Stanley McChrystal: enough fighting

Discuss the latest political news.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38660
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Stanley McChrystal: enough fighting

Post by spot »

May I quote briefly from today's BBC news?Gen Stanley McChrystal told the UK's Financial Times that there had been "enough fighting" and he wanted a political solution to the conflict.

President Obama's deployment of 30,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan would weaken the Taliban enough to force it to agree a peace deal, he said. He added that the Taliban could help run the country in future.

BBC News - US commander signals peace talks with Taliban



I wonder what the minimum requirement of the Taliban will be.

How about the negotiated Afghanistan having self-determination and no US bases anywhere within its territory? That, it strikes me, is a likely minimum.

The abolition of Opium cultivation throughout Afghanistan is quite likely to be high on their list too. According to United Nations International Drug Control Programme Annual Opium Poppy Survey 2001,In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.At the moment, by contrast, over half the Afghan GNP derives from Opium cultivation.

The Taliban are and always have been an arm of Pakistan's military. Pakistan currently is flooded with this unIslamic Afghan warlord profiteering trade. Surely even the West has an interest in bringing it to a halt. A Taliban-controlled government is the surest way of achieving that aim. Nothing since the invasion has made any dent in opium production, it's four times higher now than it was before the Taliban cracked down on it in 2000.

What else might they insist on before cooperating? Why should they cooperate on any lesser terms?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
G#Gill
Posts: 14726
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:09 pm

Stanley McChrystal: enough fighting

Post by G#Gill »

I understood that the west is short of morphine. Afghanistan produces poppies. Why can't there be some sort of trade agreement between the west and Afghanistan, so that the Afghans can gain legitimate income through something which they can produce. If this is done properly, with affective safeguards etc. then Afghanistan would be able to export a commodity legally, and improve their economy, and the west would obtain sufficient morphine. All would be sorted, or am I talking a load of bollocks here? After all, I'm only a simple soul. :o
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38660
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Stanley McChrystal: enough fighting

Post by spot »

G#Gill;1285087 wrote: I understood that the west is short of morphine. Afghanistan produces poppies. Why can't there be some sort of trade agreement between the west and Afghanistan, so that the Afghans can gain legitimate income through something which they can produce. If this is done properly, with affective safeguards etc. then Afghanistan would be able to export a commodity legally, and improve their economy, and the west would obtain sufficient morphine. All would be sorted, or am I talking a load of bollocks here? After all, I'm only a simple soul. :o


The limiting factor in how much morphine a country can import for medical use is what the International Narcotics Control Board allows them to buy. In the case of Western countries there's no shortage. Worldwide there may well be but it's the level of the cap on imports, the availability of medical funding in third world countries, the local laws and the reluctance of doctors to handle the stuff for fear of imprisonment which brings it about. There's currently a two-year stockpile of medical morphine worldwide due to overproduction (as best I can tell - do correct me if that's wrong), it's not available supply that stops it from getting to patients.

If the cap was lifted and all the world's countries took in as much for medical purposes as all patients wanted irrespective of cost or local laws the current producers could still churn it out, growing space isn't a limit. They're Australia, France, India, Spain, and Turkey. They have sufficient infrastructure to ensure little is diverted to the drugs trade. Why on earth would anyone choose to add Afghanistan, in its current grotesquely corrupt condition, to that list? Why, if the Taliban were back in control and again scaled back the country's output to minimal levels, would anyone invite them to change their minds and put the dangerous and tempting crop back into the fields? Give the chaps with the long beards a fair crack of the whip, they want a legal society, they want to eliminate crime, they want to express their local cultural values, they want the foreign occupation and Western bases removed, the locals are on balance in favour of having them do it, it's win-win for everyone concerned except the warlords of the Northern Alliance creaming off billions of drug dollars into Swiss accounts and bullion stashes.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38660
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Stanley McChrystal: enough fighting

Post by spot »

Stanley's up on his hind legs again, and again he's spouting propaganda. He's a bit of a toerag is Stanley.After a decade of fighting in Afghanistan, retired Army General Stanley McChrystal estimated that the coalition was "a little better than" half way to achieving its military ambitions

BBC News - Hamid Karzai admits to Afghanistan 'security failure'

No, Stanley. Not only are you wrong but you're pitching so far into a non-existent future solely because you know damn well you're wrong. Little better than half way to achieving US military ambitions? They're unachievable in Afghanistan and you know it. I refer you back to my earlier posts in the thread for the reasons.

Whether you leave next year, in five years or in ten years you're going to leave. The Afghan electorate will put the Taliban back, regardless of how you rig the elections thereafter. If nothing else it will be a matter of national pride to leave no trace of the occupation. I expect the US will have a sudden influx of rich Northern Alliance drug barons buying US citizenship and that will be that.

What exactly are these "US military ambitions" you claim you're over half way to achieving? Unless it's a simple ambition to kill X foreigners or spend Y dollars I'd be fascinated to see an inventory. In all these last ten years I've looked for one and not seen it.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38660
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Re: Stanley McChrystal: enough fighting

Post by spot »

Stanley McChrystal's observation in 2011 that America was half way done with occupying Afghanistan. Well done General, you got it spot on to the year. Started 2001, half way 2011, withdrawing all combat forces 2021.

How did it go, General? America won?

Or would you like a bet on whether the Afghan administration will be Taliban-dominated later this decade? That the present members of the Afghan administration will be in exile and that opium production will be finally suppressed?

Once the combat forces are withdrawn, could I hope that no more bombing from the air will happen? Cruise missiles or planes? Or is killing foreigners from a distance still allowed.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

Return to “Current Political Events”