Nation article: "How the US Funds the Taliban."

[Baculus]

I cannot recall if this article was published, so I thought I would start a thread on it. This article points to the rampant corrupt in Afghanistan and how our efforts are funding the Taliban via convoy escorts and other methods. If you ask me, it is a very, very discouraging piece, and one of the reasons why Pres. Obama probably has been hesitant in his decision making on Afghanistan.

I wonder why right-wingers aren't asking questions about this issue -- shouldn't they be concerned? I guess not.

On October 29, 2001, while the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan was under assault, the regime's ambassador in Islamabad gave a chaotic press conference in front of several dozen reporters sitting on the grass. On the Taliban diplomat's right sat his interpreter, Ahmad Rateb Popal, a man with an imposing presence. Like the ambassador, Popal wore a black turban, and he had a huge bushy beard. He had a black patch over his right eye socket, a prosthetic left arm and a deformed right hand, the result of injuries from an explosives mishap during an old operation against the Soviets in Kabul.

But Popal was more than just a former mujahedeen. In 1988, a year before the Soviets fled Afghanistan, Popal had been charged in the United States with conspiring to import more than a kilo of heroin. Court records show he was released from prison in 1997.

Flash forward to 2009, and Afghanistan is ruled by Popal's cousin President Hamid Karzai. Popal has cut his huge beard down to a neatly trimmed one and has become an immensely wealthy businessman, along with his brother Rashid Popal, who in a separate case pleaded guilty to a heroin charge in 1996 in Brooklyn. The Popal brothers control the huge Watan Group in Afghanistan, a consortium engaged in telecommunications, logistics and, most important, security. Watan Risk Management, the Popals' private military arm, is one of the few dozen private security companies in Afghanistan. One of Watan's enterprises, key to the war effort, is protecting convoys of Afghan trucks heading from Kabul to Kandahar, carrying American supplies.

Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan. It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady connections, with former CIA officials and ex-military officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahedeen to collect US government funds in the name of the war effort.

Read the below link for the rest of the article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston

[Thiebear]

We either need to get in there and Stamp it out...

Or give it all to Nato and get out.

[SloppyOneXXVI]

I cannot recall if this article was published, so I thought I would start a thread on it. This article points to the rampant corrupt in Afghanistan and how our efforts are funding the Taliban via convoy escorts and other methods. If you ask me, it is a very, very discouraging piece, and one of the reasons why Pres. Obama probably has been hesitant in his decision making on Afghanistan.

I wonder why right-wingers aren't asking questions about this issue -- shouldn't they be concerned? I guess not.

Everyone is delusional if they think everything is going well in Afghanistan. There's lots of corruption, but the military is working in an unstable environment, and have to choose their battles.

What if the military didn't pay for passage? Then lots of soldiers would be killed, resources lost. The public outcry would be horrible. Catch 22 in my opinion.

Hell, Iraq is a model of what Afghanistan COULD be if things get better at this point.

Obama is making his decision on Tuesday, and I'm sure a lot of people are going to be pissed. His campaign pushed for "leaving Afghanistan" and now he's going to be adding troops. All the democrats (and republicans) that voted for him will see him as a liar, especially when people like McCain endorse Obama's plan to add troops. I feel bad for Obama. He had a positive view of what the world was like before he became president, and I think he's now seeing the world through the eyes of Bush. The world isn't as rosy as Obama had hoped, and he's changing his plans accordingly.

I'll say this, I'm glad I'm not the president. Obama loses regarless of his decision.

[Baculus]

Everyone is delusional if they think everything is going well in Afghanistan. There's lots of corruption, but the military is working in an unstable environment, and have to choose their battles.

I agree, and I fully realize this.

What if the military didn't pay for passage? Then lots of soldiers would be killed, resources lost. The public outcry would be horrible. Catch 22 in my opinion.

Right. The Catch-22 is incomprehensible. How are we supposed to defeat an enemy if we are helping to fund them?

Hell, Iraq is a model of what Afghanistan COULD be if things get better at this point.

You know what made a big difference in Iraq? We decided to work with insurgent groups, such as the 1920's Brigade and Awakening Councils. A strategy that was originally criticized by some conservatives.

A similar strategy has been proposed in Afghanistan, to work with "moderate" Taliban. This, of course, has been criticized by some on the Right as well.

That is why more troops will not be the solution for this battle. We cannot change a nation's entire culture overnight, and it will be difficult to force them to liberalize so quickly.

I'll say this, I'm glad I'm not the president. Obama loses regarless of his decision.

Again, I agree. No matter what, Obama loses. He will please no one with this decision.

[nonniey]

.....

