Fighting in Georgia

[Brett327]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Well, you don't think any of that money or weapons that we funneled into that country in the 70s and 80s didn't carry over and that, at least in part, some of it isn't still being utilized today?

Do you have any evidence that it has? Exactly what is your point anyway? You sound like you're going down the tired, self-hating liberal argument that our policy to arm anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan was somehow misguided and that it's coming back to bite us now. If you are making that argument, I challenge you to back it up with facts, not whining.

Brett

 

[scoolbubba]

It seems we've stepped our diplomacy up a notch by putting our angry faces on... Calling the Russian campaign against the Georgians 'regime change' in front of the UN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552908.stm


This is getting serious, and if you ask most people in the US what they think of the fighting in Georgia, they go "is it near atlanta?"

 

[RHPF]

This is probably a bit far for most people on the board, and perhaps might be a bit extreme (time will tell)....

I do however feel that I (personally) would much rather go to 'work' to defend an existing democracy such as Georgia, who has shown a desire to be a democracy, as opposed to the other 'two'. Especially in the face of overwhelming odds courtesy of their neighbor. If we do not help existing democracies, then what is to encourage any others to change?

FWIW (I searched, it hasn't been mentioned yet on AW much to my surprise) - I am greatly offended that Iraq is expected to have a $38B budget surplus this year and does not intend to spend it (yes even with the recent call by the Prez to increase spending... only once it was discovered that they were pocketing all that money in the face of US tax payers). I don't feel like looking the articles up again, but something like 80% of their budget meant for payrolls and admin was payed, but only ~15% of their infrastructure (a meager percent of GDP at that too) budget was used. If they don't want to help themselves, then we shouldn't be trying either.

Back to Georgia, I really want the U.S. to do something. I just cannot think of what our options are to do so.

 

[jarhead]

First part of the 2m:47s video is some BBC reporters on the wrong end of an RuAF Su-25 rocket attack ... Link

S/F

 

[OUSOONER]

words

What good would come in the long term future if we played an active role in helping Georgia?

Everyone agrees that the last thing we want is a show down with the Russians.

At any rate, this whole thing is so surreal..I feel like I'm in 1985 or something. I'm about to go run, I think I have a Walkman in my garage somewhere, I may just break it out.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Do you have any evidence that it has? Exactly what is your point anyway? You sound like you're going down the tired, self-hating liberal argument that our policy to arm anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan was somehow misguided and that it's coming back to bite us now. If you are making that argument, I challenge you to back it up with facts, not whining.

Brett

And balance that against the fact that a number of forces we worked with in Afghanistan in the 1980s turned around and worked with us, once again, after 9/11.

This self-hating "blowback" logic is not only silly, it's dangerous. Had President Clinton continued to support Ahmad Shah Massoud, a staunch US "ally" again the Soviets, through the 90s, there is a very good chance 9/11 would not have happened. Instead, we decided that everyone we supported in Afghanistan was "bad" (an argument that continues to perpertuate), and refused to support allies who could have (and eventually did) fight back against the extremists.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Do you have any evidence that it has? Exactly what is your point anyway? You sound like you're going down the tired, self-hating liberal argument that our policy to arm anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan was somehow misguided and that it's coming back to bite us now. If you are making that argument, I challenge you to back it up with facts, not whining.

Alright, I'll bite:

"The U.S. offered two packages of economic assistance and military sales to support Pakistan's role in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The first six-year assistance package (1981-87) amounted to US$3.2 billion, equally divided between economic assistance and military sales. The U.S. also sold 40 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan during 1983-87 at a cost of US$1.2 billion outside the assistance package. The second six-year assistance package (1987-93) amounted to US$4.2 billion. Out of this US$2.28 billion were allocated for economic assistance in the form of grants or loan that carried the interest rate of 2-3 per cent. The rest of the allocation (US$1.74 billion) was in the form of credit for military purchases." Sale of non-U.S. arms to Pakistan for destination to Afghanistan was facilitated by Israel. Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip Afghan resistance groups with weapons, including Stinger man-portable air-defense systems.

http://www.millat.com/democracy/Foreign Policy/Briefing_Paper_english_11.pdf
http://www.rense.com/general39/pakh.htm

The U.S. government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who Pakistani officials believed was "their man". Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat. Alarmed by his behavior, Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar, "It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave" (Bergen, 2001).

Bergen, Peter, Holy War Inc., Free Press, (2001), p.67

London March 06, 2001 11:40 Hrs (IST) THE CENTRAL Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.

CIA director William Casey backed a plan by Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and Britain's MI6, with the British SAS trained future al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.

Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.

Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen. Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.

The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

http://www.rawa.org/cia-talib.htm
Sanjay, Suri. India Abroad News Service, March 6, 2001

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Islamic Party - called Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) to distinguish it from a smaller splinter group - espouses strict Islamist ideology. At various times, it has both fought against and allied itself with almost every other group in Afghanistan. Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin received some of the strongest support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and worked with thousands of foreign mujahideen who came to Afghanistan.

