Afghanistan

[Lemur]

Inspired by a recent post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2234646&postcount=277) in the Obama thread by Xiahou. Our current President is doubling-down in Afghanistan, replacing the general in charge of the theater with a counterinsurgency expert.

A counterinsurgency expert is thrilled (http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2009/05/mckiernan-out-mcchrystal-in.html):

Now there is a lot of stuff at work here. First, I heard rumors that McChrystal might replace McKiernan only last Friday, when a senior U.S. policy-maker cornered me and asked me what I thought of McChrystal. That's kinda like asking a rifleman in the French Army what he thinks of Napoleon. Although I indeed served under McChrystal's command in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not know him personally and was but one cog in a giant machine at the time.

I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal's work as the head of the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story of the Surge and the greater war on terror campaigns. I also know that McChrystal and David Petraeus forged a close working relationship in Iraq in 2007 and have much respect for one another. (Prior to 2007, the relations between the direct-action special operations task force and the overall command in Iraq were strained at best.)

Second, let's not beat around the bush: Gen. McKiernan was fired -- and fired in a very public manner. Secretary Gates' exact words: "I have asked for the resignation of General David McKiernan."

Damn.

This tells me that President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Gen. Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack about a shift in strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was ruthless, and they were not about to do the George Casey thing whereby a commander is left in the theater long after he is considered to have grown ineffective.

The sad truth of the matter is that people have been calling for McKiernan's head for some time now. Many of the people with whom I have spoken do not think that McKiernan "gets" the war in Afghanistan -- or counterinsurgency warfare in general. There was very little confidence that -- with McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan -- we the United States had the varsity squad on the field.

That all changed today. I do not know if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. But I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up.
Game on.
Time's Joel Klein throws some cold water (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/12/more-on-mckiernan/):

McKiernan's caution may have been the right impulse. Here is the basic problem: unlike Iraq, where tribal Awakening Councils were stood up to fight the Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terrorists--who were mostly foreign imports--the local militias in Afghanistan are being asked to fight their own Pashtun brothers, the Taliban. When I was in Afghanistan last month, a Pashtun from Wardak warned Richard Holbrooke and Admiral Mike Mullen that many of the people signing up for the local militia were from the Hazara minority. "It won't work," the man said. "The Pashtun see this as not our government."

In the end, the only possible solution in Wardak and other majority Pashtun provinces is reconciliation with the local Taliban (who are, in truth, a closer equivalent to the Sunni tribes in Anbar who changed sides and became the Awakening Councils). The best possible deal would be acceptance of the Taliban into the Afghan governing structure in return for a pledge--and supporting intelligence--that they will no longer give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda (who are, once again, mostly foreign fighters). This won't be easy to achieve, or enforce, especially not after the last eight years--on the other hand, the Al Qaeda-style religious extremists are compiling an unblemished record of being kicked out of the areas where they've taken control because their brand of Islam is so inhumane and irreligious. If we can't figure out a way to come to terms with the majority of local Taliban, who are religious and Pashtun but not Al Qaeda-style extremists, we will not be successful in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure what to think. Afghanistan may be a much more difficult proposition that Iraq. Many of the people we are fighting are locals; the porous border with Pakistan gives our enemies a safe haven; six years of neglect and mismanagement by the previous administration have given us a lot of ground to make up. Is it winnable? What would "winning" be, exactly?

In many ways Iraq was the graveyard of the Bush administration. It's quite possible that Afghanistan will serve the same function for the Obama administration. I devoutly wish for us to succeed in both theaters, but I fear that success is hazy and shapeless. Thoughts?

[Che Roriniho]

Afghanistan is, like Russia, unconquerable. That's just how it is. Noone has ever successfully secured eithre of thos for themselves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm not sure what to think. Afghanistan may be a much more difficult proposition that Iraq.

Which is somewhat Ironic, at least considering views about the conflicts a few years ago. Good to see Obama's supporting the war Afghanistan.

As for the graveyard - I think it's less likely. He didn't start it, it's on a smaller scale than Iraq. But it is possible; Bush pulled a measure of success from Iraq and it still did huge damage to his political capital.

CR

[KukriKhan]

I'm betting Prezzie O wants both theaters well finished by summer 2012, if not before, with Iraqi and Afghan forces significantly in the lead, and a tiny, if existant at all, US presence in-country.

