I know that. This is why I was asking for peace keepers from the U.N., not offensive proactive military personnel that know how to hunt the enemy. What I would like the U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan AND Iraq for is to do the defensive “police” work and free up U.S. forces to do the offensive operations. We both know however that the U.N. will never send in troops unless their is a certain level of security FIRST and that’s a pathetic litmus test for putting in troops to keep the peace.

NATO took over the security of the Eastern Afghan provinces roughly a month ago. The Taliban was on the rise well before that. Also, the peace treaty Pakistan signed with their own internal pro-Taliban groups has been largely blamed for the trippling of the number of attacks in the Afghan provinces bordering with Pakistan.

As for the UN peacekeepers, their mission is not to wage an aggressive war. They are peacekeepers whose mission is to ensure the conflicting parties actually keep their commitment to stop fighting. Their operation is largely defensive, not offensive.

Finally, the US is member of both NATO and the UN. The US is a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council. If the Bush administration wanted to change the involvement of those two organisations in Afghanistan, they could ask.

Neither the UN nor NATO are going to wrestle control of Afghanistan away from the US. The Bush administration has to be willing to cede it.

It’s your mess Tracy – why would you think anyone else should clean it up for you? You teach your kids that same concept of fairness?

I was not talking about their resurgence. I was referring to the fact that since NATO had taken control of the Eastern and Southern provinces you rightly mentioned, 2006 has been the deadliest year for Afghan civilians.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15245470/

“The attack on Kabul highway just outside the city is the latest in an increasing number of suicide bombings that have killed about 200 people this year, already the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the Taliban government was toppled in 2001.”

NATO I think is changing their defensive posture to a offensive one in regards to fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan…something they should have done before the were ever deployed there.

“Didn’t Pres Bush declare the UN “irrelevant”? Why would he want their help now?”

No he said they were in danger of becoming irrelevant if the didn’t get off their asses and help.

“Plus, the UN has humanitarian missions in Afghanistan. Of course, if you expect military help from the UN, that’s not going to happen. The UN is not a military coalition or treaty.”

Of course I wouldn’t expect the U.N. to go into the really dangerous spots around the world. The U.N. is not a military coalition?…that’s funny because ARMED U.N. peacekeepers today are in multiple coutries around the world. Would it be too much to ask the U.N. to send some decent PEACE keeping forces to Afghanistan? They don’t have to help hunt the Taliban but just refrain from harassing the locals and raping their women and childern.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1445537,00.html

“Tracy, if your dumb ass president hadn’t left Afghanistan in the lurch we would have killed OBL, Zawihiri, and Omar.”

“We could have possibly turned Afghanistan around after almost thirty years of war there.”

And you actually think the the Taliban would have thrown up their hands and tried to make peace with the new Afghan government after those thugs you listed were eliminated? To turn around that county doesn’t involve killing or capturing all of the terrorists and insurgents (like in Iraq BTW). It involves changing the politics and eliminating the embracement of fanatical Islam. How to do that is the real solution.

“Quit blaming Chimpy’s failures on the UN and Nato.”

Again the elimination of those thee characters wouldn’t stop the attacks by the Taliban. They would just become marytrs. I am only blaming NATO for having a “defensive” posture in Afghanistan. NATO’s policy today, as it was during the Cold War, FYI is not a pro-active, i.e. the bad word called “pre-emptive”. I hope NATO is finally getting the hint.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/NATO_Top_General_Calls_For_Proactive_Alliance.html

“You think that might have something to do with the increase in attacks now that they can act freely in Pakistan?”

Signing a treaty with the Taliban? You actually think that actually had something to do with the increased attack inside Afghanistan? That’s funny.

BTW what is up with you LITTLE mouth throwing out the insults? Pretty typical of many people here that would only do it thru a keyboard…like yourself.

10 miles in any direction outside the Kubul and you are in terrorist territory. This is a fact.

Not true, Tracy. That it seems so to you means you haven’t been following the news. First, the Taliban never really went away: They remained “dormant” in the region bordering Pakistan, specially in the Kandahar province. Second, their resurgence as a destabilising force started about a year ago:

Nearly four years after a U.S.-led military intervention toppled them from power, the Taliban has re-emerged as a potent threat to stability in Afghanistan.
A new Taliban has re-emerged in Afghanistan

NATO took over the security of the Eastern and Southern provinces only recently (these areas were under British and American control before) but were involved since early on. The transfer happens to be at time when the Taliban have stepped up their attacks precisely in those areas.

