Jump to content

Meanwhile In Afghanistan


Panzermann

Recommended Posts

Panzermann It was only a matter of time I guess.

 

There does seem to be a proxy war between Russia and the US spooling up all over Eurasia. Yemeni rebels shooting down high flying jet aircraft, Syrian rebels using GPS home made drones, now Taliban sporting boss kit. My, how the locals seem to be learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Panzermann It was only a matter of time I guess.

 

There does seem to be a proxy war between Russia and the US spooling up all over Eurasia. Yemeni rebels shooting down high flying jet aircraft, Syrian rebels using GPS home made drones, now Taliban sporting boss kit. My, how the locals seem to be learning.

 

I do not think so. As for me it is US & cheering team losing one conflict after another to local forces, and regional powers (like China, Russia, Iran etc) preparing to take positions they leave to stabilize the situation to prevent trouble spreading into own regions. In Afghanistan, it is only question of time this or next or another US President will declare another great victory with carefully arranged servicemen standing behind him as scene furniture, and US&Co leave to have rest of splendid isolation on another side of ocean - while for Russia Afghanistan is the place trains go to (and from) daily (Moscow-Kulyab on Afgan border).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully Russia and the US can stay on a roughly parallel course in regards to Afghanistan. The US goal is a stable Afghanistan that is not a terrorist haven. I suspect deep down that suits Russia as well and offers trading opportunities. So supporting the US goal, letting the US do the heavy lifting and slowly build up the trade routes to benefit Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Russia does not require the United States to stamp out terrorism in Afghanistan. As the war in Syria just demonstrated, they have the doctrine and means to do it. . Further, Roman just said the Russian view is that the Americans will tire of Afghanistan and depart, leaving a vacuum. So Russians might not see the US there as a solution. Additionally, there is the broader questions of Syria, Ukraine, etc. They're all linked together. This is why Washington has been so reluctant to arm Ukraine, and the cooperation in Syria. Because both sides know how vulnerable they are if the other really starts going after their forces in these areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Russia does not require the United States to stamp out terrorism in Afghanistan. As the war in Syria just demonstrated, they have the doctrine and means to do it. . Further, Roman just said the Russian view is that the Americans will tire of Afghanistan and depart, leaving a vacuum. So Russians might not see the US there as a solution. Additionally, there is the broader questions of Syria, Ukraine, etc. They're all linked together. This is why Washington has been so reluctant to arm Ukraine, and the cooperation in Syria. Because both sides know how vulnerable they are if the other really starts going after their forces in these areas.

Russian problem is not “terrorism in Afghanistan”, but terrorism (or radical Islam ideology leading to terrorism) spreading into Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizya, Kazakhstan etc. Poverty (except Kazakhstan) and questionable political systems in this places create lots of explosive material, and having Afghanistan bombed into medieval on another side of the border, with radical Islam (sponsored by KSA) providing the only answer for local people demand for justice and peace, is very dangerous situation. In fact I do not see how it may be resolved without huge investments (not only in terms of money but mainly in human lives, like sending another young teacher into the village school every time previous teacher is killed by local tribal leader gang - until couple of generations educated).

And US just do not have this problem, they can pack up and leave any moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Americans would be quite surprised to discover that they didn't invade Afghanistan because of the threat of international terrorism.

 

Afghanistan, and terrorism, is subordinate to the main issue, which is who is going to wear the daddy pants in Russia's near abroad. Russia, the US, Europe, or China? It's all the same chess board, and what happens in one sphere, (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, etc.) can and will spill over into another. Looks to me its all been rolling downhill since 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Americans would be quite surprised to discover that they didn't invade Afghanistan because of the threat of international terrorism.

 

Afghanistan, and terrorism, is subordinate to the main issue, which is who is going to wear the daddy pants in Russia's near abroad. Russia, the US, Europe, or China? It's all the same chess board, and what happens in one sphere, (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, etc.) can and will spill over into another. Looks to me its all been rolling downhill since 2013.

Russian and US view of “international terrorism” is absolutely different.

