Hillary Clinton put in Hot Seat by Pakistani Media

[parihaka]

And nice of you to also join in the ad hominems when left with no logical counter -

In your rush to offer the usual dismissives you obviously missed these

Sufficient force was put in place to keep order for what, three, four years?

It was only when wholesale interference from across the border began occurring once more that the violence began increasing dramatically.

Force and aid has constantly increased since the invasion.

The myth that somehow 'those 100,000' would have been put in Afghanistan if not deployed to Iraq is simply that, a myth.

The only way that Afghanistan missed out was in not giving enough political thought and care to the long term geopolitical aspirations of its neighbours, and treating the country as though it were a coherent whole.

So, instead of offering the usual 'ad hominems' perhaps you can further define how 'abandoned' equates to a continuing and escalating presence?

 

[dbc]

Cut it out guys, abandon is not the word I’d use to describe events in ’02. IMHO, Iraq spread us thin in Afghanistan there is no denying it.



Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In your rush to offer the usual dismissives you obviously missed these

So, instead of offering the usual 'ad hominems' perhaps you can further define how 'abandoned' equates to a continuing and escalating presence?

I did already, and as in the last argument, you continue to focus on smarmy comments instead of the points made. In any case, some of your erroneous claims are corrected in the following quotes:

Ahmed Rashid (2008):

"Pakistan is not the only one playing a double game. So is the U.S. All it cared about was to get Al Qaeda. It didn't (initially) care about the Taliban."

It nearly abandoned Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban in 2001, making the same mistake it had once before after helping to end the Soviet occupation in 1989, leaving a vacuum in which rose the Taliban, a failed state and the perpetrators of 9/11."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (2009):

“My Republican colleagues, of course, abandoned their focus on Afghanistan for seven years — seven years — and let it drift, and did not resource it properly, and did not succeed,”

John McCain:

"We have tried to win this war without enough troops, without sufficient economic aid, without effective coordination, and without a clear strategy. The ruinous consequences should come as no surprise."

AM comments: Wonder why? Oh right, abandoned Afghanistan to go wage war in Iraq, though McCain would never admit to it. However, in the same speech he comes close ...

"Rather than building on these gains, however, we squandered them. Beginning in 2005, our integrated civil-military command structure was disassembled and replaced by a balkanized and dysfunctional arrangement. The integrated counterinsurgency strategy was replaced by a patchwork of different strategies, depending on the location and on which country’s troops were doing the fighting. And at a moment when many in Afghanistan and Pakistan continued to nurse doubts about America’s commitment in South Asia, the Pentagon announced its intention to withdraw 2,500 American combat troops from the theatre.

These decisions laid the groundwork for the situation we see in Afghanistan today."

AM comments: The underlined section is essentially the argument I have made reapeatedly that the lack of Paksitani cooperation and hedging of bets came about as a result of the US decision to abandon Afghanistan and wage war in Iraq.

Here was Gore, predicting 'Abandonment' in 2002:

"If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq, and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. "


Tamim Ansary (Afghan American professor and author) writes:

"Five years ago, America had a rare opportunity in Afghanistan. It stood astride a country exhausted by chaos, tired of bloodshed, and hungry for peace. At that moment, having driven the Taliban out of Kabul, the United States could have relied on the Afghan people as allies. At that moment, Afghans themselves would have manned the barricades against saboteurs and terrorists to protect Americans helping to rebuild their country. Liberated from security concerns, the United States could have exercised to the utmost its undoubted genius for creating prosperity. The military victory could have been a platform for starting on America’s real work: putting a devastated Muslim country back on its feet with no strings attached—just think how that news would have rippled beyond the borders of Afghanistan and throughout the Islamic world.

Instead, the Bush Administration committed an astonishing strategic error. It abandoned Afghanistan, as if the military victory had been the whole game there, which was roughly like a football team leaving the field after winning the coin toss.

What’s worse, the United States ran off to open a new military front in—of all places!—Iraq: a country exhausted by the grim “peace” of a long lockdown and bursting with readiness for war."

Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton (I know the Neo-Con's in ya'll will love this source):

“The Bush Administration took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, leaving a deteriorating situation to worsen and Osama bin Laden on the loose more than five years after 9/11,”

Moving beyond the semantics of the precise definition of 'abandoned', it is pretty clear that the current situation in Afghanistan is the result of, for all intents and purposes, the 'abandonment of Afghanistan'.

However, given the Republican hostility on display to such characterization on the online forums, comments sections and blog responses to many of the above, no wonder the term touched a nerve with the two of you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Cut it out guys, abandon is not the word I’d use to describe events in ’02. IMHO, Iraq spread us thin in Afghanistan there is no denying it.



Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide

How about 'ignored'?

 

[deathfromabove]

Cross-media perspective of Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan

 

[S-2]

"However, given the Republican hostility on display to such characterization on the online forums, comments sections and blog responses to many of the above, no wonder the term touched a nerve with the two of you."

Smarmy indeed.

The only thing that's touched a nerve with me is your willingness to ignore clear, researched facts to press a willfully distorted agenda.

Not your first time and the refuge of a weakly constructed position...

...or a poor politician in the making.

Thanks.

 

[deathfromabove]

US allowed Al Qaeda to enter Fata: Hillary

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has conceded that the United States was also responsible for allowing Al Qaeda to enter Pakistan.

Clearly, Al Qaeda left Afghanistan. And we let them out, she told Greta Van Susteren of FOX News. You know, we should have taken them out when we had the chance back in 2001 and 2002 and they escaped. And they escaped into Pakistan.

Asked if the US was also responsible for Al Qaeda’s presence in Fata, Secretary Clinton acknowledged that if the US had done a better job in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda would not have slipped into Pakistan.

If we had done a better job going into Afghanistan and capture the people who had attacked us or killed them you know, we would be in a different position,’ she said.

Asked about the extent to which the developing US military strategy in Afghanistan bleeds into Pakistan, Mrs Clinton said: Absolutely. I mean when we first did our review upon taking office, we concluded that you had to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together and in light of the war on terror that we had to wage.

To win the war against terrorists, she said, the US needed to build strong partnerships with both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The stronger partnership we have with Pakistan, the stronger their efforts to root out terrorists in their own country, the better the situation is across the border in Afghanistan.

The top US diplomat said she was impressed with the way the Pakistani military was confronting militants in South Waziristan.

We’re very impressed by the campaign against the Pakistan Taliban in (the Swat valley) and South Waziristan. But our point to our friends in Pakistan is that — that is an important and necessary step for you to take, but remember that there is a terrorist syndicate with Al Qaeda at the head.

She warned: You can’t just say your job is done because you’ve cleared out (Swat), you’ve cleared out South Waziristan, until we truly root out what is in my view the source of the syndicate and a lot of the problems that Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rest of us face.

Asked to comment on her statement in Lahore in which she blamed Pakistan for not doing enough to fight Al Qaeda, Mrs Clinton said it was part of her effort to build a better relationship with the country.

They said to me very clearly: Look, we have a trust deficit for you. And I said, well, look, that’s a two-way street. And I’m happy to take any of your questions. I’m happy to admit where we may not have always done as well as we could have in our relationship.

But a lot of people back home want to know, you know, how come Al Qaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan? How come we arrest somebody like Zazi and find out that he was trained in a training camp run by Al Qaeda in Pakistan?

She added: I think that’s the kind of relationship we need to have.

The United States, she said, was trying to rebuild a better relationship, removing this deep level of mistrust and suspicion about America’s intentions and actions that has built up over the last eight years.

Mrs Clinton said she came to Pakistan with the determination not to meet government officials alone but get to out into different settings, universities and business groups, and really listen to people.

Mrs Clinton said that while she acknowledges that the US should have done a better job in preventing Al Qaeda from entering Pakistan, Islamabad should also accept its responsibility.

There are home-grown terrorists here in Pakistan. They’ve made common cause with Al Qaeda. So we can look backwards through the rearview mirror and say we shoulda, coulda, woulda, and you shoulda, coulda, woulda, too, she said.

The other way of approaching this problem, she said, was to admit that both countries had a common enemy.