Obama is making his decision on Tuesday, and I'm sure a lot of people are going to be pissed. His campaign pushed for "leaving Afghanistan" and now he's going to be adding troops. All the democrats (and republicans) that voted for him will see him as a liar, especially when people like McCain endorse Obama's plan to add troops. I feel bad for Obama. He had a positive view of what the world was like before he became president, and I think he's now seeing the world through the eyes of Bush. The world isn't as rosy as Obama had hoped, and he's changing his plans accordingly.

I'll say this, I'm glad I'm not the president. Obama loses regarless of his decision.

Obama never campaigned on leaving Afghanistan. I hate myths and distortions that get repeated enough that they take hold and this one seems to be taking hold. He actually ran saying that he would fully resource the Afghan campaign.

[Baculus]

We either need to get in there and Stamp it out...

Or give it all to Nato and get out.

We probably a lot more troops to stamp it out -- another 100,000 -- and Pakistan has to be successful in their anti-Taliban efforts.

34,000 troops can be swallowed up just in Helmand province, let alone the rest of the country. Our troops are facing an immensely challenging situation. They are certainly doing their best effort in the cause, but it's hellaciously difficult.

[Hubbs]

You know, I remember reading that the decision to start bribing key militia leaders helped to bring down the rate of violence in Iraq. Does it seem like a ****ty option? Sure. But if it's ****ty, and it works, is it really that ****ty? Maybe not.

[Baculus]

Obama never campaigned on leaving Afghanistan. I hate myths and distortions that get repeated enough that they take hold and this one seems to be taking hold. He actually ran saying that he would fully resource the Afghan campaign.

Right. Like many others, he felt that Iraq distracted the war effort from Afghanistan, and he said he'd focus more attention on that region.

[Baculus]

You know, I remember reading that the decision to start bribing key militia leaders helped to bring down the rate of violence in Iraq. Does it seem like a ****ty option? Sure. But if it's ****ty, and it works, is it really that ****ty? Maybe not.

But, if we are just paying off the enemy, why are we there? If we cannot even protect our convoys, does that really imply that we can "win" this conflict? Aren't we simply going through the motions?

Really, why are we in Afghanistan? We invaded that country to find Bin Laden and to dismantle the Al-Qaeda's ability to launch further attacks. O.K. Maybe we failed on the first part, but, on the second part, I think we are successful. So, really, why are we there?

I wanted to add this, in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan and thinking further on this issue: There is a huge difference between the two nations. Afghanistan, in many areas, is centuries behind Iraq in development.

[jpyaks3]

Hell, Iraq is a model of what Afghanistan COULD be if things get better at this point.

\

Afghanistan and Iraq are so vastly different in terms of geopolitics and situation it would be impossible for Afghanistan to become anything like Iraq. Iraq's problems were occurring in cities and urban areas, areas that it is possible for a functioning government to control and work with. In Afghanistan it is the rural and completely inaccessible regions that are causing the problems. Pakistan and specifically the ISI has a history of working with the Taliban and other extremist groups and who knows if they have stopped. In most of Afghanistan the Taliban is provided a more functioning government then the one in Kabul. There is no easy solution in Afghanistan if we want to eradicate the Taliban, I personally do not believe that the Taliban are much of a threat to US interests outside of Afghanistan. I do not believe they have world wide ambitions and while they are not good guys there may not be a whole lot we can do about it at a reasonable cost.

[Baculus]

Afghanistan and Iraq are so vastly different in terms of geopolitics and situation it would be impossible for Afghanistan to become anything like Iraq. Iraq's problems were occurring in cities and urban areas, areas that it is possible for a functioning government to control and work with. In Afghanistan it is the rural and completely inaccessible regions that are causing the problems. Pakistan and specifically the ISI has a history of working with the Taliban and other extremist groups and who knows if they have stopped. In most of Afghanistan the Taliban is provided a more functioning government then the one in Kabul. There is no easy solution in Afghanistan if we want to eradicate the Taliban, I personally do not believe that the Taliban are much of a threat to US interests outside of Afghanistan. I do not believe they have world wide ambitions and while they are not good guys there may not be a whole lot we can do about it at a reasonable cost.

I think you touched upon some good points in this post. I think the lack of a civil structure is one of the main challenges facing US and NATO's efforts.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I wanted to add this, in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan and thinking further on this issue: There is a huge difference between the two nations. Afghanistan, in many areas, is centuries behind Iraq in development.

Yup. I don't think people understand this at all.

With exception to religion, its like Venus and Mars the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hell, even the religion is a bit different (majority Shia's in Iraq)

[Hubbs]

But, if we are just paying off the enemy, why are we there? If we cannot even protect our convoys, does that really imply that we can "win" this conflict? Aren't we simply going through the motions?

I would assume that the logic behind it is, again, similar to that used in Iraq. If push came to shove, could we fight off every attack on these convoys? Probably. Would it cause a slow, steady stream of American deaths? Yeah. So if the warlords can be bribed relatively easily - and let's face it, this is Afghanistan, I'm guessing that we're not exactly breaking the budget here - doesn't that seem like a better option?