For US, safely separated by oceans from heartlands of radical Islam, image of “international terrorism threat” is individuals or small groups, very well prepared and with lots of money, able to launch 9\11 style attack or even some kind of WMD strike. This groups can be routed out in bombings or military operations. Self-radicalized locals are problem but not exactly “international terrorism”.

For Russia, “international terrorism threat” is actually mass movement among Muslims both at home and in work exile in Russia. It is very hard to address this problem by military-only means as it is deeply rooted into social and cultural problems.

What USians lack is experience of daily communication with people from Central Asia. Having young Tajik digging ground on your dacha despite being graduate of Teheran University is quite eye-opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Americans would be quite surprised to discover that they didn't invade Afghanistan because of the threat of international terrorism.

 

Afghanistan, and terrorism, is subordinate to the main issue, which is who is going to wear the daddy pants in Russia's near abroad. Russia, the US, Europe, or China? It's all the same chess board, and what happens in one sphere, (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, etc.) can and will spill over into another. Looks to me its all been rolling downhill since 2013.

Russian and US view of “international terrorism” is absolutely different.

For US, safely separated by oceans from heartlands of radical Islam, image of “international terrorism threat” is individuals or small groups, very well prepared and with lots of money, able to launch 9\11 style attack or even some kind of WMD strike. This groups can be routed out in bombings or military operations. Self-radicalized locals are problem but not exactly “international terrorism”.

For Russia, “international terrorism threat” is actually mass movement among Muslims both at home and in work exile in Russia. It is very hard to address this problem by military-only means as it is deeply rooted into social and cultural problems.

What USians lack is experience of daily communication with people from Central Asia. Having young Tajik digging ground on your dacha despite being graduate of Teheran University is quite eye-opening.

 

 

I see your point. Groups of underemployed people who received higher education and think they should be part the elite of their country are a breeding group for civil unrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

looks like somethng is moving in AFG, Makes me wonder why the taliban want to talk now? Feeling strong with the recent wave of attacks, but not strong enough to take AFG by force?

 

 

Afghanistan

Taliban publish letter calling on US to start Afghan peace talks

 

‘American people’ and ‘peace-loving congressmen’ urged to press Trump into negotiating

 

 

Memphis Barker in Islamabad and Julian Borger in Washington

Wed 14 Feb 2018 16.57 GMT

 

In an unexpected overture at a time of increasing bloodshed in Afghanistan, the Taliban have published an open letter expressing a desire for peace talks and calling on the “American people” and “peace-loving congressmen” to pressurise the Donald Trump administration into negotiations.

 

The letter, released by the Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, comes amid deteriorating conditions for US and Afghan coalition forces on the battlefield and after a month in which two Taliban assaults on Kabul killed 150 civilians.

 

The Trump administration has sent mixed messages about its readiness to have contact with the Taliban, but it has insisted that all substantive negotiations would have to be led by the Afghan government.

 

For its part, the Taliban refuses to talk to the Afghan government without first discussing the withdrawal of foreign troops with its powerful ally.

 

“If the policy of using force is continued for another one hundred years,” the letter reads, “the outcome will be the same ... as you have observed over the last six months since the initiation of Trump’s new strategy.”

 

The 2,800-word letter favours US and UN-produced statistics over apocalyptic threats. In an attempt to persuade the US public that the war is unwinnable it cites the “3,546 American and foreign soldiers” killed, an “87% rise” in heroin production in 2017, and the assessment from the US watchdog the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction that Taliban control on the ground has increased significantly.

New wave of Afghans seek a way out as fear grips Kabul

Read more

 

In what appears to be a nod to rising support for the Taliban from Russia and Iran, the statement refers to the “international community” now “backing our justified resistance”.

 

The letter also highlights the “tens of billions of dollars” spent in Afghanistan “collected from you in tax and revenue” but then given “to thieves and murderers”, it claims.

 

Such arguments have an ear in Washington. On Monday, the Taliban invited the libertarian senator Rand Paul for talks at their office in Qatar, after he claimed the US’s projected $45bn (£32.5bn) spend in Afghanistan over 2018 amounted to money “thrown down a hatch”.