So: emphasis on quickly training-up local forces (a task best suited to Spec Ops types; it's their original charter), with the Diplo's working the loyalty to national gov't angle (a really tough row to hoe; probably gonna take a bunch of money to accomplish that).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Is it winnable? What would "winning" be, exactly?

I think that is the key to the campaign. It's very difficult to describe exactly what winning looks like for the US. Changing generals is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic without that clarity.

More to the point, the real challenge is that there is no effective border for the Taleban (amongst many factions) between Afghanistan and Pakistan, whereas there most certainly is for the coalition forces. Pakistan has always been the problem first and foremost. It's also a nuclear power that has Islamicist militant sympathisers right next to the button.

Then you have the economics of trying to develop a country whose main crop is heroin using a hierarchy of corrupt officials and warlords.

In other words, time to leave. Bin Laden was chased into caves and his network severely compromised. To me, that was the mission in Afghanistan - the rest is imperial, and doomed to the usual graveyard of imperial ambition in that benighted country.

[Fixiwee]

In other words, time to leave. Bin Laden was chased into caves and his network severely compromised. To me, that was the mission in Afghanistan - the rest is imperial, and doomed to the usual graveyard of imperial ambition in that benighted country.
First of all I want to say I'm by no means an expert on this matter. My view on this topic is pretty much of what I gather from the media.
Having said that, the situation in Afghanistan seems to me like quagmire. There is no definition about what "winning" is and the US has absolutley no clue in which direction they want to be heading. In a sense of the military I guess pulling out is an option, but let's face it, that would be admitting that the Afghanistan conflict is lost.
And I'm not too sure that Obama wants to be the guy to do it. Can't blame him though.

[Marshal Murat]

I think Afghanistan is a coin-flip. We could either keep in place the "Westmoreland-esque" general of conventional conflicts or we could replace him with a man who knows what he's doing. Gates is giving the new General (who sounds so American, it's like one parent owns McDonalds, the other a Car company) the resources, more troops, and more support to finally stamp out the Taliban, ensure good accounting, and stabilizing the entire region, hopefully by ensuring something approximating a sustainable economy.

[rant]It's this post Vietnam funk that we're in, afraid of a "quagmire" when we've pulled through in the Philippines, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. [rant]

[CountArach]

If we leave now then it doesn't matter who is in charge. Just a suggestion.

[Fragony]

If we leave now then it doesn't matter who is in charge. Just a suggestion.

Do you live in some sort of parellel pink universe with bulletproof rainbows where the Taliban isn't a threat?

[CountArach]

Do you live in some sort of parellel pink universe with bulletproof rainbows where the Taliban isn't a threat?
Yes, but really it's more of an isolated island than a parallel universe.

[Fixiwee]

Do you live in some sort of parellel pink universe with bulletproof rainbows where the Taliban isn't a threat?
Uhm? Was the Taliban ever a threat? This war was against the al-Qaida in the first place and not against the Taliban. From what I can say, the Taliban was there before the US went into the country, and the Taliban will be there after they left.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What would "winning" be, exactly?Winning in Afghanistan means preserving the highly endangered snow leopard (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistans-snow-leopard-under-threat-from-big-game-hunters-534029.html) as well as happened before the invasion.


Afghanistan's snow leopard under threat from big game hunters

Rare snow leopards and mountain sheep are at risk from American and European big game hunters willing to pay $40,000 (£21,000) for the chance to shoot in one of the remotest corners of Afghanistan.Under the Taleban, the snow leopard and other equally highly endagered species were very well protected. This ended immediately after the West moved in.

Frustrated warnings have been issued by environmental groups since 2004:
"Now the threat is from badly managed tourism and trophy hunting as roads and communications improve and more foreigners start coming to Afghanistan. American hunting companies are going to be prepared to spend a lot of money to start this business. There is going to be a lot of pressure on Kabul."

Like the large scale looting of Iraq's cultural and historical treasures (they were beyond comparison in 2003, are beyond repair and recovery now) so too did Afghanistan's phenomenal natural treasures become an object of Western looting, private plunder, and abject phillistinery.

[rory_20_uk]

An analagy to a hornet's nest is probably a good one. Through "affermative action" a group of deranged fundimentalists happly ruling one country have had their horizons lifted thanks to the attentions of America's size 22s. The swarm now threatens surrounding areas and now looks to have more nests than before!

