The Great Game, another loss

[Incongruous]

Well, thats another failed Imperial adventure to add to the list, though I doubt we will be able to milk as much romanticism from Afghanistan as last time. :help:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3139702/War-in-Afghanistan-cannot-be-won-British-commander-Brigadier-Mark-Carleton-Smith-warns.html

Well, where to next?

Could give France another go 'spose

[HoreTore]

I thought another great footballer had retired when I saw this title. I clicked it, fearing the worst, like Giggs, Sir Alex, Nedved....

Fortunately, it was about something far more trivial than that ~:)

[Tribesman]

No surprise there , they knew before they went in that they had a very very short timeframe to make any worthwhile progress , once they sidetracked by playing silly buggers elsewhere they threw in the towel .

[Fragony]

However, he told a Sunday newspaper: "We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.


Maybe it is just me but hasn't this always been the objective?

[Incongruous]

What?

Not to win it?

[Fragony]

Of course not why would do we need a desert. It has always been about making the Taliban insignifant, no ground, no opium. Right on track, sloppy reporting.

[Koga No Goshi]

Of course not why would do we need a desert. It has always been about making the Taliban insignifant, no ground, no opium. Right on track, sloppy reporting.

By "we" you mean "America" right? Or does the Netherlands have a force in Afghanistan? I beg your pardon if they do. :)

[Fragony]

By "we" you mean "America" right? Or does the Netherlands have a force in Afghanistan? I beg your pardon if they do. :)

Yep, sure do, killing beards with the rest of them

[CountArach]

Of course not why would do we need a desert. It has always been about making the Taliban insignifant, no ground, no opium. Right on track, sloppy reporting.
You may want to check your sources on that one...

2006 - Highest Opium production levels on record (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101654.html)
2007 - 2006 record broken (http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200808/s2347436.htm)
Opium Production spread (http://opioids.com/afghanistan/opium-economy.html) - Interestingly it says the Taliban banned opium production in 2000 and introduced a death penalty for it.
2007 - Production doubled since 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6965115.stm)

As for making the Taliban useless. Great idea but... errr... I'm afraid that isn't happening either (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501622.html).

And as for your claim about no ground, how about this observation in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/world/asia/04taliban.html?_r=1&oref=slogin):

But the objectives of the war have become increasingly uncertain in a conflict where Taliban leaders say they do not feel the need to control territory, at least for now, or to outfight American and NATO forces to defeat them — only to outlast them in a region that is in any case their home.

The Taliban’s tenacity, military officials and analysts say, reflects their success in maintaining a cohesive leadership since being driven from power in Afghanistan, their ability to attract a continuous stream of recruits and their advantage in having a haven across the border in Pakistan.

[Fragony]

Maybe locally, but it's opium that grows them fat. And those new tactics, suicidebombings and traps. When a bomb goes of newspapers report increase of influence of Taliban. Oh really. I'd say the opposite. How many casualties do you ozzy's have, here about 20 vs hundreds of beards. Of course we can't bring peace with so many young males without prospects we are going to end up with a lot of blood on our hands but it has always been a violent place, if we can make the government army strong enough, and yes work with the tribal leaders no way around it, it's not a lost thing at all. Afghans are pragmatic they side with the strongest party.

[CountArach]

Maybe locally, but it's opium that grows them fat.
The reason they are growing more opium is because they need to fund the war. If we weren't there they wouldn't be growing it.

And those new tactics, suicidebombings and traps. When a bomb goes of newspapers report increase of influence of Taliban. Oh really. I'd say the opposite.
Yeah you are right. Al-Qaeda striking the WTC showed a lessening influence. Seriously, now you aren't even trying.

How many casualties do you ozzy's have, here about 20 vs hundreds of beards.
6 Fatalities. Don't call them beards.

Of course we can't bring peace with so many young males without prospects we are going to end up with a lot of blood on our hands but it has always been a violent place, if we can make the government army strong enough, and yes work with the tribal leaders no way around it, it's not a lost thing at all.
It has always been a violent place because the world can't keep its hands off. First the British and Russian Empires, then the Soviet Union and now the American-led Coalition forces. If we aren't there, they won't need to fight - it is as simple as that.

Can you at least attempt to reply to the sources I posted? Can you acknowledge any of the following:
1) The invasion has increased Opium production and this is not a good thing.
2) The Taliban has increased its influence
3) The Taliban is not fighting for any territory specifically, they are fighting against us.

[Fragony]

I'd rather call them something else but that would greatly sadden the moderators. You know, everything you say is true but it is as it is. Welcome to world politics.

[CountArach]

I'd rather call them something else but that would greatly sadden the moderators. You know, everything you say is true but it is as it is. Welcome to world politics.
Can you say whether you will admit any of those three things I asked you about?

[Fragony]

Well yes sure, already said that. But Pakistan being the homebase also means that we can gradually build up the ANA, a bomb here and there is painful and we can't defeat the Taliban, but we can give Kabul the means to deal with them we just need to hang on. Don't forget that the Taliban can't actually defeat us they know that.

[PanzerJaeger]

This guy seems to be a little flakey to be in such a position of power.


Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect "a decisive military victory" and that he believed groups of insurgents would still be at large after troops pulled out.

In June, he claimed that British forces had reached a "tipping point" against a weakened Taliban after their leadership was "decapitated".

Maybe next month he'll declare victory? :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Well you know the British can understate things. Perhaps he was referring to a spot of tea.

But yea, bi-polar generals are bad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can you at least attempt to reply to the sources I posted? Can you acknowledge any of the following:
1) The invasion has increased Opium production and this is not a good thing.
2) The Taliban has increased its influence
3) The Taliban is not fighting for any territory specifically, they are fighting against us.

1) Well, whatever else they were and are, the Taliban, when "ruling" Afghanistan, were fairly anti-drug and both criminalized and tried to stop poppy and opium production. The world's apetite for heroin has not abated, so poppies are still the most profitable crop thereabouts. Little surprise, with the economic difficulties there, that a family (or terrorist group) would plant the most profitable crop.

2) Arguable. They no longer run the country as a whole. It is clear that they have, however, rebounded from their nadir and are regaining influence and political power.

3) I would be shocked if, having enjoyed rulership, they are not seeking to regain same. However, the coalition is their opponent, and their first objective is to do us harm. I suspect that, if they are successful in inducing us to leave, they would make a play for power.


Your post seems to imply that our withdrawal would engender the dissolution or neutering of the Taliban. I disagree, I believe it would allow them the chance to regain control of Afghanistan (or most of it).

I believe that this would be to our detriment, so we must prevent it. I do not believe that withdrawing will end up working.

[Koga No Goshi]

We shouldn't have taken the eye off the ball. It's fixable, but not while we continue what we're doing in Iraq, on the scale we're doing it.

IMHO.

[Spino]

Who really thought we went in there to win the war by rebuilding Afghanistan? We went in there to kill Bin Laden and annihilate Al Qaeda. We failed on the former and managed to deliver on much of the latter... at least initially. However thanks to our failure to complete the primary mission the stream of faithful fanatical recruits into Al Qaeda's ranks continues unabated.

I could care less about rebuilding Afghanistan. Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Genghis Khan could barely subdue the region so why should we knock our heads about trying to follow in their footsteps? If we ever manage to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden we should get the hell out and let Afghanistan's warring factions & tribes tear each other apart like they've done for thousands of years.

[Koga No Goshi]

Who really thought we went in there to win the war by rebuilding Afghanistan? We went in there to kill Bin Laden and annihilate Al Qaeda. We failed on the former and managed to deliver on much of the latter... at least initially. However thanks to our failure to complete the primary mission the stream of faithful fanatical recruits into Al Qaeda's ranks continues unabated.

I could care less about rebuilding Afghanistan. Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Genghis Khan could barely subdue the region so why should we knock our heads about trying to follow in their footsteps? If we ever manage to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden we should get the hell out and let Afghanistan's warring factions & tribes tear each other apart like they've done for thousands of years.

Isn't it pretty commonly agreed that he's not in Afghanistan anymore?

[Tribesman]

Who really thought we went in there to win the war by rebuilding Afghanistan?
Your military and the few brighter minds in your government .


I could care less about rebuilding Afghanistan.
Then you should pull out now and let it return to being another backward failed state which will be a haven for terrorists .


I do not believe that withdrawing will end up working.
I agree Seamus, but unfortunately the ball was dropped very early on so staying isn't going to work either .
Its a lost war , and unfortunately unlike Iraq this one was actually important .

[Incongruous]

Of course not why would do we need a desert. It has always been about making the Taliban insignifant, no ground, no opium. Right on track, sloppy reporting.

Umm, no it was about the inability of the Taliban to properly secure the safety of an oil pipeline. See, we could be friends with them, so long as they kept complete control, they didn't do that so we had to do some house cleaning.:yes:

Stupid buggers.:2thumbsup:

[KarlXII]

The problem is the amount, or lack thereof, of ISAF and especially American troops. Afghanistan is always considered less than Iraq, even though Afghanistan was the base of the people who attacked the World Trade Center. Since we've gotten into that quagmire, Afghanistan has become priority number 2. If we can put in some sort of "surge" into Afghanistan, we may very well be in a winning state. Are we losing in Afghanistan? Not totally, though the Taliban has significantly grown and consolidated it's position. We need more men, and different strategy, it's obvious our current one is not working.

[Papewaio]

I could care less about rebuilding Afghanistan. Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Genghis Khan could barely subdue the region so why should we knock our heads about trying to follow in their footsteps? If we ever manage to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden we should get the hell out and let Afghanistan's warring factions & tribes tear each other apart like they've done for thousands of years.

We broke it, we own it.

Tough if we didn't do our history homework first.

[Koga No Goshi]

We broke it, we own it.

Tough if we didn't do our history homework first.

This is one thing I think that non-Americans might not "get." Americans don't have that sense of a greater historical context of things. Most of them didn't know who Al Qaida was until after 9/11. Most didn't know we had helped arm Saddam. Most didn't know that we helped the present Iranian regime into power. Most of the people who rallied for war in Iraq and Afghanistan never endorsed the idea we should spend money to rebuild either country. And if we pulled out tomorrow, and in 20 years are fighting Karzai over something, most would not remember nor care that we puppetted him into power.

[Tribesman]

Tough if we didn't do our history homework first.
Thats the bugger though Pape , the NSA has big sections of plans for how to do Afghanistan , some bloody idiots just decided to ignore nearly all that those studies contained .

[spmetla]

I think that the General isn't quite off the rocker as he seems to be. He's very right in that a 'decisive victory' can't be achieved against the Taliban in Afghanistan. A decisive victory is rarely had against guerrilla forces. If the full cooperation of Pakistan was to be had against the Taliban in their country then perhaps a decisive victory could be achieved but I doubt it could happen without their help.

Having said that I also want to point out that the war in Afghanistan is not lost, though by no means are ISAF winning either. The majority of urban areas are under government control and most of the northern rural areas as well. The current situation is fairly similar to that of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

The current situation is due to the mismanagement of the war in the past and as noted early the lack of personnel assigned to OEF. The Iraq war can definitely be blamed for siphoning off talent, manpower, and funding away from Afghanistan but a large part of the blame is probably to do with the desire to fight the war on the cheap under Rumsfeld's hand. Remember that the number of troops in Afghanistan has always been a small amount and that the early success was primarily due to the buying off of warlords and providing air power and secret squirrel guys to the opponents of the Taliban.

Perhaps as armchair generals we could debate whether a large influx of soldiers early on would have been helpful. No doubt though we would still have seen a gradual erosion of the local power we were wielding as warlords switched sides in refusal to submit to the Afghan government. That and Pakistan would probably have been a haven for the Taliban then as it is now.

Very simply this is a war without a real plan for winning, the General's suggestion to focus on bringing the insurgency down to a level manageable for the Afghan military and government to keep in check and hopefully defeat is probably the definition of success that most people have and had for Afghanistan. More troops are needed too so that more of the country can be denied to the Taliban and more reconstruction is needed as well. Unfortunately reconstruction is at a slow pace and underfunded, and the lack of security denies Afghanistan from any significant outside investment.

@Koga No Goshi: How can you say we brought the present Iranian regime into power? Last I checked the present regime are the ones that ousted 'our' Iranians. I'll agree if you meant that our support for the Shah created conditions ripe for revolution but that does not equal us bringing them into power. I'd say the current regime really came into power after Saddam invaded Iran when they were able to successfully bring all of Iran together against Iraq.

[Koga No Goshi]

Having said that I also want to point out that the war in Afghanistan is not lost, though by no means @Koga No Goshi: How can you say we brought the present Iranian regime into power? Last I checked the present regime are the ones that ousted 'our' Iranians. I'll agree if you meant that our support for the Shah created conditions ripe for revolution but that does not equal us bringing them into power. I'd say the current regime really came into power after Saddam invaded Iran when they were able to successfully bring all of Iran together against Iraq.

You hit the nail on the head, that is exactly what I meant. We toppled an attempted revolution presumably to swing things our way and those practices have a nasty habit of coming back to bite us.

[PanzerJaeger]

Its a lost war , and unfortunately unlike Iraq this one was actually important .

Just like Iraq?

The Taliban has no control over anything, and are consistently routed without much difficulty whenever they present themselves to US forces (can't say much about our NATO allies), yet some are already willing to declare this lost.

The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.

Will Afghanistan sustain democracy or revert back to tribalism? Who cares. The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power. The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman and form a benevolent autocracy, but we all know those days are over. In any event, as long as we maintain support of anti-taliban forces in the country, they have no chance. There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to.