 

This invitation stands a better chance of influencing US policy than the “generalised” open letter, according to Thomas Ruttig, of the thinktank the Afghan Analysts Network.

 

A spokesperson for the US state department said the Taliban was welcome to join peace talks, but added that the onus was now on the insurgents to end their campaign of violence.

 

“The Taliban statement alone does not show willingness to engage in peace talks. The Taliban’s recent horrific terror attacks in Kabul speak louder than these words,” the spokesperson said. “The Afghan government can only negotiate to end the war if the Taliban are ready. The recent attacks show this is not the case.”

Why Trump's Afghanistan strategy risks the worst of both worlds

Read more

 

There are conflicting views within the US administration, however. The secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said the US is open to talks with “moderate voices” in the Taliban, which could form part of the Kabul government.

 

Even after Trump’s comments, Tillerson’s deputy, John Sullivan, said US policy remained the pursuit of Afghan-led talks with the Taliban, and suggested Trump’s remarks referred to a refusal to talk to hardliners while attacks were under way. Talks with the Taliban, Sullivan said this month, would “happen over time when conditions warrant and it’s appropriate”.

 

Even if ignored by policymakers, the Taliban’s public plea showcases an effective evolution in their propaganda, according to a western official unauthorised to speak publicly. “I hate to say it,” said the official, “but they have started to hit where it hurts simply by telling the truth.”

 

Michael Semple, a former UN and EU negotiator with the Taliban, suggested the letter said more about the internal politics of the insurgency, between moderates based in Qatar and more hardline elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

“The Taliban have refused talks with the government of Afghanistan. To legitimise that position, they are putting it out that they are open to talks with the US,” said Semple, who is now a professor at Queen’s University Belfast. “The letter is not conveying a serious proposal, but is an attempt to provide cover for a hardline position (with which I suspect most Taliban in Qatar disagree).”

 

Simon Gass, a former Nato senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, said: “Although the Taliban have had success on the ground, it has come at a big price in terms of losses. Morale is said by experts not to be great, particularly given the faction fighting which followed the deaths of [Taliban leaders] Mullah Omar and Mullah Mansour.

 

“The encroachment of Isis is a problem for the Taliban – they may be feeling the heat. The US intention to raise force levels will also discourage them. So this could be a significant move. But it could also be a tactic designed to disarm those in the US who are against any troop increase and to divide the Afghan and US governments.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/taliban-publish-letter-calling-us-start-afghan-peace-talks

 

 


afghan gov's response:

Afghan leader's offer to Taliban is a last-ditch gamble for peace

 

Ashraf Ghani’s ceasefire and recognition proposal comes after sharp escalation in attacks

 

Simon Tisdall

Wed 28 Feb 2018 07.55 GMT

 

 

A bold plan to draw the Taliban into a binding peace process looks like a last, desperate gamble by Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s embattled president, to end one of the world’s most intractable wars. His initiative may have come just in time.

 

Ghani’s initiative, unveiled at an international conference in Kabul on Wednesday, follows a sharp escalation in the number of Taliban attacks. More than 100 people were killed in an ambulance bombing in the capital last month, and at least 20 died in a siege at the Intercontinental hotel.

 

Lethal violence has become so endemic it is barely reported. Last week, nearly two dozen Afghan soldiers and three civilians died in multiple attacks across the country, including a double suicide bombing in southern Helmand province, where British troops once fought.

The war America can't win: how the Taliban are regaining control in Afghanistan

Read more

 

According to UN figures, a rise in the number of undiscriminating attacks last year resulted in more than 10,000 civilian casualties – 3,438 people killed and 7,015 injured. Tadamichi Yamamoto, the UN envoy to Afghanistan, said: “These chilling figures alone cannot capture the appalling human suffering inflicted on ordinary people, especially women and children.”

 

Ghani’s peace offer comes as the US, his principal military ally, is engaged in another bout of soul-searching as to what it is trying to achieve in Afghanistan.

 

The US and its Nato allies have been fighting the Taliban since 2001, but victory has eluded them. Donald Trump questioned American aims in Afghanistan during the 2016 election campaign and his commitment remains in doubt.