BTW where is the U.N. in trying to help the situation in Afghanistan?

Didn’t Pres Bush declare the UN “irrelevant”? Why would he want their help now?

Plus, the UN has humanitarian missions in Afghanistan. Of course, if you expect military help from the UN, that’s not going to happen. The UN is not a military coalition or treaty.

Thanks for the posts, Sendai.

I appreciate the insight.

Regarding, Afghanistan – Let’s strip out whatever hyperbole there may be in the reporting of the violence (in your words – it is bad but not Iraq) and acknowledge the underreporting progress.

Given the current developments in Afghanistan with the Taliban – do you think things will be ok with a static strategy – or will we have to adapt to deal with these new develpments?

If we need to adapt – what do you suggest?

Darfur and the like. You read the US media at face value and it makes it look NOTHING is being accomplished in the country because of our presence; which is ignoring the fact that the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been progressing along for quite a while with results.

Yeah…there is an insurgency, but it’s NOT as bad as Iraq’s. General officers in the UK are practically politicians in of themselves and given a lot more leeway to say such things than the US military. That’s not necessarily a bad thing as they also tend to say things closer to the truth about the situation on the ground. But I was deployed to Afghanistan for two years (extended the second year) and really, it was anything near the insurgency reported in Iraq.

I think because not much actually goes on in the country (when compared to other operations is involved in) that when something does occur, it really makes news.

If course I hear from friends still in the country, or those who have gone back on rotations, say that’s changing. So who knows…But Bill O’Reily second guessing academic experts like that who were invited to speak…everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how unqualified it may be, but to debate with a professional like that and run her around the mud for awhile isn’t cool.

No, it NATO’s fault that they can do their job. It amazing that once NATO took over operations in Afghanistan the Taliban really started to step up their attacks, especially suicide bombings. BTW where is the U.N. in trying to help the situation in Afghanistan?

“Dave” “Brandyn”

First of all – don’t be so beholden to degrees and schools.

Former Enron chief Jeffrey Skilling is a Harvard MBA. Now he is about to do 24 years in jail.

So … how smart is he?

What about Slobodan Milosevic? He was considered to be an excellent law student.

So … do you go ahead agree with everything he said and did because he studied well as a post graduate student?

I am in a charitable mood today – so I decided to find and share this tidbit with you O’Reilly supporters.

This is from your own “talking point sheet” – The Washington Times. Sept. 12, 2006.

—-

“Suicide bombings were a rare phenomenon a year ago; this year over 70 attacks have been recorded and roadside bombings have doubled, many employing remote detonated technologies with increasingly lethal success.

Another suicide bombing killed the governor of Paktia province, Hakim Taniwal, and two companions on Sunday, with other strikes reported elsewhere.

NATO’s top commander, U.S. Gen. James Jones, visited Kabul last week and said he was stunned by the “level of intensity” of Taliban aggression since the July handover of nationwide security operations.

Of the clashes between NATO forces and insurgents, Brig. Gen. Ed Butler, the top British commander in Afghanistan Friday said, “The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis.”

—-

Oh, those damned U.S. and British Generals – just a bunch of “Lefties.”

They sit in their ivory castle offices at Harvard and … oh, wait … they are not at Harvard …

They are actually in Afghanistan … Actually FIGHTING the Taliban ….

But somehow, O’Reilly knows more than the generals …

So this is how you Republicans are going to keep “America safe”, huh?

Ignore the reports from two generals actually fighting in Afghanistan and instead, take your direction from a jackass on TV.

I don’t care what schools O’Reilly went to or what he studied or how good of a student he was.

He is abysmally stupid right now – and has been for the last 5 to 10 years. If not longer.

If this guy is your source for intelligent (or even realistic) news – well that doesn’t put you two in the brightest light either …

Canada’s casualties

U.S. military officials tell ABC News cross-border attacks by the Taliban are up “300 percent” since President Musharraf declared a “truce” with tribal leaders in the troubled Northern Waziristan region that borders Afghanistan.