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Hekmatyar received millions of dollars from the CIA through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). According to the ISI, their decision to allocate the highest percentage of covert aid to Hekmatyar was based on his record as an effective anti-Soviet military commander in Afghanistan. Others describe his position as the result of having "almost no grassroots support and no military base inside Afghanistan," and thus being the much more "dependent on Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq's protection and financial largess" than other mujahideen factions.

Hekmatyar has been harshly criticized for his behavior during the Soviet and civil war. He ordered frequent attacks on other rival factions to weaken them in order to improve his position in the post-Soviet power vacuum. An example of his tendency for internecine rivalry was his arranging the arrest of Ahmed Shah Massoud in Pakistan in 1976 on spying charges.

After September 11, 2001 Hekmatyar, who had "worked closely" with bin Laden in early 1990s, declared his opposition to the US campaign in Afghanistan and criticized Pakistan for assisting the United States. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban, Hekmatyar rejected the U.N.-brokered accord of December 5, 2001 negotiated in Germany as a U.S.-imposed government for Afghanistan.

As a result of pressure by the US and the Karzai administration, on February 10, 2002 all the offices of Hezb-e-Islami were closed in Iran and Hekmatyar was expelled by his Iranian hosts.

On May 6, 2002 the U.S. CIA fired on his vehicle convoy using a Lockheed Martin manufactured AGM-114 Hellfire missile launched from an MQ-1 Predator aircraft. The missile missed its target.

The United States accuse Hekmatyar of urging Taliban fighters to re-form and fight against Coalition troops in Afghanistan. He is also accused of offering bounties for those who kill U.S. troops. He has been labeled a war criminal by members of the U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai's government. He is also a suspect behind the September 5, 2002 assassination attempt on Karzai that killed more than a dozen people.

In September 2002, Hekmatyar released a taped message calling for jihad against the United States.

On December 25, 2002 the news broke that American spy organizations had discovered Hekmatyar attempting to join al-Qaeda. According to the news, he had said that he was available to aid them. However, in a video released by Hekmatyar September 1, 2003, he denied forming alliances with the Taliban or al-Qaeda, but praised attacks against U.S. and international forces.

On February 19, 2003 the United States State Department and the United States Treasury Department jointly designated Hekmatyar a "global terrorist". This designation meant that any assets Hekmatyar held in the USA, or held through companies based in the US, would be seized. The US also requested the United Nations Committee on Terrorism to follow suit, and designate Hekmatyar an associate of Osama bin Laden.

In October 2003, he declared a ceasefire with local commanders in Jalalabad, Kunar, Logar and Sarobi, and stated that they should only fight foreigners.

In May 2006, he released a video to Al Jazeera in which he accused Iran of backing the US in the Afghan conflict and said he was ready to fight alongside Osama bin Laden and blamed the ongoing conflicts in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan on US interference.

In September 2006, he was reported as captured, but the report was later retracted.

In December 2006, a video was released in Pakistan, where Gulbuddin Hekmatyar claimed "the fate Soviet Union faced is awaiting America as well."

In January 2007 CNN reported that Hekmatyar claimed "that his fighters helped Osama bin Laden escape from the mountains of Tora Bora five years ago." and BBC news reported a quote from a December 2006 interview broadcast on GEO TV, "We helped them [bin Laden and Zawahiri] get out of the caves and led them to a safe place."

http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/20/top15.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4DB6529A-F1FC-43FC-8DB4-482F406D1DCE.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6252975.stm

Rashid, Ahmed (2000). Taliban: Militant islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. p. 26-27;34.
Maley, The Afghanistan wars, p.204; 215-216.

After we dropped off all support for the Mujahideen in the 80s and disassociated ourselves from them, they turned to look at what had come to pass in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and dug right in. That warring continued right up through the 90s and the country has gone to shit ever since. The resentment grew and grew, and our disassociation from the Mujahideen in the 80s and us leaving stockpiles of weapons in there as well as indirectly funneling in money via Israel and Pakistan and having it come back to bite us in the ass decades later after our "freedom fighters" turn round again only to, in their eyes, see us doing exactly what the Soviets did, naturally, they weren't going to be happy campers. We funneled billions into that country and I have a hard time believe that you're stalwart enough to ignore the fact that whether we like it or not, a lot of what has come to pass in that country (organization, money, weapons) was done either directly or through various forms of trickle-down by back in the day.

 

[Eliot Watts]

Wasn't aware we had instructors in Georgia...

We had 1200 marines in country in the middle of July to conduct a joint exercise. Thats part of a continuing training and equipment program worth at least approximately 100 million a year (their defense budget is 930 million so thats big money) thats been in place since 2002.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Oh, jeezus. If it's true, I hope the Roosians have enough sense to treat him well and turn him over courteously to the embassy folks post-haste. This mess is bad enough without them picking fights with everyone else.

Is it known if Georgia inherited a share of the FSU nukes, or did they give them up? I'm assuming not, or presumably the Russians would have thought twice about this little adventure.

 

[Brett327]

Alright, I'll bite:

A Free Press article (they tout themselves as "progressive & activist" for crying out loud) isn't going to cut it. You might as well cite Mother Jones. Anyone can use Google and find someone who has written about their dislike for what the US policy was - that's the whole point of my posts thus far. You can't honestly make a compelling case that US funds or assets found their way into the hands of people we're now fighting in anything other than trivial amounts.