 

After a tough internal debate, Gen John Nicholson, the US commander in Afghanistan, persuaded Trump to deploy an additional 3,000 troops, taking the total to about 14,000. American forces stepped up anti-insurgent operations last year, particularly airstrikes – one reason for the surge in casualties – in order, they said, to force the Taliban to the negotiating table. But estimates suggest the Taliban has increased the amount of territory it controls outright, or is contesting.

 

“Since the US drawdown of peak forces in 2011, the Taliban has unquestionably been resurgent,” a Foundation for Defense of Democracies survey concluded.

 

American critics have questioned how 14,000 troops can succeed where 140,000 deployed under Barack Obama could not. Daniel DePetris, an analyst, argued that the revamped military strategy is a flop and the annual $45bn (£33bn) cost a waste of money.

 

“Afghanistan is not worthy of any more American investment. It is time to get out [and] let the region’s neighbours manage the Afghan quagmire,” DePetris wrote.

 

Yet increased US military pressure does seem to be having some impact. Earlier this month, the Taliban, which has been fighting to restore Islamic rule in Afghanistan since its 2001 ousting by US-led forces, proposed direct talks with the US, while insisting all American forces withdraw first.

 

The Afghan government opposed the initiative, saying the Taliban must talk to it, not Washington. That is a process Ghani is trying to kickstart by offering to recognise the Taliban, which he previously dismissed as rebels” and “terrorists”, as a legitimate political group. A ceasefire and a release of prisoners were among available options, he said, including inclusive elections.

 

“We are making this offer without preconditions in order to lead to a peace agreement,” the president said. “The Taliban are expected to give input to the peace-making process, the goal of which is to draw the Taliban, as an organisation, to peace talks.”

 

In return for recognition as a legitimate political group, the Taliban would have to recognise the Afghan government and respect the rule of law, Ghani said.

 

His timing may prove propitious for other reasons. Pakistan, a longstanding, semi-covert backer of Taliban leaders and the allied Haqqani network, is being financially squeezed by Trump. Washington withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in support last month over Islamabad’s alleged support for terrorism.

 

All parties to the conflict, national and regional, have a potential financial motive to stabilise Afghanistan. Last week, a ceremony in Herat marked the start of work on the Afghan section of a $10bn gas pipeline linking Turkmenistan, Pakistan and India.

 

The Taliban declared that it supported the pipeline and other infrastructure projects that could benefit Afghans. “We announce our cooperation in providing security for the project in areas under our control,” a spokesman said. Like Ghani’s government, the Taliban is eyeing a share in an estimated $500m-$1bn in annual transit fees. But peace, naturally, is priceless.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/28/afghan-president-ashraf-ghani-offers-to-recognise-taliban-to-end-war Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

February 8, 2018 / 1:49 PM / 21 days ago

Who is an Afghan? Row over ID cards fuels ethnic tension

 

 

Hamid Shalizi 4 Min Read

KABUL (Reuters) - A multi-million dollar plan to issue new electronic identity cards ahead of elections in Afghanistan has stirred heated debate and ethnic animosity, raising political tension just as the country faces a stepped-up campaign of Taliban attacks.

 

The dispute is over how nationality will be designated on the new cards, with leading figures from some ethnic groups rejecting the term “Afghan”.

 

The controversy highlights the difficulties of reaching agreement on just about anything in the diverse, faction-ridden country and comes as President Ashraf Ghani, an ethnic Pashtun, is locked in confrontation with the powerful ethnic Tajik governor of a northern province.

 

Politicians from Afghanistan’s main ethnic group, the Pashtuns, say nationalities should be recorded as “Afghan”. But that is a term that in the past was used to refer to Pashtuns, and members of other ethnic groups object to its use.

 

“Our ethnicity is our identity and any ID card with the name ‘Afghan’ on it, will never be acceptable to us. There’s no compromise,” said Farhad Sediqi, an outspoken Tajik lawmaker.

 

“We’d prefer to have ‘Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’ on the identity cards and that covers everything.”

 

President Ashraf Ghani, who is Pashtun, has delayed the launch of the cards and called for a solution.

