By It is now official, South Korea is redeploying troops back to Afghanistan:
South Korea has announced it will send troops and police to Afghanistan to protect an expanded civilian reconstruction team.
The troops would not take part in combat operations, officials said.
The plan must be approved by parliament, where the ruling Grand National Party has a majority.
The announcement comes two years after South Korea pulled out 200 military engineers and medics in 2007 after two South Korean missionaries were killed.
The two missionaries were part of a group of 23 that were kidnapped by Taliban forces.
South Korean foreign ministry spokesman Moon Tae-young said the South Korean provincial reconstruction team (PRT) was being expanded at the request of the Afghan government.
Local media reports said the government was considering expanding the PRT from the current 25 aid workers to 130.
Mr Moon said the number of troops sent to protect them would be determined after talks with the Afghan government and Nato.
South Korean media said about 300 troops and police could be sent. [BBC]
This is a decision that has long been debated by the Korean government probably to see what the reaction of the Korean public would be. The public seems pretty ambivalent at the moment about dispatching troops to Afghanistan. The fact that these troops will be in non-combat roles will probably keep the Korean public ambivalent during the deployment as well.
I still maintain though that there should be no Korean troops sent to Afghanistan for reasons I have outlined before.
I just hope Korea has removed all their civilian citizens from Afghanistan because they are now open game for the Taliban. The price for their release will be much more expensive than last time.
7:00 pm on October 30th, 2009 1
I just don’t see what the point of this exercise is. Muslims don’t care about Koreans as long as Koreans stay out of Muslim affairs or get involved in Middle East politics like the Americans are (which makes the Americans a big fat target). And Koreans don’t care about the Muslims. By sending troops to Afghanistan, what is gained by Korea? Credit from Americans? Nope. Koreans have just bought more contempt instead.
All this does is make Koreans once again a target of Islamic forces. Help the Afghan people? Oh right. Afghan people are a proud people who don’t want ‘help’. They want to be left alone and live the way that they’ve done so for centuries. Sticking our noses into something that we have no business sticking our noses in, what is being accomplished?
Reply
October 30th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
No argument from me. Time to leave Afganistan anyway. Claim victory, that the Afgans can take care of their own, give the corruptocrates a few billion this year and next, and leave.
We can always come back to destroy whatever needs to be destroyed. Let Pakistan worry about itself. If worse comes to worse, let India blow the islamic republic off the face of the earth.
Reply
October 30th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“Muslims don’t care about Koreans as long as Koreans stay out of Muslim affairs…”
Dude, the Taliban is not about religion, but the control of the opium trade…nor are most Muslims sympathetic to or as intolerant as the Taliban, for that matter.
Reply
8:38 pm on October 30th, 2009 2
[...] the original post here: South Korean Government Decides to Send Troops to Afghanistan … Share and [...]
3:07 am on October 31st, 2009 3
I have worked with Koreans and found them totally USELESS. They know how to get drunk and play video games.
Reply
4:56 am on October 31st, 2009 4
2 StarHero The Korean troops I served with in Vietnam were some of the best in the world. I am sorry your experience was different. Maybe the word “work” and “serve” have something to do with prespective.
Tom. I think every American would love let the Afgans take care of themselves; however, the world is not that simple. Other outside forces wish to go into these weaker countries and take control. At one time it was the USSR that wanted to dominate that part of the world. If Korea wants to be a part of the “free world” and benefit economically, they cannot sit by and be only a taker – they must also contribute.
Where do you think South Korea would be today if back in 1940 or even 1950 if the USA took the attitude
Korean “people are a proud people who don’t want ‘help’. They want to be left alone and live the way that they’ve done so for centuries. Sticking our noses into something that we have no business sticking our noses in, what is being accomplished?
Reply
October 31st, 2009 at 5:39 am
Pete: “Other outside forces wish to go into these weaker countries and take control. ”
What other outside forces are you speaking of? You mentioned the USSR ‘at one time’. That was a long time ago. Who wants to go in there now? Are you speaking of only Afghanistan?
Not being confrontational, just wanting some clarficiation and expansion upon your assertion.
Cheers.
Reply
4:15 pm on October 31st, 2009 5
This is just some input from a seasoned song writer musician .
I think song writing should be paying attention to world community in regard to
womens struggle with life experience . Example ( Song For My Son ) is a song about children weapons or a son away at war . It is a culturally diverse performance .This song has over 52.000 views and growing on You Tube . I invite you to view it and hope you enjoy
Song For My Son -Preformed by Jackie Jones & Mickey Carroll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gey8AAlMHDs
Song For My Son – Preformed by FF Bascombe written by Mickey Carroll
http://www.motherj.com/images/MOTHER_J_-_Blue_Dot.swf
Love & Music
Mickey
Mickey Carroll
Grammy nominee
Gold Record recipient
http://www.digitaljournal.com/blog/4438
http://www.motherj.com
http://www.MickeyCarroll.com
Reply
6:50 pm on October 31st, 2009 6
It’s nice to think that we can all just get along, but that is not going to happen.
We could try ignoring them again- but I remember what that has got us in the past. No thanks.