[KarlXII]

Just like Iraq?

The Taliban has no control over anything, and are consistently routed without much difficulty whenever they present themselves to US forces (can't say much about our NATO allies), yet some are already willing to declare this lost.

For every 1 Taliban that dies in battle, about 3 take his place. This is a war you cannot win just by shooting everyone.


The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.

I always thought the Southern Regions were primarily ISAF responsibility, and they've been doing a good job with what they got.


Will Afghanistan sustain democracy or revert back to tribalism? Who cares.

The people care.


The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power.

The problem is that they are growing, Panzer, they don't need to hold land.


The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman and form a benevolent autocracy,

Because that's worked so well.



There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to.

Again, they don't want or need land. That isn't their goal, their goal is the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan, if they can achieve that, they've won.

I see you also neglect mentioning our European and Canadian allies. They seem to be doing a lot more in Afghanistan than the US bothers to.

[Tribesman]

Just like Iraq?

Yes Panzer , like Iraq its another lost war .


The Taliban has no control over anything
Actually its the colilition and government in Kabul who control very little and are losing that little steadily .
Whats it down to now ? less than a third of the country:oops:


The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.

Sounds like Vietnam eh


The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power.Which you ain't doing .


The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman
Like a Saddam ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Then again you do have Dostrum , a nice ally who changes allegience more aften than a hermit changes his robe and doesn't give a damn about anything apart from making money from the opium trade .


There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to. :dizzy2:
They don't have to , all they have to do is wait .

[PanzerJaeger]

For every 1 Taliban that dies in battle, about 3 take his place. This is a war you cannot win just by shooting everyone.

Not really.



The problem is that they are growing, Panzer, they don't need to hold land.

Again, they don't want or need land. That isn't their goal, their goal is the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan, if they can achieve that, they've won.

Western troops are not going anywhere. Not even Barack plans on that.

They do need to hold land or gain some measure of control. An insurgency that makes no progress cannot sustain itself. As events on the ground move forward, at some point the Taliban must gain legitimacy in order to not be left behind. If association with that group means constant pursuit with no hope of victory, it will continue to be marginalized and simply burn out - like AQ in Iraq. The peak of that insurgency was when AQ had actual control of cities such as Fallujah. Why join the Taliban when you can pledge your allegiance to a local chieftain and make a pretty good living guarding a poppy field? There are only so many ideologues.

The reason the Taliban has seen a quasi-resurgence has been their safe haven in Pakistan - which is being addressed.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD93LN0UO2

[Goofball]

The reason they are growing more opium is because they need to fund the war. If we weren't there they wouldn't be growing it.

Yeah you are right. Al-Qaeda striking the WTC showed a lessening influence. Seriously, now you aren't even trying.

6 Fatalities. Don't call them beards.

It has always been a violent place because the world can't keep its hands off. First the British and Russian Empires, then the Soviet Union and now the American-led Coalition forces. If we aren't there, they won't need to fight - it is as simple as that.

Can you at least attempt to reply to the sources I posted? Can you acknowledge any of the following:
1) The invasion has increased Opium production and this is not a good thing.
2) The Taliban has increased its influence
3) The Taliban is not fighting for any territory specifically, they are fighting against us.

Considering that before the invasion the Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan, and now they have to live in hiding like the rats that they are, I do not see how you can actually say #2 with a straight face.

[Fragony]

People seem to forget that waiting is just as bad for them, the ANA is growing better and the ANA has better training and firepower. Why so pessimistic modern wars can't be ' won'. No war was ever won in northern ireland but it's calm nevertheless.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes Panzer , like Iraq its another lost war .

Try and keep up, bud.



Actually its the colilition and government in Kabul who control very little and are losing that little steadily .
Whats it down to now ? less than a third of the country:oops:

And how much does the Taliban control?

Why you would have NATO make the same mistakes the soviets did is beyond me. If local leaders can keep the Taliban out and don't cause too much trouble, why waste time and resources doing it? The key is bringing these local feifdoms into the greater process, as in Iraq, not trying to control every square mile. Less face time and more afghani control = less local resentment.



Like a Saddam ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Then again you do have Dostrum , a nice ally who changes allegience more aften than a hermit changes his robe and doesn't give a damn about anything apart from making money from the opium trade .

Saddam was the leader of a relatively powerful nation in a very important part of the world. I doubt an Afghani strongman would have any imperial ambitions.



They don't have to , all they have to do is wait .

Wait for what? There is no significant movement to leave Afghanistan among any of the NATO nations. The longer they fight on without any gains, the less influence they have - not that they have much now anyway.

Also, have you been keeping up with recent events in Pakistan? If they are forced to fight there, you'll see a marked decline in anything going on in Afghanistan. If they lose that safe haven, which I'm not ready to predict they will, the insurgency will die completely.

[Koga No Goshi]

People seem to forget that waiting is just as bad for them, the ANA is growing better and the ANA has better training and firepower. Why so pessimistic modern wars can't be ' won'. No war was ever won in northern ireland but it's calm nevertheless.

Because you win a war by signing some sort of treaty with a national leader or power structure that more or less continues to represent the population legitimately in some form. Whereas the interventionism of late has focused on forced regime change and taking the "friendlies" and propping them up with an ineffectual government or one which cannot long exist without dependency support externally, and trying to get them to be strong enough to stand up to all the insurgency leftover "the unfriendlies."

What is the U.S. struggling with in Iraq? With the same power divisions and old hatreds that Saddam's authoritarian regime kept in check, and the religious extremists now free to bloom who were ironfisted under Saddam's regime.

The idea of go in, absolutely gut every semblance of the existing power, and replace it with a McDemocracy Happy Meal transplant, is nice ideologically. But I do not see any rational reason to believe that it works and, even when it does, how long is it before a) we're back in there to save them from being toppled or b) we're back in there overthrowing whatever dictatorship took it over as soon as we left?

[Tribesman]

Try and keep up, bud.

Yes Panzer try and keep up , the surge failed and the generals say the war can't be won .


And how much does the Taliban control?

They don't have to control any , all they have to do is ensure that the coilition and government don't control it .


If local leaders can keep the Taliban out and don't cause too much trouble, why waste time and resources doing it?
You really havn't followed events at all have you , the local leaders were quite pissed at the Taliban before the invasion , now they are really pissed at the coilition . You blew the chancesof gettingthe locals on side becasuse you screwed up the initilal phases and have now dragged it out for far too long . #1 on the priorities list for an effective operation was don't piss off the locals , Karzai keeps repeating for at least the past 3 years don't piss off the locals , yet you continue to do it on a daily basis .

Also, have you been keeping up with recent events in Pakistan?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:oh stop you're killing me:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Panzer you clearly hav't been keeping up with events in either Pakistan or Afghanistan .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Why you would have NATO make the same mistakes the soviets did is beyond me.
The mistake the Russian made was that they couldn't control or hold the territory , upset nearly all the locals and got into the bunker mentality of controling small areas and sending out armoured patrols to proke attacks ....hey thats what you said the American were doing wasn't it :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


The longer they fight on without any gains, the less influence they have - not that they have much now anyway.
Errrrr...are you talking about the coilition there Panzer ?

[PanzerJaeger]

The idea of go in, absolutely gut every semblance of the existing power, and replace it with a McDemocracy Happy Meal transplant, is nice ideologically. But I do not see any rational reason to believe that it works and, even when it does, how long is it before a) we're back in there to save them from being toppled or b) we're back in there overthrowing whatever dictatorship took it over as soon as we left?

Thats exactly what was done in WW2.

The real problem is that not enough was destroyed. You have to completely decimate a nation before it can be properly reshaped. Look at German democracy post WW1 versus WW2.

[Spino]

Who really thought we went in there to win the war by rebuilding Afghanistan?

Your military and the few brighter minds in your government.

I assume you're being sarcastic because I'm unsure as to your philosophical outlook on the benefits of rebuilding Afghanistan. Anyway the rebuilding point is debatable. You need to look at it from a strategic perspective. We could not have operated in Afghanistan with any kind of meaningful force without first having the 'friendly' Northern Alliance secure bases of operations for us. Relying purely on having to fly men & material in and out of Afghanistan from border nations would have lowered our efficiency and put a greater strain on our logistics.


We broke it, we own it.

Tough if we didn't do our history homework first.

Iraq perhaps but not Afghanistan. You could argue that any nation that allows the execution of women in soccer stadiums after being tried by a handful of mullahs in a kangaroo court is broken to begin with. In fact one could argue that Afghanistan has been broken since the Soviets invaded.

[Koga No Goshi]

Thats exactly what was done in WW2.

The real problem is that not enough was destroyed. You have to completely decimate a nation before it can be properly reshaped. Look at German democracy post WW1 versus WW2.

Hirohito wasn't executed with a black cloth over his face in front of a jeering crowd. Nor declare the Japanese army a terrorist organization and refuse them a means of dignified surrender.

I don't know how you can think we set up conditions for a stable post-war in Iraq or Afghanistan just as wisely as we did in WWII.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, thats another failed Imperial adventure to add to the list, though I doubt we will be able to milk as much romanticism from Afghanistan as last time. :help:
Failed or not, Afghanistan is not an Imperialist adventure. There is a very clear reason why we are there. The invasion had to be done. To avenge and to prevent.

Being the good guys, we didn't set out to destroy Afghanistan, but also to hope to turn it into a functioning democracy. This, it would appear, it is not going to be anytime soon. By this latter standard, it is a failure. It is not a failure in the supressing of AQ and the Taliban from openly waging terrorist warfare against America / the West / everybody else.

[Koga No Goshi]

Failed or not, Afghanistan is not an Imperialist adventure. There is a very clear reason why we are there. The invasion had to be done. To avenge and to prevent.

Being the good guys, we didn't set out to destroy Afghanistan, but also to hope to turn it into a functioning democracy. This, it would appear, it is not going to be anytime soon. By this latter standard, it is a failure. It is not in supressing AQ and the Taliban from openly waging terrorist warfare with America / the West / everybody else.

I think America needs to get over expecting the "unquestioned win." I think simply staying there forever until every vestige of anything remotely related to Al Qaida is so irrevocably destroyed that it could never potentially be any threat ever again is unrealistc, and what we are doing is an enormously, appallingly wasteful ratio of resources invested to results gained. (Or enemy resolve destroyed, if you prefer.)

This is a Pyrrhic victory for any groups of people anywhere in the world who want to see America destroyed. And we played and continue to play right into it.

[Tribesman]

I assume you're being sarcastic because I'm unsure as to your philosophical outlook on the benefits of rebuilding Afghanistan. Anyway the rebuilding point is debatable. You need to look at it from a strategic perspective.
Well I must say that you are completely correct with them last 10 words , well done .
However that raises the big question , a simple question but an important one .... why havn't you looked at it from a strategic pespective Spino ?:inquisitive:

[Koga No Goshi]

Well I must say that you are completely correct with them last 10 words , well done .
However that raises the big question , a simple question but an important one .... why havn't you looked at it from a strategic pespective Spino ?:inquisitive:

Cause strategy =/= ideology.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is one thing I think that non-Americans might not "get." Americans don't have that sense of a greater historical context of things. Most of them didn't know who Al Qaida was until after 9/11. Most didn't know we had helped arm Saddam. Most didn't know that we helped the present Iranian regime into power. Most of the people who rallied for war in Iraq and Afghanistan never endorsed the idea we should spend money to rebuild either country. And if we pulled out tomorrow, and in 20 years are fighting Karzai over something, most would not remember nor care that we puppetted him into power.

To be quite honest, I think more non-aermicans than americans are aware of that fact...

The US reminds me of 1984 (the book, not the year), "we are at war with X, we have always been at war with X"

And the sheeps from Animal farm goes beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........

This is one of the main reasons for the dislike of american politics rampant in the EU.

[Incongruous]

Just like Iraq?

The Taliban has no control over anything, and are consistently routed without much difficulty whenever they present themselves to US forces (can't say much about our NATO allies), yet some are already willing to declare this lost.

The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.

Will Afghanistan sustain democracy or revert back to tribalism? Who cares. The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power. The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman and form a benevolent autocracy, but we all know those days are over. In any event, as long as we maintain support of anti-taliban forces in the country, they have no chance. There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to.

The Taliban had no control over anything much when we put boots on the ground, that's why we went in.

Question, do you know how much money has been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan so far Panzer?
Not enough to do anything, and that includes keeping groups like the Taliban out of power.

Your idea that simply sustaining anti-Taliban forces will be good enough is increadibly short sighted, why in heck would it end up any different? The Taliban were unable to remove Bin-Laden (yes they tried) sop why would a new bunch of autocrats without popular support do any better?

Also, a U.S backed autocracy in a region already sick to death of them will fuel more powerful an popular anti-Western sentiment, most probably in an Islamic form, yep well done there:smash:

As for the U.S ability to do anything about another Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, do you read the news Panzer? The U.S are buggered, they really are, they will never again be able to do things like invade Iraq or Afghanistan without massive international support. The party is over.

[Incongruous]

Failed or not, Afghanistan is not an Imperialist adventure. There is a very clear reason why we are there. The invasion had to be done. To avenge and to prevent.

Being the good guys, we didn't set out to destroy Afghanistan, but also to hope to turn it into a functioning democracy. This, it would appear, it is not going to be anytime soon. By this latter standard, it is a failure. It is not a failure in the supressing of AQ and the Taliban from openly waging terrorist warfare against America / the West / everybody else.