(If you want to get really cold and calculating about it, this could even make sense in purely economic terms. If soldiers die and equipment is destroyed, both have to be replaced. Soldiers cost money to train. They cost money to ship to Afghanistan. They cost money to treat when shrapnel punctures a spleen, or an IED blows off a leg. And the new equipment costs money, too. If the sum total of protecting the convoys year after year via fighting is more than simply paying off the warlords, why not just pay off the warlords and avoid all the death as a bonus?)

(And one more thought: There's actually a lovely strategic element here that really is no different than when we hand out foreign aid. The countries that receive that aid quickly become very used to it, and are willing to jump through hoops if we threaten to stop giving them money. This is just as true with individuals as it is with countries. Many of these warlords probably become accustomed to American perks quite quickly. And once they are, we can start pulling some strings.)

Really, why are we in Afghanistan? We invaded that country to find Bin Laden and to dismantle the Al-Qaeda's ability to launch further attacks. O.K. Maybe we failed on the first part, but, on the second part, I think we are successful. So, really, why are we there?

I wanted to add this, in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan and thinking further on this issue: There is a huge difference between the two nations. Afghanistan, in many areas, is centuries behind Iraq in development.

I agree about the huge difference, I'm simply comparing the logic of bribing local warlords. As for actually being there, I pretty much agree with you. It seems as though we could conduct counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan if we wanted to no matter who claims to be "in charge."

[SloppyOneXXVI]

Obama never campaigned on leaving Afghanistan. I hate myths and distortions that get repeated enough that they take hold and this one seems to be taking hold. He actually ran saying that he would fully resource the Afghan campaign.

True, but it's about perception. Obama was seen as "Hope" and "Change." Now he is doing the same thing Bush did, people won't like it. Unfortunately, people only read headlines.

Afghanistan and Iraq are so vastly different in terms of geopolitics and situation it would be impossible for Afghanistan to become anything like Iraq.

With exception to religion, its like Venus and Mars the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hell, even the religion is a bit different (majority Shia's in Iraq)

Politically, Afghanistan and Iraq are linked, whether we like it or not. These two issues are where the "war on terror" is being fought. They are completely different politically, economically, fundamentally, etc, but people only see them both as the "Middle East."

I've been looking at this as a purely political viewpoint. I don't give American's much credit, and I worry about the public perception dictating policy more than anything else right now.

[Baculus]

I would assume that the logic behind it is, again, similar to that used in Iraq. If push came to shove, could we fight off every attack on these convoys? Probably. Would it cause a slow, steady stream of American deaths? Yeah. So if the warlords can be bribed relatively easily - and let's face it, this is Afghanistan, I'm guessing that we're not exactly breaking the budget here - doesn't that seem like a better option?

Yes. But, at the root of it, it's just an absurd situation. We're being bribed by people who very well may take that money and use it for an attack on US forces elsewhere in the country.

We are possibly helping to fund the deaths of US troops elsewhere in the country. This has been part of the flawed strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan: The willingness to spend, spend, spend, even if some of it ends up in the hands of the enemy.

(If you want to get really cold and calculating about it, this could even make sense in purely economic terms. If soldiers die and equipment is destroyed, both have to be replaced. Soldiers cost money to train. They cost money to ship to Afghanistan. They cost money to treat when shrapnel punctures a spleen, or an IED blows off a leg. And the new equipment costs money, too. If the sum total of protecting the convoys year after year via fighting is more than simply paying off the warlords, why not just pay off the warlords and avoid all the death as a bonus?)

We're punching ourselves in the face, at the cost of lives lost and billions spent.

(And one more thought: There's actually a lovely strategic element here that really is no different than when we hand out foreign aid. The countries that receive that aid quickly become very used to it, and are willing to jump through hoops if we threaten to stop giving them money. This is just as true with individuals as it is with countries. Many of these warlords probably become accustomed to American perks quite quickly. And once they are, we can start pulling some strings.)

We've been funding warlords for years. Friendly warlords, such as Dostum (and other Northern Alliance forces) from up north and in the West.

There is a difference between them and forces who are just as eager to turn their arms against us. If they were that friendly, we'd just make them allies of our efforts.

I agree about the huge difference, I'm simply comparing the logic of bribing local warlords. As for actually being there, I pretty much agree with you. It seems as though we could conduct counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan if we wanted to no matter who claims to be "in charge."

Sure, I understand the efforts of your comparisons.

[Baculus]

Yup. I don't think people understand this at all.

With exception to religion, its like Venus and Mars the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hell, even the religion is a bit different (majority Shia's in Iraq)

It's astounding watching footage from Afghanistan. It is even less developed than Vietnam during our involvement there decades ago.

[ACW]

:secret: War on Drugs.

[Koolblue13]

The pot from Afghanistan is awesome. Some of the best in the World.

Kush.