And we’re proud that you’re going to after the Pakistan Taliban, who are causing so much damage and destruction, that terrible bombing in Peshawar the other day. But that’s not enough. You have to help us get Al Qaeda. You will be more secure if you help us get the people who are helping to fund and train and equip the very people you’re going after in South Waziristan right now.

Mrs Clinton said she had lot of discussions with the Pakistanis over the Kerry-Lugar bill during his visit.

This really became a very big issue here in Pakistan, and I don’t think most of us in America really understood what the beef is.

DAWN.COM | World | US allowed Al Qaeda to enter Fata: Hillary

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"However, given the Republican hostility on display to such characterization on the online forums, comments sections and blog responses to many of the above, no wonder the term touched a nerve with the two of you."

Smarmy indeed.

The only thing that's touched a nerve with me is your willingness to ignore clear, researched facts to press a willfully distorted agenda.

Not your first time and the refuge of a weakly constructed position...

...or a poor politician in the making.

Thanks.

What facts?

The ones that quite clearly indicate, in pretty much most analysis of Afghanistan (some of which I posted above), that the US 'abandoned' (or 'ignored Afghanistan' if you are so sensitive about the Bush legacy)?

Again, you are getting caught up in semantics, when I believe the gist of my point was quite obvious from the get go.

I may be a poor 'politician in the making', but ignoring the reality of US follies in Afghanistan because of 'pride', hubris that the US 'can do no wrong' or whatever else it may be is no good reflection upon your own ability to recognize the pros and cons of policies and engage in introspection.

Your diatribes against Pakistan are typically singularly representative of a similar hubris of 'US can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and there is an excuse and a scapegoat (typically Pakistan) for everything'.

I fail to see why you find it so hard, in the face of all the evidence here, that the US, if not abandoned, then quite clearly ignored Afghanistan to the point that the situation deterirotrated to where it is now.

You think it is clever to argue over the semantics of 'abandoned', but as the Afghan American professor indicated, it isn't 'clever or amusing' to the Afghans, and it isn't clever or amusing for me as a Pakistani, given how the decisions made because of the choice of war in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan impacted the course of events in Pakistan, and I am sure it isn't clever or amusing for the families of US servicemen and women who have died because of the deteriorated situation, and will continue to die until the situation is brought under control.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

You think it is clever to argue over the semantics of 'abandoned', but as the Afghan American professor indicated, it isn't 'clever or amusing' to the Afghans, and it isn't clever or amusing for me as a Pakistani, given how the decisions made because of the choice of war in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan impacted the course of events in Pakistan, and I am sure it isn't clever or amusing for the families of US servicemen and women who have died because of the deterirorated situation, and will continue to die until the situation is brought under control.

Beautiful just beautiful

Unfortunately these guys will continue to argue over the Sementics ,...
Untill they would argue the talibans would eventually find more safe havens in Afghanistan to hunt them
And just like a pray falls to a spider they too would fall pray to the old grizly who once got lost in this Cave of Deth . Nostalgia its good sometimes

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

refuge of a weakly constructed position...

I wish if the soviets had a ten times the size of your army right at your border and some low grade nincompoop would ask you to leave your border at the mercy of the Soviets only then your eyes will open .
Once stinged will always be weary for the next one .

 

[S-2]

"What facts?"

Facts that were made available in the CRS report. They are clear and indisputable indications that Afghanistan wasn't abandoned.

"The ones that quite clearly indicate, in pretty much most analysis of Afghanistan (some of which I posted above), that the US 'abandoned' (or 'ignored Afghanistan' if you are so sensitive about the Bush legacy)?"

Politicians and analysts offering sound-bite commentary hardly constitutes analysis much less facts.

"Again, you are getting caught up in semantics, when I believe the gist of my point was quite obvious from the get go."

No. I'm not caught up in semantics whatsoever, A.M.

You were repeatedly offered the chance to separate the facts of our commitment in Afghanistan-both material and human, from what might have been done better and done with more resources.

You conjecture that had we not been engaged in Iraq that those resources devoted to OIF and its aftermath would automatically have instead been allocated to Afghanistan. Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's speculation on your part and not even sound analysis much less fact.