Well that was A grade bollocks Louis:2thumbsup:

The very clear reason was nothing to do with helping Afghanistan, simple vengence is a noted aspect of Imperialism and its inherent warmongering.

The good guys? Jesus, have you read anything about how the coalition is fighting the war in Afghanistan? Have you any idea what is really happening in terms of reconstruction?

Functioning democracy? Haha! Yeah ok, sure Louis, we set out do nothing of a sort. As long as there is a stable autocracy (no matter how brutal) to keep oil pipelines and dissidents secured, then we are A-Ok with that.

So by all accounts Afghanistan is and will be a failure...

You have eaten up corporate media bull happily:balloon2:

[rotorgun]

It always seems darkest before the dawn, doesn't it? If we (the Americans and our allies) would have given up every time a war got hardest, we would have never survived this long. I believe this General does not represent the views of all the factions. I admire his moral courage for speaking his mind, but there is always a way to win if one wants to. I think we must expand the war into western Pakistan and destroy the resupply and the recruiting grounds of the enemy. If Pakistan will not support this than they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their duplicity. Pulling units from Iraq is essential to such a strategy, and this is feasible. It will call for steadfastness and courage but it can be done.

If any lack motivation, let them review the videos of the World Trade Center attacks. The mere sight of the people jumping from the burning towers fills me with a terrible resolve. Unfortunately, I will be deploying to Iraq next year, when I would much rather fight Al Queda and their intrepid supporters the Taliban.

"These are the times which shall try mens' souls."- from Thomas Payne's Common Sense.

[Incongruous]

I do not think Thomas Payne would agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for your deployment, you are a brave man, more so than any of your pathetic political leaders. I hope that you do not sacrifice too much in what I percieve to be an unjust war.:yes::balloon2:

[Sarmatian]

Really defeating Talibans requires a bit more diplomacy than brute force. It's pretty clear that Pakistan is the key. Cutting of supply to talibans is much more important than trying to eradicate them.

But the real issue is what kind of Afghanistan you leave behind. If you leave the country turned upside down it will most likely just revert to pre-invasion state. So, it's not just "defeat the talibans" thing. Talibans follow certain ideology, and it's that ideology that you have to defeat or at least weaken, not the talibans. It seems that US & co are making similar mistakes as soviets have made...

[rotorgun]

I do not think Thomas Payne would agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps quoting Thomas Payne was less then apt, but I am mainly addressing the issue of doing what is right in the face of certain adversity, such as our forefathers did in the earliest struggle of my nation's history.


As for your deployment, you are a brave man, more so than any of your pathetic political leaders. I hope that you do not sacrifice too much in what I perceive to be an unjust war.:yes::balloon2:
Thank you for your concern for my well being. Really I am just a maintainer of Helicopter Electrical/Armament Systems; I'll probably be on a FOB most of the time. The really brave guys in my unit are the aircrews. They have to face danger even just training for their missions. I'll go out on a limb here and say that I agree with you that our war in Iraq is unjust, but I cannot say the same for Afghanistan. Iraq is a mess we created that we must now address or forever be viewed as nothing more than mere imperialists. Afghanistan is the chosen ground of our enemy and the Taliban is the rouge entity that supports them, now from the hate madrases of Pakistan. I'll never rest peacefully knowing that Al Queda has not been dealt a death blow along with the repressive Taliban-who would see Afghanistan stay forever in the middle ages culturally. I owe it to those who lost loved ones that day in September to protect them. If we fail in Afghanistan then I believe that they will strike again. What would you do?

[rotorgun]

Really defeating Talibans requires a bit more diplomacy than brute force. It's pretty clear that Pakistan is the key. Cutting of supply to talibans is much more important than trying to eradicate them.

But the real issue is what kind of Afghanistan you leave behind. If you leave the country turned upside down it will most likely just revert to pre-invasion state. So, it's not just "defeat the talibans" thing. Talibans follow certain ideology, and it's that ideology that you have to defeat or at least weaken, not the talibans. It seems that US & co are making similar mistakes as soviets have made...

Excellent points made here. I agree that a diplomatic approach must be tried. But without a "big stick" to back it up, than it will be ineffectual. As to the Afghanistan we leave, I agree that we will have to be committed to a long term relationship with this country. Showing the people that we are there to stay will help them feel secure and allow for the kind of growth that can effect change. That was one reason why the Taliban was able to gain support in the past-the people felt abandoned by the west during the Soviet occupation.

[Strike For The South]

To be quite honest, I think more non-aermicans than americans are aware of that fact...

The US reminds me of 1984 (the book, not the year), "we are at war with X, we have always been at war with X"

And the sheeps from Animal farm goes beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........

This is one of the main reasons for the dislike of american politics rampant in the EU.

So when someone does something you dont agree with they are immediately a rouge authoritarian state hell bent on world conquering? All you seem to do is insult America and then say you aernt anti-american.

[Brenus]

“1) The invasion has increased Opium production and this is not a good thing.
2) The Taliban has increased its influence
3) The Taliban is not fighting for any territory specifically, they are fighting against us.”

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers. This government put all the means necessary for training and financing people who want openly to destroy and kill other people under the pretext of religion and beliefs. Themselves Islamo-fascist, the Taliban were and are as ideology a thing to destroy, potentially as dangerous than Nazi in the seeking of purity/way of life to impose to others.
The danger is to forget the exportation of this ideology in neighbourhood countries, especially in Former Soviet Asian Countries…
And I know about all the rest, but these reasons (exposed in Michael Moore for ex) were the same said about the Russian who wanted to have access to an open sea (then they would have just to invade Pakistan). It is intellectually attractive but total rubbish (like it was).

US Army and allies are NOT the Narcotic Bureau or the Ministry of Agriculture. Their task is not to eradicate drugs or to promote potatoes farming.

The Taliban decisively lost influence. Women can be cured and work, and listening music is again possible.

The Taliban are fighting us, and? They were fighting the Massoud Northern Alliance as well.
Without USA help and training the Talibans wouldn’t be able to defeat the Red Army. It is because the introduction of AA missile that the Mujahidin were able to stop the Soviet tactic (Spetnatz in the rear supported by Hinds).

Putin is not hopefully stupid enough to pay the USA back, so that would be avoided and the Coalition would keep the sky safe.

But the material and technological superiority is a trap easy to fall in.
What will win the war is:
Military domination and development:
More grunts on the ground and NGO. To compare or claim it is a new Colonial Adventure is wrong, but the method to win is as in the colonial period. When you take a village you built a market and a school (and nowadays a Rural Health Centre). It is so true that the Vietcong was killing people involved in such programme.
Again, watch the 9th Company, the Russian movie about Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is a multitude of tribes and interests. I don’t think there is a real national feeling.
They fight because, for some, foreigners are on their soils. Well, fair enough, this can be dealt with politic and agreement.
The real Talibans are dead, or almost, as ideology. Their failure is obvious. They lost the war.
The problem is the Allies didn’t win it. Yet.

[Kadagar_AV]

So when someone does something you dont agree with they are immediately a rouge authoritarian state hell bent on world conquering? All you seem to do is insult America and then say you aernt anti-american.

Anti-american is a way to general label...

I am anti-US-foreign-politics though... Not all of it of course, but the more general guidelines of it.



Brenus,
The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers.

What a interesting comment... Now, as a student of history myself, could you enlighten me what you compare this to?

I mean, 3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.

No need to de-rail this topic though, but pretty please PM me with the list the other "greatest crimes in history" just for laughs :cheerleader:

[Brenus]

“I mean, 3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.”
I think it deserved better than private debate.
Compare with the massacre of the St Valentine, the twin towers are really one the biggest crime in crime history.
Never a Mafia succeeded in so much kills in one day.
Your mistake (and laugh) comes from the fact you think in term of genocide when I consider Al Quaida and consorts as criminal organisations.
You are giving too much credit to people who are just criminals.
The question you would have ask could have been can we attack a country because the refuse to extradite? My opinion is yes in this particular case.
So perhaps I am “one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society”, if you means by that the ability to think by myself, and not following the trend.
And for the list, well, Dr Petiot, Landru, perhaps some gang war, go in Google in greatest crimes or watch History channel…

“Now, as a student of history myself, could you enlighten me what you compare this to?” I think you’ve got your answer. However, to be sure to be understood, I compare them with Mafia, Camora and all other criminal organisations, not with Nazi, Pol Pot or others Stalin. Sorry.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?

[CountArach]

Considering that before the invasion the Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan, and now they have to live in hiding like the rats that they are, I do not see how you can actually say #2 with a straight face.
My mistake, it should have been "Have been increasing their influence from where they were shortly after the invasion".

[Fragony]

As a student of history you should know that events cannot be compared unless they happen in the same context. It took one murder to get the european stalemate leading to WW1, the ripple effect; and 11/9 september is a major stone.

[CountArach]

As a student of history you should know that events cannot be compared unless they happen in the same context. It took one murder to get the european stalemate leading to WW1, the ripple effect; and 11/9 september is a major stone.
The world was headed towards the First World War long before the bullet was fired.

[Fragony]

The world was headed towards the First World War long before the bullet was fired.

linuistical screwup, meant ended the stalemate

[Brenus]

"Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?": Yep. It should be done with law enforcement methods and anti-terrirism legislation, like the Mafia was delt with in its times.
Special frces can give a hand, but all should follow the rules of law
Of course, you can point out my contradictions in this, but I think USA and the rest of the world should deal with terrorism and crimes for what it is and not how they wanted be seen.
It is to give too much honour to Bin Laden. He is a mass criminal, just that. Not a Sheir, not a leader, just a gang leader.

[CountArach]

linuistical screwup, meant ended the stalemate
Oh in that case you are right.

EDIT: Oh no... I just realised that within the last month I have agreed with CR, Frag and I believe TuffStuff at some point. I'm scared...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers. Ah, my favourite voice of reason. How can I not love you, Brenus? :balloon2:




3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.

No need to de-rail this topic though, but pretty please PM me with the list the other "greatest crimes in history" just for laughs :cheerleader:I'm sorry, Kadagar, but for some strange reason, I agree with Brenus that the murder of three thousand civilians is a criminal act of an unprecedented scale.

But then, I rather like Americans....

[Sarmatian]

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers.


I'm sorry, but I don't think that's reason enough. To punish some murderers who killed 3000-4000 civilians, coalition launched an attack that murdered many more civilians, brought hundreds of thousands on the brink of poverty, created a suitable situation for growing and selling of narcotics etc...

I'm certainly not gonna cry for Talibans or Bin Laden, but I can't support punishments, especially when that punishment is mostly felt by those not really responsible. After so many years, where is Bin Laden and his clique? It seems like the war is no longer about them. I could support action that's about justice and that's about stopping things like attack on the WTC from happening ever again. For me it should have been about capturing those responsible and helping Afghanistan stand on its own two feet.

But if it was about punishment, like let's ruin their country and kill their civilians, because their government refused to extradite Bin Laden, than the war waged for wrong reason, imho.

[Jolt]

Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?

No, for very simple facts. Mafias don't commit criminal acts against foreign countries, they commit against individual or organizations, mostly inside the countries which under they operate. Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes. The fact that Afghanistan has no "police" (Which doesn't really matter) and protected the terrorrists, forcibly obliges the U.S.A. to invade the former country.

Furthermore, mafias are a blight and a cancer for the countries they are located in, incentivating corruption and the curbing of the laws of one's country, therefore detrimental to the development of the said country, therefore if the country wishes to develop and enforce it's law, it must crush the mafia, which is a criminal organization. Terrorrist groups, however, at least in Afghanistan's case (Which is directly linked to it's invasion), remained inside Afghanistan, without causing any detriment to the Taliban plans for the country, and didn't violate any Afghani law (Since I'm not an expert in Afghani law, I'll say "at least enough") to enforce a Taliban crackdown.

Bottomline: If the Taliban militias started fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (Which wouldn't happen since both follow the same basic guidelines: Islamic Fundamentalism), then I doubt the country would be invaded.

[Kadagar_AV]

Jolt,


Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes

From their point of wiev, civilians are not innocent.

Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?

So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?

Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.

I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.

The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.





Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.

Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?

Payback is a female dog, sure. But many kind of saw it coming, and this is not the end of it.

Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.

[Brenus]

“I'm sorry, but I don't think that's reason enough. To punish some murderers who killed 3000-4000 civilians, coalition launched an attack that murdered many more civilians, brought hundreds of thousands on the brink of poverty, created a suitable situation for growing and selling of narcotics etc...”
Sarmatian, it is a reason, and honestly quite good one. The aim was not to punish civilians for what happened but to catch Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar refused to give a fellow follower of Islam to the Infidel so in no way the mighty USA (and others less mighty) would allowed this.
Then the stupid policy determined and followed by Bush and Co and the War in Iraq made the reconstruction in Afghanistan more difficult, etc.
I do understand your feeling remembering what happen to Serbia and Kosovo (I metohija).

Kadagar AV I do fully agree. For a lot of people it was finally pay-back time, USA finally tasting their own medicine.
I was in Novi Sad at the time, Serbia, country which just few months before was at the receiving end of Cruise Missile, which is a pilotless plane. The only difference for some was that at least the murderers (and more ironic for some of them, the same one they were fighting in Bosnia) was at least killed with their victims.
And yes, the Twins Towers were the siege of the same company making money on the misery of others, ignoring the distresses and miseries created by them. It is how Globalisation and International Trade is seen.

[KarlXII]

Jolt,



From their point of wiev, civilians are not innocent.