That said, the response to what has happened between the civilised world and the goat buggerers should be something which brings shuddering pause to the entire world.
Or the civilised world should roll over on its back, piss all over itself, and submit entirely to these fine people…
Reply
October 31st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Thinking about history and the brilliant Greek and Roman empires that vanished for 500 years during the dark ages. Bah, that was past history, could never happen again.
Reply
October 31st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I’m not too sure about that!!!
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 3:10 am
“the goat buggerers” You mean the one founded and armed by the CIA and Saoudi arabia? The one that kicked out the USSR, and is going to the the same with the “civilised world”.
The “civilised world” who is bringing peace and freedom with appaches, bombs and assault rifles.
The funniest thing was the re election of karzai. I’m still laughing about that one.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4935420245887936566#
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
You seem to enjoy laughing at everything. Bet its all just one big ‘joke’ to you.
By the way, if you mean Osama, ‘the one who founded’ Al Quaeda, and ‘armed by the CIA’, that story was discredited years ago.
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Perhaps.
We do things for our interests. If other peoples get a “win” that’s great. Dependable friends around the world are great to have. But…
If these people aren’t serving our interests, to hell with them, and if they bite us, then they need a smack-down. Freedom is something which a people might receive but it is up to them to maintain that freedom. Most peoples who have been given their independence by a more benevolent master have usually done a poor job of maintaining it.
Make no mistake- I have no problem killing all of them, and I don’t claim any lofty ideals for it. They are generally filthy and nasty uncivilised cultures which we would be better off without.
No- I don’t subscribe that all cultures are “equal” morally or otherwise. Many of these peoples are just booger eating savages and if we weren’t so beholden to world opinion and the UN, we would deal with them as we have with other savages which swooped down on us from time to time, but hopefully, this time, instead of setting them up in reservations, we’ll just finish the damn job. But we ARE beholden to those standards, and we will uphold them, even if it kills us.
Have you ever been in a fight, little guy? It changes the way you see things, especially if your life is involved.
Reply
7:31 pm on October 31st, 2009 7
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/wp-content/themes/stevenpressfield/one_tribe_at_a_time.pdf
Link above is a good reference…
Reply
October 31st, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I didn’t read all in the plan to rehabilitate and build Afganistan into a real country. It is an excellant idea by military people to do what is right. And the military knows how to do the “right” thing. No argument.
The issue is the people of the US and government of the US who do not want to pay any longer in money or blood for a war that they never wanted in the first place or the rebuilding of a country that was never a country before.
After 9/11 “payback” was the invasion and destruction of Al Queda, its training camps and punishment of the government that let them thrive. After that our obligation was over.
We have now entered a period of supporting an extremly corrupt government and are attempting to build a nation that has never existed before from tribes and warlords.
It ain’t gonna happen.
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Agree
Reply
3:47 pm on November 1st, 2009 8
I know lifelong Republicans who work in the oil industry as petroleum engineers. They, too, want the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan for economic reasons. The dollar used to be the equivalent of the Euro, now it’s half of the Euro. At this rate the dollar will be worth a tenth of the Euro.
Reply
November 1st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
The dollar was actually worth more than the Euro when the Euro first came out, (1 Euro=$1.30) it stayed that way til congress decided printing money is easiest for buying votes, with no one complaining about higher taxes. “Its party time everyone, print them $100 bills”.
Reply
November 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
My bad, it was $.80 = 1 Euro.
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Anyway the government doesn’t really finance the debt by printing more money — it finances it by selling bonds and securities, which adds to the total money supply but isn’t physical currency. The actual physical currency (M0) supply has increased at a pretty steady rate since the 1960s and isn’t growing significantly faster today (still faster than the eurozone, though).
I won’t argue about the fundamental dumbness of our fiscal policy because that’s pretty much beyond argument at this stage.
8:09 pm on November 1st, 2009 9
Bottom line- the war there is not ours to “win”- it’s up to the natives. They have to want it.
But we need to reserve the right to hammer anyone out there who tries to hurt us or who supports those who do.
Reply
3:38 am on November 4th, 2009 10
Why you guys started a full scall war. Just to catch one guy. which could have been done behind the curtain.
Lots of lifes and money would have been spared that way.
Of cours that’s if we say you went over their to catch the bad guy, and save the Afgani from the oppression of the Taliban.
But still I think NATO and the US are over there for other reasons.
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Don’t stop now—
What reasons? I really want to know! I was involved. Please enlighten me as to the reasons.
One guy? Really? Only one guy is what you think?
I’m going to ask you a question. Is that ok?
Are you really that F ING STUPID?
PS. Do you also think that is really a full scale war? You really think that is the best we can do? How insulting!
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’m really sorry if you’ve been offended by me calling it a full scale war, as you can see my english isn’t that good. You’ve invested a lot in order to be able the run many many many wars at the same time, I know!
But I’m still thinking you don’t fight terrorism with Soldiers.
And yess I think it was one guy (the one who vanished), with his buddies, at the time of 9/11. Of course now there is all the one who got the motivation by the bomb you droped on their country.
I’m just wondering how many lives, you will need to revenge the one of 9/11. 5x more 10x more.
