What in God's Green Goodness Are We Up To In Afghanistan?

American special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on an Afghan hospital days before it was destroyed by a U.S. military attack because they believed it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban activity, The Associated Press has learned.

No evidence has surfaced publicly suggesting a Pakistani died in the attack, and Doctors without Borders, the international organization that ran the hospital, says none of its staff was Pakistani.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5e20fcd92aee49e699149aef93595e49/apnewsbreak-us-spec-ops-knew-afghan-site-was-hospital#

None of the damage appears due to guided bombs (which even in the smallest operational sizes would leave craters and blow out walls), but it is consistent with a SOCOM AC-130 orbiting overhead, peppering the building with 105 mm rounds (ea. w/ ~5 lb HE).

Depending on the fabric dyes used, the 9 ft Red Cross flag affixed to the the roof may not have been visible in the passive IR typically used for nighttime targeting (there's a few reports on problems with this). The aircrew may not have known it was a hospital, so responsibility would fall to the ground personnel familiar with the area and calling in the strike.

‏@ggreenwald 3h3 hours ago
Kunduz: US military refused independent investigation, "investigates" itself, finds it was just a mistake, leaks it

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_AFGHAN_HOSPITAL_ATTACK

MSF reacts: "more questions than answers"

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/msf-initial-reaction-us-military-investigation-kunduz-attack

haha wait what how did we fuck Afghanistan in the 80s, by not fighting WWIII w/the USSR after they invaded?

We trained the motherfuckin' mujahadeen and fought a proxy war against the Soviets, Shakey, you ignorant person. Might wanna read Charlie Wilson's War (skip the crap Mike Nichols movie).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the

I've come to think the significance of the US in Afghanistan in the 80s has become greatly exaggerated. Bin Laden and his little Abraham Lincoln brigade-like band of foreign fighters didn't make much of a difference in the Afghan war against the Russians. The US did not create the taliban.

yep

I mean, otm

I'd figure miscalculating the US backing of the Shah was a bigger foreign policy blunder in the long run than any misadventures in proxy war in Afghanistan. Fall of the Shah in some ways was the first domino that perhaps led to the USSR taking the step to invade Afghanistan and then later the Iraq/Iran war.

Recent documents showed that Carter basically gave the go ahead to depose the Shah so it's not like the US even stood much in the way of the revolution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160

Sheesh, that was only a month and a half away from the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace accords.

I've come to think the significance of the US in Afghanistan in the 80s has become greatly exaggerated. Bin Laden and his little Abraham Lincoln brigade-like band of foreign fighters didn't make much of a difference in the Afghan war against the Russians. The US did not create the taliban.

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, June 13, 2016 11:16 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

$630 million buys a lot of "misadventures"

There's a lot of blame to go around in Afghanistan. The Soviets first and foremost, probably, but the British as well. The last anglo-afghan war was in 1919. Oh, and Pakistan! Btw, Afghanistan was also ruled by a Shah, who was also deposed in a coup. (thanks, wiki!) I can't figure out who backed him, and who did not, though. The middle-east is complex, as is central asia.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Afghanistan-called-the-Graveyard-of-Empires

Obligatory Adam Curtis documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRbq63r7rys

For the lack of anything positive about the Current Situation, here's a picture of a record store in Kabul in the 50s. Maybe some day...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/1950s_Afghanistan_-_Records_store.jpg

You still get records shops there...

http://gdb.voanews.com/FAEBBC66-0AAE-437E-9749-4F8AF6ADB452_w640_r1_s.jpg

... not very popular with certain of their compatriots though.

The fact that the US played a role/was involved in some conflict does not always mean that the US is the driving or sole force shaping the conflict. Geopolitics are messier than that.

holy shit there's a lot of denial going on here. in this case the islamic reactionaries were going to lose, and the u.s. armed and funded and trained and supported them and then they didn't lose.

i have no idea what "blame to go around" or "messy geopolitics" have to do with that. the cause and effect is obvious and immediate.

Should the US have known what these rebels were planning next and what their goals would be, beyond pushing out the Russians? Should the US have foreseen that Pakistan would serve as a base of operations for what became the Taliban?

It wasn't only US support either, it was also Saudi and Pakistani support.

we'll get this whole funding and arming of freedom fighters thing right one of these years

And the war was against a foreign invasion. It's not as if the US funded right wing reactionaries to take down a popularly elected leader (that time...)

i'm not an expert, but it has always seemed to me a very classic case of the US decision-makers genuinely not caring what particular kind of thugs they were supporting, or what their particular dreams for the future might be, because they were useful for the immediate cold-war goal. 'should the US have known?' - i think they probably did, at least some of it, and didn't think it was a big deal. i mean it's not like that would be some kind of crazy outlier case.

