Your taxpayer dollars at work

From today’s Times of London:

The West is indirectly funding the insurgency in Afghanistan thanks to a system of payoffs to Taleban commanders who charge protection money to allow convoys of military supplies to reach NATO bases in the south of the country.

In case it’s slipped your memory, the strategy of the current Administration, and the next, is to add more combat troops.

[Thanks to Sven Ortmann for the tip!]

Comments are welcome; please observe our comment policy.

Be Sociable, Share!

Filed in Uncategorized | 8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Your taxpayer dollars at work”

  1. Newjarheaddeanon 13 Dec 2008 at 2:13 pm 1

    A’HOY, Lt-Cmdr James Gater, sounds welling to forgive and forget about aiding the enemy. IMO he’s just another flag officer marking time until his has past.
    Representative form the Swiss-based Supreme Global Solutions, IMO has his talking points down.

    And Time magazine is just printing another story to look like they are watching out for us. It’s like Amy Goodmans interview with Desmond Tutu, (I’m paraphrasing) he made statement about US president lying us into war, however then when he was asked if Bush was guilty of war crimes and should be tried in the Hague…well he changed his tune, and it all became an internal matter. It’s like Tom Freedman, IMO he’s not a true voice crying out in the wilderness, IMO his mission is to bring the discontents out of the wood work so they can be identified.

    IMO it’s a horror show and it shows the old Afghan trade and transport mob (AT&T) is alive and well. All this also shows how (yes I’m going to say it) money is the root of all evil. And it shows how guilty the locals are to for the bombings of Afghan and Pakistan civilians. And maybe this is one of the syops reasons for the article. G-day!

  2. senor tomason 13 Dec 2008 at 6:59 pm 2

    “The West is indirectly funding the insurgency in Afghanistan thanks to a system of payoffs to Taleban commanders”

    This is no worse than American soccer moms filling up their thirsty SUVs and in the process funding Hugo Chavez, al Qaeda (through some of the Saudi oil families), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, Nigerian gangs, the corrupt Mexican government, and no telling who else.

  3. Maxon 13 Dec 2008 at 9:58 pm 3

    If you liked that,
    You’ll LOVE this,

    M

    Remember this phrase,

    “Compounded abject failure.”

    http://tinyurl.com/6hnspc

    “NEW YORK (Reuters) – An unpublished federal draft report depicts the U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq as a $100 billion failure doomed by bureaucratic infighting, ignorance of basic elements of Iraqi society and waves of violence there, The New York Times reported in its Sunday editions.”

    “The Pentagon issued inflated progress reports to cover up the reconstruction’s failure once the effort began to lag, according to the Times, which received copies of the document from two people who had read the draft but were not authorized to comment publicly about it.”

  4. Rob Pon 14 Dec 2008 at 8:23 pm 4

    There is not enough information here to really be concerned about “Taleban” escorting NATO convoys. It goes to motivation; that is, why are the Taleban elements fighting? If it is for money to put food on the table, heat in their hearth, and get cell phones and cars, then what is wrong with using “dollar diplomacy” to buy them off and focus on the elements that are fighting to usurp the government or install themselves into power through force. In that region, Taleban is like saying Democrat or Republican in America; it is a social or political movement. If they are using the money to attack coalition forces or undermine the legimate government (we can debate what that is later) then it is a problem, but this article does not address that point. If the Times were that interested they could have paid the same Taleban for their time for an interview and learn their motivation. That would have been an interesting article.

  5. Paraluson 15 Dec 2008 at 12:43 pm 5

    Speaking of pay-offs, wouldn’t it be better to just go to the warlords and buy the opium from them?

    Who’s got deeper pockets, the criminal narco-networks or the West? Just outbid the people who buy the opium from the warlords, buy the opium and move it to warehouses. We can burn it, turn it into morphine or whatever we want.

    We keep the warlords fat and sassy, we reduce the amount of heroin on the street and we eliminate any reason for the warlords and their militias from taking up arms against NATO or Afghan troops. Then the Taliban is starved for cash and for allies to enlist in their war against the Kabul government.

    Then we start paying the encouraging farmers to move to other crops with the help of the warlords, encouraging them to produce a limited amount of heroin.

    Anyways, it’s just an idea to toss around.

  6. waltcon 16 Dec 2008 at 12:58 am 6

    Two things I take away from the article:
    1) We’re over grossly extended. You don’t bribe murderous religious fanatics whose job description includes killing the very people bribing them unless our forces are at a severe military disadvantage.

    2) We need to get out. Let the Pakistan backed Taliban take back Afghanistan and depose that corrupt puppet government we installed. The place was always a graveyard for the West.

  7. loggie20on 16 Dec 2008 at 5:09 pm 7

    Max,

    Inflated pentagon reports.

    Please drink your KoolAid and don’t notice the nakedness……….

    Everything I have ever been exposed to a maintenance summary, a review of the design quality of a new weapon or how my unit is doing in prep for the mission was INFLATED.

    And anyone questioning was canned or sent to the pshrink for questioning the self promotion.

    I never went so far chucking that I was proven sane however I know one guy who was certified sane because the brass would not get him off the mission otherways than a week in the loonie bin.

    Still a career strategy!!

  8. Maxon 16 Dec 2008 at 8:46 pm 8

    “Please drink your KoolAid and don’t notice the nakedness……….”

    You’re in the “system” Chet was in the “system.”
    Spinney, Lind, Sprey, Christie, Wheeler, Burton, Riccioni, etc, all
    from within the “system.”

    But how come I know this ?

    After I read one book ?

    I’ve never been in the “system.” or even close.

    Come to think of it, maybe, that’s ,,,,,?

    M