‘Most violent year’ in Afghanistan.
By on Oct 2nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
‘Most violent year’ in Afghanistan.
“Afghanistan is currently suffering its most violent year since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, according to an internal United Nations report that sharply contrasts with recent upbeat appraisals by President Bush and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai.” There were 525 security attacks on average every month during the first half of this year, up from an average of 425 incidents per month in 2006. Tomorrow, ThinkProgress will discuss this and other related issues with Said Tayeb Jawad, the Afghanistan Ambassador to the U.S. If you have questions you’d like us to ask him, please let us know in the comments section.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bagram the Military base in Afghanistan is for only US military. If an Afghan comes in he or she is
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 pmaccompanied by 6 US solders at all times. Now
a US soldier was killed with a bullet in the head in
front of a church. The word is the Military will
explain her murder as by Al Qaeda rather then
tell the truth. Our soldiers are being murdered
by our own people while the Generals and the
White House say it is Al Qaeda. We even believe
the lies that Al Qaeda is the cause of all the
deaths and murders in Iraq while it's the civil
war in Iraq with Iraqis killing Iraqis. Yes the
Media does a great just at that spin. Next the
White House will tell Americans the sky is falling
or would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
The GOP would screw up a bake sale!
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmI still dont know why a lot of progressive, regular posters keep thinking that invading Afghanistan is a good idea, but Iraq is not.
I mean, what have the US accomplished since its forces have been there besides record opium production?
Why would invading a sovereign country, regardless of the small relative amount of people killed, is good in one case, and in the other is a terrible mistake?
Terrorism is not a military issue. It is a criminal issue. The only possible way to erradicate terrorism is to take out their support. The bases of terrorism are mostly impoverished people desperate and resented willing to do anything motivated by religious fanatism and revenge. You erradicate that resentment and desperation and you go zero terrorism... or you think OBL or Sadr will bomb themselves? Ha!
It is like GWB getting a rifle and going to the frontlines.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pmI would like to hear ,from his perspective ,what the most productive (or,alternatively, least destructive) course of action the United States could follow to help restore peace to his country and people. On a larger scale, broaden that enquiry to include the entire Middle East. Also, if it is not deemed 'improper' to do so I would love for him to divulge his personal favorite in the upcoming presidential election. Personally, I'm really despondent and could use all the input I can get!
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:43 pmNow a US soldier was killed with a bullet in the head in
front of a church. The word is the Military will
explain her murder as by Al Qaeda rather then
tell the truth. Our soldiers are being murdered
by our own people while the Generals and the
White House say it is Al Qaeda. Comment by Jackie — October 2, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
"The word"...I hadn't gotten that word. Where did you get "the word" that it is the US Military killing our soldiers and not AQ?
Did you catch "the word" on the US airstrike in downtown Kabul last week? Oh wait, that was an AQ suicide bomber killing Afghan police.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pmI would like to know what he feels is needed, from a military standpoint. Specifically, what types of military support would be most beneficial. For instance, in Columbia in 1993, our military intelligence worked with local government forces to find key leaders in Escobar's regime. In Nicaragua, our Spec-Ops trained local police and military forces. Are these the type tools that would be beneficial in Afghanistan? Or would we need a more conventional approach - ie. armor, MP's, tankers, artillery, etc.? What type of military action would be most beneficial to Afghanistan, and for what length of time?
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pmLooks like the exporting of the U.S. Theocratic Democracy was not all it was cracked up to be.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 pmThe GOP is messed up like a soup sandwich.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:05 pmre # 3
The problem is that we couldn't send a swat team to capture bin laden.
The bigger problem is that bush didn't really want to capture bin laden.
If bush had kept his promises in Afghanistan and stayed out of Iraq he'd have his shining democracy in the middle east. but that was never his intention.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:24 pmOne other question I thought of - Could you ask if stronger border security along Pakistan would help? Or would that be a waste of manpower? As I understand it, a good bit of weaponry flows across that border, but it would be good to hear it from someone more familiar with that region.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm“The wordâ€â€¦I hadn’t gotten that word. Where did you get “the word†that it is the US Military killing our soldiers and not AQ?
Did you catch “the word†on the US airstrike in downtown Kabul last week? Oh wait, that was an AQ suicide bomber killing Afghan police.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 2, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
You obviously missed the part where Jackie pointed out that this bullet in the skull occurred INSIDE OF a U.S. military base in which no Afghanis are allowed in without an escort of at least 6 soldiers. How the hell does anyone get a bullet in the back of the skull inside of a U.S. base full of U.S. soldiers, with security so tight that no one is allowed to walk around without an unusually large escort?