Will you say sorry one day to the one who are still rotting in Cuba for no reason? btw Have the Ouigour already landed in the pacific? Nice I envy them the sun, the beach. They can go watterBoarding or Surfing like we say in the USandA.
The other reasons? The girls and the goats!
Don’t wast your time answering… For me it’s just a joke as Gerry said.
But I would be happy to read more about the CIA not funding Al Quaeda If you have some link over the Internet.
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Last 1st.Misinformation
Did the U.S. “Create” Osama bin Laden?
Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate
The United States did not “create” Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country’s freedom — as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK — but the United States did not support the “Afghan Arabs,” the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the “Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding.” He notes:
“While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don’t make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.
Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency’s Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, “The CIA did not recruit Arabs,” as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were “very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass.” Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs’ holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: “There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.’”
… There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. … the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The ‘let’s blame everything bad that happens on the CIA’ school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency’s powers, both for good and ill.” [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]
Al Qaeda’s number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the “Afghan Arabs” did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. In the book that was described as his last will, Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:
“While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin’s relationship with the United States was totally different.”
“… The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid.”
“The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ….”
“Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization.” (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)
Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who was one of the foremost Afghan Arab organizers and the son-in-law of Abdullah Azzam, has also confirmed that the CIA had no relationship with the Afghan Arabs. Speaking on the French television program Zone Interdit on September 12, 2004, Anas stated:
“If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them — it never happened.”
Milt Bearden served as the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was in charge of running the covert action program for Afghanistan. In his memoirs titled “The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Final Showdown with the KGB,” Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were “major players” in the effort to aid the Afghans. Bearden writes:
“[President Jimmy] Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years.” (The Main Enemy, p. 219)
From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan’s covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan’s Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:
“For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI.” (The Bear Trap, p. 81)
Bearden makes it clear that the CIA covert action program did not fund any Arabs or other Muslims to come to the jihad:
“Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers. The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting — we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point.” (The Main Enemy, p. 243)
Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen as one of Milt Bearden’s case officers, from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:
“No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting.” (Understanding Terror Networks, pp. 57-58.)
The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement categorically denying that it ever had any relationship with Osama bin Laden. It stated, in response to the hypothetical question “Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?”:
“No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden (emphasis in original).”
However, if you enjoy being part of the CIA is responsible for everything no one else knows about, as well as the CIA being involved in the attack of the world trade centers, and aircraft condensation actually being the CIA spreading nano particles to observe people. (Hey, it could be true, ya know). Well, that is your right, and I am sure you will find many others on the internet who will agree.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Your correct. Your english isn’t that good.
Nor is your train of thought consistant.
I think the difference between us is exactly what you said:
For you it is a joke. Just a situation that you obviously have no understanding of.
Not for me. I have been there.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
2nd. Misinformation. Of the approximately 520 least dangerous detainees released from GITMO, 61 are known to have returned to terrorism. Many have been later killed in Afganistan. (these are the ones deemed innocent)
Approximately 250 of the worst offenders remain at GITMO. Where do you live, I would enjoy seeing some of them becomming your innocent neighbor. (perhaps you could share some cute ewe together). By the way, many are now overweight and well tanned from the treatment received.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
3rd.Misinformation. From what I understand the Oiugours have arrived safely in Palau, but are still in custody. China wants them very bad, and has been asking the US for their return for quite a while. However on this, I agree with you, the US should give them to China.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
4th misinformation.”and yes, I think it was one ‘guy’. Apparently not many others agree with you as several ‘thousand’ have been arrested since 9/11,(around the world) and several thousand more killed in Afganistan since 9/11. (these are Al Qaeda, not Taliban)
November 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
5th. ‘inquery” I don’t think you fight terrorism with soldiers”. I’m open minded, what do ‘you think’ you fight terrorism with. Or more specifically, terrorists?
November 5th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
“You’ve invested a lot in order to be able the run many many many wars at the same time, I know!”
One to many ‘many’s. And one of them is about over and the overwhelming majority of that country now have freedom from an very oppressive dictator. (I wasn’t for the war in Iraq, but it did turn out for the best for the Iraqi people.)
November 5th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“I’m really sorry if you’ve been offended by me calling it a full scale war, as you can see my english isn’t that good.”
Yes, you offend me, and I could care less about how well your english is. Have a nice day.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
LOL, “we” the “US”, started a full scale war in Afganistan?
Our follow-up policy may be worthless, but “we” the “US” did not fly planes into buildings in downtown Manhatten, New York, killing (murdering) “3000″ innocent people.
Yes, tell us the “other” reasons we are over their? I can’t wait to hear all about it. Obviously you have inside information only given to “those who know” on the internet.
Reply
8:15 pm on November 5th, 2009 11
Even if we “created” the goat-humper bin Laden, this wouldn’t have been what we wanted.
There are those among us who would be more than happy to profile and slaughter various groups out there, just to put an end to them and the problems they cause once and for all. If not slaughter them, then put them in the white man’s clothes, and put them in the white man’s school for a few generations. For that is what they intend to do to us.
But we follow conventions which frown on genocide of any stripe, to include cultural.
Sadly, our enemies don’t have such inhibitions.
Reply