why you wrote so long assays ?
you expec5 people to read your philosopbhy on Afghan ?
Well, the kind of inscrutable haiku you usually write is very hard to
understand; what's the point of writing if your assumptions and logic
cannot be checked?
Matters of war and peace are important enough to deserve careful
thought and suitable citations, which is what I strive for.
And in that regard, your latest haiku, invoking gardens and swimming
pools had 50 lines of mostly just nouns. So, it ought to be rather
understandable for someone else to respond with prose that is somewhat
longer than your poem, wouldn't you agree?
P.S.: By the way I don't do assays although I have great respect for
scientists and technicians who do.
Afgan has always been a can of worms before and after US invasion
....Afgan was a 3 polar world ...
Russian Iranian sphere
Pakistan China sphere
Uk + US sphere
this was before invasion in 2001
now post invasion
we enter in Post Western Global Order
now Pakistan influences Afghan
now India wants to influence
Afghan .. India is a rising power
US must guard Afghan
or Russia + Iranian will control
Chinese quietly influences
Iran and Pakistan in Afghan politics
this will be A POST WESTERN POWER POLITICS in AFGHAN because
China and Russia are important players in AFGHAN
Russia uses Iran in Afghan
China uses Pakistan in AFGHAN
RUSDIA AND CHINA ARE MAJOR POWERS
Central Asia is Rusdia ' s garden
Central Asia is Chinese Silk Road
the Persian Gulf is Pakkistan ' s
swimming pool and Iran ' s bath tub
so RUSSIA ( IRAN )
and PAKISTAN ( CHINA )
are trying to push USA out of
Ok, ok. But where is the Taliban in all these? And where is ISIS,
which claimed the latest Kabul military hospital attack, in these?
In other words, whose influence are these groups under?
And then, you said Afghanistan was under the influence of three
groups: the US-UK "pole", the China-Pakistan "pole", and the
Russia-Iran "pole". But how come we never heard of a shot being fired
by the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, or the Iranians?
And do you remember George W Bush telling the world that if you were
not with us, then you were against us, as he moved the US armed forces
into Bagram? If Iran was already in this, then the US would have had
a good excuse to attack Iran a long time ago, don't you think? And in
fact, Pakistan was a reluctant partner to George Bush's War on Terror
to avoid meeting the said fate as Afghanistan.
What I am saying is that George Bush wouldn't have stood for any
foreign influence on Afghanistan at the time of his invasion.
In fact, all of George Bush's enemies were little guys like "Johnny
Do you remember "Johnny Taliban"? He and a handful of other Muslims
were caught in Afghanistan and brought back here for either a show
trial or no trial except for an indefinite detention without an
None of them have any connection with those "pole" countries you have
mentioned, except for Johnny, who as an American youth went to
Afghanistan to learn more about Islam or perhaps the ways of the
In fact, Afghanistan was, for maybe a decade, free from the influence
of any country. And that's perhaps why the Taliban was free to blow
up those giant Buddha sculptures in Afghanistan the western media
condemned so much. But Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is
monotheist and is intolerant of worshipping what they refer to as
idols or "false idols" in the Judeo-Christian Biblical texts.
Of course, that's why Osama bin Laden was able to run his training
camp in Afghanistan for a while until Uncle Sam - ehrrr, I'm not
talking about you, Sam, by the way, as it is clear from context -
decided to invade.
Of course, before that the Soviet Union was backing a socialist
government and before that it was the Brits, as a post-colonial power,
who had the say.
But influence should mean security - not a can of worms, which is
vulnerable to say the least. You know post-WWII Japan has been under
US influence and nobody dares to threaten Japan precisely because of
the US's influence.
Anyhow, my point is, Sam, you have a geopolitical perspective, and
that is good. But I don't think it is right to say that Afghanistan
has always been "a can of worms".
The Afghans are vulnerable but it doesn't mean that some country
should go in and exploit them and deprive them of a life.
And I don't think China would want to build a Silk Road over or
through "a can of worms", don't you think?
In other words, I don't think any other outside forces except the US
have an interest in messing with "a can of worms".
Also, precisely because the Afghans are quite keenly aware of their
own vulnerability to foreign dominance, they have shown themselves to
be quite a fiercely independent people and have given Afghanistan the
name "graveyard of empires" as you know.
Afganistan is a can of worms
Sam, you made an interesting claim and piqued my interest. Can you
tell us whether Afghanistan was already "a can of worms" before the
US-led invasion in 2001 or did it become one after the invasion?
I suspect that if Afghanistan is ever "a can of worms", it is a
consequence of the invasion because ... otherwise why would the
U.S. want "a can of worms" for an ally? I can only think of worms
being the only ones who would want worms for allies. If anything,
non-worm species might want "a can of worms" just to devour them!
Worms in a can are just so vulnerable, don't you think?
The War on Terror is the most outlandish excuse to put Afghanistan
under occupation. It has deprived at least a generation of Afghans
from living a life.
If Presideent Trump continues his predecessors' oppression against
these innocent people, I seriously doubt that he will win another
election. I think Donald Trump cares about his legacy. For that
reason, I hope he has the wisdom and fortitude to avoid furthering
George W Bush's evil way.
A key American ally in the fight against terrorism, Afghanistan, was
rocked by another flagrant deadly attack Wednesday, but this time with
ISIS claiming responsibility. Gunmen dressed as doctors infiltrated
and attacked a military hospital in the country's capital, killing at
least 49 people and wounding dozens more.
Commentary: Trump should end the US war in Afghanistan
It's generally foolish to look for clear thought and sincere intent in
anything Donald Trump says. But a glimmer of hope emerged in his
Monday comments on America's recent military ventures. "We have to
start winning wars again," he declared. "We've either got to win or
don't fight it at all."
If he means it, he should make a firm decision about Afghanistan,
where we have no prospect of victory and no appetite for what it would
take even to gain the upper hand. In truth, we have already lost that
war. It has gone on for more than 15 years, making it the longest
conflict in our history. And we are further from victory today than
when we arrived.
U.S. military officials, reports Reuters, acknowledge that the Kabul
government controls only 60 percent of the nation's territory. The
Taliban, which we invaded the country to remove, controls some 15
percent, with the remainder contested. The Islamic State and al-Qaida
are also in the fight.
The stalemate is more or less a permanent fact of life. George W. Bush
turned his attention away from Afghanistan once he decided to invade
Iraq, and his administration was content to stave off disaster. Barack
Obama mounted a surge, boosting the number of U.S. troops from about
30,000 to about 100,000 in his first two years, but by the time he
left office, he had drawn them down to 8,400.
Both presidents did essentially the same thing, refusing to escalate
enough to achieve a lasting victory - and refusing to leave. Their
approach was to fight but not to win.
The question for Trump is whether to accept that reality and get out
or deny it and stay. Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan, recently told a Senate committee that he needs "a few
thousand" additional troops. But such a modest boost would amount to a
holding action, at best.