Video appears to show troops urinating on corpses

[happyslug]

91. 50% support for NATO, not the polls I have read

Here is a 2010 poll, remember it is done under NATO Cover, so there is a tendency of such polls to be pro-NATO for that reason alone (i.e. people lie because they do NOT dare tell the truth to people they do not think wants to hear it). This NATO poll shows only a 49% support for NATO, 49% opposition (These numbers do NOT seem normal to me, should be more people neutral, which implied to me most neutral said they were pro-NATO for that is what they thought the poll taker wanted to hear). :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120601788.html

Here is a report on a BBC poll, that showed 58% of the people said support for NATO was weak or non-existent in their area, but that 82% support the government (And, in my opinion, that can not be right, you need over 80% support at the start of a rebellion to maintain effective support as the other side try to suppress the rebellion, most people go from support to neutral NOT support of one side to the other, i.e. 82% support for the Taliban, that drops to about 50% after a few years of fighting, if supports drops to the teens the rebellion is finished, the support for the Taliban is way over 20% of the populations, probably over 50%, thus the 82% support for the Current Government can NOT be true, I would have more faith in these poll results if the support of the Government was closer to 50-60%).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/02/afghanistan-poll-results.html

As Mao Ze--dong said, the Guerrilla must be a fish in the ocean of the people. If the Guerrilla loses the support of the people, he is defeated. The Taliban do NOT seem to lack support, thus they have support of the people, probably over at least 50% of the people.

Now, this is complicated by the complex politics of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is made up of weak tribal groups, I use the term Weak Tribal Groups to differentiated the Afghans from the Arabs of Iraq (Who tend to have strong centralized tribal groups). These weak Tribal groups tend to be people who speak, interact and inter marry, but do NOT follow the same leaders. As such alliances between members of Tribal Groups are common, even between members of two different tribes against other members of those same two or more tribes.

The Taliban had tapped into this system of tribal politics, as has the US, NATO and the current government of Afghanistan. In most cases these sub groups of the tribes are looking for what is best for their sub group, NOT their larger tribe nor Afghanistan.

The Taliban seem to have be able to use these groups to the Taliban's advantage more the NATO, the US or the current government of Afghanistan. This has enhanced the power of the Taliban, and weaken NATO, the US and the current Afghan government.

If the US would just adopt the same policy it adopted in Iraq, the US and NATO could stand a chance of winning, but Iraq had a source of Income the US and NATO could control and spread around (The oil revenue), no such revenue exists in Afghanistan (And the only good export, opium, appears to be under the control of certain US and NATO allies AND the US and NATO can not turn against that Ally, for that ally would then ally with the Taliban).

Thus NATO has a problem in Afghanistan, take over the Opium markets, and then distribute the wealth produced by that product to spread US and NATO influence. The problem is, the group that presently control the opium market will defect to the Taliban if they lose their market share.

If NATO and the US do NOT take over the Opium Trade, then NATO and the US has no source of revenue to spread to any new ally NATO and the US can convince to join the current Governmental of Afghanistan, NATO and the US.

In many ways, this is the same mess the Soviet Union ended up in when it went into Afghanistan (and seems to have been foreseen by Stalin, for it was Stalin that set up the old Kingdom of Afghanistan as a way to prevent any British attack onto the Soviet Union via Afghanistan. the locals could do as they pleased knowing the Stalin would NOT send in troops as long as no British troops entered Afghanistan from British India, Stalin left Afghanistan as a no man's land between the Soviet Union and British India).

Stalin's solution was NOT politically correct for the Communists in his Government, so come the 1970s that Afghanistan was a feudal monarchy was viewed as a error by the hard line communists in the Kremlin. Thus rather then continue Stalin's policy of leaving Afghanistan alone, the Soviet Union tried to modernize Afghanistan, and when that was rejected by the local overthrew the Monarchy and when the subsequent government also failed to modernized Afghanistan invaded.

Yes, the Soviet invasion was an attempt to modernize Afghanistan, but as Stalin apparently foresaw, it became a debacle for all Afghanistan has ever been was a place for people to hide. As people on the run, they tend to see any invaders as enemies after them.

Thus the weak tribal nature of Afghanistan, people tend to look to close relatives and friends more then any larger group (i.e. tribes or the modern Nation-state). The Taliban has used this existing system of clans (Lack of a better term) for its fight against the US, NATO and the Current Government of Afghanistan. To do that the Taliban MUST have been able get these Clans and other tribal sub-groups to support the Taliban. Most of the Clan Members prefer their own clan members over the Taliban, the Current Government of Afghanistan or even the Tribe the clan members are a member of.

My point is that it seems that over 50% of the population of Afghanistan support the Taliban. Without that level of support, the Taliban could NOT have survived this long (For comparison look at Al Queda, it has little support in the Arab World and, except for an occasional terrorist act, is not a factor in any Islamic Nation. That is NOT true of the Taliban, which has extensive presence in Afghanistan).

My point is given the success of the Taliban AND what is being used against them in terms of men and material, the support for the Taliban has to exceed 50% of the population. I do NOT mean active support, i.e. willing to fight for the Taliban, but willing to feed and cloth the Taliban fighters. I suspect it was 80% support at the time of the US invasion, but dropped after the Invasion. It does NOT look like support ever fell into teens, but only in the last 4-5 years reached up to the level it was at the time of the invasion.

Just pointing out you can NOT go by how the natives treat you. The Natives have to live and they will go where the money is and act like they are your best friend, but when it comes to decide who they support, it seems to be pro-Taliban not pro-NATO.