a difficult area," U.S. Col. Randy George, the area commander, said in the American statement. "Both the U.S. and Afghan soldiers fought bravely together."

Jangulbagh said the bodies of five enemy fighters were found after the battle.

U.S. Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a military spokeswoman, said American forces continued to man the outpost and there was scattered fighting early Sunday. She said was unclear if the attackers were Taliban or from another group linked to them.

She said American officials were working with the Afghan army to relay messages to Afghan forces in the area.

Separately, a roadside bomb southwest of Kabul killed a U.S. service member on Saturday, Mathias said.

NecroCommie

4th October 2009, 18:59

4th October 2009, 20:00

U.S. defeat in Afghanistan can be a tremendous dent on it's credibility as an imperialist superpower. Hopefully this will increase the morale of truly socialist uprisings.

Not really, it's well known that if whole peoples resent any power, no matter how powerful they are, they are only going to have limited success. What about all the previous examples of this? Look at how many times the British empire got booted out of Afghanistan.

It never stopped them from trying again.. and again.. and again........

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 20:04

Afghanistan is a black hole which could continue to be a festering sore in the foot of NATO for decades. It is impossible to stay there, and equally impossible to leave (for the US). When the west leaves, the government will fall.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 20:11

Well they got what was coming to them. :thumbup1:

U.S. defeat in Afghanistan can be a tremendous dent on it's credibility as an imperialist superpower. Hopefully this will increase the morale of truly socialist uprisings.

It certainly looks like the Taliban took the bigger beating. Rooting for the Taliban is not the answer. While I think they should be left alone, they certainly can't be considered a revolutionary force. When you publicly hope to see members of your own proletariat getting killed, you seriously undercut your credibility. Now if you could convince US troops to turn their guns on their officers, you'd be looking at a truly socialist uprising.

Andropov

4th October 2009, 20:24

It certainly looks like the Taliban took the bigger beating. Rooting for the Taliban is not the answer. While I think they should be left alone, they certainly can't be considered a revolutionary force. When you publicly hope to see members of your own proletariat getting killed, you seriously undercut your credibility. Now if you could convince US troops to turn their guns on their officers, you'd be looking at a truly socialist uprising.
No doubt that the Taliban are not a Revolutionary force, they are Religious zealots, a throw back to the dark ages.
But without a doubt Afganistan is far more progressive under Taliban Rule than Imperialism.
So within the context of the situation a Taliban Victory is more progressive for the Afghani people than an Imperial victory.
As for cheering members of your Proletariats deaths, well that is absurd.
There is the same potential for progressive working class consciousness among the Taliban Recruits as the Yank Imeprialists and it is slightly chauvanistic to think otherwise.
But until Yank imperialsts who occupy a people for imperialist exploitation do turn on the imperialists who herd them to their slaughter they are a reactionary force and must be treated as such.
Workers in uniform and all that just doesnt wash.

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 20:31

NecroCommie

4th October 2009, 20:39

It certainly looks like the Taliban took the bigger beating. Rooting for the Taliban is not the answer. While I think they should be left alone, they certainly can't be considered a revolutionary force.
Nowhere did I claim Taliban as a revolutionary force, but the cold fact being that there is little to no political difference between Taliban and the current afghan government, the political impact of this war is reduced to be a question whether western intervention aka. imperialism is acceptable or not. So I am not as much cheering for Taliban, as I cheer against U.S.

When you publicly hope to see members of your own proletariat getting killed, you seriously undercut your credibility.
Make no mistake, armies and their loyalties play a major role in the class war as the most powerful tool of violence for the bourgeois. They might be workers, but they are not comrades. As long as they wear that uniform their very existence is in violation of proletariat class war, and therefore in violation of your rights. They are class traitors above all, servants of the capital and worthy of the same treatment as the ideologies they kill for.

Now if you could convince US troops to turn their guns on their officers, you'd be looking at a truly socialist uprising.
Is this some covert nationalism, or why on earth do U.S. troops carry more value than afghan ones? As said before, U.S. troops are exactly as likely to start a socialist revolution, as afghani one, if not even less so. Remember, workers have no country, and therefore no countrymen.

Andropov

4th October 2009, 20:43

Afghanistan more progressive under the Taleban than imperialism? :laugh:

I hate imperialism as much as anyone here, but imperialism haven't actually tried to prevent girls from going to schools.

The NATO forces are aligning with warlords, some of them islamists, and have failed to install progressive policies. But the Taleban are actively anti-progressive. That's hard to beat.
Haha are you for real?
That mickey mouse government is based on sectarian and tribal lines which will only further serve to increase internal divisiveness.
You do realise that under Imperialism they have legitimised rape?

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 20:44

No doubt that the Taliban are not a Revolutionary force, they are Religious zealots, a throw back to the dark ages.
But without a doubt Afganistan is far more progressive under Taliban Rule than Imperialism.
So within the context of the situation a Taliban Victory is more progressive for the Afghani people than an Imperial victory.
As for cheering members of your Proletariats deaths, well that is absurd.
There is the same potential for progressive working class consciousness among the Taliban Recruits as the Yank Imeprialists and it is slightly chauvanistic to think otherwise.
But until Yank imperialsts who occupy a people for imperialist exploitation do turn on the imperialists who herd them to their slaughter they are a reactionary force and must be treated as such.
Workers in uniform and all that just doesnt wash.

Are you kidding? You even realize that the Taliban are a wretched force from dark ages, and you still consider them progressive? US imperialism and Soviet imperialism have been remarkably similar in Afghanistan. Both make tremendous effort to educate the population, grant equality to women, and improve their overall standard of life with things like modern medicine. If the US could be successful in Afghanistan, I would support it because it would bring modernity to the country. However, the war is not winnable. In fact, I don't think that they are even trying to win it. They're purposely prolonging it.

In fact, Communist Afghans like General Dostum's forces have been fighting on the US side since the first week of the conflict. They realize that Capitalism is a transformative step and the Taliban only bring pre-Feudal tribalism. The Taliban are reactionary forces.

US troops are simply doing what the proletariat has always done: getting exploited.

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 20:44

The main problem for NATO in Afghanistan is not even the Taleban. The Taleban is possible to defeat and has a low credibility amongst the Afghan population.

The main problem is that the Afghan government has about as low credibility in the eyes of the Afghan population, and has deserved such a bad reputation by looting its own population, inviting warlords, patronising drug-dealers and instituting a police force which is kidnapping children and raping them.

Even without the Taleban, Karzai's government would have the same destiny as Najibullah's as soon as NATO pulls out. Afghanistan was seriously fucked up in 1978-1985, and it is doubtful the country could survive at all.

