Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 3, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Hey Doc, are you an instigator or protagonist?
What’s your mind?

“SteveMG on June 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM”

Hey Steveo…thanks for the slap up side the head!
What did I say…?

“Over the years Sunni-Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Today there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs as well as religious belief.”

The Iraqi situation is one of conflict, Steve!

That Hatfield and McCoy juxtaposition of 632, exists to this very day.

The evidence is overwhelming – I cited some of it that you ignored – that the Sunnis and Shi’a doctrinal splits does not preclude them from working together in their best interests or against the US and Israel.

A few questions:

1. The Taliban seems to be winning in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP). If they are able to push the Taliban over the brink of defeat in Afghanistan, will British and American forces then target them in Pakistan?

2. The Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan in 2002. How is this defeat different from that one, such that we may be sure that they will not experience yet another resurgence?

3. What study is being undertaken or has been undertaken of the Taliban’s ideology, and the prevalence of elements of it among non-Taliban groups in Afghanistan?

4. What pressure is being brought to bear upon the Karzai government to remove the provision in the Afghan constitution that no law will be made that contradicts Islamic law — a provision that infringes upon the freedom of conscience (as we saw in the case of the Afghan convert to Christianity, Abdul Rahman), the rights of women, and the rights of non-Muslims?

At this point, I have no idea who to believe on Afghanistan. I am disgusted and confused.

Mission accomplished! Are we good, or what?

The MSM.

RMC1618 on June 2, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Interesting. But why should we not trust General P to do what is necessary in Afghanistan, just like he did in Iraq? Seems to me that his promotion was primarily so he could change the Afghani war front strategy to match the Iraq progress.

Seems to me that the only real difference is that the Demon-crats are not going to be squawking about the surge won’t work (before it ever got rolling).

I’m betting on a surge of mostly Predators into Pakistan frontier territory under the doctrine that it is open territory if the Pakistanis cannot control it.

McCain is unlikely to emulate LBJ and his West Wing war room lunacy that cost us so much in Vietnam. To me, McCain understands the chain-of-command much better than the looney libs ever dream about.

Violence Skyrocketing in Afghanistan

Brandon Friedman
Vet Voice
June 2, 2008

While U.S. hostile fire fatalities in Iraq last month dropped to their lowest level since December, the news has been far grimmer coming out of Afghanistan. In terms of enemy fire, May 2008 was the second deadliest month of the war since hostilities began in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11. This also marked the end of the deadliest 12-month period for U.S. troops in combat in Afghanistan since the war began nearly seven years ago.

14 Americans were killed by hostile fire in Afghanistan last month (equal to the same number killed in June 2006). The deadliest month of combat in Afghanistan for U.S. troops was in June 2005 when 25 died–16 in a single helicopter shoot-down.

While 14 hostile fire fatalities may not seem significant when compared to the fighting in Iraq, there are two facts that we must take into consideration:

1. We have just experienced the deadliest 12-month period of the war in Afghanistan in terms of hostile fire–by far.

99 Americans have been killed in action since 1 June 2007. The previous 12-month high was 70–between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2006.

2. The hostile fire death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq.

One out of every 2,500 (.04 percent) Americans in Afghanistan died last month at the hands of the enemy. This is much higher than in Iraq, in which one out of every 10,000 (.01 percent) American troops died.

While hostile fire casualty rates in Iraq have been higher than .04 percent in about half of all months since the invasion, this shows us one fact that cannot be overlooked: The violence in Afghanistan only seems minimal to Americans because there are a mere 33,000 troops there. But the rate of violence there is clearly comparable to that in Iraq–where 155,000 troops are now serving. For those 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, for the first time now, life has become more dangerous than in Iraq.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq is clearly much lower now than it was last summer. But while conservative pundits and Bush Republicans are patting themselves on the back for the ebbing violence (relatively speaking, of course), these idiots have managed to give away the game in Afghanistan. Iraq is–and always has been–a distraction from the Real Global War on Terror, and now those chickens are coming home to roost. We can see it in the casualty rates. Osama bin Laden is still free and Ayman al-Zawahiri is too. Extremism is flourishing in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it’s something that represents a much greater threat to the U.S. than does anything in Iraq. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have said so themselves. After such a deadly year, that should be plain for anyone to see.