They're terrorists man, terrorists.


Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?

So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?


So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?

No, it doesn't. The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.


Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.

These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.


I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.

So TS to those hate supporting children? And what of the children who lost family?


The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.

And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.


Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.

Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how a terrorist works.


Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?

So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)


Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.

Really?

[Strike For The South]

See this is where I have a qualm. I fully understand where the terrorists are coming from if I was poor destitute and hungry I would be angry at the people who were enabling my biggest enemy and lap up power politics thinly veiled as a religious war. Chances are I wouldn't really have a problem with these decadents being killed either. The US government has been ignoring the premise of blowback for years and it is now biting us. At the same time I must sit down and ask why must we fight this people with one hand tied behind our back? These people want us dead and we are sitting here fighting hog tied. Bound by these rules of engagement which our enemy will not follow. Past American policy has now put us between a rock and a hard place. I sympathize with the average Iraqi or Palestinian or Afghan but at the end of the day I sympathize with the average American more. It of course should have never come down to that choice but we can thank our father.

[Kadagar_AV]

Swedishfish>


They're terrorists man, terrorists.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You know, when Bin Laden ran around with CIA support, messing up Soviet targets, he was called freedom fighter... When he attacks you he becomes a terrorist?

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Bin laden. From my perspective he should spend the rest of his life in jail. However, there are lots of americans I can say the same thing about.

I just don't think the US has much right to claim moral highground. Again, CIA-sponsored freedom fighter one day, terrorist the other.


So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?

As an american you should be familiar with the term collateral damage?

Again, I am not defending this perspective, I am explaining it.

Are you saying US bombs has killed no one who wasn't saddam-friendly or Bin Laden-friendly?

Again, be careful about claiming moral highground.


The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.


And who elects this said president?

And when he, by your own example, decided to invade Iraq, I didn't exactly see massive protests from the people... The white house wasnt exacly blockaded by angry voters, was it?


These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.


Again, they are not civilians in these peoples eyes.

First of all they are responcible since they vote.

Secondly, they wage economig warfare against other countries...


And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.

Are you seriosly claiming the Pentagon is not to be considered a perfectly valid target?


Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how an American works.


Fixed it for you.

Geez, half your population see Iraq as a holy war, as a crusade.

They see you the same way you see them.

From my personal perspective, I believe both the americans and the fanatical muslims are about equally :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant:


So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)


I am referring to more than that...

Sucking money from the third world, manipulating regimes and so on... You can be responcible for deaths even though you don't drop bombs, you know.


Really?

Really.

[Strike For The South]

Ok. So if we dont have the moral high ground and we see the war as "crusade" Should we start killing the civilians? Cut of hands? feet? throw infants in the river? you are really influenced by a small minority of people you realize this? I doubt you have ever been here.

[Kadagar_AV]

See this is where I have a qualm. I fully understand where the terrorists are coming from if I was poor destitute and hungry I would be angry at the people who were enabling my biggest enemy and lap up power politics thinly veiled as a religious war. Chances are I wouldn't really have a problem with these decadents being killed either. The US government has been ignoring the premise of blowback for years and it is now biting us. At the same time I must sit down and ask why must we fight this people with one hand tied behind our back? These people want us dead and we are sitting here fighting hog tied. Bound by these rules of engagement which our enemy will not follow. Past American policy has now put us between a rock and a hard place. I sympathize with the average Iraqi or Palestinian or Afghan but at the end of the day I sympathize with the average American more. It of course should have never come down to that choice but we can thank our father.

Maybe we can all be friends?

If you spent less money on bombs, and more on world aid, the terrorists would have a hell of a time finding a new generation.

It is a long-term process, but I think it would work.

Some village is found supporting terrorists, build a well and a school... It would cost the fraction of one single bomb.

I am being optimistic here, but soemone must be.

If you start fighting hate with love, the "average joe" will quickly come around... It is hard spreading hate propaganda in a village, when the villages well is build by americans, and where the best students in the american built school gets a schoolarship in the US as reward, and a green card, allowing him to send money home to his parents...

A more cost-effective solution to remove the base from terrorists.

However, it is hard to win elections with 50-year programs... It is so much easier to "shock and awe" a startled Iraqi population wondering what the heck they had to do with 9/11.

[KarlXII]

Swedishfish>



One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You know, when Bin Laden ran around with CIA support, messing up Soviet targets, he was called freedom fighter... When he attacks you he becomes a terrorist?

There's a line between firing on Soviet military targets and planning the flying of planes into civilian buildings.


As an american you should be familiar with the term collateral damage?

Intentionally flying a plane into a civilian structure is not collateral damage.


Are you saying US bombs has killed no one who wasn't saddam-friendly or Bin Laden-friendly?

Of course, but then again, many of those Saddam supporters were known party members in key positions or military fanatics and Osama-supporters are typically militant terrorists.


Again, be careful about claiming moral highground.

I have never claimed high ground here. I do not support any killing of civilians, but in war, especially in a war where your enemy hides in cave sonly to bomb a convoy collateral damage cannot be avoided.


And who elects this said president?

Again, what of those who do not vote for said president? Just because you voted for Bush does not mean you deserve a good bombing.


And when he, by your own example, decided to invade Iraq, I didn't exactly see massive protests from the people... The white house wasnt exacly blockaded by angry voters, was it?

Bush told me, my state, my country, and the planet I live on that Saddam had or had the capability of creating weapons of mass destruction. When someone makes that kind of claim to this many people, the people will rally in what they are told is a grave threat. This is simple deceit. Even when Bush said "THEY HAS TEH ANTHRAX" many, national and foreign, were skeptical.


Again, they are not civilians in these peoples eyes.

In these people's eyes, they are right, they're God commands them to do this, and everyone, you included, are to be cleansed from His earth. You obviously don't take this in any seriousness unless you are a militant. (Not accusing you of being one)


First of all they are responcible since they vote.

Well hell, it all makes sense now. You vote, you deserve a good bombing.


Secondly, they wage economig warfare against other countries...

And how does one wage economic warfare? Blockading? I doubt Jimbo the burger flipper really had much to do with that.


Are you seriosly claiming the Pentagon is not to be considered a perfectly valid target?

When intentionally targeting civilians, no it is not. You honestly think the terrorist wanted to take out the military leadership? They had a whole lot of other places to do it.


Fixed it for you.

Geez, half your population see Iraq as a holy war, as a crusade.

Oh crap, and you know it.


They see you the same way you see them.

I sure think they need a good bombing as well, the Arab civilians. Hell, let's just do a lot of genocide. Party anyone?

Don't ever, ever, compare myself or my thinking to those who are killing innocent civilians.


From my personal perspective, I believe both the americans and the fanatical muslims are about equally :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant:

It's a real eye opener when you, you know, actually live with the people :yes:


Sucking money from the third world, manipulating regimes and so on... You can be responcible for deaths even though you don't drop bombs, you know.

Civilians can? Mothers, grandparents, children? Wow, isn't that interesting?

[Strike For The South]

Maybe we can all be friends?

If you spent less money on bombs, and more on world aid, the terrorists would have a hell of a time finding a new generation.

It is a long-term process, but I think it would work.

Some village is found supporting terrorists, build a well and a school... It would cost the fraction of one single bomb.

I am being optimistic here, but soemone must be.

If you start fighting hate with love, the "average joe" will quickly come around... It is hard spreading hate propaganda in a village, when the villages well is build by americans, and where the best students in the american built school gets a schoolarship in the US as reward, and a green card, allowing him to send money home to his parents...

A more cost-effective solution to remove the base from terrorists.

However, it is hard to win elections with 50-year programs... It is so much easier to "shock and awe" a startled Iraqi population wondering what the heck they had to do with 9/11.

The problem is we are passed that. Can we minimize the threat? Yes. but it wont ever go away. There is to much power and money in the America hating industry. We already give the most money in the world and there is still poverty here. Jose isnt nearly as cute in a tall tee as he is in a poncho. Im sick and tired of helping others when we need help here.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok. So if we dont have the moral high ground and we see the war as "crusade" Should we start killing the civilians? Cut of hands? feet? throw infants in the river? you are really influenced by a small minority of people you realize this? I doubt you have ever been here.

depends on what you mean with "here...

I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).


Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...

It of course depends on where you are in the US...

But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...

[Strike For The South]

depends on what you mean with "here...

I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).


Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...

It of course depends on where you are in the US...

But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...

So you really dont know? You are just assuming.

[KarlXII]

depends on what you mean with "here...

[quote]I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).

Well hell, that's like me basing my opinion on the Swedish because I've only visited Stockholm and Goteburg. (:2thumbsup:)



Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...

I think they have a family to get to :yes:


But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...

I think Faux News is the only one who claims this.

[Kadagar_AV]

SFTS> Indeed. They might have started reading other books than the bible and watching other stuff than god channel and faux news since I was there.

SwedishFish> Both Stockholm and Göteborg are pretty close to each other when it comes to politics... Not a very good retort.

of course, Sweden is WAY smaller than the US so it is not comparable. In Sweden, the biggest difference is between the rural areas and cities. I would say Göteborg and Stockholm has the same perspective in about 99% of the issues.

Also, if Faux News gets to keep claiming they are the no. 1 news channel for The US year after year, then can you blame non-americans for believing it?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....of course, Sweden is WAY smaller than the US so it is not comparable. In Sweden, the biggest difference is between the rural areas and cities. I would say Göteborg and Stockholm has the same perspective in about 99% of the issues.

Actually, that pattern "city mouse - country mouse" repeats in the USA quite reliably. Most small towns and rural areas are quite conservative while most urban centers -- especially the biggest ten cities and any university town -- are strongly liberal. The suburbs are a mish-mash.

[Koga No Goshi]

Actually, that pattern "city mouse - country mouse" repeats in the USA quite reliably. Most small towns and rural areas are quite conservative while most urban centers -- especially the biggest ten cities and any university town -- are strongly liberal. The suburbs are a mish-mash.

Sociologically the explanation for this is very easy. People in the cities are thrust together with a lot of diversity of background, religion, viewpoint and national origin and choice of lifestyle, and have to tolerate it. Rural areas tend to be homogenous, resist and encounter changes much more slowly, and are more fearful of change (in part because they're so much slower to experience it.)

[Incongruous]

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers. This government put all the means necessary for training and financing people who want openly to destroy and kill other people under the pretext of religion and beliefs.

The Taliban decisively lost influence. Women can be cured and work, and listening music is again possible.


Yes, the war was waged for one reason, but conducted under the visage of another. The Taliban were unable, not unwilling, to remove Bin-Laden.
As for the second part of that fists paragraph, are you talking about the U.S?

"Women can work", I hope you are not suggesting that women actualy have it better, in any reasonable degree, these days.

(I would link an article, but for some reason John Pilger's websiteis not up and running :wall:)

[Sarmatian]

Sarmatian, it is a reason, and honestly quite good one. The aim was not to punish civilians for what happened but to catch Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar refused to give a fellow follower of Islam to the Infidel so in no way the mighty USA (and others less mighty) would allowed this.
Then the stupid policy determined and followed by Bush and Co and the War in Iraq made the reconstruction in Afghanistan more difficult, etc.
I do understand your feeling remembering what happen to Serbia and Kosovo (I metohija).

Kadagar AV I do fully agree. For a lot of people it was finally pay-back time, USA finally tasting their own medicine.
I was in Novi Sad at the time, Serbia, country which just few months before was at the receiving end of Cruise Missile, which is a pilotless plane. The only difference for some was that at least the murderers (and more ironic for some of them, the same one they were fighting in Bosnia) was at least killed with their victims.
And yes, the Twins Towers were the siege of the same company making money on the misery of others, ignoring the distresses and miseries created by them. It is how Globalisation and International Trade is seen.

I understand your point. I must admit that I didn't cry a river when it happened. After all, that same US just a short time before killed just as many, if not more of my countrymen, but I didn't see it as some kind of divine justice. Those people in WTC were innocent. Civilians without any real influence on politics or advanced political thought. I was afraid that it might be (mis)used in the similar way as Hitler used Reichstag fire. It turned out that I was mostly right. After so many years in Afghanistan, the country is in disarray, many people have lost their lives, God knows how many lost their homes, drug trade is flourishing and so on... At the same time, almost no one from the top of Al-Qaeda has been caught and certainly not Bin Laden, Talibans had not been defeated and the country hadn't moved an inch towards democracy. Until that happens, Afghanistan is a total failure. Maybe American presence there stopped another attack on US, it probably did, but for me Afghanistan civilian casualties are not less worthy than American. Americans probably think differently. For them, 5000 killed Afghan civilians are acceptable if it saves 5000 American lives, but for me they're the same. It used to really annoy me when some US official says casualties in Iraq are XXXX, and he includes only American casualties. At least acknowledge how many Iraqis died. At least show that you are aware of those people. You don't have to build monuments for them and carve every name into the stone, but show that you're not totally oblivious. They had families, friends, pets, jobs and hobbies, too. But understanding that would mean elevating them to the status of human beings, instead of collateral damage and/or statistics, and then conscience might have something to say.

Would the situation in Afghanistan been handled much better if it hadn't been for Iraq? Possibly, but that's no excuse. If the attack on Afghanistan was made to make the world a safer place (including US and Afghanistan) I could support it, but if it's done as punishment, or to save American lives at the price of Afghan lives, I really can't. I hope that Obama will turn things around there. He showed much more awareness than McCain, but time is passing, death toll is rising and nothing's happening. I wished that someone in the US take at least a moral responsibility for that.