 

But tempers are running high and several sessions of parliament called to debate the matter in recent weeks have ended with exchanges of barbs and threats.

 

One Pashtun member of parliament, Saheb Khan, warned the assembly he would fight to the death against anyone who did not accept the word Afghan on the ID cards.

 

“I will defend to the last drop of my blood my identity that is Afghan and it must be included in the document,” he later told Reuters.

 

The dispute has sparked some protests in Kabul by Pashtuns calling on the government not to bow to the demands of other groups.

 

No census has been conducted in Afghanistan for decades and estimates of the size of different groups are contentious. Pashtuns and Tajiks are the two main groups with smaller numbers of Hazara, Uzbeks and others.

 

Hazara member of parliament Mohammad Akbari said the use of the word Afghan was an unfair imposition on non-Pashtuns.

 

“This is a country of all of us, not only Pashtuns,” Akbari told Reuters.

 

FRAGILE GOVERNMENT

 

Ghani issued a decree last year on amendments to the law to include nationality, ethnicity and religion on the cards but parliament rejected it. Various amendments have been floated since then but the deadlock continues.

 

Afghanistan’s former kings were Pashtun, as was Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai. But ethnic Tajiks rose to powerful positions in government, the military and security services after the ouster of the mostly Pashtun Taliban in 2001.

 

The current government emerged from a U.S.-brokered power-sharing deal after a disputed 2014 election when both Ghani and his main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, who draws support from Tajiks, claimed victory amid accusations of fraud on both sides.

 

The deal has been beset by disputes, partly over appointments being carved up along ethnic lines.

 

Ghani’s stand-off with Balkh Governor Atta Mohammad Noor, who is Tajik and who is defying efforts to replace him, has threatened to destabilize the administration and raised fears the government could try to use force to break the stalemate.

 

Such fears revive memories of civil war in the 1990s, fought largely along ethnic lines, in which more than 100,000 people were killed.

 

Ghani is also facing pressure to improve security after a Taliban bomb in Kabul killed 103 people, a week after a raid on a hotel killed some 30 people.

 

The ID cards, known as e-Tazkira, are seen as an important step to avoid fraud in delayed parliamentary elections, due this year, and a presidential election next year.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-politics/who-is-an-afghan-row-over-id-cards-fuels-ethnic-tension-idUSKBN1FS1Y0

Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm, I have thought about this new ID card. totally great to note down ethnicity and religious allegiance. Makes the next genocide so much easier. just ask french and dutch jews how it went for them having their eligion registered.

 

 


islamic state

 

yep there seems to be a third faction now in AFG. they have already claimed responsibility for several attacks.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/24/explosion-attack-save-the-children-office-jalalabad-afghanistan

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jan/26/killings-isis-afghanistan-aid-groups-hanging-fingernails-save-the-children

 

attacking foreign aid and helpers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

According to index.hu, the Taliban started their Spring Offensive. It s called al-Kandak (trench battle?), and the main aim is breaking, killing, capturing the US invaders.

So far they killed Afghan civilians and soldiers, 24 of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
'Very positive signals' after U.S., Taliban talks: sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Min Read

 

(This July 29 story corrects paragraph 18 to show meeting was with Qatar officials)

 

 

 

By Jibran Ahmad and Abdul Qadir Sediqi

 

PESHAWAR, Pakistan/KABUL (Reuters) - A meeting between a senior U.S. diplomat and Taliban representatives in Doha last week to discuss a possible ceasefire ended with “very positive signals” and a decision to hold more meetings, people with knowledge of the talks said on Sunday.

The meeting between a delegation led by Alice Wells, deputy assistant secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and Taliban representatives was first reported in The Wall Street Journal but has not been officially confirmed.

According to one Taliban official, who said he was part of a four-member delegation, there were “very positive signals” from the meeting, which he said was conducted in a “friendly atmosphere” in a Doha hotel.

“You can’t call it peace talks,” he said. “These are a series of meetings for initiating formal and purposeful talks. We agreed to meet again soon and resolve the Afghan conflict through dialogue.”

