Afghanistan

[Louis VI the Fat]

What would "winning" be, exactly?

Winning in Afghanistan means preserving the highly endangered snow leopard as well as happened before the invasion.

Afghanistan's snow leopard under threat from big game hunters

Rare snow leopards and mountain sheep are at risk from American and European big game hunters willing to pay $40,000 (£21,000) for the chance to shoot in one of the remotest corners of Afghanistan.

Under the Taleban, the snow leopard and other equally highly endagered species were very well protected. This ended immediately after the West moved in.

Frustrated warnings have been issued by environmental groups since 2004:
"Now the threat is from badly managed tourism and trophy hunting as roads and communications improve and more foreigners start coming to Afghanistan. American hunting companies are going to be prepared to spend a lot of money to start this business. There is going to be a lot of pressure on Kabul."

Like the large scale looting of Iraq's cultural and historical treasures (they were beyond comparison in 2003, are beyond repair and recovery now) so too did Afghanistan's phenomenal natural treasures become an object of Western looting, private plunder, and abject phillistinery.

[rory_20_uk]

Like the large scale looting of Iraq's cultural and historical treasures (they were beyond comparison in 2003, are beyond repair and recovery now) so too did Afghanistan's phenomenal natural treasures become an object of Western looting, private plunder, and abject phillistinery.

Of course, except the ones the Taliban blew up with dynomite or otherwise destroyed...
Looting and plunder at least means they're valued. During the Chinese Rrevolution the stuff the West stole is in one piece. Lots that was left was destroyed as evidence of progress. I'm more concerned with the abject phillistinery from either the West or the locals. The stuff should either be removed en masse for protection or the sites protected and experts brought in.

[Adrian II]

Like the large scale looting of Iraq's cultural and historical treasures (they were beyond comparison in 2003, are beyond repair and recovery now) so too did Afghanistan's phenomenal natural treasures become an object of Western looting, private plunder, and abject phillistinery.

This is why Louis is indispensable on this forum.

Ok, here's the short of it. 'We' are in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban from taking over the entire region and getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arms.

And to save the Afghan flying squirrel of course. Squeep squeep!

[Samurai Waki]

Success really hinges on what Pakistan decides, or can do. If they eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, than they really have nowhere else to hide (save Iran) which is having fits about Afghan refugees crossing their border.

[Adrian II]

Success really hinges on what Pakistan decides, or can do. If they eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, than they really have nowhere else to hide (save Iran) which is having fits about Afghan refugees crossing their border.

And if they don't eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, Nato will have to do it for them. In which case a certain substance will hit a certain fan, a case for which Mr Obama seems to be preparing quite adequately. I like his style.

[Major Robert Dump]

The guy Obama canned wasn't doing a bad job at all. It's more of a cosmetic makeover, the new general is more like the old one than not.

[Fixiwee]

The guy Obama canned wasn't doing a bad job at all. It's more of a cosmetic makeover, the new general is more like the old one than not.

What a knock-out argument.

[Major Robert Dump]

What a knock-out argument.

sorry to let you down, I know how lots of you people tune in to the backroom solely to hear my brilliant arguments and wonderful analogies. so I'll go into detail a little more.


I don't know everything, but what I do know is that the junior officer corps of the army is vastly different from the general and field officers, and the unofficial opinion of a vast number of junior officers is that the new general in theater is no more of a counterinsurgency expert than the last. Keep in mind A lot of the junior officers were former enlisted who went to combat and were so disappointed with the leadership (people who are now field level and up) that they decided to become officers.

The mission has pretty much been the same since day one. The only thing thats different now are the numbers: more troops, more money. It's a damn shame, considering had we spent even a fraction of Iraqs funding on Afghanistan we would have cell phone towers, fluid highways, solid power sources and infrasctructure in place, the list goes on and on and on but we can't change the idiot mistakes of our past leaders which brings us to today:

It's cosmetic. New face brings the illusion of new and immediate change, when in fact both generals have a fairly similar leadership style and command philosophy. Whats happening in theater now is exactly what some at the Pentagon and more than a few forced-to-retire DOD officials who were critics of the Bush administration have been saying since late 2006: the poppy yield in 07 and 08 would be huge, which would provide more funds for the Taliban, which means more Taliban with more weapons and more equipment, which means surge in Taliban activity in 09.