[Banquo's Ghost]

For those that have argued Brigadier Carleton-Smith is misguided, it seems that others are coming to the same conclusions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/3166259/US-intelligence-Afghanistan-in-downward-spiral-under-Hamid-Karzais-government.html).


Facing a spreading Taliban insurgency, the White House has begun a comprehensive review of policy towards Afghanistan. A National Intelligence Estimate, representing the considered view of America's 16 spy agencies, is now being prepared.

Its conclusions are thought to be deeply pessimistic, stressing the systemic weakness of Afghanistan's central government and the damage caused by the burgeoning narcotics trade, which may account for about half of the country's entire economy.

[Adrian II]

Oh cut the crap already.

The U.S. did not break Afghanistan. The Afghans broke Afghanistan when they turned their country into a safe haven for global terrorists. The Afghans own it, it is their problem, reconstruction is their responsibility. As long as they piss away their money, however acquired, on weapons,stolen Toyota pick-ups and Rolexes for dumb-** tribal potentates, they have only themselves to blame. If they can't organise an army to take care of their national security, big deal. It is their loss.

The only reason why western troops are there is to secure the western interest of keeping the Taliban out of power. And contrary to myth and newspaper speculation we can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The only reason why western troops are there is to secure the western interest of keeping the Taliban out of power. And contrary to myth and newspaper speculation we can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know.Rubbish, Adrian. It's all the fault of Western leftist intellectuals and
Wait, wrong thread.

I meant to say that I can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know as well and all you girls love it and
Wait, that's the other forum I frequent.


Third time's a charm: I would agree with your post. The reason for going in was to avenge and to prevent. The strategy for going out has been to install some sort of stable government that can keep the Taliban, AQ and others at bay. This, it would appear, is not going to succeed any time soon.
So, as a question, is there an alternative strategy that you know of other than staying there forever? We can keep it up, but so can they. Tribal warfare has been the national pasttime since time immemorial.

Maybe we can lure the Russians back in. What if we all dress up as Georgians and moon in a northern direction? :idea2:

[Adrian II]

So, as a question, is there an alternative strategy that you know of other than staying there forever?Invade Pakistan, cut it up again, put a fence around the unworkable north-western part and throw away the key.

I mean it. But I don't have time to elaborate, my 72 virgins are crying out for me.

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh cut the crap already.

The U.S. did not break Afghanistan. The Afghans broke Afghanistan when they turned their country into a safe haven for global terrorists. The Afghans own it, it is their problem, reconstruction is their responsibility. As long as they piss away their money, however acquired, on weapons,stolen Toyota pick-ups and Rolexes for dumb-** tribal potentates, they have only themselves to blame. If they can't organise an army to take care of their national security, big deal. It is their loss.

The only reason why western troops are there is to secure the western interest of keeping the Taliban out of power. And contrary to myth and newspaper speculation we can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know.

Um. I can't say that "we invade, and if your country gets screwed up that's your fault" implies very good planning or strategic forethought on the U.S. leadership's part.

[Adrian II]

Um. I can't say that "we invade, and if your country gets screwed up that's your fault" implies very good planning or strategic forethought on the U.S. leadership's part.Afghanistan has never been a country. I has always been a collection of warring tribes and sects. Even the ruthless Taliban never controlled the entire territory. All the Americans (and subsequent Nato operations) did was chase them from power and install various rivals.

The Americans don't 'own' it, nor does Nato. That's just Colin Powell's barnyard sale nonsense. World politics is not a barnyard sale.

If you want to blame anyone for lack of forethought, blame the Taliban.

[KarlXII]

For those that have argued Brigadier Carleton-Smith is misguided, it seems that others are coming to the same conclusions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/3166259/US-intelligence-Afghanistan-in-downward-spiral-under-Hamid-Karzais-government.html).


Facing a spreading Taliban insurgency, the White House has begun a comprehensive review of policy towards Afghanistan. A National Intelligence Estimate, representing the considered view of America's 16 spy agencies, is now being prepared.

Its conclusions are thought to be deeply pessimistic, stressing the systemic weakness of Afghanistan's central government and the damage caused by the burgeoning narcotics trade, which may account for about half of the country's entire economy.

Oh, there's no doubt. Afghanistan is becoming an icnreasingly losing battle. And until we can haul ass out of Iraq and put the men and material in places we actually need it, it will continue to be as it is. Only the death count will get higher.

[Koga No Goshi]

Afghanistan has never been a country. I has always been a collection of warring tribes and sects. Even the ruthless Taliban never controlled the entire territory. All the Americans (and subsequent Nato operations) did was chase them from power and install various rivals.

The Americans don't 'own' it, nor does Nato. That's just Colin Powell's barnyard sale nonsense. World politics is not a barnyard sale.

If you want to blame anyone for lack of forethought, blame the Taliban.

U.S. war planners should have taken this into account, and had correspondigly reflective ground strategies and exit strategies.

Yes or no?

[rotorgun]

The whole problem that we created during this wretched conflict is that we took our eye off the ball by letting up the pressure on Bin Laden and his followers, along with the Taliban supporters. After the debacle of Tora Bora we just let them slip away into Pakistan by failing to block the mountain passes leading into the country. This was clearly a Bush administration mistake, as they were so focused on how they could spin the whole thing to blame Saddam Hussein somehow. Now, because we have made this a problematical situation, to say the least, and it is going to be much harder everyone wants to pack it in and give up. Shame on us all if we do.

Listen, there is no doubt that going to Iraq was a colossal blunder; we have made this bed and must now sleep in it. The problem still remains, what should we do about the resurgent Taliban and Al Queda? I agree with many of you here that everything must be done to minimize innocent casualties. The problem is that these insurgents are like a cancerous growth inside a sick body. To remove a tumor will involve destroying some good tissue as well, no? It is unfortunate that this will happen, but to show mercy in this case is folly. Eradication from the face of the earth is the only way IMHO. More soldiers, an agreement with Pakistan for military access and assistance, and a shifting of priorities from Iraq will all help, but a willingness to be utterly ruthless when required is also needed to win. Believe me when I say that it is really the quickest way to ending this madness.

[Adrian II]

U.S. war planners should have taken this into account, and had correspondigly reflective ground strategies and exit strategies.

Yes or no?They did, and they had.

It may take ten years before Afghanistan gets its act together and create some sort of sustainable central government. That's not because of lack of American planning. You can't blame the Americans for Afghan unwillingness, stupidity and backwardness.

And it's no use for western powers to invest in a society that doesn't want to be one, to reconstruct roads for warlords and to rebuild powerplants, organise education or train a police force in the sole interest of a bunch of corrupt tribal leaders.

Let them rot in their own misery.

[Tribesman]

Invade Pakistan, cut it up again, put a fence around the unworkable north-western part and throw away the key.

Great idea , invade it with what exactly ?
I like the fence , thats good , who is going to man it though and who is going to pay ?


Let them rot in their own misery.
The problem there is that leaving them to rot is what helped the Taliban in the first place , allowing Afghanistan to return to its failed state status is just inviting another terrorist safe haven isn't it .

[Adrian II]

Great idea, invade it with what exactly ?Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?
I like the fence, that's good, who is going to man it though and who is going to pay?Western taxpayers, as usual.
The problem there is that leaving them to rot is what helped the Taliban in the first place, allowing Afghanistan to return to its failed state status is just inviting another terrorist safe haven isn't it .The alternative -- re-arming Afghans, helping them to (re)construct the trappings of a modern central state and giving them a sense of purpose -- might accomplish the exact same thing: create another terrorist enclave supported by Pakistani armed forces, intelligence and drug lords.

Look at the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. What did they accomplish? Or the reconstruction efforts in eastern Congo. Or in Somalia. What did they accomplish? The notion that they accomplished anything useful in the sense of 'nation-building' is pure boll poppycock.

[Tribesman]

Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?
Yeah right :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Western taxpayers, as usual.
I think you will find that western taxpayers are screwed at the moment and ain't gonna be able to stump up the cash or credit for such an endeavour .

[Adrian II]

Yeah right :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Are you short on arguments again? :laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3:
I think you will find that western taxpayers are screwed at the moment and ain't gonna be able to stump up the cash or credit for such an endeavour .Oh, that's what people always say when faced with workable ideas.

Politicians shouldn't listen to the people. They should tell the people that they can't have (inter)national security on the cheap, or if they think they can, they should find other leaders asap to implement it because cheap security policies sure as hell ain't gonna work.

[Tribesman]

Are you short on arguments again?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Nope , your position is just laughable .
America and the coilition of the bribed couldn't provide enough troops to do Iraq , America and Isaf cannot provide enough troops to work Afghanistan , and now you propose that they can invade and partition a country of nearly 200million people that has lots of long established thoroughly entrenched terrorist groups .:dizzy2:
Have you been down the coffee shop eating funny cakes ?

[Koga No Goshi]

They did, and they had.

It may take ten years before Afghanistan gets its act together and create some sort of sustainable central government. That's not because of lack of American planning. You can't blame the Americans for Afghan unwillingness, stupidity and backwardness.


Of course I can! Are you saying an intelligent invasion strategy is "the people we conquer had better be ready and willing to adopt whatever sort of government we tell them to assemble?"

That's mighty hubristic planning. And not a shock when it fails to work.

[Adrian II]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Nope , your position is just laughable .
America and the coilition of the bribed couldn't provide enough troops to do Iraq , America and Isaf cannot provide enough troops to work Afghanistan , and now you propose that they can invade and partition a country of nearly 200million people that has lots of long established thoroughly entrenched terrorist groups .:dizzy2:
Have you been down the coffee shop eating funny cakes ?Are you drunk again?

Seriously, in 2001 we were told that the Americans could never 'do' Afghanistan because the Russians never could. Yet they did 'do' Afghanistan inside of 4 weeks.

Same with Iraq in 2003. Remember we were told that the house to house fighting against Saddam's troops would take months, nay years? Yet they 'did' Iraq inside of 10 days.

The notion that either country could be rebuilt into a functioning democracy was a mistake, or a white lie if you want. Even with the best of efforts it couldn't succeed. As Francis Fukuyama has pointed out in State Building (2004) formal elections aren't enough to constitute a working democracy. It requires free, peaceful and enduring public debate backed up by free media, it requires security, functioning public services, an independent judiciary, a functioning neutral police force and an army that follows political orders. None of these can be established without the will of the people, or a large majority of them. This will was clearly absent in Iraq. That's why in the first 'free' Iraqi election everyone voted for their own ethnicity or religion, out of fear instead of confidence in the future of the country.

Same, mutatis mutandis, in Afghanistan. Your illusion that these countries could be somehow' rebuilt' into functioning democracies is much more costly and much more dangerous than my view that they should be left to rot, in order to contain the potential damage which their unworthy or fanatic leaders could cause.

[Adrian II]

Are you saying an intelligent invasion strategy is "the people we conquer had better be ready and willing to adopt whatever sort of government we tell them to assemble?"Are you saying that warfare is intelligent, that its consequences are calculable and that its planning must be foolproof? Dream on.

War should be the measure of last resort. And for good reason: it is not clean or surgical, it is cruel and destructive, and it is not guaranteed to turn the world into a better place for everyone.

The Afghans suffer primarily from their own incompetence and backwardness. It is neither the legal nor the moral duty of Americans to take responsibility for their suffering. It is their duty to prevent more massive terrorist attacks on American soil. Sure, they could have done a better job in Afghanistan. Other Nato countries could as well, if they'd had the guts and sense to invest more troops and means into the operation. There is always ground for improvement. Maybe the Afghan people could take the initiative to improve their situation. Instead of blaming everyone else for their self-inflicted wounds, they could actually start building a country. How about that, eh?

[Koga No Goshi]

If I could emote a hand waving away, I would put it here.

[Adrian II]

If I could emote a hand waving away, I would put it here.If you had a good argument, you could consider putting it here instead of an inane put-down.

Do you know of any post-war arrangement or occupation that went according to the victor's pre-war planning?

[Koga No Goshi]

If you had a good argument, you could consider putting it here instead of an inane put-down.

Do you know of any post-war arrangement or occupation that went according to the victor's pre-war planning?

You don't have a good argument, you just have a vehement insistence that everything wrong in Afghanistan is the Afghanis' fault. You made a rant, nothing more.

[Adrian II]

You don't have a good argument, you just have a vehement insistence that everything wrong in Afghanistan is the Afghanis' fault. You made a rant, nothing more.Stop the personal comments and come up with something substantial instead of mere contradictory statements.

For instance look at your own previous posts in this thread. You said about Iraq:


What is the U.S. struggling with in Iraq? With the same power divisions and old hatreds that Saddam's authoritarian regime kept in check, and the religious extremists now free to bloom who were ironfisted under Saddam's regime.

The idea of go in, absolutely gut every semblance of the existing power, and replace it with a McDemocracy Happy Meal transplant, is nice ideologically. But I do not see any rational reason to believe that it works and, even when it does, how long is it before a) we're back in there to save them from being toppled or b) we're back in there overthrowing whatever dictatorship took it over as soon as we left?There you go. No rational planning could ever prevent this scenario. Nation building is a pipe-dream if the people concerned don' t want to be a nation. The thought of nation building shouldn't guide a war. War should be a measure of last resort to avert an existential threat to your country and way of life. It can not be a therapy for failed states.

[Incongruous]

Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?

Umm, well kinda, in an undeclared way, but to openly declare war on Pakistan would be suicidal for the West.We cannot even hold onto Iraq or Afghanistan, so what makes you think we can do Pakistan? Its frikin insane.