And the war was against a foreign invasion. It's not as if the US funded right wing reactionaries to take down a popularly elected leader (that time...)

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:11 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the reactionaries were fighting back before the soviets entered afghanistan to bolster the extant PDPA government.

It wasn't only US support either, it was also Saudi and Pakistani support.

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:06 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i.e. it wasn't only direct US support, it was also support from the US as brokered by allies and client states

Should the US have known what these rebels were planning next and what their goals would be, beyond pushing out the Russians? Should the US have foreseen that Pakistan would serve as a base of operations for what became the Taliban?

― curmudgeon, Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:01 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well it was obvious at the time what the rebels were doing then -- which was shooting people who taught girls how to read so idk maybe that was bad

Saudi Arabia had its own motivations, the "client state" explanation is reductive.

so the u.s. partnered with other bad actors to do a bad thing. good job "complicating" the story.

How is it a bad thing to defeat a soviet invasion?

Saudi Arabia definitely has its own regional ambitions. Since 1973 their relationship with the USA is one of mutual convenience, not one of client and patron.

How is it a bad thing to defeat a soviet invasion?

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:55 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

when it means bringing the Taliban to power?

It was US neglect after the Soviets left that assisted the Taliban coming to power, not any kind of active support. The active support came from Pakistan.

can someone summarize for me how the soviets supporting with resources and advisors, eventually getting into a drawn-out war in Afghanistan is any different than the US's intervention in Vietnam

is it just soviet troops in-country that are bad, or is any foreign army coming into a country bad, and if so, how does it differ morally from supporting dissident groups under the table

it's okay if the ends are good

<3 u NV

Lol i missed morbz totally ahistorical thread revive potshot at me. Sorry morbz! But u are wrong, the u.s. did not royally fuck up afghanistan in the 80s, our impact there was p minimal.

Many xp

:D

there is no continent u cannot misunderstand, PelosiFan

How is it a bad thing to defeat a soviet invasion?

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:55 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how was the u.s. in vietnam any worse than the people the u.s. killed in vietnam good question makes u think real hard

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Henry_Kissinger.jpg/220px-Henry_Kissinger.jpg

Saudi Arabia definitely has its own regional ambitions. Since 1973 their relationship with the USA is one of mutual convenience, not one of client and patron.

can someone summarize for me how the soviets supporting with resources and advisors, eventually getting into a drawn-out war in Afghanistan is any different than the US's intervention in Vietnam

Considering that the USSR actively supported the North Vietnamese government with weapons and training, the parallels are very obvious. The only clear difference is which national interests backed which side. But it is generally accepted that nations will pursue their perceived interests and most nations will always seek greater power when it appears possible to acquire it.

Morality is often invoked as a justification for power-seeking, but it is always a side-car that is easily attached to the main power train.

tbh the soviet influence hedged afghanistan against pakistan's influence and..

.. ok, I hang out with my indian coworkers a lot and the "wtf is the deal with pakistan" conversation comes up way too often so perhaps I am a little quick to point blame in that direction

But it is generally accepted that nations will pursue their perceived interests and most nations will always seek greater power when it appears possible to acquire it.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:01 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wow pride and prejudice reads a lot more mercenary than i remember it

there is no continent u cannot misunderstand, PelosiFan

as usual yr political convictions have zero bearing on reality

shakey the idea that the u.s. had a minimal impact on Afghanistan in the 80s is very wrong.

I have no idea what s.clover is arguing about at this point... If anyone is in doubt, uhm, I agree that the US invasion of Vietnam was a bad thing...

impacts are relative - US wasn't shaping events so much as trying to exploit them. country was a wartorn mess prior to U.S. engagement, and it remained so afterward. the original point I was disputing (in some other thread) was the argument that the U.S.'s involvement in Afghanistan in the 80s was so ruinous for the country that it directly resulted in Muslims hating America, 9-11, etc. Which is just ridiculous. Yes OBL was personally bitter about the US abandoning his little "Abraham Lincoln brigade" (lol) but for the larger Muslim world America's participation in Aghanistan 80s shenanigans was not really a big recruiting tool for Islamic extremists.

xp

im being quite literal, as in the u.s. funding quite possibly swung the war for the mujahideen (this is not a particularly controversial view).