Questions for People in Charge
Why do you fire on crowds that are armed with sticks and stones? Did they outlaw tear gas in Afghanistan? Surely you could have done something else? Why did you think this would not have serious consequences? Why don’t you have a strategy for dealing with riots?
Did you really think that the Russians engaged in ground battle because they are sick bastards that like to see their comrades die? Didn’t you think they might have gotten caught up in something uncontrollable? Did you know that even before this, as I have posted to the whole world on my blog, that the people of Kabul respected the Russians more than they respected you? Because you walk around in robo-soldier outfits and huge tanks and build walls, whereas with the Russians, at least people knew who was boss?
Do you realize that your entire strategy depends on Dostum and his allies supporting you, and that he has supported every winning army since 1972, including the USSR when they were winning, and the Taliban? Do you know how fucked you really are if the northern warlords take their men in parliament (whom you allowed them to post), and their armes caches, and their people across the north for whom no jobs have been created, and go against you?
Do you know where your soldiers will be hiding out? Do you know what it will be like for your men to hunt out one dushman after the other, cave by cave, not only in the south, but in the Panjsher, in Kohistan, in Badakhshan, in the Dashti Qala, among the minarets of Herat, across the Salang?
Did you think that although the British, the Russians, and Alexander himself were defeated in the mountains of Central Asia by these Iranian tribes, you will manage it because you have really cool airplanes?
Are your men on the ground saying exactly the same thing, but you are not listening to them?
Do you think this could be the beginning of the end?
On another note entirely: did anyone know that some people still use Yahoo! to search? I didn’t, until I got this referral:
what do you call a worker at a patisserie
from them. Yes, type that into Yahoo, and my site comes up first. This, dear Yahoo!s, is why Google is kicking your patooties.
- Afghanistan | Time: 04.1.48 (UTC+8)
Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system.
Comment by Administrator — 02.06.2006 @ 06.1.58
No wuckers, luv. Well said.
I, for one, cannot believe that things got so out of control. I mean, you are right when you ask about strategy about riots. Why isn’t there one? How could so many homes get looted? How could so many offices get burnt down?
I am not a security sector person, and I don’t know what the answers are. But I cannot believe that with all this international assistance around, this still occured. Or maybe that is part of the problem. I don’t know.
Comment by Vasco Pyjama — 02.06.2006 @ 13.1.12
I lived in fear of something like that everytime I drove through Kabul. Even though I was in small(er) civilian vehicles and didn’t drive like a bat on fire. Damn glad I wasn’t there this time.
As for tear gas, combat troops don’t carry any. As for guns agaisnt rocks, well rocks can kill you too. Besides which half the population of Afghanistan (only half??) is armed.
Still, I hate to see this, I really liked visiting Kabul.
Comment by exmi — 02.06.2006 @ 15.1.23
I remember after 9/11, and many people who I had otherwise assumed reasonable began to adopt the “NUKE ‘EM ALL” mentality. Now they use these incidents as proof that Afghanis are just ungrateful for “the liberty” we’ve given them. Many moons ago, I believed that those in charge thought a little more deeply than this and would at least entertain your questions. I forgot my point…but perhaps I need a vacation somewhere outside of a red state…
Comment by Shannon — 02.06.2006 @ 21.1.59
Yeah but, you see, we Americans have God on our side…
Comment by sideshow bob — 04.06.2006 @ 03.1.13
Interesting political power plays going down - one interpretation I heard was that this was all about the Panjshiris flexing their muscles, giving folk the heads-up that they aren’t toothless, that they can’t be completely sidelined. Not sure if it’s true, but it’s plausible. Certainly the Tajiks are pissed right now. “Why don’t you have a strategy for dealing with riots?” The police force is lagging way behind the army, and one certainly doesn’t want to send the army in to deal with this stuff, re your comments on firing on crowds. But I don’t reckon this is the beginning of the end. It’s just an expression of the political decision Karzai and the Americans have taken.
What is a patootie?
Comment by Whisky — 04.06.2006 @ 03.1.09
Exmi:
I didn’t know Kabul was considered a combat zone by the United States Army and the Afghan National Army. I thought that they considered it a civilian zone in which counter-terrorism operations were being carried out. When riots occur in a civilian city, you send the riot troops out.