As for the IcePick. I wonder if he and Red Revolutionary is smoking the same dope. May I have some? :D

Sorry, that was a bit rude.

I think that both the Soviet and the American interventions caused backlashes. The Taleban is a product of the Soviet period, due to the fact that the Taleban were raised inside the refugee camps in Pakistan. Its leaders are consisting of a generation of people which were very young in the period of the Soviet intervention.

I wonder what monstrosities will come up from the NATO intervention? Certainly, it would be some kind of islamism which will make the Taleban look progressive!

Andropov

4th October 2009, 20:59

Are you kidding? You even realize that the Taliban are a wretched force from dark ages, and you still consider them progressive?
I never said that.
I said that they were more Progressive than Imperialism.

US imperialism and Soviet imperialism have been remarkably similar in Afghanistan.
Soviet Imperialism?
Are you for real?

Both make tremendous effort to educate the population, grant equality to women, and improve their overall standard of life with things like modern medicine.
No they havent.
The Imperialist puppet government have legalized rape.

If the US could be successful in Afghanistan, I would support it because it would bring modernity to the country.
Modernity?
They are catering to reactionary warlords who hold as much chauvanism as the Taliban.
All to maintain imperialisms grasp on Afghanistan.
You hold a deeply chauvanistic outlook on Afghanistan.

However, the war is not winnable. In fact, I don't think that they are even trying to win it. They're purposely prolonging it.
They are attempting to maintain control, badly it must be said.

In fact, Communist Afghans like General Dostum's forces have been fighting on the US side since the first week of the conflict. They realize that Capitalism is a transformative step and the Taliban only bring pre-Feudal tribalism.
They are not introducing capitalism.
You really are buying into the whole chauvanistic propaganda machine.
American imperialism is exploiting tribal divisions to maintain control, they are not eradicating them.
If anything this imperialism will only serve even more divisive to tribal divisions.
Remember it is in the interest of the imperialist to divide and conquer to maintain control of the subjective people.

The Taliban are reactionary forces.
Absolutely.

US troops are simply doing what the proletariat has always done: getting exploited.
They are helping exploit the Afghani proletariat through the barrel of their gun and force of their boot.
They are reactionary forces who are no more the proletariat than Taliban recruits are.
You hold some deeply chauvanistic outlooks.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 21:16

Nowhere did I claim Taliban as a revolutionary force, but the cold fact being that there is little to no political difference between Taliban and the current afghan government, the political impact of this war is reduced to be a question whether western intervention aka. imperialism is acceptable or not. So I am not as much cheering for Taliban, as I cheer against U.S.

Ok, fair enough.

Make no mistake, armies and their loyalties play a major role in the class war as the most powerful tool of violence for the bourgeois. They might be workers, but they are not comrades. As long as they wear that uniform their very existence is in violation of proletariat class war, and therefore in violation of your rights. They are class traitors above all, servants of the capital and worthy of the same treatment as the ideologies they kill for.

Then you can implicate every worker in the US who participates in the government or pays taxes. The military just happen to be unfortunate enough to man the front lines.

Is this some covert nationalism, or why on earth do U.S. troops carry more value than afghan ones? As said before, U.S. troops are exactly as likely to start a socialist revolution, as afghani one, if not even less so. Remember, workers have no country, and therefore no countrymen.

Did I say US troops carry more value? Americans need to stimulate and revolutionize their own just like the Afghans need to. The US military and the Taliban. Neither are revolutionary, so it's pretty much a WWI situation where neither side is truly fighting for the people.

Also, I'm about as covertly nationalist as Stalin. I believe in Socialism in One Country at a time. I don't buy the Trotskyite line(which is admittedly closer to Marx), and I think it's unrealistic to expect a simultaneous global uprising.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 21:26

Soviet Imperialism?
Are you for real?

Take it with a tongue in cheek, if you will. I admire what the Soviet Union tried to do in Afghanistan, but it was naive. Obviously it wasn't a war for empire, but it's wrong to force a foreign people to live a certain way on their land.

Modernity?
They are catering to reactionary warlords who hold as much chauvanism as the Taliban.
All to maintain imperialisms grasp on Afghanistan.
You hold a deeply chauvanistic outlook on Afghanistan.
They are attempting to maintain control, badly it must be said.

It's not chauvinistic, it's realistic. That's how the Taliban is, are you kidding? I like the Afghan people, but what I'm saying is true.

They are helping exploit the Afghani proletariat through the barrel of their gun and force of their boot.
They are reactionary forces who are no more the proletariat than Taliban recruits are.
You hold some deeply chauvanistic outlooks.

There is no defined proletariat class in Afghanistan. That would have to be cultivated before anything else. The Soviet Army tried but unfortunately failed. Are our forces helping exploit the Afghans? Indeed they are, but they are exploited themself. It's no benefit to them one way or another. Certainly they are proletarian whether you like it or not.

Spawn of Stalin

4th October 2009, 21:44

Rusty Shackleford

4th October 2009, 21:47

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has said he wants to focus more on protecting Afghan civilians rather than holding remote outposts like the one that was attacked Saturday.

is this not how the soviet union had gone into decline in afghanistan by ceding the hills to the enemy and only controlling cities?

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 21:48

The Taleban are as much shit as the current government of Afghanistan. If they gain power and defeat their internal opponents as well, they will soon progress to infighting. The collapse of Afghanistan would possibly be a good thing for the people living there in the long run.

khad

4th October 2009, 21:48

Are you kidding? You even realize that the Taliban are a wretched force from dark ages, and you still consider them progressive? US imperialism and Soviet imperialism have been remarkably similar in Afghanistan. Both make tremendous effort to educate the population, grant equality to women, and improve their overall standard of life with things like modern medicine.
Bullshit. Security, education, and basic rights are far worse under the US government than at any time in the 1980s. You know those bombings you hear about in Kabul every week or so? That never happened in the 1980s. The Afghan Army was strong, the strongest army in Central Asia outside of the USSR.

Furthermore, your accusation of Soviet imperialism betrays just how little you know about the history. The USA and Pakistan were already inciting civil war in Afghanistan before the PDPA ever took power, and the PDPA had to request Soviet assistance 11 times before it was granted.

If the US could be successful in Afghanistan, I would support it because it would bring modernity to the country. However, the war is not winnable. In fact, I don't think that they are even trying to win it. They're purposely prolonging it.

In fact, Communist Afghans like General Dostum's forces have been fighting on the US side since the first week of the conflict.If you think Dostum's a communist, you're full of shit. That man is a careerist warlord who betrayed socialism in Afghanistan to the Mujahideen only to then backstab them and fuck them over for the Taliban. He is and always has been a mercenary for the highest bidder.