Primarily it ignores whether we would have between 2002-2006 recognized the need to do so. It's entirely possible that we might not have and would, instead, have seen matters as proceeding generally in accord with our desires.

"I may be a poor 'politician in the making', but ignoring the reality of US follies in Afghanistan because of 'pride', hubris that the US 'can do no wrong' or whatever else it may be is no good reflection upon your own ability to recognize the pros and cons of policies and engage in introspection."

You'd be hard-pressed to find anywhere in my accumulated posts here where I've suggested that we've been without fault in Afghanistan. This comment is, therefore, attempting to suggest something that simply isn't the case and is very unfair.

"I fail to see why you find it so hard...that the US, if not abandoned, then quite clearly ignored Afghanistan to the point that the situation deterirotrated to where it is now."

You've yet to provide clear evidence other than the anecdotes you've offered. Nonetheless, I'm not sure that I'd deny your contention. Clearly, in retrospect, it would seem we should have done differently and possibly more. Whether we recognized the need between 2002-2006 or not, I'm unsure.

Had we recognized the need, all that might have been assured is that we had the means to do more. Whether doing more would have translated into performing more effectively is difficult to judge and shall remain so. Conditions HAVE changed somewhat since 2002 and we now face a different situation. It is fair to say that American policy has changed dramatically since early 2008. More so by late 2008 and leading to now.

I'd be happy to discuss what might have been better done by my country between 2002-2006 if that's your desire. No doubt a lot. However, I'd contend that the beginning of THAT discussion entails what we might better have done with the dollars allocated and the troops then in place.

More to the point, though, is to what effect here at def.pk? What are your objectives in doing so? Do you wish to assign all blame for Afghanistan now to then and, if so, do you wish to assign all blame then to America? If so, can you tell me how that might help Pakistan or you personally now?

"You think it is clever to argue over the semantics of 'abandoned', but as the Afghan American professor indicated, it isn't 'clever or amusing' to the Afghans, and it isn't clever or amusing for me as a Pakistani, given how the decisions made because of the choice of war in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan impacted the course of events in Pakistan, and I am sure it isn't clever or amusing for the families of US servicemen and women who have died because of the deteriorated situation, and will continue to die until the situation is brought under control."

Oh I've not found this a "fun" conversation to indulge cleverness. Your pain, however, assumes an obligation by me to accept your contention that this was a zero-sum proposition and it appears to be upon that which you've hung your sanctimonious high hat while absolving yourselves of any role or responsibility or that of other agencies and nations.

I'm painfully aware of the cost in human lives of this war and carry my own feelings about that which run quite deeply. Don't lecture, though, when there's plenty of blame to go around. There will be a circle of accusations tossed back and forth-all likely with elements of truth and myth. That will serve no good in my estimation.

We have here and we have now. Where matters go from here are of abiding interest to me. Where matters have trod before I'll leave to historians as the relevance beyond "lessons learned" is minimal and the cross-accusations associated with such unproductive. Further, the full truth (whatever that may be) remains to be uncovered and sorted.

How you wish to proceed will be up to you. I can't control what follows though I'll be eager to read your response.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

If you go back and read the context of my post that you took umbrage at, the whole brouhaha over 'abandoned' will come across as silly.

The original issue, Solomon2's claim of 'US superiority in judgement, he stands pretty throughly negated.

On the issue of 'abandoned', we can agree to disagree. I really am done arguing over semantics.

Cheers.

 

[parihaka]

I did already, and as in the last argument, you continue to focus on smarmy comments instead of the points made. In any case, some of your erroneous claims are corrected in the following quotes:

Ahmed Rashid (2008):

"Pakistan is not the only one playing a double game. So is the U.S. All it cared about was to get Al Qaeda. It didn't (initially) care about the Taliban."

It nearly abandoned Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban in 2001, making the same mistake it had once before after helping to end the Soviet occupation in 1989, leaving a vacuum in which rose the Taliban, a failed state and the perpetrators of 9/11."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (2009):

“My Republican colleagues, of course, abandoned their focus on Afghanistan for seven years — seven years — and let it drift, and did not resource it properly, and did not succeed,”

John McCain:

"We have tried to win this war without enough troops, without sufficient economic aid, without effective coordination, and without a clear strategy. The ruinous consequences should come as no surprise."