Wild card Pakistan notwithstanding, not a lot is going to change without more troops and more money. The majority of the NATO forces in country have jacked up ROEs which pretty much take them out of the fight, which leaves the burden on a few select participants. We need to flood Afghanistan with troops and money because its turning into a logistics war. The meat and potatoes of the war there is mobility, supply and keeping villages fed and protected. This would be a lot easier with better roads, more airstrips, running water and cell phones.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And if they don't eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, Nato will have to do it for them. In which case a certain substance will hit a certain fan, a case for which Mr Obama seems to be preparing quite adequately. I like his style.

You advocate invading Pakistan?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I think the US should invade both Iran and Pakistan. WE have enough military punch to erradicate terrorism, but only if the governments that protect it are erradicated too in a large effort for our safety, which is our primary concern.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think the US should invade both Iran and Pakistan. WE have enough military punch to erradicate terrorism, but only if the governments that protect it are erradicated too in a large effort for our safety, which is our primary concern.

*laughs*

Good one!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ok, here's the short of it. 'We' are in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban from taking over the entire region and getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arms.

And to save the Afghan flying squirrel of course. Squeep squeep!

In fifty years, in a thousand years, in fifty thousand years, the enlistment or not of Taliban as policemen means nothing.

The extinction of entire species means everything.


What is clear, is that the fortune of threatened species perfectly follows the ebb and flow of stable governments. This should be cause of grave concern for the powers that have assumed responsibility in Afghanistan:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rare Kashmir deer 'makes comeback'



It's hoped that the hangul has been saved from extinction after its numbers reached dangerously low levels


By Altaf Hussain
BBC News, Srinagar


The hangul - a sub-species of red deer found only in Indian-administered Kashmir - appears to have made an extraordinary comeback.
The latest census, conducted in March, puts the raw count of the endangered animal at 175. The increase in numbers may be nominal but wildlife authorities say it's a sign of hope. The hangul population started growing before the outbreak of armed conflict in the state two decades ago.

Last monarch
People living in neighbourhoods outside the park say the hangul then was so commonplace that it even used to visit their mustard fields and vegetable gardens, damaging crops as it did so.

Militancy in the Kashmir valley has reduced in recent years


Mohammad Qasim Wani, now aged about 90 and a retired wildlife official, says there were at least 3,000 hangul in the Kashmir area during the reign of the last monarch more than 60 years ago. "The hangul was widely distributed. I saw it in Lolab, Kupwara, Gurez, Teetwal, Uri, Kulgam, Pahalgam and other places," he said. "I saw herds of hangul as large as 200 and at times even 500. Today, when I think of the hangul, I cry."

Mr Qasim says the hangul became vulnerable after the fall of the monarchy in 1947. "Bureaucrats indulged in wanton killing of the hangul for sport."

Plummeted
Besides poaching, the hangul faced a threat to its existence from human encroachments on forestry which led to the fragmentation of its habitat.

It's hoped that other animals in danger can be saved too

In the early 1970s the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources conducted the first ever census of the hangul population. It discovered that its population had plummeted to a mere 170 animals. Various measures by the government, including the enactment of Wildlife Act and the establishment of a fully-fledged department of wildlife, saved the animal from extinction. Its population grew four-fold.

But the outbreak of armed conflict in the late 1980s threatened the hangul again.

There were a lot of disturbances in its habitat, particularly in the upper reaches of Dachigam where it breeds in summer. Wildlife officials dared not move into these areas.

Taking advantage of the situation, nomadic shepherds known as bakarwals brought their sheep into the areas where the hangul used to graze. The return of near normalcy in the Kashmir Valley in the past few years has afforded yet another chance to the hangul. .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8080079.stm