They realize that Capitalism is a transformative step and the Taliban only bring pre-Feudal tribalism. The Taliban are reactionary forces.

US troops are simply doing what the proletariat has always done: getting exploited.Cry me a river for imperialist troops, the most exploited and brutalized people in the empire. :rolleyes:

Change that avatar. You are a fucking disgrace.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 21:51

Whatever you think of the Taliban, I want the Americans (and the Brits) to get a good kicking. You didn't have to be a Communist to support North Vietnam, so you don't have to be an Islamist to see that that the Taliban, no matter how reactionary they may be, are the real defenders of Afghanistan. Yes, their politics are awful, but at least when they were in power people were not under any illusions like they are now. Things are not getting any better in Afghanistan so the Americans should go home whether they are pulled out by Obama or kicked out by religious extremists, they just need to leave.

Agreed. I would rather Afghanistan keep it's unique character than simply be another free market democracy that caters into world trade. Not to mention it's not a winnable situation. If the Afghan people accept or overthrow the Taliban, that is their own choice. I don't root for them to kill working class Americans, I simply think that our government needs to cease imposing its will in the name of democracy and capitalism.

khad

4th October 2009, 21:59

I think that both the Soviet and the American interventions caused backlashes. The Taleban is a product of the Soviet period, due to the fact that the Taleban were raised inside the refugee camps in Pakistan. Its leaders are consisting of a generation of people which were very young in the period of the Soviet intervention.
Actually, the Taliban is the product of the Mujahideen. They reacted against what was a venal and corrupt coalition of warlords who spent their time fighting amongst each other and wrecking the country in the process.

The current Taliban needs to be viewed in this light. The sad fact of the destruction of socialism in Afghanistan means that in all likelihood the only potentially leftwing youth are in the Taliban, helping to organize the peasants.

There is no avenue of progress in Afghanistan's bourgeois politics; since those educated under the socialist government are still largely living in exile, Afghanistan's politics are controlled by a foreign-educated, neoliberal intelligentsia.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 21:59

Bullshit. Security, education, and basic rights are far worse under the US government than at any time in the 1980s. You know those bombings you hear about in Kabul every week or so? That never happened in the 1980s. The Afghan Army was strong, the strongest army in Central Asia outside of the USSR.

The war in the 80s was a completely different animal. It was second industrial revolution style war. Now, it's information age asymmetrical conflict. Apparently the Afghan Army wasn't stronger than the Taliban.

If you think Dostum's a communist, you're full of shit. That man is a careerist warlord who betrayed socialism in Afghanistan to the Mujahideen only to then backstab them and fuck them over for the Taliban. He is and always has been a mercenary for the highest bidder.

Well, he was part of your vaunted Afghan Army wasn't he? Not to mention, he's clearly not a Communist. If you knew how to read, you'd see I wrote "General Dostum's forces." I suppose they were all just traitorous Uzbeks?

Cry me a river for imperialist troops, the most exploited and brutalized people in the empire. :rolleyes:

Change that avatar. You are a fucking disgrace.

You're a vulgar stooge. Learn how to socialize. Can you name anyone else in the US empire more exploited and brutalized than US troops? They are obviously getting shit on by our government more than anyone else.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 22:06

Actually, the Taliban is the product of the Mujahideen. They reacted against what was a venal and corrupt coalition of warlords who spent their time fighting amongst each other and wrecking the country in the process.

The current Taliban needs to be viewed in this light. The sad fact of the destruction of socialism in Afghanistan means that in all likelihood the only potentially leftwing youth are in the Taliban, helping to organize the peasants.

No, what he said was true. The Taliban was raised in Pakistan out of refugees. It's the product of Pakistani intelligence, the ISI. There is no disputing it. They have nothing to do with Mujahadeen. It should also be known that the CIA gave most of their funding to Gulbuddin's Mujahadeen who have now been absorbed into the Taliban.

There is no 'left-wing youth' in the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban is unusual as a military force in that its fighters are older, averaging in the 30's. Not at all like the Iraqi insurgency, which consisted primarily of teenagers doing the missions.

There is no avenue of progress in Afghanistan's bourgeois politics; since those educated under the socialist government are still largely living in exile, Afghanistan's politics are controlled by a foreign-educated, neoliberal intelligentsia.

This much is true.

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 22:09

Actually, the Taliban is the product of the Mujahideen. They reacted against what was a venal and corrupt coalition of warlords who spent their time fighting amongst each other and wrecking the country in the process.

The current Taliban needs to be viewed in this light. The sad fact of the destruction of socialism in Afghanistan means that in all likelihood the only potentially leftwing youth are in the Taliban, helping to organize the peasants.

There is no avenue of progress in Afghanistan's bourgeois politics; since those educated under the socialist government are still largely living in exile, Afghanistan's politics are controlled by a foreign-educated, neoliberal intelligentsia.

Not really. You are mixing two species of really bad fruit there. The Mujahedeen was a product of the American foreign policy. They took power in 1992 following the collapse of Najibullah's Soviet-backed government.

The Taleban was an islamist group which appeared in 1994, when the Mujahedeen was already infighting for the scrambles left by the state collapse. They were supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They managed to take most of the country by 1996, forcing the Mujahedeen to reorganise themselves as "the Northern Alliance".

Basically, the Taleban are the second generation fighters.

khad

4th October 2009, 22:12

The war in the 80s was a completely different animal. It was second industrial revolution style war. Now, it's information age asymmetrical conflict.
At the battle of Jalalabad in 1989, a combined offensive of all the Mujahideen was crushed decisively, even with armor and artillery support provided by Pakistan. The Afghan Army acted more or less alone.

The problem came with Gorbachev's cutoff of aid, first with fuel and then with food. By 1992, Afghan soldiers were literally starving.

Apparently the Afghan Army wasn't stronger than the Taliban.The Afghan Army was never defeated by the Taliban. The Taliban came into existence as a military force after the ashrars took over the government.

The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance of history.

Well, he was part of your vaunted Afghan Army wasn't he? Not to mention, he's clearly not a Communist. If you knew how to read, you'd see I wrote "General Dostum's forces." I suppose they were all just traitorous Uzbeks? Yes, they are traitors. You really think someone like Dostum spent time carefully indoctrinating and educating his force of backstabbers in the basics of socialism?

You're a vulgar stooge. Learn how to socialize. Can you name anyone else in the US empire more exploited and brutalized than US troops? They are obviously getting shit on by our government more than anyone else.Well, looks like someone's outed himself as a privileged white American. Off the top of my head, oh, Afghans, Iraqis, third world laborers pressed into working for American corporations in war zones, undocumented migrants working in meat processing plants, women enslaved in prostitution servicing US servicemen...