The West, through it rampant destruction of Afghanistan via such great things as high altitude bombings, to help them.

I would also point out that the Afghan government has been tripped up from the get-go, the funding Afghanistan gets for reconstruction is barely enough to cover govt. salaries, the US has also enforced the power of the warlords onto the country, in return of support against the Taliban. It just pathetic.

[Tribesman]

Seriously, in 2001 we were told that the Americans could never 'do' Afghanistan because the Russians never could. Yet they did 'do' Afghanistan inside of 4 weeks.

Same with Iraq in 2003. Remember we were told that the house to house fighting against Saddam's troops would take months, nay years? Yet they 'did' Iraq inside of 10 days.


Yeah :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:and then what ?
It doesn't take a genius to go in destoy an army topple a regime and screw the place up does it , it just takes men and a lot of money .
But unless you are going to be able to improve the situation very significantly its a waste of time , improving the situation does take a genius and a lot of men and a hell of a lot of money . Not improving the situation very significantly means that you are going to have to go back in again and again and again which takes lots of men and lots of money and achieves bugger all .
The west has neither the men or the money to do the significant improvement , neither does it have the men or money to do the rinse and repeat cycle , that means what is being done is a complete waste of time that is achieving nothing worthwhile .

[Adrian II]

But unless you are going to be able to improve the situation very significantly its a waste of time Not at all. 'Improving' Iraq or Afghanistan was never the rationale for these wars. Removing a threat to the U.S. was the rationale. In the case of Iraq it was nonsense and therefore a waste of lives, time and money. In the case of Afghanistan it was fully justified, as it was in certain previous wars.

The U.S. has always fought wars in its own interest, whether it was WWI, WWII, Korea of Vietnam. It didn't invade Germany in the spring of 1945 in order to 'improve the situation' in Germany. Nor did it go into Korea or Vietnam out of sheer altruism. Gerroffit, Tribesman. If and when the U.S. could establish democracy in countries with willing majorities (such as post-war Germany) it never failed to do so. But it was never its prime rationale for war, nor should it be, particularly in the case of unwilling peoples.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan so far the U.S. has stuck mainly to the law of occupation as spelled out in the 1907 Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Additional Protocol I. That's good enough. They made a mess of certain issues, it's true, mainly because they misjudged the mess they found when they went in. In both cases the attempts at nation building failed, as you and I can agree, because there was no basis for it.

Where we disagree is on the question whether the U.S. is legally and/or morally obliged to force democratic nationhood on unwilling peoples, to install a system of political representation, separation of executive and legal powers, the rule of law and the principle of national unity in a country where the majority doesn't want any of that. Should we blame the U.S. for failing to install it, or should we lay the blame primarily at the feet of that country, its political factions and leaders, its traditions and religions. I guess you know what my answer is.

[Tribesman]

Not at all. 'Improving' Iraq or Afghanistan was never the rationale for these wars. Removing a threat to the U.S. was the rationale. In the case of Iraq it was nonsense and therefore a waste of lives, time and money. In the case of Afghanistan it was fully justified, as it was in certain previous wars.

There lies the problem , why was afghanistan a threat ?
Is it because it was a failed state without law where nutters could gain power and other nutters could go to plan being even nuttier ?

[Adrian II]

There lies the problem , why was afghanistan a threat ?

You have been drinking. :yes:

[Strike For The South]

Wow. Adrian just utterly destroyed 3 native English speakers and not only that he echos my sentiments exactly. Adrian wins we may close this thread

[Louis VI the Fat]

He's back...

He's angry...

He's Winning...


https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4450/terminator2yq9.jpg




Adrianator II
Judgement Day

Now playing in forums near you.
Rated PG-13

[Koga No Goshi]

Stop the personal comments and come up with something substantial instead of mere contradictory statements.

For instance look at your own previous posts in this thread. You said about Iraq:


What is the U.S. struggling with in Iraq? With the same power divisions and old hatreds that Saddam's authoritarian regime kept in check, and the religious extremists now free to bloom who were ironfisted under Saddam's regime.

The idea of go in, absolutely gut every semblance of the existing power, and replace it with a McDemocracy Happy Meal transplant, is nice ideologically. But I do not see any rational reason to believe that it works and, even when it does, how long is it before a) we're back in there to save them from being toppled or b) we're back in there overthrowing whatever dictatorship took it over as soon as we left?There you go. No rational planning could ever prevent this scenario. Nation building is a pipe-dream if the people concerned don' t want to be a nation. The thought of nation building shouldn't guide a war. War should be a measure of last resort to avert an existential threat to your country and way of life. It can not be a therapy for failed states.

THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T GO IN UNDER THE DELUSION OF "INSTALLING DEMOCRACY!" And why you don't go in unless it's absolutely necessary! Now granted, in Afghanistan there was more we actually had to do there than Iraq. But clearly even if the goal was just to get the Taliban out of power and push them so far back that they could never recover, our strategy has failed.

However, saying that (1) Afghanistan like Iraq is a conglomerate of different ethnic groupings which have always warred and struggled against each other and can only be held together by a strongman/dictator and (2) we went in to get rid of said dictator and "install democracy" and reduce the risk of terrorism, but the fact that this plan is not working out is not our fault, it's all the Afghanis' fault

is contradictory.

[Jolt]

Curiously, the sensation I have from this thread is that Afghanistan is a losing battle for everyone but for drug farmers. :P

- NATO is losing because they can't defeat the Taliban stuck up in Pakistan (And some argue because NATO can't control every single meter of land in Afghanistan, therefore, it is losing)

- Afghanistan is losing because it can't control the territory wihch is ruled by local tribal leaders.

- The Taliban are losing because they are stuck in Pakistan and limit themselves to killing 10 soldiers and 5 civilians per month, as well as losing dozens of their own men trying to destroy jails and prisons and bring criminals back onto the streets.

- The Tribal Leaders aren't winning, having to delicately balance themselves over NATO and the Taliban.

- Drug Farmers continue to increase their output and win more money.

[Incongruous]

Wow. Adrian just utterly destroyed 3 native English speakers and not only that he echos my sentiments exactly. Adrian wins we may close this thread

Wow, Strike once again illustrates a deep undestanding of the issues, give this man a medal!!!:balloon2:

Again Adrian, how would the West be able to gather the men and money to invade and hold down a nation like Pakistan? 'Cause its gonna take a while to get all them nasty terrorists there.

[Strike For The South]

Wow, Strike once again illustrates a deep undestanding of the issues, give this man a medal!!!:balloon2:

Again Adrian, how would the West be able to gather the men and money to invade and hold down a nation like Pakistan? 'Cause its gonna take a while to get all them nasty terrorists there.

I would like Platinum please.

[Sarmatian]

Adrian won??? By stating that West is in Afghanistan to protect itself and not to install democracy and/or to help Afghanistan become a "country"? Gee, what a grand discovery, Columbus is put to shame.

The "we're there to protect ourselves and we don't care about anything else" is a failed policy. Like Tribesy asked, why was Afghanistan a threat in the first place. Precisely because it was not a real country, because it was divided between different tribal lords and fundamentalist government. And if something isn't done to change that situation, when US & Co army leaves it's going to revert to the exact same situation before the invasion, which was the reason for the initial invasion. Or maybe some people think that keeping troops there indefinitely is a viable solution...

Either you change something there and leave without having to worry about it in the future, or you're stuck with endless occupation of the country, because if you withdraw while Afghanistan is in the state it is now, you're gonna have a Taliban or Taliban-like regime taking power. I believe that keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely isn't an option. So, Tribesy hit the nail on the head - why was Afghanistan a threat?. You need to address the cause, and not the consequence.

[Tribesman]

You have been drinking.
yeah right :dizzy2:
Ok for people who are really thick and for Adrian who is pretending to be .
What the hell are you on about ?
If the current or past circumstances are counterproductive to what you want then attemting to change the current result withiout sorting the present circumstances is just pissing into the wind .
Your premise seems to be that it can't be done so why bother unless they can be bothered to bother which ain't gonna matter much anyway but **** it we is gonna do it and anyone who doesn't believe that ****doesn't undrerstand it .

And no I ain't doing a president tribesman statement , afghanistan with all the ISS :daisy: and the al-qaida bolox is just too far goneto be adressed without going inio essay style proportions

[Koga No Goshi]

Wow. Adrian just utterly destroyed 3 native English speakers and not only that he echos my sentiments exactly. Adrian wins we may close this thread

The world is very simple when "it's someone other than America's fault" is your explanation for absolutely everything, including our own foreign policy collapses.

[Tribesman]

Come on Koga , give Strike a chance to say how operations can be conducted so that Afghanistan(pakistan) can be forged into a place where hostility isn't rife and terrirusts can't find a resting place ?

[Koga No Goshi]

Adrian won??? By stating that West is in Afghanistan to protect itself and not to install democracy and/or to help Afghanistan become a "country"? Gee, what a grand discovery, Columbus is put to shame.

The "we're there to protect ourselves and we don't care about anything else" is a failed policy. Like Tribesy asked, why was Afghanistan a threat in the first place. Precisely because it was not a real country, because it was divided between different tribal lords and fundamentalist government. And if something isn't done to change that situation, when US & Co army leaves it's going to revert to the exact same situation before the invasion, which was the reason for the initial invasion. Or maybe some people think that keeping troops there indefinitely is a viable solution...

Either you change something there and leave without having to worry about it in the future, or you're stuck with endless occupation of the country, because if you withdraw while Afghanistan is in the state it is now, you're gonna have a Taliban or Taliban-like regime taking power. I believe that keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely isn't an option. So, Tribesy hit the nail on the head - why was Afghanistan a threat?. You need to address the cause, and not the consequence.

Well Adrian doesn't have a vote or a goat in the U.S. but I'm sure he'll have a happy explanation for how we won when we leave, and that anything that goes wrong afterwards wasn't our fault, even if we're back in there again in 10 years to overthrow some new Talibanesque fundamentalist terror training regime. At least someone will say we did well!

[Koga No Goshi]

Come on Koga , give Strike a chance to say how operations can be conducted so that Afghanistan(pakistan) can be forged into a place where hostility isn't rife and terrirusts can't find a resting place ?

He won't. I'm disappointed with how he skirts in and out of controversial topics saying he doesn't care much and screw it all, but then always putting on a cheerleader outfit for any apologist explanation that America has done everything right.

[Tribesman]

Now that ain't fair at all Koga , Strike does some bloody good posts and often goes against the percieved grain

[Koga No Goshi]

Now that ain't fair at all Koga , Strike does some bloody good posts and often goes against the percieved grain

It's quite fair both here and in the Israel thread. I meant those two specifically.

[Strike For The South]

Let it be known I skirt topics due to a short attention span and alcohol.

Ahem:

It all comes down to demographics and fortunately those are in our favor. The older gentleman have to much wrapped up in islam and the local power politics of the region. So what should we do? Bribe all the tribal leaders we can. Do everything within our power to pit as many of these people against each-other as possible. Then we educate the women and the younglings give them the power. Teach them that a constitutional democracy is the way to go. Build schools roads and hospitals so in ten years time these people will not be lead by a strongman but by a belief in Afghanistan. The US military operations is something Im not worried about because at the end of the day the military side of this plays a very small role in what this country becomes. It is about how we attack the culture.

[KarlXII]

Let it be known I skirt topics due to a short attention span and alcohol.

Ahem:

It all comes down to demographics and fortunately those are in our favor. The older gentleman have to much wrapped up in islam and the local power politics of the region. So what should we do? Bribe all the tribal leaders we can. Do everything within our power to pit as many of these people against each-other as possible. Then we educate the women and the younglings give them the power. Teach them that a constitutional democracy is the way to go. Build schools roads and hospitals so in ten years time these people will not be lead by a strongman but by a belief in Afghanistan. The US military operations is something Im not worried about because at the end of the day the military side of this plays a very small role in what this country becomes. It is about how we attack the culture.

Aren't we already doing that? The Warlord in the South rebeled! Oh no! Let's pay another warlord to defeat him! Wait, now he's rebelling? Man, we're running out of warlords very fast.

[Koga No Goshi]

Let it be known I skirt topics due to a short attention span and alcohol.

Ahem:

It all comes down to demographics and fortunately those are in our favor. The older gentleman have to much wrapped up in islam and the local power politics of the region. So what should we do? Bribe all the tribal leaders we can. Do everything within our power to pit as many of these people against each-other as possible. Then we educate the women and the younglings give them the power. Teach them that a constitutional democracy is the way to go. Build schools roads and hospitals so in ten years time these people will not be lead by a strongman but by a belief in Afghanistan. The US military operations is something Im not worried about because at the end of the day the military side of this plays a very small role in what this country becomes. It is about how we attack the culture.

This is a much better plan, Strike, than "lol don't do any of that and if a democracy doesn't emerge it's the Afghans' fault." I'd endorse it given what the alternatives seem to be.

[Strike For The South]

Aren't we already doing that? The Warlord in the South rebeled! Oh no! Let's pay another warlord to defeat him! Wait, now he's rebelling? Man, we're running out of warlords very fast.

Well we need more troops as well, however I am a firm believer money>religion any day of the week. Just look at why we were able to hand over the Anbar Provence.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well we need more troops as well, however I am a firm believer money>religion any day of the week. Just look at why we were able to hand over the Anbar Provence.

