« Unleash Senator Wyden | Main | The Stakes, Cont'd »

September 18, 2009


Alliances? I don't think I suggested that. Accommodations? Not much interested in those either. However, I am very much interested in removing US soldiers from Afghanistan where we happen to be killing hundreds of those same little girls that I supposedly don't care about because of a deep seated misogyny.

(PS: Apologies if that is our serial spoofer and not the real Bitch PHD, as it just doesn't sound like you)

Adding: We CURRENTLY have alliances and accommodations with retrograde tribal forces that condemn little girls in Afghanistan and Pakistan to a hellish, third-class existence.

They're called key factions of the Afghan government.

So what does that say about you?

Also, you know many Afghan women strongly resent the fact that we are justifying war on their behalf when war is making their lives miserable, and the factions that we are supporting are every bit as bad as the Taliban toward women.

See, ie, here

That sounds like a spoofer. The first comment could have been an intemperate reaction to your supposed indifference, but the 5:23 comment seems like pure BS--it sort of blew the cover.

Yeah, it is a spoofer. I checked the URL. I'm deleting both.

BPHD can email if it's really her, but the URL is not like any other of her comments.

Eric, it's the spoofer again. It's already fncked up von's Wyden post with tiny-urled goat pr0n and open-tag vandalism.

Oops -- I see you caught it already.

Thanks Matt.

eric, one of the reasons Im glued to your posts is you recognize the female angle to all this.
You get it, sir, & your damned rare.
cant let that go unmentioned.....

This is the reason why I hate that "AfPak" label - it implies that the problem is merged, and that the key players see it that way. They don't, to put it bluntly; the Pakistanis see part of the Taliban as assets and the other part as a nuisance to be diverted away from the Punjab (and generally see the Americans as stirring up crap), the Afghanis see the Pakistanis as meddlers who support the Taliban (hence why Karzai has cozied up to India since the Taliban were driven out), and so forth.

One wrinkle: it's not clear to me that concentrating on India is, in fact, in Pakistan's interests, as opposed to the interests of its military, who need the Indian Threat to justify Pakistani military spending. Not that that affects the main point of the post, though.

Oh, I agree completely hilzoy. As I've written in previous posts, the monomaniacal focus on India has warped Pakistani society (hyper militarization, weak civilian institutions, etc).

But those are the perceived interests of Paksitan, or at least that part of Pakistani society. As I think you agree.

Since this is the last Afghanistan thread here:


"Meet the Afghan Army: Is It a Figment of Washington's Imagination?"

Worth reading.

The logic of introducing more guns and ammo to a country in the midst of warfare is not entirely clear to me. If there was some prospect of one side obtaining a monopoly on violence, it might be worth it. But it sounds so disorganized that what's actually happening is that all sides are being trained and armed by the US.

The comments to this entry are closed.