Looks like your sense of entitlement is getting the better of you.

khad

4th October 2009, 22:13

Not really. You are mixing two species of really bad fruit there. The Mujahedeen was a product of the American foreign policy. They took power in 1992 following the collapse of Najibullah's Soviet-backed government.

The Taleban was an islamist group which appeared in 1994, when the Mujahedeen was already infighting for the scrambles left by the state collapse. They were supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They managed to take most of the country by 1996, forcing the Mujahedeen to reorganise themselves as "the Northern Alliance".

Basically, the Taleban are the second generation fighters.
I just said that. Learn to read.

khad

4th October 2009, 22:17

No, what he said was true. The Taliban was raised in Pakistan out of refugees. It's the product of Pakistani intelligence, the ISI. There is no disputing it. They have nothing to do with Mujahadeen. It should also be known that the CIA gave most of their funding to Gulbuddin's Mujahadeen who have now been absorbed into the Taliban.

There is no 'left-wing youth' in the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban is unusual as a military force in that its fighters are older, averaging in the 30's. Not at all like the Iraqi insurgency, which consisted primarily of teenagers doing the missions.
You speak from your imagination. Regardless of the fact that they received ISI funding, only the most base and blind afghan nationalists would claim that they are just a Pakistani front. The current Taliban has outgrown its handlers, and for better or for worse they are the only ones carrying forward the rural class struggle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17pstan.html

In Swat, accounts from those who have fled now make clear that the Taliban seized control by pushing out about four dozen landlords who held the most power.

To do so, the militants organized peasants into armed gangs that became their shock troops, the residents, government officials and analysts said.
The approach allowed the Taliban to offer economic spoils to people frustrated with lax and corrupt government even as the militants imposed a strict form of Islam through terror and intimidation.

“This was a bloody revolution in Swat,” said a senior Pakistani official who oversees Swat, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the Taliban. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it sweeps the established order of Pakistan.”

The Taliban’s ability to exploit class divisions adds a new dimension to the insurgency and is raising alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal.

Unlike India after independence in 1947, Pakistan maintained a narrow landed upper class that kept its vast holdings while its workers remained subservient, the officials and analysts said. Successive Pakistani governments have since failed to provide land reform and even the most basic forms of education and health care. Avenues to advancement for the vast majority of rural poor do not exist.

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 22:26

I just said that. Learn to read.

Soviet intervention = 4 million refugees = camps in Pakistan = The Taleban ^^

khad

4th October 2009, 22:29

Soviet intervention = 4 million refugees = camps in Pakistan = The Taleban ^^
No, equals the Mujahideen whose corruption, rapes, and massacres were put to an end by the Taliban.

If you really want to play the roots game, I can blame America for impoverishing southern Afghanistan with the Hemand Project which precipitated the civil war that began under the Daoud government.

It might be a hard pill to swallow, but the only people actually doing on-the-ground work, ie land reform, are the Taliban.

Andropov

4th October 2009, 22:32

Take it with a tongue in cheek, if you will. I admire what the Soviet Union tried to do in Afghanistan, but it was naive. Obviously it wasn't a war for empire, but it's wrong to force a foreign people to live a certain way on their land.
Khad has sufficiently demolished that arguement.

It's not chauvinistic, it's realistic. That's how the Taliban is, are you kidding? I like the Afghan people, but what I'm saying is true.
No its not realistic.
What is realistic is that the Taliban are no more regressive than the Warlords who are the puppets of Imperialist elements.
Like I said no effort at "modernity" is made because its not in imperialists interests.
What is in their interests is to exploit tribal tensions to maintain the imperialist strangle hold of exploitation.
And quite frankly your outlook on Afghanistan is chauvanistic.

There is no defined proletariat class in Afghanistan. That would have to be cultivated before anything else.
True but Imperialist interests are most definetly those whowill create industrialisation.

The Soviet Army tried but unfortunately failed. Are our forces helping exploit the Afghans? Indeed they are, but they are exploited themself.
True, something I never claimed otherwise.

It's no benefit to them one way or another.
Yet again something I did not claim.

Certainly they are proletarian whether you like it or not.
What their class background is is largely irrelevant within the context of Afghanistan.
Within the context of Afghanistan they are a reactionary force used to exploit and subjugate the Afghani people and until they do realise their class consciousness they will continue to be a reactionary force in Afghanistan and should be treated as such.

khad

4th October 2009, 22:35

Khad has sufficiently demolished that arguement.

"it's wrong to force a foreign people to live a certain way on their land."

He is very naive. There was a real revolution that put the PDPA into power, and once they were in power they made all sorts of concessions to the culture of Afghanistan. This is the main reason why Parcham, the Islamic socialist wing of the PDPA came to dominate most of the civil government.

Andropov

4th October 2009, 22:37

Can you name anyone else in the US empire more exploited and brutalized than US troops? They are obviously getting shit on by our government more than anyone else.
What in blue fuck is this?
Sweet mother of god this does not warrant constructive criticism.
I salute Khads patience in the face of pure chauvanism.

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 22:41

No, equals the Mujahideen whose corruption, rapes, and massacres were put to an end by the Taliban.

If you really want to play the roots game, I can blame America for impoverishing southern Afghanistan with the Hemand Project which precipitated the civil war that began under the Daoud government.

It might be a hard pill to swallow, but the only people actually doing on-the-ground work, ie land reform, are the Taliban.

I don't trust the Taleban to make any kind of land reform which is more beneficial for the Afghan population than the Pol Pot refoms were for the Cambodians.

The Taleban will turn corrupted when they have taken power. Period. Moreover, they only represent a fraction of the Pashtun community.

Andropov

4th October 2009, 22:42

I don't trust the Taleban to make any kind of land reform which is more beneficial for the Afghan population than the Pol Pot refoms were for the Cambodians.

The Taleban will turn corrupted when they have taken power. Period. Moreover, they only represent a fraction of the Pashtun community.
Sorry, relevancey to the debate?

Dimentio

4th October 2009, 22:44

Sorry, relevancey to the debate?

Ask Khad. ^^

khad

4th October 2009, 22:45

The Taleban will turn corrupted when they have taken power. Period. Moreover, they only represent a fraction of the Pashtun community.
The thing is with the current Taliban is that it is highly factionalized. It is not out of the question that certain elements might evolve into something greater. Or there could even be a split.

In any event, I observe the situation with keen interest.

The promotion of class consciousness among the peasantry is a prerequisite for any kind of social movement to take form.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 22:58

At the battle of Jalalabad in 1989, a combined offensive of all the Mujahideen was crushed decisively, even with armor and artillery support provided by Pakistan. The Afghan Army acted more or less alone.

The problem came with Gorbachev's cutoff of aid, first with fuel and then with food. By 1992, Afghan soldiers were literally starving.