This is why John McCain must not be elected. We’re on the wrong track now with our primary focus on Iraq, and McCain aims to keep it that way. Because of his ignorance in terms of foreign policy and current events, McCain represents a severe threat to our national security–when we can least afford it.

We must now redirect our efforts toward international development and the eradication of extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we must let the Iraqis take the lead role in their own country. We have other, more pressing, problems.

aengus on June 2, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Thanks, aengus!

SteveMG on June 2, 2008 at 7:53 PM

“The historic background of the Sunni-Shia split lies in the schism that occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community spread across various parts of the world.
Over the years Sunni-Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Today there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs as well as religious belief.”

While in Sadden Hussein’s Iraq the sectarian Bathist Hussein; placed the minority Sunni into positions of both military and political power and dominance and thusly exacerbated a schism that had existed just below the surface for hundreds of years, once Hussein was unceremoniously removed.

That Hatfield and McCoy juxtaposition of 632, exists to this very day.

Maybe the Telegraph is right, but I wouldn’t be too quick to put out the “Mission Accomplished” banners. I’ll be very interested, however, to see how General Petraeus changes operations there.

AQ where ever they maybe

That should read “AQ wherever they may be” in order to make any sense.

Did Saint Mc confuse you gents too?

AQ where ever they maybe do not play well with the Shiites in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

I’m not confused. I didn’t say that AQ had any connection with or could get along with the Shiites in Iran.

I wouldn’t expect the world’s foremost Sunni terrorist organisation to rub along well with “Rafidite dogs”.

You might be a little less confused yourself if you stopped trying to put words into my mouth.

I said “[AQ have] no reason to bug out of Pakistan so I figure they’ll stay put.”

Wow, imagine that, here we are with millions of dollars worth of shiney airplanes and somebody gets the crazy idea to USE them.

There is nobody more deadly than the U.S.A.F. Tactical Air Controller and the pilot flying above him. I wish we were seeing live footage of their strikes every night the way we did during Desert Storm.

AQ where ever they maybe do not play well with the Shiites in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

The 9/11 Commission Report (in part on the Iran/AQ relationship):

In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations

Guess they can get along if they want to.

As to their relationship now, it appears to be quite strained although there was a recent report that Iran was going to release some AQ prisoners they were holding.

In any event, this simplistic view that the Sunnis and Shia’s could never cooperate with one another is just that: simplistic.

Darnell Clayton on June 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM

aengus on June 2, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Did Saint Mc confuse you gents too?

AQ where ever they maybe do not play well with the Shiites in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

Ares on June 2, 2008 at 6:44 PM

In Iraq, people were fighting against us until we paid them to fight for us. They needed money and when the money started flowing from the right side, they jumped on board. In Afghanistan, we need to build infrastructure to support farming of other crops first. Then, we bring in ag specialists, and then we start burning poppy fields. The Afghans will make the right choice then. If you burn the poppy fields first, the Afghans will have no money and they will look for another source for it and we probably won’t like where they get it from since it will probably involve AK-47s and suicide vests.

There had better be a big ass parade in San Fransiko when this is all said and done, no matter how it turns out. The U.S. military is outstanding.

Exit Question: If Al Qaeda loses in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will they flee to Iran or stay inside Pakistan?

They’ve no reason to bug out of Pakistan so I figure they’ll stay put.

Ares on June 2, 2008 at 6:24 PM

This is how it works, Ed (or Allah) posts a subject and we respond.
If you want to start a new subject about heroin, no problem go ahead and hijack; but saying it was “spin”, well, what facts do you have that says these are not accurate:

The new “precise, surgical” tactics have killed scores of insurgent leaders and made it extremely difficult for Pakistan-based Taliban leaders to prosecute the campaign, according to Brig Mark Carleton-Smith.

In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the “very effective targeted decapitation operations” that have removed “several echelons of commanders”.

What makes these insignificant or inaccurate…focus, focus…