Brett

 

[BrandonJ1780]

What good would come in the long term future if we played an active role in helping Georgia?

Am I the only one who sees the irony in your statement here, coupled with the quote from Edmund Burke in your sig. line? If we are "good," and I continue to believe we are, we ought not stand aside and do nothing as Russia invades our ally.
No one wants an out-and-out showdown with the Russians, but if we allow the Bear to come roaring in unimpeded, what does that do for our credibility with similar Western-allied fledgling democracies? Georgia ante'd up and sent troops to Iraq; it'd be shameful to fly their troops back to Tblisi, as we are doing now, only to let Georgia die on the vine.

 

[Fog]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in your statement here, coupled with the quote from Edmund Burke in your sig. line? If we are "good," and I continue to believe we are, we ought not stand aside and do nothing as Russia invades our ally.
No one wants an out-and-out showdown with the Russians, but if we allow the Bear to come roaring in unimpeded, what does that do for our credibility with similar Western-allied fledgling democracies? Georgia ante'd up and sent troops to Iraq; it'd be shameful to fly their troops back to Tblisi, as we are doing now, only to let Georgia die on the vine.

We can raise verbal hell at the UN and cut back on trade with Russia in areas that may adversely affect them, but there really is nothing militarily we can do to Russia in this situation. Putin & the Russians have been desperately wanting to bitch-slap somebody since they left Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago with their tails between their legs. I guess we can glean some intellligence & ops eval from this. Based on what we see on TV, the Russian air forces aren't exactly world-class in precision-bombing yet - although maybe they wanted lots of collateral damage in this conflict.

 

[m0tbaillie]

A Free Press article (they tout themselves as "progressive & activist" for crying out loud) isn't going to cut it. You might as well cite Mother Jones. Anyone can use Google and find someone who has written about their dislike for what the US policy was - that's the whole point of my posts thus far. You can't honestly make a compelling case that US funds or assets found their way into the hands of people we're now fighting in anything other than trivial amounts.

Brett

I cited multiple sources and you pick one that you don't like and use that to write off my entire argument? I think I'm just going to end this discussion right there.

 

[Flash]

Alright, I'll bite:

After we dropped off all support for the Mujahideen in the 80s and disassociated ourselves from them, they turned to look at what had come to pass in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and dug right in.......us leaving stockpiles of weapons.......having it come back to bite us in the ass decades later after our "freedom fighters" turn round again only to, in their eyes, see us doing exactly what the Soviets did.......I have a hard time believe that you're stalwart enough to ignore the fact that whether we like it or not, a lot of what has come to pass in that country......was done either directly or through various forms of trickle-down by back in the day.

Afghanistan has been a pawn in the 'Great Game' that is international conflict and rivalry for over 150 years, at least in recent history. If you go back far enough you will find two British invasions of the country, both of which ended in failure (one had only a single survivor out of thousands), German intrigue to bring the country into WWI on their side (they got closer than you realize), and constant Russian/Soviet machinations from Imperial days to the Cold War to today. So to say that we are responsible for the mess that is Afghanistan today is stretching it quite a bit.

What we did is support a loose grouping of mujahideen who were predominantly run by ethnically based warlords from Afghanistan. The foreign fighters that later provided the base of power for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were not that prominent in our view because they were not among the more effective or well organized groups that were fighting the Soviets. Often, they were just cannon fodder. The warlords that we did support would later end up going back to their old ways after the Soviets left, trying to gain as much power as possible by beating the crap out of each other. But instead of using Lee-Enfields and swords like they did in the old days, they used artillery and other heavy weapons. Into the vacuum walked the organization formed in Pakistan after the withdraw of the Soviets from Afghanistan, the Taliban.

While we did pour a significant amount of weaponry and money into Afghanistan in the 80's, we were one among many players in the region. Almost all of the other players in Afghanistan would have been there even if we never showed up, we just provided some much needed leadership and direction to the effort against those stinking commies. But even with all of those arms we delivered, they still only constitute a part of the massive amount of weaponry that is lying around/been used in that country. If they just used US delivered weapons, they would have run out of ammo years ago.

So, we did not create the Taliban. We did not create Al Qaeda. We did not arm either one of those groups. And we sure as hell are not wholly responsible for the mess that is Afghanistan today. Did we contribute? Sure, but the Russians, Pakistanis, foreign fighters and the Afghani's themselves are a lot higher on the list of 'people who ruined Afghanistan' than we are. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.

 

[Flash]

I cited multiple sources and you pick one that you don't like and use that to write off my entire argument? I think I'm just going to end this discussion right there.

I think he has a legitimate point, most of your sources are from places I have never heard of and even then some don't back your argument well at all.

Your argument sounds too much like much of the criticism, foreign and domestic, that tends to blame everything on our policies. I am sorry, even if we were a turtle and never interfered in anything the world would still be a mess. We just try and make it less so when it suits our interests, which shockingly enough are sometimes altruistic.