The Afghan Army was never defeated by the Taliban. The Taliban came into existence as a military force after the ashrars took over the government.

The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance of history.

I'm well aware. I wasn't claiming the Taliban beat them in battle, merely that they have proven stronger. They have survivability that the Afghan Army did not. Indeed the traitor Gorbachev did leave them to die, but if you can't survive without foreign aid, what is that saying?

Yes, they are traitors. You really think someone like Dostum spent time carefully indoctrinating and educating his force of backstabbers in the basics of socialism?

I can't say I'm sure of this, but I doubt Dostum was even able to indocrinate. It's not like he was a real power. He was just a rallying point for anti-Taliban(although in a way anti-Pashtuun) forces.

Well, looks like someone's outed himself as a privileged white American. Off the top of my head, oh, Afghans, Iraqis, third world laborers pressed into working for American corporations in war zones, undocumented migrants working in meat processing plants, women enslaved in prostitution servicing US servicemen...

Looks like your sense of entitlement is getting the better of you.

I wasn't asking for victims of US aggression. Third world laborers and migrant meat packers are indeed exploited, but do you honestly think they have it worse than teenagers sent to Now Zad to deal with snipers and booby traps on a daily basis for a similar paycheck? Get real.

khad

4th October 2009, 23:09

I wasn't asking for victims of US aggression. Third world laborers and migrant meat packers are indeed exploited, but do you honestly think they have it worse than teenagers sent to Now Zad to deal with snipers and booby traps on a daily basis for a similar paycheck? Get real.
Let's do some simple math here. There are currently 1.5 million active duty personnel in the American military. About 5000 have died in the wars so far. If you had to gamble, that would be a pretty good bet.

Not only do you get to keep most of the $20k paycheck (for a PFC) because you don't have to pay for food and housing, but in civilian life you get connections for jobs, home and car financing assistance, college money, health care etc. At age 40 you can retire with a pension that you can supplement with a part time job for a fairly comfortable middling income. In fact in many of these military towns the only reason that foreclosures haven't been all that bad is precisely because of the military's assistance. In this sense they're better off than the ACTUAL working class.

Compare all those benefits to the absolute jack shit that undocumented migrant workers get, risking injury and even death for below minimum wage. Every once in a while you hear about a Mexican family getting blown up in a meth lab explosion because that's too hazardous to risk white American asses.

Moreover, those African and Filipino workers working for the US corporate military in Iraq and Afghanistan get to have all the fun of being shot at with none of the firepower and protective gear.

You are just a privileged American with the chauvinism of labor aristocracy.

scarletghoul

4th October 2009, 23:15

Red Icepick, you oughtn't say such foolish things.

What would you rather be, a US soldier or an Afghan civilian?

Anyway this is great news, let's hope more American soldiers get killed soon ;)

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 23:39

Let's do some simple math here. There are currently 1.5 million active duty personnel in the American military. About 5000 have died in the wars so far. If you had to gamble, that would be a pretty good bet.

Not only do you get to keep most of the $20k paycheck (for a PFC) because you don't have to pay for food and housing, but in civilian life you get connections for jobs, home and car financing assistance, college money, health care etc. At age 40 you can retire with a pension that you can supplement with a part time job for a fairly comfortable middling income. In fact in many of these military towns the only reason that foreclosures haven't been all that bad is precisely because of the military's assistance.

Compare all those benefits to the absolute jack shit that undocumented migrant workers get, risking injury and even death for below minimum wage. Every once in a while you hear about a Mexican family getting blown up in a meth lab explosion because that's too hazardous to risk white American asses.

5000 have died, but how many have been wounded? How many are going to have to deal with TBI and PTSD? Tell you what, I'll stand behind working class soldiers, you can stand behind crystal meth cooks. Soldiers do work for less than minimum wage, if you didn't know.

Moreover, those African and Filipino workers working for the US corporate military in Iraq and Afghanistan get to have all the fun of being shot at with none of the firepower and protective gear.

You are just a privileged American with the chauvinism of labor aristocracy.

What are those Africans and Filipino workers doing? Manning a Kuwaiti McDonald's? That's not so bad. Funny how you support them, despite that they're part of the same war machine. I agree, they're exploited, but so are the troops to a much larger degree.

Yes, admittedly I'm a privileged American. Are you not? You're simply a pseudo-intellectual who lacks a message that can connect to the working class which does support our troops while largely being critical of the war. It's going to be a tough call to keep a labor union on your side while you're hoping their sons and daughters get killed by reactionary theocrats.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 23:45

Red Icepick, you oughtn't say such foolish things.

What would you rather be, a US soldier or an Afghan civilian?

Anyway this is great news, let's hope more American soldiers get killed soon ;)

US soldier any day of the week. Even without a war going on, I wouldn't do well as an Afghan civilian. So what though? What's your point? Are there any US citizens more exploited by the ruling class than the infantrymen being sent to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?

khad

4th October 2009, 23:49

5000 have died, but how many have been wounded? How many are going to have to deal with TBI and PTSD? Tell you what, I'll stand behind working class soldiers, you can stand behind crystal meth cooks. Soldiers do work for less than minimum wage, if you didn't know.
PTSD? Give me a break. Americans cry PTSD, an Iraqi gets shot.

What are those Africans and Filipino workers doing? Manning a Kuwaiti McDonald's? That's not so bad. Funny how you support them, despite that they're part of the same war machine. I agree, they're exploited, but so are the troops to a much larger degree.No, I'm merely stating they are more exploited. If they die, it's the consequence of them lining up with us imperialism.

And FYI, many of these third world workers do things like drive trucks for log runs--and they do get beheaded. There was a massive Pakistani truck driver walkoff/strike because of these hazardous conditions--but you don't know or care because the only workers who matter are white and American.

Yes, admittedly I'm a privileged American. Are you not? You're simply a pseudo-intellectual who lacks a message that can connect to the working class which does support our troops while largely being critical of the war. It's going to be a tough call to keep a labor union on your side while you're hoping their sons and daughters get killed by reactionary theocrats.Now it comes out. See, everyone? A true labor aristocrat.

I think that even Marx would disagree with you, since he did support Indians to kill British troops during their 1857 war of independence. He did not privilege first world workers over the workers and peasants of other nations, and neither do I.

Your accusation of reactionary theocrats is yet another display of your odious chauvinism. Because it's quite apparent that there are quite a number of christianist freaks in the US military. Stop being a hypocrite and call for their deaths.

Red Icepick

4th October 2009, 23:54

PTSD? Give me a break. Americans cry PTSD, an Iraqi gets shot.

Yeah, I think that's pretty weak too. Just saying.