I agree completely. People who say this is all about religion are totally off their rocker. Aside from lone fanatics there is no terrorist group out there (or rebel group, or insurgency, or militia, or whatever), regardless of religious affiliation, which isn't out to accomplish geopolitical goals. i.e., indirectly, money.

[Kadagar_AV]

1. The US has :elephant: up on a huge scale in this area. It seems they had no knowing of the area before going in.

2. If the US withdraws, it will be WORSE than under the taliban regime, they at least kept some sort of control.

3. Don't expect UN/NATO forces to do your dity laundry. We were all against this ill-planned war. Its is your mess, sort it out yourself. It was better before you started it, when you get it back to the state it was before you attacked, we will give it some consideration.

4. Afghanistan was attacked because that is where Bin laden, or one of his copies, were right after 9/11. One MIGHT think you would havw gone after Saudi Arabia, but no, you choose Afghanistan because they have no oil and no ties with the president.

Of course, Bin Laden left the county as you attacked, and then you were stuck in a meaningless war. To be quite honest, I think the Afghanistan war has hurt the US more, in general terms, than 9/11 did. Shall we call this a doubble victory for Bin Laden, or what?

5. You can not blame Afghan leadership. They were set up from the start - "Hey, let's give local warlords weapons and training and use them as cannon fodder instead of US troops".

a coupel of months later

"Huh, why are the local warlords fighting for independance, and how come they have so sofisticated weapons and tactics?"





From my perspective, and bear in mind I am probably the only one who actually been there: You can either:

A) Just leave. After soem time a local warlords will take over and we wil have a new terror regime much like the taliban.

B) Spend trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lifes forcing the country to become a democrasy.

:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

[Strike For The South]

1. The US has :elephant: up on a huge scale in this area. It seems they had no knowing of the area before going in.

2. If the US withdraws, it will be WORSE than under the taliban regime, they at least kept some sort of control.

3. Don't expect UN/NATO forces to do your dity laundry. We were all against this ill-planned war. Its is your mess, sort it out yourself. It was better before you started it, when you get it back to the state it was before you attacked, we will give it some consideration.

4. Afghanistan was attacked because that is where Bin laden, or one of his copies, were right after 9/11. One MIGHT think you would havw gone after Saudi Arabia, but no, you choose Afghanistan because they have no oil and no ties with the president.

Of course, Bin Laden left the county as you attacked, and then you were stuck in a meaningless war. To be quite honest, I think the Afghanistan war has hurt the US more, in general terms, than 9/11 did. Shall we call this a doubble victory for Bin Laden, or what?

5. You can not blame Afghan leadership. They were set up from the start - "Hey, let's give local warlords weapons and training and use them as cannon fodder instead of US troops".

a coupel of months later

"Huh, why are the local warlords fighting for independance, and how come they have so sofisticated weapons and tactics?"





From my perspective, and bear in mind I am probably the only one who actually been there: You can either:

A) Just leave. After soem time a local warlords will take over and we wil have a new terror regime much like the taliban.

B) Spend trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lifes forcing the country to become a democrasy.

:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

lies in bold

[Koga No Goshi]

lies in bold

Historical revisionism if you think most of the hijackers weren't Saudi. And other than the oil trade and the ties between the Saudi royals and the Bush family, what is your explanation for why we never chastise them or even declare them a rogue state given their human rights record and state sponsor of fundamentalist extremism?

[Strike For The South]

Historical revisionism if you think most of the hijackers weren't Saudi. And other than the oil trade and the ties between the Saudi royals and the Bush family, what is your explanation for why we never chastise them or even declare them a rogue state given their human rights record and state sponsor of fundamentalist extremism?

I know the were Saudi but they were based in Afghanistan. Or is that more revisionism? So if I start a terror group in Chile that means whoever I attack will attack America because that is were Im from?

[Koga No Goshi]

I know the were Saudi but they were based in Afghanistan. Or is that more revisionism? So if I start a terror group in Chile that means whoever I attack will attack America because that is were Im from?

No, the training camps were in Afghanistan. Led by a Saudi ex-prince. And probably funded with a lot of Saudi money. Which indirectly came from us, from the oil trade.

What have we done about Saudi Arabia?

[Strike For The South]

No, the training camps were in Afghanistan. Led by a Saudi ex-prince. And probably funded with a lot of Saudi money. Which indirectly came from us, from the oil trade.

What have we done about Saudi Arabia?

Exactly they were based in Afghanistan. Probably does no good. Im sorry not every American dollar has no blood on it as if that were even possible

[Koga No Goshi]

Exactly they were based in Afghanistan. Probably does no good. Im sorry not every American dollar has no blood on it as if that were even possible

You're not getting my point. This is like arresting all the prostitutes and continuing to do business with the pimps. Or druggies and drug dealers. Whatever metaphor you'd like.

[Strike For The South]

You're not getting my point. This is like arresting all the prostitutes and continuing to do business with the pimps. Or druggies and drug dealers. Whatever metaphor you'd like.

So we should've attacked SA instead of were AL Qedia was located and thriving in Afghanistan because in SA there may or may not be people funding AQ? Because Osama has allot of money due to oil? Because you dont like them?

[Koga No Goshi]

So we should've attacked SA instead of were AL Qedia was located and thriving in Afghanistan because in SA there may or may not be people funding AQ? Because Osama has allot of money due to oil? Because you dont like them?

Didn't say that. But you said that pointing out that the source of this problem, ultimately, goes back to Saudi Arabia and other places outside of Afghanistan. And you bolded it and said it was a lie. Carpet bomb Afghanistan if you like, if you think that will be the end of Middle Eastern terrorism against the U.S. you are pretty mistaken.

[Kadagar_AV]

saudis
trained in afghanistan...
... by saudis
funded by saudis

go figure :wall:

[Louis VI the Fat]

To quote Adrian:

Oh, cut the crap already.


If the Americans had gone after Saudi Arabia, we'd be sitting here listening to how it was all about oil and how America should've gone after Afghanistan since that is a rogue state where terrorists operate freely and that Bin Laden after all was chased out of Saudi Arabia by the Saudis themselves and the other 9-11 terrorists all got their education outside of SA etcetera.

And if the Americans had gone after both we'd be talking about Syria and Algeria and Pakistan etcetera and why the Americans didn't go after the terrorists there.

And if the Americans had gone after all of those too we'd be talking about how the Americans are warmongering imperialists and that this is what America gets 9-11's.

Can't win.

[Kadagar_AV]

Can't win.

QFT




However, if you would have gone after saudi arabia, at least the europeans wouldnt scratch their heads wondering "hmm... now why did they do that?"

[Sarmatian]

To quote Adrian:

Oh, cut the crap already.


If the Americans had gone after Saudi Arabia, we'd be sitting here listening to how it was all about oil and how America should've gone after Afghanistan since that is a rogue state where terrorists operate freely and that Bin Laden after all was chased out of Saudi Arabia by the Saudis themselves and the other 9-11 terrorists all got their education outside of SA etcetera.

And if the Americans had gone after both we'd be talking about Syria and Algeria and Pakistan etcetera and why the Americans didn't go after the terrorists there.

And if the Americans had gone after all of those too we'd be talking about how the Americans are warmongering imperialists and that this is what America gets 9-11's.

Can't win.

Exactly. Invading country by country is a pretty poor solution. What should have been done is to identify canals through which terrorist groups get funding and weapons and cut them, using invasion only as a last resort. IIRC, after 9-11, Russia was interested in combining forces against terrorism and helped initially with Afghanistan but cooled off after seeing that American vision of how it should be done is very different then theirs.

This is not about hand-made guns, hand grenades or molotov coctails. In the case of 9-11, several planes were hijacked simultaneously. Now, you can't bring an AK-47 on a plane. You need a bit more sophisticated and expensive weapons. How did those weapons get on a plane? How did they get in the US? Were they made in the US? Who can make them? Those people who flew those planes had to be trained. Where were they trained? Who trained them? Most important of all questions is, of course, who provided the money for all that. That was extremely complicated, expensive and time consuming process, preparing for that attack.

Further, stop funding potential terrorist havens. Although it was known for some time that Mujahedeens and various terrorist groups fought together with Bosnian muslims, US continued to support Izetbegovic with money and weapons. It pretty much handed out visas to Bosnian citizens, with little control. Then what happens is that some guy from middle east gets to Sarajevo, gets a new passport and hits America without any control. It took a decade before someone finally got it in the US and stopped handing out visas to Bosnian citizens without control. Don't tell me no one in the US knew that middle eastern fundamentalists are involved in Bosnia. Same goes for Saudi Arabia and Kosovo, and many other potential terrorist havens. You try to fight terrorism and then support Kosovo as an independent country, through which a large portion of drugs grown in Afghanistan is pushed into Europe and America and money made from that is used by Afghans to buy weapons. That doesn't make sense, it's absurd. Your right hand is doing the total opposite of your left hand and it's no wonder you're not getting anywhere...

So, setting up a consistent policy and cutting of funding and hurting logistics is much more effective than invading countries in which a certain terrorist leader happened to be in that particular time of the year.

[Koga No Goshi]

Exactly. Invading country by country is a pretty poor solution. What should have been done is to identify canals through which terrorist groups get funding and weapons and cut them, using invasion only as a last resort. IIRC, after 9-11, Russia was interested in combining forces against terrorism and helped initially with Afghanistan but cooled off after seeing that American vision of how it should be done is very different then theirs.

This is not about hand-made guns, hand grenades or molotov coctails. In the case of 9-11, several planes were hijacked simultaneously. Now, you can't bring an AK-47 on a plane. You need a bit more sophisticated and expensive weapons. How did those weapons get on a plane? How did they get in the US? Were they made in the US? Who can make them? Those people who flew those planes had to be trained. Where were they trained? Who trained them? Most important of all questions is, of course, who provided the money for all that. That was extremely complicated, expensive and time consuming process, preparing for that attack.

Further, stop funding potential terrorist havens. Although it was known for some time that Mujahedeens and various terrorist groups fought together with Bosnian muslims, US continued to support Izetbegovic with money and weapons. It pretty much handed out visas to Bosnian citizens, with little control. Then what happens is that some guy from middle east gets to Sarajevo, gets a new passport and hits America without any control. It took a decade before someone finally got it in the US and stopped handing out visas to Bosnian citizens without control. Don't tell me no one in the US knew that middle eastern fundamentalists are involved in Bosnia. Same goes for Saudi Arabia and Kosovo, and many other potential terrorist havens. You try to fight terrorism and then support Kosovo as an independent country, through which a large portion of drugs grown in Afghanistan is pushed into Europe and America and money made from that is used by Afghans to buy weapons. That doesn't make sense, it's absurd. Your right hand is doing the total opposite of your left hand and it's no wonder you're not getting anywhere...

So, setting up a consistent policy and cutting of funding and hurting logistics is much more effective than invading countries in which a certain terrorist leader happened to be in that particular time of the year.

Precisely how I feel. Arguing that Afghanistan has gone into the toilet and it's the Afghanis' fault is not only bullheaded but misses the entire point. We aren't safer from terrorism, if anything, the root causes of it have been exacerbated. The "cause" of terrorism was not a camp in Afghanistan. The cause was foreign policy, a variety of socioeconomic and geopolitical causes, the history of the U.S. in the Middle East, and, Saudi and UAE money (among others) funding it. The Saudis in particular use extremism and some subtly nurtured resentment of the west as a release valve for the problems and frustration within its own population under its abusive regime and extreme inequalities of wealth.

THe point was not that we should invade Saudi Arabia and leave Afghanistan. The point was that coming in with a bunch of snazzy pinache about how Americans shouldn't feel a lick of responsibility for Afghanistan is, from the point of view of why we went in and what we are trying to accomplish, and irrelevant sidetrack.

[Incongruous]

To quote Adrian:

Oh, cut the crap already.


If the Americans had gone after Saudi Arabia, we'd be sitting here listening to how it was all about oil and how America should've gone after Afghanistan since that is a rogue state where terrorists operate freely and that Bin Laden after all was chased out of Saudi Arabia by the Saudis themselves and the other 9-11 terrorists all got their education outside of SA etcetera.

And if the Americans had gone after both we'd be talking about Syria and Algeria and Pakistan etcetera and why the Americans didn't go after the terrorists there.

And if the Americans had gone after all of those too we'd be talking about how the Americans are warmongering imperialists and that this is what America gets 9-11's.

Can't win.

Well Louis, since when has America done anything in respect of Saudi Arabia that was not about oil? I don't need another stupid invasion to realise that one.
Afghanistan is a failure because the U.S & Co. have done almost nothing about the problem and in many cases have made it worse.

Bin-Laden and the Taliban got their know how from the U.S. So perhaps the U.S should rethink its idiotic game plan which it has been following for the past half century?

Syria and Algeria? No lets talk about the French!:clown:

[Fragony]

QFT




However, if you would have gone after saudi arabia, at least the europeans wouldnt scratch their heads wondering "hmm... now why did they do that?"

Oh common the same guys that are crying foul now are the same ones crying foul when supposedly a genocide was being conducted in our own backyard. What pacifist europeans think should never be taken into consideration just because of the very fact that they can't think, they want to be a paralel universe despite not being one.

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh common the same guys that are crying foul now are the same ones crying foul when supposedly a genocide was being conducted in our own backyard. What pacifist europeans think should never be taken into consideration just because of the very fact that they can't think, they want to be a paralel universe despite not being one.

Well hey you could spin that around, I find it annoying that so many European hawks disillusioned with their own governments use the internet to voice vehement support of anything reckless and aggressive the U.S. does. I don't think Europe's approval OR disapproval changes the fact that the way we're handling the war on terror is very bad, and bankrupting us for very little return.

