Over 80 Dead in Afghan Blast
A massive suicide bomb ripped through crowd in Qandahar on Sunday, killing over 80 and wounding a similar number. The Afghan newspaper Rah-i Sulh took a dim view of the public's activities at that site, which included dog racing. It observed that people who went to get a thrill from seeing dogs mangled unexpectedly saw a true and all too human tragedy.
People often say that Iraq was a diversion and that the US should have done the job in Afghanistan better and quickly. As time goes on, you have to begin to question whether Pushtuns in the country's south are ever going to put up with a foreign military occupation of their territory.
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/18/2008 12:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
Dog-fighting, not dog-racing, I believe. I could not imagine the Afghans much interested in simply running one dog against another.
Professor Cole,
Do you think the original invasion of Afghanistan was justified/a good idea?
Indeed you have to wonder if the Americans military are capable of doing anything quickly and efficiently.
This isn't your daddy's army, these clowns don't do quick or efficient,
ala Atrios - No
I think the whole point is that because of the attack on Iraq, we are now occupying two countries, instead of one. And, naturally, neither wants to be occuppied.
Arguably, we should never even have invaded Afganistan, as reportedly the Taliban were willing to give up Bin Laden if the Bush administration made a case for his guilt. It seems strange to consider that there once was a time when you had to make a case to support an accusation. Now you just have to have enough military force and control over the media to make it stick.
There are reports that the death toll has passed 100, and there's been a second bombing, targeting Canadian soldiers, that has claimed 35 lives at last count.
- Inkan1969
Surely there is more than 2,500 years of history to support the proposition that the Pushtuns of Afghanistan will never acquiesce to a foreign military occupation, no matter how benign in intent it proclaims itself to be.
Supporters of the NATO mission there can answer every question but "How are we going to win? What would success look like, if and when we attained it?"
Why only think in terms of this being a military responsibility? This reminds me of the North Vietnamese general that captured Saigon. After 9/11, he said, “I hope the Americans can defeat the terrorists, but if they try to do it with the military, they will only add fuel to the fire.”
I would bet that he knew what he was talking about.
More recently, the UN diplomat that the Afghan government expelled last December stated in an interview that he thinks that about two-thirds of the Taliban can be persuaded to abandon violence.
Too bad the General died a couple years ago. Probably he and the UN diplomat would have made a good team. Would anyone listen though?
Bob Spencer
Workship writes: "[R]eportedly the Taliban were willing to give up Bin Laden if the Bush administration made a case for his guilt."
That might have been difficult, given that 35% of the people were led to believe Iraq caused 9/11, 35% thought Jews or Israel were to blame, and another 35% believed the "Loose Change" theory that Bush or some insidious inside conspiracy orchestrated everything. Yes, the sum or the percentages exceeds 100%. Nonsense always commands more than total support. Oh, and there is one additional percentage: the share of Pashtuns who love Bin Laden, who think it fine to blow up things, and would not turn him over anyway.
The real question about Afghanistan is whether the NATO occupation stands any greater chance of changing the country than did the Soviet occupation. Believers in nation-building are welcome to explain what similarities they see with Germany or Japan. Please, no Mother Goose.
Post a Comment
<< Home