Now it comes out. See, everyone? A true labor aristocrat.

I think that even Marx would disagree with you, since he did support Indians to kill British troops during their 1857 war of independence. He did not privilege first world workers over the workers and peasants of other nations, and neither do I.

Marx was British? I could have sworn he was German. Also, Engels was an Imperial officer of artillery.

The Bolsheviks didn't gain power by hoping that Russian soldiers died either. How effective would their message have been if they were rooting for the other Imperialists? "I hope our soldiers die because they're just serving the Tsar." They wouldn't have went anywhere!

khad

5th October 2009, 00:02

The Bolsheviks didn't gain power by hoping that Russian soldiers died either. How effective would their message have been if they were rooting for the other Imperialists? "I hope our soldiers die because they're just serving the Tsar." They wouldn't have went anywhere!
I answered this already on this board.

The Russian conscripts were not professional soldiers and did not have their economic or occupational livelihoods embedded in the military. It is incorrect to think of what are mercenaries (professional soldiers) as working class. Those Russian soldiers were people who would not have otherwise gone into the military.

Engels changed his opinions throughout his life. You can read what he wrote later about professional soldiers and their revolutionary potential or lack thereof.

Workers last century understood completely where the professional military lay in class struggle:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/262600004_47298cf6f2.jpg

Spawn of Stalin

5th October 2009, 00:15

I don't "get" the whole "support the troops oppose the war" thing, it stinks of wishy washy liberalist bullshit. I say fuck the troops, by now I think any soldier in their right minds would have gone AWOL anyway. I don't care what class they are, class shouldn't even come into it, after incidents like Haditha, and My Lai, and the countless other atrocities and massacres committed by capitalist troops over the years, including many thousands of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, I think that any semi-intelligent human being who joins up of their own accord is likely a willing servent to imperialism anyway, and thus, they are our enemies.

PRC-UTE

5th October 2009, 00:24

Not only do you get to keep most of the $20k paycheck (for a PFC) because you don't have to pay for food and housing, but in civilian life you get connections for jobs, home and car financing assistance, college money, health care etc. At age 40 you can retire with a pension that you can supplement with a part time job for a fairly comfortable middling income. In fact in many of these military towns the only reason that foreclosures haven't been all that bad is precisely because of the military's assistance. In this sense they're better off than the ACTUAL working class.

oh aye, in most imperialist armies the pay is low, but the real wages are actually quite good. free uniforms, no moving expenses, constantly cared for by medical staff, cost controls on most products they buy, assistance with buying a house, and so on

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 00:31

I answered this already on this board.

The Russian conscripts were not professional soldiers and did not have their economic or occupational livelihoods embedded in the military. It is incorrect to think of what are mercenaries (professional soldiers) as working class. Those Russian soldiers were people who would not have otherwise gone into the military.

Someone who enlists for four years isn't a 'professional soldier.' Sure, they're not conscripted, but that doesn't mean they're not being exploited simply because they're volunteers. You mention migrant workers. Certainly they chose their path, yet they're being exploited.

Workers last century understood completely where the professional military lay in class struggle:

Our military is prohibited by law against moving against Americans. So it's different.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 00:31

oh aye, in most imperialist armies the pay is low, but the real wages are actually quite good. free uniforms, no moving expenses, constantly cared for by medical staff, cost controls on most products they buy, assistance with buying a house, and so on

Sounds like a good model for socialism.

khad

5th October 2009, 01:31

Someone who enlists for four years isn't a 'professional soldier.' Sure, they're not conscripted, but that doesn't mean they're not being exploited simply because they're volunteers.

No, that’s the definition of what a professional soldier is (as opposed to conscript). The American all volunteer force = a professional army, like the professional Imperial army of Second Empire France. Every modern military that has had this conscript vs. professional debate has used these terms.

Why do you persist in thinking that you have the credibility to speak on these matters when you are ignorant of these very basic military concepts?

You mention migrant workers. Certainly they chose their path, yet they're being exploited. Nice try at redirection. Unfortunately, only a complete idiot would be fooled by your non-existent debating methods. Migrant workers are not involved in the suppression of the proletariat worldwide. Imperialist armies are.

Our military is prohibited by law against moving against Americans. So it's different.Revisit your history. How many times was the army and national guard involved in ending labor unrest? In the Gilded Age, that was pretty much the entire job of the Guard--to shoot and suppress workers.

And right now they are shooting proletarians of other nations, and my sympathy lies with the victims, not with their assassins.

khad

5th October 2009, 01:31

Sounds like a good model for socialism.
Sounds like you need to be restricted for your anti-worker views, in addition to your national chauvinism, racism, and your liberal moralism.

Spawn of Stalin

5th October 2009, 01:32

Our military is prohibited by law against moving against Americans. So it's different.
And when did American soldiers start caring about the law? Or their masters, for that matter.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 01:43

Sounds like you need to be restricted for your anti-worker views, in addition to your national chauvinism, racism, and your liberal moralism.

Haha. What a laugh. Only someone making such a frail argument would go for such a desperate move. What have I said that was chauvinistic, racist, moralistic, or particularly anti-worker?

I'm against the entire conflict in Afghanistan, not only because it brings misery to a foreign people but also because our own soldiers needlessly suffer on behalf of a corrupt, avaricious government. I also despise the anti-progressive, theocratic Taliban that brings misery and stagnation to their own people, but I don't feel it should be the place of the US to step in. Exactly what is the flaw in this position?

khad

5th October 2009, 01:46

Haha. What a laugh. Only someone making such a frail argument would go for such a desperate move. What have I said that was chauvinistic, racist, moralistic, or particularly anti-worker?

I'm against the entire conflict in Afghanistan, not only because it brings misery to a foreign people but also because our own soldiers needlessly suffer on behalf of a corrupt, avaricious government. I also despise the anti-progressive, theocratic Taliban that brings misery and stagnation to their own people, but I don't feel it should be the place of the US to step in. Exactly what is the flaw in this position?
That you believe US troops to be the most oppressed of the proletariat. And you use racialized language to denigrate what is emerging class struggle in that part of the world. Theocracy? You better take a hard look at the Christianist theocrats infesting your beloved imperialist military.

Let's be real about who is being desperate here. Everyone can see your racism and national chauvinism, and they have shown it by thanking my posts. Have you noticed how just about no one agrees with your asinine position?

Spawn of Stalin

5th October 2009, 01:46

Comrade if you don't oppose it you support it, if you support the troops you don't oppose the war.

gorillafuck

5th October 2009, 01:50

Sounds like a good model for socialism.
Where did that come from?:confused:

And as for the discussion on the Taliban, do the Taliban as the group that ruled Afghanistan until 2001 still really exist anymore? From what I know, most of the "Taliban" are just citizens who want to get the foreign occupiers out of Afghanistan.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 01:57

That you believe US troops to be the most oppressed of the proletariat. And you use racialized language to denigrate what is emerging class struggle in that part of the world. Theocracy? You better take a hard look at the Christianist theocrats infesting your beloved imperialist military.