He said the talks had been held without the presence of Afghan government officials at the insistence of the Taliban.

The move comes as the Afghan government and the United States have stepped up efforts to end the 17 year-war in Afghanistan following the unprecedented three-day truce during last month’s Eid al-Fitr holiday.

The truce, which saw unarmed Taliban fighters mingling with soldiers on the streets of Kabul and other cities, offered the first concrete vision of a peace settlement since an earlier attempt at peace talks broke down in 2015.

Although the Taliban refused an offer by President Ashraf Ghani to extend the Eid ceasefire, behind-the-scenes contacts have continued and the government has said it is considering another ceasefire during next month’s Eid-al Qurban holiday.

As hopes of possible formal negotiations have risen, the United States has agreed to participate directly in the talks, although it insists the process will remain under Afghan leadership.

 

FREE MOVEMENT

The Taliban official said the talks took place with the approval of the leadership council. The two sides had discussed proposals to allow the Taliban free movement in two provinces where they would not be attacked, an idea that President Ashraf Ghani has already rejected. They also discussed Taliban participation in the Afghan government.

“The only demand they made was to allow their military bases in Afghanistan,” said the Taliban official.

The meeting in Doha, where the Taliban maintains a political office, followed two earlier meetings between U.S. officials and Taliban representatives in recent months, the sources said.

“We have held three meetings with the U.S. and we reached a conclusion to continue talks for meaningful negotiations,” said a second Taliban official.

He said they would first exchange prisoners and then discuss other issues that could restore peace to Afghanistan.

“However, our delegation made it clear to them that peace can only be restored to Afghanistan when all foreign forces are withdrawn,” he said.

Another person with knowledge of the talks said the United States had pressed the Taliban side to accept the ceasefire offer for Eid-ul Adha, often known in Afghanistan as Eid-al Qurban, which this year starts on Aug. 22.

“So a long-term ceasefire is expected on Eid-ul Adha,” the person said. “Both sides agreed upon the continuation of the meetings and talks and another meeting is expected before Eid, but the exact time and place is not clear yet.”

The State Department confirmed that Wells had visited Doha but has said only that she met Qatar government officials, including the deputy prime minister, to talk about their contributions to the situation in Afghanistan.

Asked about talks with the Taliban, a State Department spokesman referred to a July 9 comment from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, that the United States would “support, facilitate, and participate in these peace discussions, but peace must be decided by the Afghans and settled among them.”

Ghani’s main spokesman Haroon Chakansuri said last week that peace talks would be Afghan-led and would build on international consensus in support of peace.

 

 

Additional reporting by Sarah Lynch in WASHINGTON; Writing by James Mackenzie; Editing by Adrian Croft

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-usa/very-positive-signals-after-us-taliban-talks-sources-idUSKBN1KJ0ML

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China courted Afghan Taliban in secret meetings


Like the US, Beijing has talked to militants in a bid to end long-running conflict

Chinese officials have met the Afghan Taliban several times in the past year, figures in the Pakistan government told the Financial Times, as Beijing seeks to play an important role in ending the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan.
Islamabad has acted as a broker for the Taliban, helping to set up negotiations with both China and the US.

The [Taliban] visitors to Beijing got to visit a mosque and eat ‘halal’ food,” the person said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Nobody wants to lose, nobody is willing to win.

Well the US military industrial complex won, and its the only thing that matters. Its the purest form of socialism, invent a need and have the govenment pay for it.

Edited by Mistral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't remember what was the title of a novel written by an American author. There was a line stating that the watchtowers are the symbol of the Soviet oppression. Twenty-some years after I have read it, the Middle and the Far East are littered with US checkpoints and watchtowers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't remember what was the title of a novel written by an American author. There was a line stating that the watchtowers are the symbol of the Soviet oppression. Twenty-some years after I have read it, the Middle and the Far East are littered with US checkpoints and watchtowers...

 

 

Those are freedom towers! It is only wrong if they do it.

 

 

The photos bojan posted reminded me of the old description of Afghanistan as the grave of empires.

 

 

 


 

Regarding the involvement of the PRC, how much does crime spill over from Afghanistan into China?

Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...