Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

SAS, Combat, Teleban

I would not like to boast, but the SAS are like... very very scary. Intsensely accurate, fast, efficient. There is a group who have been training in Pakistan for "several years" according to the news.

Sierra Leone

A low-volume event I recall is during the Sierra Leone unrest, when a small army The West Side Boys captured 11 British military personell, and helf them prisoner for a month or so. The SAS, with army and navy cover, landed. After 20 minutes of landing, the SAS rescued the hostages, and proceeded to capture/kill (I can't remember which) the leader of the group, and were lifted back after only a 90 minute fight. The SAS suffered _one_ fatality.

*finds a link*

The SAS are one of the few things that make me actively proud of my country! They are the military group I respect *most* for being able to very accurately "get" the bad guys without hitting a single innocent.

Although not applicable in Afghanistan, and especially against Osama bin Laden (who does not use radio phones), Michael the Technical Director (who knows lots of history), was telling me about an America assassination of some military leader who was being bad once - actually he was attacking Israel, though I can't remember who he was.
The Americans assinated him with absolute precision... with a missile. He used a phone that was traced, and was pinpointed exactly, and you guys hit him with a single missile across half a country. Which is about as accurate as you can get.

I'm good at not-quite remembering these things!

I hope that we, the West, are cabable of taking out the Teleban with as much care as possible. With the complete closing of Afghanistan's borders by the Teleban forces even to aid, food, etc, it's populace are in severe trouble, so now I feel that we should also destroy the Teleban quickly, because it is necessary to get aid through again.

But I do not believe the answer lies in helping the Norther Alliance, because if we've leartn anything, it's that arming one group to fight another has always backfired. We, particalarily the USA (the world's biggest exporter of arms), and the UK (who helped the American's train the Teleban in the first place to create more resistance against Russian forces), should have learned from our history. Although we should co-operate and exchange information with the Northern Alliance, I do not believe in arming them (although some is necessary for negotiation and because we actually need their help).

Our biggest problem is that Saudi Arabia, Iraq + Palestine (the people if not the governments) and of course Afghanistan (along with many other Arab and Muslim countries) are absolutely sick and tired of seeing Western forces invade yet again, and I fear that once we remove the Teleban, we will leave behind even more hatred of the West.

But... it's a no-win situation and for now I'd like to see the Teleban and Osama bin Laden (don't forget he has previously killed many hundreds of American's in various bombings and combat in the last 10 years, the Sep-11 attacks were just shockingly on American soil) removed. We created a monster, now we have to deal with it.

I just hope the Islamic world can forgive us.

  • 1

A difficult situation indeed

It is true that this is an essentially no win situation. Another problem with supporting the Northern Alliance is that it is made up primarily of Tajiki and Uzbek minorities, so it won't be accepted by the majority of Afghanis. Taliban is run by the majority Pashtuns (also called by the language they speak which is Pashto). The Pashtuns are mostly nomadic herders. They have survived the centuries by following the "pashtunwali," or "code of the Pashtuns." One tenant of this code is that an attack on one is an attack on all. If one pashtun tribe is attacked every household must send at least one male to the tribe's defense.
What makes this situation very interesting is that nearly half of Pakistan is Pashtun and thounsands are also in Tajikistan and Iran. So if the US attacks Afganistan these tribes are bound by tradition to declare was on the US. The western concepts of nations, borders, and government just don't work so well in these areas. What will be the US response when these "Iranians", "Pakistanis", and "Tajikis" attack them. Also the Pashtuns have treaties with other tribes like the Hazarah, also spread across borders. I'm not sure that having the support of Pakistan means what the US thinks it means when nearly 1/3 of Pakistan is not controlled at all by Islamabad. When Pakistan said that they closed the brorders they obviously didn't mean the dozen or so crossings controlled by Pashtun warlords in the far northwest of the country.
I'm afraid that the US is building a coalitions with the wrong people. I'm afraid slso that a senario similar to World War I is developing. This war was started when an anarchist attack on a visiting Austian duke to Serbia set off treaties that slowly pulled huge numbers of people into a conflict in which they had no visible interest. Leaving Islam out of the picture altogether, I believe that we may see large portions of the population of "coalition" countries declaring war on the US based on ancient tribal treaties. When the US attacks these groups in response in, say, Iran, what will Iran's response be? This whole situation is set to spin quickly out of anyone's control because people don't seem to realize the incredible complexity of the situation. But it is a classic western blunder. We assume that everyone is like us really. That is why Americans go to foreign countries and merely speak to foreigners more slowly and more loudly, assuming that somehow, deep down, everyone understands English. Also, westerns are very slow at learning from history.

  • 1