1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Afghan Warlord to Aid al Qaeda

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Sierra Mike, Dec 26, 2002.

  1. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Well, doesn't this just warm the cockles of your heart...

    Read all about our latest foe and hopeful winner of the CENTCOM-sponsored Next Afghani Turncoat in a Body Bag contest at OK, I'll See Your Threat and Raise You One JDAM-Equipped B-52H Squadron

  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Evolution at work.
  3. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Well, I staunchly advocate that Allah judge this man in the hereafter, and that US Army Special Operations Command does its best to arrange the meeting.

  4. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    I don't understand why anybody is surprised.
    This has been going on for centuries. Each warloard has his own army and territory and that is that. Nothing is going to change. It is only when consolidation is attempted to form a united country that all the tribes form temporary alliances to overcome that consolidation. It did this with the Russians, with the Taliban and will do so against the American backed puppet in Kabul.

    Everyone bemoans the fact that the US should not abandon Afganistan. The only way it can work is for Kabul to have the largest army and the latest weapons. Even then I consider it hopeless.

    It is time to back out and let them continue there way of life and go back only if the terrorists get a foothold again.

    Some wars you cannot win, one can only hope to contain.
    This is such a war.
  5. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    A bit of background info...

    Bios on Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

    * Born 1947 in Ghazni of Ghilzay Pashtun parents.
    * Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was the worst of the Afghan Warlords. He hid most of the weapons that Pakistan and the CIA gave him to save them for the Civil War when the Russians left. He avoided the Russians as much as possible and left the heavy fighting to others. He was very close to Osama Bin Laden and Pakistani ISI.
    * During the American war he has offered aid to the Taliban and has given them many of his arms caches including stinger missiles. Normally stingers would be a cause for alarm but the batteries are all expired and they won't fire unless they are rewired which seems to be a little difficult for terrorists. A few years ago someone got one of them to fire at a aircraft in the Persian Gulf. It stuck in the fuselage without exploding
    * Famous for switching sides looking for best personal advantage. Left Afgahnistan during Taliban rule.
    * Hekmatyar's No. 2 man Ustad Manghal Hussain has been negotiating with the Taliban to merge his Hezb-i-Islami group with Taliban in the war against America.
    * Hekmatyar started as an Islamic radical in his two years at Kabul University when he was leader of Ahkwan-ul-Muslimen (Muslims' Brotherhood) a group which would throw acid into the faces of unveiled women.
    * In 1969 Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Dr. Syed Burhanudin Rabbani founded the radical group Ahkwan-ul-Muslimen in Afghanistan. Members included Abdul Rasul Sayyaf.
    * Strong links to the Moslem Brotherhood.


    Official website of Hezb-e-islami:
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    There was an OpEd BEFORE we went in to Afghanistan that basically said the same thing. I'll try to find it but it was supreme and basically said the same thing you did.
  7. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Come on, you know we can't do that--if we did, the US commitment would be forever questioned, ridiculed, and maligned. And the fundamentalists would claim victory, having "defeated" the US.

    I say we stay there, and make it an advance base for further Central Asia combat ops. Would give the Chinese something to shit rice about.

  8. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    Shirley you jest. Let me be frank.;)

    That's all we need is a war of attrition.

    Let them regroup then go back and get the lot of them.
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I think we should thank this warload for giving us new targets.
  10. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    I am probably mistaken, ill-informed, and naive, but, I was under the impression that our stated quest in Afganistan was to rid the world of a regime that harbored the terrorist types that attacked us on 911.

    True, we garnered the support of various local 'warloards' to accomplish this goal.
    True, we promised and did demonstrate a desire to help the people of that land form a democratic and fair government.

    Now, it seems that, local, provincial, tribal, 'warlords' do not want to relinquish their absolute power to a central government, and are demonstrating that fact.

    This is something new? Of course they don't want to relinquish their authority and power. Their type of rule has been in place for hundreds of years in that land.
    It also seems that the local peoples, under these 'warlords', aren't ready to stand up to becoming a real country.

    We tried. But, we can't force it down their throats.
    Will we be ridiculed that we couldn't form a real country out of all the provincial 'warlord' factions without the support of the inhabitants of this land?
    I don't think so.

    Out primary goal was to get rid of the supporters of the terrorists, that attacked us. We did that.
    Now, if this 'warlord', publically stating that he supports those terrorists, wants to be our next target, so be it. He's a fool.

    We can HELP them form a unified country.
    We cannot force them.

    Just my opinion.

  11. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    The posts here seem to be on one extreme or another about staying or pulling out of the land called the country of Afghanistan.

    Somewhere between our current commitment and tactics and completely pulling out perhaps there are alternative solutions or tactics that allows us to remain there with a positive influence?

    It is far better to keep Al Qaeda out than to go back in after they come back and reestablish themselves. That part is a no-brainer. It is just a question of how best to do that.
  12. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Well, for better or worse, we're involved in a long-term nation building exercise here. As far as I can tell, the US has never had much success with nation building since after WWII.

    Afghanistan is never, ever, gonna become a real nation. I don't think there's enough money to go around in the world to provide that. And even if there was, it just means the warlords would be sniping at each other from Mercedes SL55 AMGs as opposed from mule-back. The Karzai administration is, effectively, DOA.

    As far as chasing al Qaeda all over the place, I'm for it. I think we should (and probably are doing) penetrate Pakistan and keep the hunt going. Dialing back the heat is only going to give them the time and ability to reconstitute, and since they apparently operate a bare-bones shop anyway, they don't need a lot of time or materiel resources to set up shop. The good thing is, an organization can do only so much while it remains decentralized; but in order to centralize enough to recommence offensive operations, they will have to develop sufficient mass at some point on the globe. For now, I would say it's in Pakistan, with Indo coming in at chalk two.

    If I were calling the shots, I'd give it another year. I'd also kill all the warlords who don't play ball. After that, if Afghanistan can't make it, then the focus should return to combat operations against al Qaeda, with an eye on bailing out once that element has been sufficiently eradicated.

    Oh yeah--and keep blowing up weapons caches wherever they're found.

  13. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    That is the way it looks to me.
  14. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    Too true, I believe. Afghanistan is comprised of number of totally different ethnic or tribal groups, each with competing interests, cultures and backgrounds and direct connections to the surrounding countries; here's a map with a description of these various groups:

    Often, when borders were drawn, the map makers totally ignored regional tribal areas, usually seeking political or resource division rather than the unity of the people; Afghanistan is basically what was left over after the surrounding countries were created.

    How do you make a united country when the inhabitants have much more loyalty to their ethnic/tribal group than to the government?
  15. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I sure don't know. We haven't found it here yet.
  16. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    A good deal of the Third World is like that, especially Africa and many of the Islamic countries in Asia/ME general areas. It extends to non-Third World countries and areas such as the Balkans. There are how many different peoples in the Balkans? However many there are not one group of them likes a single member of the other groups.
  17. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Well the Goal of the Afghan government is to replicate the legislature of the old government, where representation is by tribes at least that was the original proposal. The Executive of the Government was to be vested in someone who forsakes the loyalty to tribe.
  18. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Yeah, good luck in that. Whatever happened to the loya jirga, anyway?


Share This Page