• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

A dilettante blog from the great progressive state of West Virginia.

Come on, man.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

I really should read my own blog.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / War on Terror / War on Terror aka GSAVE® / Great News in Afghanistan

Great News in Afghanistan

by John Cole|  December 14, 200711:23 am| 18 Comments

This post is in: War on Terror aka GSAVE®

FacebookTweetEmail

The other war (the one where, you know, we were attacked by people on 9/11) doesn’t seem to get much coverage lately, but this appears to be decidedly good news:

Afghanistan’s government flag was raised Wednesday on what had been one of the biggest strongholds of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and a leading world center of heroin production.

The town of about 45,000 people was secured at about 9:30 a.m. as Afghan troops, steered by British soldiers and U.S. Green Berets, drove out remnants of the Taliban resistance from Musa Qala in the opium poppy region of northern Helmand.

What it all means in the big picture is beyond me, but it certainly does seem to be a positive step.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Most Damning Hillary Video
Next Post: Heads Up »

Reader Interactions

18Comments

  1. 1.

    Zifnab

    December 14, 2007 at 11:33 am

    What it all means in the big picture is beyond me, but it certainly does seem to be a positive step.

    This would be great news if we weren’t hearing it five years AFTER we went in there to begin with. We blitzed Afghanistan in an instant in ’02. Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds should be a bad memory, not a new triumph. I mean, kudos to the troops, but wtf continues to go on at the Pentagon when we’re quagmired in yet another Mid-East mudslinging fest.

  2. 2.

    TenguPhule

    December 14, 2007 at 11:40 am

    What it all means in the big picture is beyond me, but it certainly does seem to be a positive step.

    What it means, John, is that they’re retaking territory that they LOST to the Taliban a couple of years ago after winning it the first time.

    The Dope is Roped again.

    Five years from now, a variation of the same good news will appear again.

  3. 3.

    Dreggas

    December 14, 2007 at 11:43 am

    It means your heroin will come with the afghan governments seal of approval.

  4. 4.

    fester

    December 14, 2007 at 11:51 am

    John — I am arguing the opposite over at the Newshog — launching and winning a division sized assault against indigenous guerrilla forces to control a town six years into a counter-insurgency campaign is a significant tactical success, but an indication of strategic failure as the counter-insurgent’s abiltiy to credibly promise security for its cooperative locals is severely compromised, and it indicates a very high level of organizational capacity for the Taliban if they are able to field units of 2,000 fighters who are trained and disciplined enough to break contact and retreat to better dispersal/defensive positions under pressure.

  5. 5.

    alphie

    December 14, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Saw a report on this campaign by a BBC reporter in the city.

    The Taliban pulled out because we were blowing the crap out of the city.

    They left to stop us killing indiscriminately civilians…sigh.

  6. 6.

    CFisher

    December 14, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Kind of 50-50. In guerrilla warfare, territory is far less important than actually capturing/killing the enemy or undercutting his base.

    If we manage to turn the town against the Taliban, or killed a significant number of them, the gain will be positive. If, on the other hand, we bullocks things up again, the victory will be meaningless.

  7. 7.

    BruceR

    December 14, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    Alphie: What you saw was a BBC report repeating a claim by a Taliban spokesman that they “left” to prevent civilian casualties. That is what a military spokesman will always say when their army evacuates a city, whether it’s true or not. (Also see “Manila, Open City of”.)

    So basically, you used an open forum to repeat a Taliban talking point unaltered without acknowledging that or adding any caveat of any kind. Whether you meant to or not, your act is clearly aiding and abetting a national enemy, making you a “Taliban sympathizer” by definition. Just wanted to point that out.

    As this site has shown consistently for several years, there are plenty of ways to critique an active combat mission one disagrees with without reciting the other sides’ propaganda points verbatim.

  8. 8.

    Libby Spencer

    December 14, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    What Fester said and as also noted in comments on his post, this is something like the fourth time they had to ‘take back’ that town.

  9. 9.

    Andrew

    December 14, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    I wonder why we don’t have enough troops to secure afghanistan…

  10. 10.

    Prolific Programmer

    December 14, 2007 at 2:28 pm

    What it all means in the big picture is beyond me, but it certainly does seem to be a positive step.

    Actually, this isn’t necessarily good news, because the Taliban stamped out the poppy crop wherever they controlled. Now that they’re out of power, the drugs are returning to Afghanistan.

  11. 11.

    Bubblegum Tate

    December 14, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    It means your heroin will come with the afghan governments seal of approval.

    About damn time we get some quality control!