AM comments: Wonder why? Oh right, abandoned Afghanistan to go wage war in Iraq, though McCain would never admit to it. However, in the same speech he comes close ...

"Rather than building on these gains, however, we squandered them. Beginning in 2005, our integrated civil-military command structure was disassembled and replaced by a balkanized and dysfunctional arrangement. The integrated counterinsurgency strategy was replaced by a patchwork of different strategies, depending on the location and on which country’s troops were doing the fighting. And at a moment when many in Afghanistan and Pakistan continued to nurse doubts about America’s commitment in South Asia, the Pentagon announced its intention to withdraw 2,500 American combat troops from the theatre.

These decisions laid the groundwork for the situation we see in Afghanistan today."

AM comments: The underlined section is essentially the argument I have made reapeatedly that the lack of Paksitani cooperation and hedging of bets came about as a result of the US decision to abandon Afghanistan and wage war in Iraq.

Here was Gore, predicting 'Abandonment' in 2002:

"If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq, and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. "


Tamim Ansary (Afghan American professor and author) writes:

"Five years ago, America had a rare opportunity in Afghanistan. It stood astride a country exhausted by chaos, tired of bloodshed, and hungry for peace. At that moment, having driven the Taliban out of Kabul, the United States could have relied on the Afghan people as allies. At that moment, Afghans themselves would have manned the barricades against saboteurs and terrorists to protect Americans helping to rebuild their country. Liberated from security concerns, the United States could have exercised to the utmost its undoubted genius for creating prosperity. The military victory could have been a platform for starting on America’s real work: putting a devastated Muslim country back on its feet with no strings attached—just think how that news would have rippled beyond the borders of Afghanistan and throughout the Islamic world.

Instead, the Bush Administration committed an astonishing strategic error. It abandoned Afghanistan, as if the military victory had been the whole game there, which was roughly like a football team leaving the field after winning the coin toss.

What’s worse, the United States ran off to open a new military front in—of all places!—Iraq: a country exhausted by the grim “peace” of a long lockdown and bursting with readiness for war."

Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton (I know the Neo-Con's in ya'll will love this source):

“The Bush Administration took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, leaving a deteriorating situation to worsen and Osama bin Laden on the loose more than five years after 9/11,”

Moving beyond the semantics of the precise definition of 'abandoned', it is pretty clear that the current situation in Afghanistan is the result of, for all intents and purposes, the 'abandonment of Afghanistan'.

However, given the Republican hostility on display to such characterization on the online forums, comments sections and blog responses to many of the above, no wonder the term touched a nerve with the two of you.

I realize you want to move “beyond the semantics” of your claim but, as has been pointed out to you before, words have meaning.

I was simply going to toss that comment off as another flippant reply but as we’ve had what I can describe as rational debates prior to this I decided you deserved more.

To wit:

Allow me to introduce you to argumentum ad vercundiam, a.k.a. Argument from authority, or appeal to authority

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

In short, while authority figures, none of the people cited above were involved in the decision making process as regards troop numbers, aid, deployment or ROE’s therefore their opinions hold no more worth than yours does.

What does count is the basic numbers of troop deployment, dollar values of aid, defined strategy etc.
While you can argue that each of these elements may or may not have been sufficient or of the right type at any given time, and/or that the changes were reactive rather than proactive, your assertion that Afghanistan was abandoned is clearly wrong as the occupation has continued uninterrupted and has been progressively increased.

So, you’re partially correct in asserting that this is about semantics, but in fact those semantics are both vital and disprove the meaning of abandonment you wished to convey.

 

[parihaka]

Beautiful just beautiful

Unfortunately these guys will continue to argue over the Sementics ,...

When you understand what the word 'semantics' means, come back and play.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Facts that were made available in the CRS report. They are clear and indisputable indications that Afghanistan wasn't abandoned.

Reports are ment for those who are obcessed to persue satisfaction from a predefined thinking of not accepting the reality on ground ......

BTW thanks for the boring show ..