[Fragony]

Well hey you could spin that around, I find it annoying that so many European hawks disillusioned with their own governments use the internet to voice vehement support of anything reckless and aggressive the U.S. does. I don't think Europe's approval OR disapproval changes the fact that the way we're handling the war on terror is very bad, and bankrupting us for very little return.

It is not spinning around it is accepting that there is a difference between what you want and what it is. Shooting bad guys, I can't think of a better way of dealing with terrorists really. AdrianII is hardly a hawk, you wondered if I was the most rightwing person in the netherlands, well there is my leftist non-hubris and much apreciated nemesis.

[Incongruous]

Oh common the same guys that are crying foul now are the same ones crying foul when supposedly a genocide was being conducted in our own backyard. What pacifist europeans think should never be taken into consideration just because of the very fact that they can't think, they want to be a paralel universe despite not being one.

I might do a Tribesman...

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You mean that reality where Afghanistan was never planned properly and never conducted properly? Where the thing has been such a cock up that it is likely to re-create the conditions which leade to 9/11?

Yeah what a load of tossers they are!

[Koga No Goshi]

It is not spinning around it is accepting that there is a difference between what you want and what it is. Shooting bad guys, I can't think of a better way of dealing with terrorists really. AdrianII is hardly a hawk, you wondered if I was the most rightwing person in the netherlands, well there is my leftist non-hubris and much apreciated nemesis.

..............................................

So, all America has to do, is keep up the billions we are bleeding out every month, until we "shoot every last bad guy."

That's fine talk, from someone whose great-grandkids aren't going to be paying the bill.

You really believe this is a sensible response to terrorism? That we have achieved optimal results for the investment put in?

[Fragony]

I might do a Tribesman...

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You mean that reality where Afghanistan was never planned properly and never conducted properly? Where the thing has been such a cock up that it is likely to re-create the conditions which leade to 9/11?

Yeah what a load of tossers they are!

YEAH OMGWTFLOL

Make sure you look less rediculous when you do it, Tribesman has an excuse he is usually drunk and all the better for it, but what is your excuse, right now being this early in the morning?

Taliban bad = dead Taliban good,

capice?

[Fragony]

..............................................

So, all America has to do, is keep up the billions we are bleeding out every month, until we "shoot every last bad guy."

That's fine talk, from someone whose great-grandkids aren't going to be paying the bill.

You really believe this is a sensible response to terrorism? That we have achieved optimal results for the investment put in?

Not just america, also england, australia, poland, norway, germany, france, holland, belgium, canada england, denmark, not all shooting but all helping neverthless.

Great investment, no dead beard is likely to become alive again, saves us 30 tennis tables and community centres here.

[Koga No Goshi]

Not just america, also england, australia, poland, norway, germany, france, holland, belgium, canada england, denmark, not all shooting but all helping neverthless.

Great investment, no dead beard is likely to become alive again, saves us 30 tennis tables and community centres here.

I'm just glad you're nowhere near a meeting of the Joint Chiefs or a budget meeting. :)

[Brenus]

“Oh common the same guys that are crying foul now are the same ones crying foul when supposedly a genocide was being conducted in our own backyard.”
Well, aren’t they the same crying about Russian Intervention against Georgia?
I agree. I do remember all the reports and news about the Talibans, public hanging, widow dying of starvation because no right to work, no doctors for women for the same reason and the fact tat a man can’t touch a woman, a country back to the stone age, no music, nothing just a plain theocratic dictatorship. The intellectuals making noises for supporting Massoud and its Northern Alliance… Hey guys it is done… The “right of intervention” at work…
I supported the Russian intervention against the apprentice genocider, I support the US intervention in Afghanistan. I wish we would have done that in Former Yugoslavia at the start, when the Croats started to hunt the Serbs in Vukovar…
Can we expect better for Afghanistan. Yes. It was better, not perfect, under the king. I have not a great admiration of kings in general, but it did work, even under the communist rule…

“You mean that reality where Afghanistan was never planned properly and never conducted properly? Where the thing has been such a cock up that it is likely to re-create the conditions which leade to 9/11?”
Probably not well planned, I think. Who would have planned to invade Afghanistan before? So, it leads to improvisation meaning alliances with the Northern Alliances, and few war lords, and the disaster of Bora Bora. And of course no planning for development and democratisation, civil society and Post War Psycho-Social Progrmme, demining etc...
To invade a country is not so much a problem, to keep is. In fact to make it safe is.
Yes, the US founded and trained the guys who killed them. Yes, the US Foreign Policy was so blind by the “Communist” menace they didn’t see the other one coming. They forget that the best enemy of communism s fascism and Nazism because they hunt on the same grounds
But no, the Taliban have no chance to win without the support of a big power… Like the one they had against USSR. And apparently Putine and co thing a little bit clearer than the Reagan Administration…

[Fragony]

Well, aren’t they the same crying about Russian Intervention against Georgia?

Nope they have succesfully mentally blocked that, they are currently undecided nobody has told them what to think.

[Incongruous]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/3178042/Afghanistan-weakened-by-corruption-as-fears-grown-over-Taliban.html

Mmmhmm, the smell of history about to repeat itself, Taliban no.2 here we come!

Brenus what are you talking about?
I'm sorry but are you in support of the "intervention"? Or are you pointing out that it has been a cockup?
Again stop going on about the women for God's sake they still do not have it better, in fact most of them have it worse off. :dizzy2:

[Kralizec]

Again stop going on about the women for God's sake they still do not have it better, in fact most of them have it worse off. :dizzy2:

Care to support that?

Afghanistan was practicly a collection of stone age tribes in 2001. The only reason that some people (and women in particular) are arguably worse off is because the Taliban targets people wich are perceived to be pro-Kabul and have started getting illusions about being free to walk umolested in public, etc. The Taliban's reign was the proverbial bad peace that's worse than war.

I've not given up mentally on Afghanistan myself by the way, but a lot will depend on what happens in Pakistan.

[Brenus]

“Or are you pointing out that it has been a cockup?”
:beam:Actually, both. I did support and still do understand the US intervention after the mass murder (in police reference) of the Twin Towers and others. I do acknowledge the splendid missing of opportunities done.
Now, what the US should have done? Sheikh Omar refused to give Bin Laden, so let the guy walk around the world, let his supporters teaching the world how the US are weak, even not trying to revenge their dead. What a paper tiger, look how they are. They are scared of the Holly War, let’s do more…:no:

I still think it would have been done differently. No permanent Allies Bases but from out side countries, Long Range Recon Patrol and neutralisation/elimination of all Taliban leaders. Search and kill, and let them organise the country. When he does not behave properly, we drop (heliport) a command, and out of the traffic. Soviet method by the way.
The French did that as will in Vietnam. The commando Van den Berg was attacking only the tax collectors and the payroll officers, and the district administrators. It was hundred times more efficient than the big operations. He was so efficient that he was assassinated by a double agent infiltrated in his commando.
It would probably cost less.:yes:

“Again stop going on about the women for God's sake they still do not have it better, in fact most of them have it worse off” Oh, you mean they are more than hanged an stoned to death, or killed because they drive?
Or perhaps they have to wear a double mobile jail (burka)?

One of my sisters worked on the Afghan Refugees Camps in Pakistan. Her translator was judge before the Soviet Occupation. She had pictures of her in mini skirt and driving a car in Kabul. Even under Soviet Intervention, the women were better off.
I hardly imagine what could be worst for a woman than to live under Taliban’s rules.

[Incongruous]

Yes, yes of coarse Brenus, the rampant rape which is now a daily feature of most women's lives really proves that things have improved. Those anti-Taliban warlords sure do keep them safe.

[Incongruous]

Care to support that?

Afghanistan was practicly a collection of stone age tribes in 2001. The only reason that some people (and women in particular) are arguably worse off is because the Taliban targets people wich are perceived to be pro-Kabul and have started getting illusions about being free to walk umolested in public, etc. The Taliban's reign was the proverbial bad peace that's worse than war.

I've not given up mentally on Afghanistan myself by the way, but a lot will depend on what happens in Pakistan.

Well in that case I would give up in every aspect of the matter, Pakistan is down the hole, what with having no money.

[Brenus]

"Yes, yes of coarse Brenus, the rampant rape which is now a daily feature of most women's lives really proves that things have improved. Those anti-Taliban warlords sure do keep them safe": And the Taliban were the best in women's right protection were they? And they never raped women? Or perhaps, because it was always the woman fault, it was not recorder or reported? Ooops...:oops:

[Koga No Goshi]

I think we're getting off track here.

The Taliban was really bad. However, drudging it up over and over again to justify how poorly plans have been implemented in Afghanistan is a recipe for nothing.

Afghanistan: Plans need to change or no?

[Brenus]

“I think we're getting off track here.
The Taliban was really bad. However, drudging it up over and over again to justify how poorly plans have been implemented in Afghanistan is a recipe for nothing.
Afghanistan: Plans need to change or no?”

Yes and no. The justification for the anti-war clan is “things are not working”.
So the drugs and all unresolved problems are put as fault on the Allies shoulders as the Taliban period was a peaceful and quite time:idea2:, deliberately ignoring:
- The constant war again the “Northern Alliance”
- The reign of terror against all minorities (religious and ethnic)
- The reign of terror of a mad Theocratic State
- The training and exportation of this “model” in others states and nations.

It is too late to change plan. Plans have to be fully implemented, knowing it will cost time, money and human lives.

In one hand military operations, full strength.:beam:

Other hands, development: Buy all the opium production, destroyed it: First you give to the peasants something to eat and something they can produce, then you cut the war lords from their income AND you spoil the drug traffic…
Building health Rural Centre, and markets, repair roads, give jobs to people. That is NGO and Charities are good at, small economical business project development, USAID and others know how to do it.
Massive reconstruction programme with Post War Rehabilitation Programme: Very Helpful to calm down the Post War Traumatic Disorder. You have a society which lived the last 30 years either in war or in “peace” of terror.

A need of training of the local authorities in respect with Human Right Conventions and standards is obvious. So, need to create schools in Kabul for the future leaders.
We will probably teach some of the future enemies if things go wrong but most of the pupils will be the next politicians and leaders.

[Incongruous]

“I think we're getting off track here.
The Taliban was really bad. However, drudging it up over and over again to justify how poorly plans have been implemented in Afghanistan is a recipe for nothing.
Afghanistan: Plans need to change or no?”

Yes and no. The justification for the anti-war clan is “things are not working”.
So the drugs and all unresolved problems are put as fault on the Allies shoulders as the Taliban period was a peaceful and quite time:idea2:, deliberately ignoring:
- The constant war again the “Northern Alliance”
- The reign of terror against all minorities (religious and ethnic)
- The reign of terror of a mad Theocratic State
- The training and exportation of this “model” in others states and nations.

It is too late to change plan. Plans have to be fully implemented, knowing it will cost time, money and human lives.

In one hand military operations, full strength.:beam:

Other hands, development: Buy all the opium production, destroyed it: First you give to the peasants something to eat and something they can produce, then you cut the war lords from their income AND you spoil the drug traffic…
Building health Rural Centre, and markets, repair roads, give jobs to people. That is NGO and Charities are good at, small economical business project development, USAID and others know how to do it.
Massive reconstruction programme with Post War Rehabilitation Programme: Very Helpful to calm down the Post War Traumatic Disorder. You have a society which lived the last 30 years either in war or in “peace” of terror.

A need of training of the local authorities in respect with Human Right Conventions and standards is obvious. So, need to create schools in Kabul for the future leaders.
We will probably teach some of the future enemies if things go wrong but most of the pupils will be the next politicians and leaders.

No Brenus, the anti-war crowd are not depicting the Taliban as rosy cheeked cherubic messengers. They simply do not hold them up to bthe same standards as the West, which has shown a complete lack of ethics in Afghanistan and the region as a whole.

Afghanistan is lost because we can no longer afford the bill, the British army is in a terrible state and the MOD shows little sign of improving for lack of funds. In short, we lost.

[Brenus]

“Afghanistan is lost because we can no longer afford the bill, the British army is in a terrible state and the MOD shows little sign of improving for lack of funds. In short, we lost.”
This is a thing I accept. Not “we lost because we can’t win”.
All the Western Government left their armies in bad state, ignoring the cost of an efficient and up-dated force.
Because the modern needs of an army needed to match the multiple aspect of the new conflicts cost more and more, and the need of more professional soldiers don’t go with the splashing of money and gift to the riches, they all cut in expenses.
Well, the sons and daughters of the poor go to war any way, so no need to put too much money in the army. It pats the time when the Nobility had to “earn their spurs”…

I read a document from a French General complaining about the “racket” of the soldiers buying their own equipment. The Republic has to provide the needs to his children to go to war on her name, he said.
Well, apparently not, when a President prefers obviously luxuries and Yacht than to really care about his job.

But that just mean a lack of will from the political bodies to commit really in the war effort. But the army should as well re-thinks the needs in this particularly war.

[Incongruous]

Well the main reason the British Army crapped out was due to the wrong types of military equipment being used.
Sand is apparently a rather annoying aspect of the conflict which the MOD simply didn't get to grips with.

Oh and I do not think anyone said Afghanistan could not be won, but that it was lost very, very early on.
It was most definatley lost in 2006 when the RA was given overall command of bombing operations and stepped up indiscriminate high altitude bombings. We were no friends to the Afghans then.