Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (7448)	10/21/2001 7:05:21 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

There are a number of myths, some based on ignorance, some on malevolent intention, regarding what we could, or could not, should or should not do in Afghanistan. Myth # 1 - The British (in 1840-42) and the Soviets (1979 - 1989), both world empires at the time, broke their teeth in Afghanistan. Hence, the US, today's dominant world power, will suffer the same fate. This is a myth equally supported by the Taliban, some of their not-so-well-disguised Muslim fellow travelers and useful idiots, and, naturally enough, by the purposefully ignorant Western Left fringes. Reality check The British in 1840 tried and failed to impose an unpopular puppet king in Kabul, thus uniting all the fractious Afghans who, then as now, could only be united against any effective central government. Later on, the British realized their error and engaged in a policy of manipulating (mostly with money) the various Afghan groups, and did so successfully, as demonstrated by the transformation of Afghanistan into an effective buffer state (or, perhaps, better put, a buffer territory, since "Afghanistan" was always, and still is a geographic expression more than a real state, let alone a "nation") between the competing interests and ambitions of the British and Russian Empires. The United States in 2001 has no interest, capability or geopolitical reasons to control, let alone occupy, Afghanistan – and unless we fail absolutely in our propaganda efforts, all "Afghans" know it. Moreover, the recent (as in "before the Soviet invasion of 1979") developments, made worse by the incompetence of the Mujahedeen regime of 1992 - 1996 in Kabul, now represented by the "Northern Alliance," have done what history has not done – sharpen ethnic divisions within the country, with Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Aimaks, Hazaras , Turkmen – together a majority, loosely and temporarily "united" against the Pashtun-dominated Taliban regime. It is no coincidence that the Taliban 's political and ideological center is not multi-ethnic Kabul but all-Pashtun Kandahar. Myth # 2 - The terrain in Afghanistan is such frontpagemag.com While U.S./British Special Operations forces – the British Gurkhas look very much like the central Bamyan province's Hazaras – may and should play a key role, most of the hunting for bin Laden and his crowd – most of whom are Arab or other foreign fanatics – will be done by Afghans themselves – once the Taliban loses control over the major cities and regions. "Let a thief catch a thief" will clearly apply. A Taliban guerrilla war? Where, if they are seen as losers and do not enjoy Pakistani intelligence and military support, as they did until recently?

To: chalu2 who wrote (7448)	10/21/2001 7:11:48 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

"Joining the military in Nepal is not the same as it is in the U.K. (United Kingdom) or the U.S.," said British Flt. Lt. Nick Limb, Thapa's supervisor. "In our countries, military service is voluntary. We just go down to the local recruiter and sign up. In Nepal, the process is very different," he said. Nepalese men gather as a community council with elder members from surrounding villages. Council members examine the applicants from each village and select men to join the Indian and British armies. The selection process takes approximately two to three weeks. "It is an honor to be selected to join the Indian army, but it is much more prestigious to join the British forces," said Thapa. For Thapa, induction was more than a way of life. It was a family tradition. His father served honorably for more than 20 years in the British Army also. af.mil

To: chalu2 who wrote (7448)	10/21/2001 7:17:41 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS, the British army and navy have been conducting joint exercises in the sultanate of Oman. The operation is called Swift Sword II, and by happy coincidence, it happens to put 23,000 British soldiers in the vicinity of Afghanistan. Many of them are now expecting to take part in the ground war and have been training furiously since September 11. In fact, just last week a war game took place in the heart of the Omani desert. The objective was a two-man post held by the Lancers, an armored infantry unit. One-hundred yards away, a platoon of elite special forces dismounted from personnel carriers and charged the post. The first four soldiers to reach the Lancers threw their SA80 rifles to the ground, whipped out curved, razor-sharp short-swords for hand-to-hand combat, jumped into the nest, and simulated slitting the Lancers' throats. Observers on the sidelines were rendered speechless. These knife-wielding warriors are members of the Royal Gurkha Rifles. And they're not British--they're Nepalese. Their signature blade is called the kukri. Gurkhas have been known to decapitate their enemies with it (it can also double as a deadly boomerang). Mere mention of the Gurkhas strikes fear and awe in the hearts of many. As one retired Gurkha officer explained to the Los Angeles Times, "When they're ready to go into battle, their eyes turn red. Then they keep coming. They can never be stopped." Indeed, having fought alongside Great Britain for almost 200 years, the Gurkhas are known throughout the world as legendary soldiers. Their motto: "It's better to die than be a coward." weeklystandard.com