Let's be real about who is being desperate here. Everyone can see your racism and national chauvinism, and they have shown it by thanking my posts. Have you noticed how just about no one agrees with your asinine position?

So? Is this a popularity contest? I'm just saying what I feel and nothing else. Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't mean that it's true.

Your vulgar slurs are getting quite tiring. I've used what 'racialized' language? I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'd like to see an example. As I've stated before, I'm not a Troskyite. I believe in creating Socialism in one's own country. So you can call me a 'national chauvinist.' Fire away, but I'm not suggesting the US is better than any other nation, in fact, I think it's the worst in a lot of ways, but I live here.

Anyhow, there is no 'working class struggle' going on in Afghanistan so there's nothing to denigrate. It's capitalist nation-builders vs. reactionary theocrats. Both sides are wrong and the sooner it ends the better.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 02:01

And as for the discussion on the Taliban, do the Taliban as the group that ruled Afghanistan until 2001 still really exist anymore? From what I know, most of the "Taliban" are just citizens who want to get the foreign occupiers out of Afghanistan.

No, that could be said of 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq.' They were basically just pissed-off dudes from the street. The Taliban, however, is an actual disciplined force. The bulk of them fled back to Pakistan at the beginning of the current conflict, but they've regrouped in a big way. The Taliban is an actual organized fighting force still primarily based in Pakistan, but they're sending more of their troops in across the border every day.

khad

5th October 2009, 02:01

Your vulgar slurs are getting quite tiring. I've used what 'racialized' language? I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'd like to see an example. As I've stated before, I'm not a Troskyite. I believe in creating Socialism in one's own country. So you can call me a 'national chauvinist.' Fire away, but I'm not suggesting the US is better than any other nation, in fact, I think it's the worst in a lot of ways, but I live here.

*noted. This will be filed. It's hilarious that despite your proclamations you managed to piss off about half the "stalinists" on this board.

Anyhow, there is no 'working class struggle' going on in Afghanistan so there's nothing to denigrate. It's capitalist nation-builders vs. reactionary theocrats. Both sides are wrong and the sooner it ends the better.And that is where your racial chauvinism comes in. Many of the actions taken by factions of the so-called Taliban have a distinctive class character, yet your white American racism prevents you from seeing it. You call them theocrats. What about your beloved Christianist American imperialist soldiers?

FreeFocus

5th October 2009, 02:09

I just wanted to thank Khad and others for debating Icepick, unfortunately I don't have enough time tonight to join in shutting his ridiculous arguments down. Honestly, some of the more repulsive positions I've seen articulated outside of OI in a long time. It's unsurprising that Icepick holds such views, because he's attempting to blend socialism with the nationalism of the oppressor (imperialist nationalism), so basically you end up with a softer version of National Socialism.

As far as the attack goes, 10 is better than the normal 1 or 2 a day, but the Taliban still took many, many more casualties, so beyond propaganda value for them, it doesn't mean all that much.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 02:11

And that is where your racial chauvinism comes in. Many of the actions taken by factions of the so-called Taliban have a distinctive class character, yet your white American racism prevents you from seeing it. You call them theocrats. What about your beloved Christianist American imperialist soldiers?

I'm simply not seeing it. I see no class war with the Taliban whatsoever. It's not out of racism, it's out of the fact that I'd have to apply a biased framework to the conflict to see it in that light when I'd rather look at it objectively. As a non-Muslim worker, I would not be welcome into the Taliban. The Taliban were a ruling class that was knocked out by another ruling class, and they want their power back. Forgive me for not having sympathy.

There are a lot of people in the US(including the former commander in chief) who cheer on the war in the Middle East as a Christian crusade, but as far as I know, the US military is not fundamentally theocratic. You can have any religion. I imagine there is probably some Christian hegemony with chaplains and things like that, which I agree is wrong. A soldier's own beliefs is none of my business. I'm sure there are Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. in the US military in addition to an obvious Christian minority.

khad

5th October 2009, 02:13

As far as the attack goes, 10 is better than the normal 1 or 2 a day, but the Taliban still took many, many more casualties, so beyond propaganda value for them, it doesn't mean all that much.
Actually, even if they took 100 dead (highly unlikely, since the ratio of killed to wounded is usually 1:3), it would have been worth the 30 total irrevocables (killed and captured) they inflicted on the coalition.

They would have taken at most about 40-50 dead, with 200 total casualties, which was the upper range at the Battle of Wanat last year. That's the entire force, pretty much. It is a significant propaganda victory when they inflicted irrevocables close to their own.

Update: Now they say over 20 Afghan police and army MIA. This is more than a propaganda victory. You can be sure those prisoners will be interrogated for every scrap of intel they have.

khad

5th October 2009, 02:41

I'm simply not seeing it. I see no class war with the Taliban whatsoever. It's not out of racism, it's out of the fact that I'd have to apply a biased framework to the conflict to see it in that light when I'd rather look at it objectively. As a non-Muslim worker, I would not be welcome into the Taliban. The Taliban were a ruling class that was knocked out by another ruling class, and they want their power back. Forgive me for not having sympathy.
Forgive me for not having sympathy for a white American imperialist who feels entitled to be "welcomed" into movements in other countries.

There is no real socialist movement in Afghanistan or Pakistan, so whatever class politics that well up have been channeled into the Taliban. That is a fact. Wherever this may end up, peasant mobilization is a prerequisite for any kind of class based social movements in that part of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17pstan.html

In Swat, accounts from those who have fled now make clear that the Taliban seized control by pushing out about four dozen landlords who held the most power.

To do so, the militants organized peasants into armed gangs that became their shock troops, the residents, government officials and analysts said.
The approach allowed the Taliban to offer economic spoils to people frustrated with lax and corrupt government even as the militants imposed a strict form of Islam through terror and intimidation.

“This was a bloody revolution in Swat,” said a senior Pakistani official who oversees Swat, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the Taliban. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it sweeps the established order of Pakistan.”

The Taliban’s ability to exploit class divisions adds a new dimension to the insurgency and is raising alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal.

Unlike India after independence in 1947, Pakistan maintained a narrow landed upper class that kept its vast holdings while its workers remained subservient, the officials and analysts said. Successive Pakistani governments have since failed to provide land reform and even the most basic forms of education and health care. Avenues to advancement for the vast majority of rural poor do not exist.

