Bin Laden deputy says U.S. forces losing in Afghanistan

The lies and claims on both sides are ridiculous; perhaps, instead, one needs to try reading an article from a different point of view such as this one:

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08232004.html

It then becomes easy to see that the situation has devolved into a farce; warlords, drug exports on the rise (anyone remember the CIA involvement in drugs?). A losing situation for the people of Afghanistan (remember them?):
The women are once again veiled and not permitted to read – except when they need a cover piece for the Bush propaganda machine. Barefoot, ignorant, and pregnant is the rule for women in the country.
The ‘leader’ that we placed in power is unable to go outside of Kabul without massive amounts of firepower.
Need one go on or is the point understood…

Warning: An identical situation is developing (has developed) in Iraq.

I haven’t been sufficiently stirred to track the article down [online}; but, in the past few days, one of those terribly qualified, stuffy academic sources in the UK issued a several-hundred page analysis of the situation in Iraq. Superbly footnoted [according to folks who've actually read it], it comes down to exactly what most reasonable folks predicted would result from Boy George’s attempt at nation-building.

Sooner or later, as a result of Bush or Kerry eventually removing our troops, Iraq will devolve into a civil war with several components, any two of which are as likely to attack the rest — as any other permutation.

Sadly, commentators from the world of TV Talking Heads — and their hired guns from the endless stream of retired officers [getting down to the rank of NCO, pretty soon] — are uniformly incapable of talking up to the average American and describing the distinctly individual groupings typically described as “insurgents” or “insurgents linked to Al Queda”.

There are Ba’athists, Shi’ites. Sunnis, Radical Islamists linked to Al Queda and Radical Islamists NOT linked to Al Queda. They all hate each other almost as much as they hate the occupying forces. Fortunately [for them], internecine warfare is held to a minimum at present by the easily identifiable targets dressed in American [or, once in a while, British] camo.

Americans watching American TV or listening to American radio or reading American newspapers apparently aren’t supposed to learn any of this — and may never get sufficiently pissed of to discover the differences.

One saving grace is that by opening a second front in Iraq, we are siphoning would be mujahedeen out of Afghanistan. Ultimately, by keeping them tied up in these two countries we are keeping them out of our own.

Nice theory: but shouldn’t people who were smart enough to plan and co-ordinate the 9/11 attacks be smart enough to avoid being “tied up”? Are you absolutely sure that the ones attacking our troops are the same ones who would otherwise infiltrate into the US, for the purpose of staging a terrorist attack?

Invading Afganistan has bought us some time, by disrupting bin Laden’s organisation, but what has invading Iraq bought us – in the war on terror – other than the (to my mind) “dubious notion” of a second front?

The other problems I have with this “saving grace”, are – in some ways – related to when Bush made the (in)famous “Bring it on!” statement.

First: Anyone else would be accused of endangering our troops, by making statements which adversely affect their safety. Daring terrorists to attack our troops seems to fall into that catagory, but maybe thats just me.

Second: We then complain when other countries don’t send their troops – as bait – to help draw terrorists away from our soil.

Third: Our people are dying violent deaths. That they are dying on foreign soil does not make it any less tragic, or some kind of victory.