    OK, seriously, this seems to be something of a mixed blessing, but can you imagine how much better things would be if we had actually stayed focused on Afghanistan instead of peeling off to go have an Excellent Iraq Adventure? Talk about a missed opportunity.

  12. 12.

    robroser

    December 14, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    “The war where…we were attacked by people on 9/11”

    We’re at war with the Saudis?

  13. 13.

    Cyrus

    December 14, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Not that I enjoy being all pessimistic and it’s not like we should say “I told you so,” too often, but wow. The first few commenters were, if anything, too generous.

    As the only journalist to join NATO forces entering the town, I found it a ghost town abandoned by both the Taliban and its residents at the end of an eight-day coalition operation. The offensive was one of NATO’s biggest in the country since Operation Anaconda in 2002.

    Becoming refugees is better than becoming corpses, I guess, so that’s something. (But did the article give any number or estimate at all of casualties who weren’t part of American or British forces, the Taliban or Al Qaeda? I couldn’t see one.)

    While hundreds of Taliban are believed to have been killed, two British soldiers and one American soldier lost their lives. All the deaths, however, resulted from vehicles striking mines left not, it is believed, by the Taliban but by Soviet forces in the 1980s.

    And hey, at least the locals are used to it.

    NATO forces now hope to launch a program of reconstruction that will persuade the local population to turn their backs on the Taliban.

    Wait a second. This was opium country, but the Taliban cracked down ruthlessly on growing for opium. So wouldn’t this city have been especially oppressed back when the Taliban was in power in all of Afghanistan?

  14. 14.

    Ali Gator

    December 14, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    This was opium country, but the Taliban cracked down ruthlessly on growing for opium. So wouldn’t this city have been especially oppressed back when the Taliban was in power in all of Afghanistan?

    Yes, the Taliban really cracked down on opium production, which is why it skyrocketed once the US went in. There are some questions though, about whether or not the Taliban have backed down now that they need the money they could get from opium. I’m really not sure which way they are going. Do you stick to your religious convictions or go for the money to fund your group?

  15. 15.

    alphie

    December 14, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    Bruce,

    The Taliban aren’t afraid to die.

    If they pulled out of this city, it’s because we were “pacifying” it the coward’s way…with air power.

  16. 16.

    Xanthippas

    December 14, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    So basically, you used an open forum to repeat a Taliban talking point unaltered without acknowledging that or adding any caveat of any kind. Whether you meant to or not, your act is clearly aiding and abetting a national enemy, making you a “Taliban sympathizer” by definition. Just wanted to point that out.

    Whereas repeating the talking claims and assertions of the U.S. military public relations officers is doing your patriotic duty, right?

    You probably think the answer to question is yes, don’t you? Moron.

    BTW, having to “retake” anything in Afghanistan, especially in an operation that large, is most certainly NOT a good sign. Six years after the invasion of Afghanistan, did anyone imagine we’d be having to recapture cities taking by the Taliban on a semi-regular basis? Did anybody imagine that the Taliban would even be relevant at this point?

    Here’s my note for you Bruce; invading a country in such a manner that it frees up our enemy in Afghanistan to conduct battalion-size operations against us and the government, seems to “aiding and abetting” them just a wee bit right? Maybe more than just going on some blog comments and repeating something you heard on the news somewhere? Get back to me when you’ve chewed that conundrum over a little bit. And honestly, try to think about it for five minutes before going into right-wing “catch-the-traitor” mode ok?

    Suckers like you are the reason we’re even in Iraq in the first place. But if you want to come on this blog and prove even further to everyone here how much of a simple-minded buffoon you are…I won’t try to stop you. In fact, I’ll even “aid and abet” the process, and I doubt I’m the only one.

  17. 17.

    Barry

    December 15, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Read his blog ‘Flit’; he’s just another 28%-er.

  18. 18.

    BruceR

    December 16, 2007 at 12:11 am

    Note how Alphie’s “rejoinder” repeats Taliban Main Talking Points #1 and #2 uncritically. They should be paying you, chief.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Honus on Medium Cool – Give Us A Song and Tell Us Your Story (Jan 30, 2023 @ 1:08am)
  • Honus on Medium Cool – Give Us A Song and Tell Us Your Story (Jan 30, 2023 @ 1:02am)
  • different-church-lady on Florida Man No More (Jan 30, 2023 @ 1:00am)
  • Westyny on Florida Man No More (Jan 30, 2023 @ 12:57am)
  • Thor Heyerdahl on War for Ukraine Day 339: The Strategist’s Enemy Is Time (Jan 30, 2023 @ 12:54am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!