Guerrilla22

5th October 2009, 02:53

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 03:05

Forgive me for not having sympathy for a white American imperialist who feels entitled to be "welcomed" into movements in other countries.

Weren't you just frothing at the mouth about national chauvinism? All of a sudden you believe in national exclusivity? As if they hypothetical situation I presented required a foreign national. A non-Muslim Afghan worker would not be welcomed into the Taliban for that matter. He'd certainly be killed as an apostate. All you do is twist words and make shit up. I don't feel entitled to anything, chief. Get your facts straight before you slander again.

There is no real socialist movement in Afghanistan or Pakistan, so whatever class politics that well up have been channeled into the Taliban. That is a fact. Wherever this may end up, peasant mobilization is a prerequisite for any kind of class based social movements in that part of the world.

That assumes quite a bit. Maybe all the left-wingers are sitting on the sidelines just watching everyone kill eachother. Ever thought of that? It's more likely that any class politics that well up have been stamped out by the Taliban. The Taliban is the former ruling class. I don't get why you're too stupid to understand that.

Andropov

5th October 2009, 03:40

Andropov

5th October 2009, 03:47

Anyhow, there is no 'working class struggle' going on in Afghanistan so there's nothing to denigrate. It's capitalist nation-builders vs. reactionary theocrats. Both sides are wrong and the sooner it ends the better.
This is a perfect example of your deeply flawed analysis of the situation.
These are not merely capitalist nation builders, they are imperialists who are there to exploit the Afghani people.
They will build no nation, they will merely use Afghanistan for what ever self intersted strategic reason they need it for and exploit and exacerbate regressive elements within, ie support the tribal war chiefs to maintain the status quo and only help perpetuate the quagmire of regressive elements within Afghanistan.
That is why we must support an Imperialist defeat in order to let the Afghani people develop some class consciousness free from exploitation.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 04:04

Ehh I think you will find that Lenin actually wanted Russia to lose against Germany in WW1.

That's different. He wasn't hoping for individual Russian soldiers to die. He wasn't glorifying Kaiser Wilhelm's forces either. Hell, I'm hoping the US loses.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 04:10

This is a perfect example of your deeply flawed analysis of the situation.
These are not merely capitalist nation builders, they are imperialists who are there to exploit the Afghani people.
They will build no nation, they will merely use Afghanistan for what ever self intersted strategic reason they need it for and exploit and exacerbate regressive elements within, ie support the tribal war chiefs to maintain the status quo and only help perpetuate the quagmire of regressive elements within Afghanistan.

Yeah, you're completely missing the point of the agenda, particularly the one set forth by the neocons. They're not traditional imperialists in the mode of the British Empire or something. They only care about the free market. There's nothing to really gain out of Afghanistan, but it's another market opened up. Afghanistan isn't necessary as a gateway to Asia anymore. It's a whole new ballgame. There is nothing to even really exploit the Afghan people for. There aren't really any resources there.

That is why we must support an Imperialist defeat in order to let the Afghani people develop some class consciousness free from exploitation.

Agreed.

Uncle Ho

5th October 2009, 05:02

Why must we pick sides? Is it so unreasonable to support neither the western imperialists or the feudal theocrats?

This is a horrible situation, which is only going to get worse with further meddling in the region. We should withdraw all our troops and return, not with soldiers, but with doctors, teachers, builders and scientists. Let the Afghan people elevate themselves (With help, of course) instead of the west elevating them on the puppeteer's strings.

Spawn of Stalin

5th October 2009, 05:22

While fundamentally I agree with what you are saying, this is what should have been done in the first place, there are troops in Afghanistan, they probably won't be leaving any time soon, and so as long as there is an illegal occupation, I support the resistance, I say resistance because a great deal of them aren't even the Islamist Taliban terrorist nutters they are portrayed as, they are just regular Muslims fighting for the homeland.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 05:42

I support the resistance, I say resistance because a great deal of them aren't even the Islamist Taliban terrorist nutters they are portrayed as, they are just regular Muslims fighting for the homeland.

That was true in Iraq but not Afghanistan.

NecroCommie

5th October 2009, 05:56

The thing is it's just funny that the might US military always seems to be getting kicked around by rag tag militia groups like the Taliban. The US spends 500 billion a year on it's military, the Taliban probaly spends like 5 bucks.
I know! :lol: Imagine the epic state of being pissed off of the american trooper when he realizes his über-trained ass was owned by a part time farmer with half a kalashnikov.

Spawn of Stalin

5th October 2009, 05:58

That was true in Iraq but not Afghanistan.
How can you say this with absolute certainty? We are taught that Afghanistan is some kind of terrorist haven and yet we only ever hear of battles with the Taliban, I for one refuse to believe that everyone we are fighting is a member of a single group. There are so many Afghan people who are opposed to the American presence in their country I would be extremely surprised if half of the people we are fighting there weren't just civilians who have decided to pick up a gun and fight, I know I would if a bunch of Yanks marched into my country and starting firing, and I don't even support my government. It isn't hard to see why people might fight, so I can only assume that they are fighting. You see it becomes a lot harder to justify a war when you are openly admitting the fact that you are engaging normal human beings and not just terrorists and corrupt governments.

Red Icepick

5th October 2009, 06:37

How can you say this with absolute certainty? We are taught that Afghanistan is some kind of terrorist haven and yet we only ever hear of battles with the Taliban, I for one refuse to believe that everyone we are fighting is a member of a single group. There are so many Afghan people who are opposed to the American presence in their country I would be extremely surprised if half of the people we are fighting there weren't just civilians who have decided to pick up a gun and fight, I know I would if a bunch of Yanks marched into my country and starting firing, and I don't even support my government. It isn't hard to see why people might fight, so I can only assume that they are fighting. You see it becomes a lot harder to justify a war when you are openly admitting the fact that you are engaging normal human beings and not just terrorists and corrupt governments.

Anyone who does serious research on the Taliban and the current war in Afghanistan will tell you. Or you can talk to someone who has been there though if you're not American that won't be as easy. The story in Iraq was that we were fighting 'Al Qaeda in Iraq,' but that was basically just a collective of teenager's militias rallied around small cores of serious Jihadists. They were just pissed off locals who wanted to fight the occupation. The Taliban, however, is the Taliban. They're not monolithic, but they are a real organization. The Taliban shouldn't be confused with terrorists either. They're nothing of the sort. Their old regime harbored Al-Qaeda, but that's not the case any more.

You can plot Taliban movements though. As opposed to Iraq where fighting would just randomly spring up, you could see on a map how ever spring they'd work their way across the border and start fighting outposts and towns. Then every winter they would move back. However, last winter they consolidated on Kabul and stayed in country for the winter. Now they have a serious concentration of forces all around the country.