And I am sorry, but a rock cannot break through armoured vehicles, or even through most cars. You have to have really lucky aim with that.
Regarding the arms of half the population: many of these are with warlords. You really think that everyone is carrying a gun? They aren’t. But they will be quickly armed if war breaks out.
Whisky- A patootie is an ass, or rather, “arse”, if you prefer.
Thanks to all for comments.
Comment by Administrator — 05.06.2006 @ 08.1.24
Afghanistan as a whole is considered a combat zone by the US Army. I rather suspect that the vehicles involved in this convoy were not armoured vehilce although I haven’t seen pictures to be sure.
I kow that Kabul is one of tha places where most of the locals aren’t armed. But most US soldiers who rarely get outside of the base except to run the occaisional convoy hvae heard and believe taht all of Afghanistan is like the mountains of the the southeast. Full of tribesman who are all armed to the teeth.
I don’t know all the details fo what went on, who did the shooting, or what. Just what is in the press and the rumours.
Comment by exmi — 05.06.2006 @ 20.1.39
Exmi-
That’s unfortunate, because if Afghanistan is a combat zone, what are “peacekeepers” doing there?
It is also a shame that supposed peacekeepers, and people responsible for ensuring security in a city, have no idea how the inhabitants of the city live, that they never take off their sunglasses, never get to sit down and have an ice-cream… in this way, they are much more vulnerable than the Russians, who at least had the nerve to walk around the city.
This is what happens when you have combat troops (some fresh from Iraq, I’ve heard, which is too bad for the soldiers and Afghans) in a city where peacekeepers are required.
Comment by Administrator — 07.06.2006 @ 10.1.43
I agree. We used to get to go into kabul and shop and eat a couple of times a month but that was ended while I was there after the suicide bomber threw himself onto the canadian vehicle. This is the end result of TV making such a huge stink over every singel death that the work effort is actually hampered by doing thing to avoid danger. It is a shortsighted plan but unfortunetly they don’t ask me.
Comment by exmi — 08.06.2006 @ 02.1.52
I keep checking back for the answers…;)
Comment by Shannon — 08.06.2006 @ 05.1.11
first of all, I love your questions, they are really good. and out of the comments one can see that they can be so differently answered… so some comments and replies make me write someting here too…
there are different stages between peace keeping to peace enforcement, and the different terms of the military, like the military culture in general, are not something easily understandable if you don’t really know it, best from inside. there is also a problem that we just have to accept not so clear borders in todays world. we have to accept that no one ever knows everything - but to have a functioning society/organistaion/whatver unit, you have to fulfil your tasks. so for reaons of understanding each other, we have to agree on certain definitions and eg talk about Afghanistan as whole, when actually the reality in different parts is quite different.
I don’t know what is the solution for making Afghanistan a peaceful place - something it has not been for over 20 years - but there are various factors involved. life is very diverse, never two people are of the same opinion. if no internationals were in Afghanistan, it would probably not be much better. lacking an external enemy does not make a country necessarily peaceful. back to the internationals, sadly now we are in a stage of work where instead of risk management we do risk avoidance, not letting people out anymore (be it soldiers or UN), and then blaming them at the same time for being too far from the population. honestly, looking around here I could cry when I see how the internationals fight each other. NGOs think they are better than UN, because they are close to population and not using an aircondition which in their opinion makes them better people; UN thinks it is better than …. oops I have to correct me here, there is no such thing as ONE UN anyway, there just different agencies and missions where everybody is very convinced to belong to the only good one; and everybody keeps blaming the military, which is kind of normal and the usual thing one does. but giving credit to the russians, because they just allowed one system of thinking does not seem the right thing to me either.
a little bit more acceptance would do so much good to everyone, so that at least we could talk about international aid and really mean it, not just having a thousand know-it-alls running loose.
trivial things as well as deep thoughts from me can be found on http://sharingmeanscaring.blogspot.com
Comment by pumuckl — 08.06.2006 @ 08.1.07
Shannon- Don’t hold your breath. I think they’re keeping their darling soldiers under lock and key.
Comment by Administrator — 09.06.2006 @ 07.1.07