The conclusion Jackie then came to, which logic and Occam's Razor would indicate to be the correct baseline conclusion with the presentation of such facts, is that the bullet was shot in to the skull by someone who is allowed to move about in the Bagram base without an escort. In this particular base, that leaves only U.S. soldiers, or their civilian leadership. Meaning it was likely a fragging. Just like Pat Tillman, and his absurdly close shooting (again, in the skull).
I've not researched this incident myself, mind you. Just explaining why it is such a conclusion can be reached logically. Oh, yes, and fragging most assuredly does happen. It happened infamously so in 'Nam, for example, where soldiers who refused to follow orders to slaughter unarmed women and children were fragged, and the blame placed on said women and children.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 pmKeltoi at Night sorry you will never hear the news about how many deaths of our soldiers by soldiers is done. I'm a Military Mother who's child in station in Bagram so my information came first hand then thought the Military news. I know you wait for the White House and Media to tell you the spin and lies but us Military families get first hand up dated news. Remember the op ad by active soldiers.
Now if you would like to read some truths for a change here you go
Mystery surrounds death of soldier
Quincy woman is called a noncombat casualty
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff | October 2, 2007
Now if knowing the truth hurts just continue to watch what the White House/Generals says sometimes it's better to believe the lie then hear the truth.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 pmSend Blackwater in. These pansies will fix everything.
If they're not too stoned out of their minds that is..
Mmmm, opium.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm>>I’m a Military Mother who’s child in station in Bagram
Bless you and your child.
>>I know you wait for the White House and Media to tell you the spin and lies but us Military families get first hand up dated news. Remember the op ad by active soldiers.
The White House doesn't call me. If you think the Media has been in favor of our efforts in Iraq OR Afghanistan you are definitely watching different Media than I. As for the soldiers themselves, they are all heroes and there are as many opinions on the war as there are soldiers, I am sure.
>>Now if you would like to read some truths for a change here you go
Mystery surrounds death of soldier
Quincy woman is called a noncombat casualty
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff | October 2, 2007
This is a much better source that the word, thank you, it isn't linking I will read it tomorow.
From the way your post was written it was unclear the Church was on base, I misunderstood your point. And to the previous poster, I understand fragging and violence occurs within the ranks. The implication of Jackies post was the troops were more of a danger to each other than AQ was. If that was not her intent, I apologize.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 pmNo need to apologize Keltoi at Night
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 pmI have heard and seen things that should never be reported if it was Americans would kick every elected official out of the White House and put them on trial.
When I went to Walter Reed I couldn't believe how our injured soldiers are treated. I went to Military bases and soldiers would only talk away for officers. I was shocked when I was lone with the Officers they talked worse about Bush/Cheney/Rummy then bloggers and other soldiers. It's so messed up and even the Generals don't have respect of the soldiers.
We will have to rebuild our Military. I did love the fact that our troops know the truth so I didn't have to say much they did all the talking. That's how I get the inside stories and like I said things you'll never know.
I love the soldiers my daughter is with and they all all my kids but some times the language gets to me as they forget I'm there.
Why would Think Progress refer to the US invasion as an intervention in Afghanistan? It was an invasion pure and simple. Yes, we did invade that country because the Taliban created a state in which Osama bin Laden & al Queda operated from to attack America. This is one of the few Bush administration actions with which I agree. However, by falsely labeling this invasion as an intervention, Think Progress implies that the US had some sort of permission to do this.
AF
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 am18 comments. for shame... you people are more interested in Rush Limbaugh then the talaban? wtf? I hate ignorant people!
http://www.ni4d.us
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 amThe security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated to the extent that re-construction, and the extent of the Afghan government's influence have been severely hampered.
This situation has not been helped by the American policy of poppy field eradication. With poppy fields being the best hope of a living for many Afghan farmers, this policy is only alienating people from the allies and from the Afghan government, and pushing them towards their enemies.
Furthermore, the result of the policy has been to strengthen Taliban to the extent that the intensity of fighting has reached new levels. In helmand province where the poppy growing is centred, the interests of Taliban and the drug barons have become inextricably linked. The drug barons pay and help arm Taliban in return for their protection. It is not in the interests of either party to allow the reconstruction of Afghan society.
The record numbers of opium crops show that the eradication policy is failing. Clearly the policy needs to change.
Proposals have been made, for example by British MP Frank Field, to seek an alternative strategy. Namely - solve the world shortage of pain killing drugs by buying the crops and converting it for medicinal use.
If the policy where led by the Afghan govt. its success would enhance their authority. Would the ambassador like to see a cessation of the American policy of crop eradication, and instead consider this alternative ?
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:18 amGotta agree with #2.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 pm