What is the cost of containment verses engagement? Either way I don't think this hydra is going to be killed.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Like the large scale looting of Iraq's cultural and historical treasures (they were beyond comparison in 2003, are beyond repair and recovery now) so too did Afghanistan's phenomenal natural treasures become an object of Western looting, private plunder, and abject phillistinery.

Of course, except the ones the Taliban blew up with dynomite or otherwise destroyed...
Looting and plunder at least means they're valued. During the Chinese Rrevolution the stuff the West stole is in one piece. Lots that was left was destroyed as evidence of progress. I'm more concerned with the abject phillistinery from either the West or the locals. The stuff should either be removed en masse for protection or the sites protected and experts brought in.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Like the large scale looting of Iraq's cultural and historical treasures (they were beyond comparison in 2003, are beyond repair and recovery now) so too did Afghanistan's phenomenal natural treasures become an object of Western looting, private plunder, and abject phillistinery.This is why Louis is indispensable on this forum.

Ok, here's the short of it. 'We' are in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban from taking over the entire region and getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arms.

And to save the Afghan flying squirrel of course. Squeep squeep!


https://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7729/afghanflyingsquirrel.jpg (https://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=afghanflyingsquirrel.jpg)

[Samurai Waki]

Success really hinges on what Pakistan decides, or can do. If they eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, than they really have nowhere else to hide (save Iran) which is having fits about Afghan refugees crossing their border.

[Adrian II]

Success really hinges on what Pakistan decides, or can do. If they eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, than they really have nowhere else to hide (save Iran) which is having fits about Afghan refugees crossing their border.And if they don't eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, Nato will have to do it for them. In which case a certain substance will hit a certain fan, a case for which Mr Obama seems to be preparing quite adequately. I like his style.

[Major Robert Dump]

The guy Obama canned wasn't doing a bad job at all. It's more of a cosmetic makeover, the new general is more like the old one than not.

[Fixiwee]

The guy Obama canned wasn't doing a bad job at all. It's more of a cosmetic makeover, the new general is more like the old one than not.
What a knock-out argument.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And if they don't eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, Nato will have to do it for them. In which case a certain substance will hit a certain fan, a case for which Mr Obama seems to be preparing quite adequately. I like his style.
You advocate invading Pakistan?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I think the US should invade both Iran and Pakistan. WE have enough military punch to erradicate terrorism, but only if the governments that protect it are erradicated too in a large effort for our safety, which is our primary concern.

:clown:

[Kadagar_AV]

I think the US should invade both Iran and Pakistan. WE have enough military punch to erradicate terrorism, but only if the governments that protect it are erradicated too in a large effort for our safety, which is our primary concern.

:clown:

*laughs*

Good one!

[KukriKhan]

Is it winnable? What would "winning" be, exactly?

The capture of Osama bin Laden. The original purpose of going to Afghanistan. Then we're done.

All else is (expensive) fluff. Including Iraq, and nation-building, and surges, etc.

[rory_20_uk]

So, turning Bin Laden from a figurehead to a martyr is going to cause A-Q to implode??!?

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

The martyrdom fear is an excuse for inaction. The same can be said about a number of leaders with a fanatical following.

[Major Robert Dump]

What a knock-out argument.


sorry to let you down, I know how lots of you people tune in to the backroom solely to hear my brilliant arguments and wonderful analogies. so I'll go into detail a little more.


I don't know everything, but what I do know is that the junior officer corps of the army is vastly different from the general and field officers, and the unofficial opinion of a vast number of junior officers is that the new general in theater is no more of a counterinsurgency expert than the last. Keep in mind A lot of the junior officers were former enlisted who went to combat and were so disappointed with the leadership (people who are now field level and up) that they decided to become officers.

The mission has pretty much been the same since day one. The only thing thats different now are the numbers: more troops, more money. It's a damn shame, considering had we spent even a fraction of Iraqs funding on Afghanistan we would have cell phone towers, fluid highways, solid power sources and infrasctructure in place, the list goes on and on and on but we can't change the idiot mistakes of our past leaders which brings us to today:

It's cosmetic. New face brings the illusion of new and immediate change, when in fact both generals have a fairly similar leadership style and command philosophy. Whats happening in theater now is exactly what some at the Pentagon and more than a few forced-to-retire DOD officials who were critics of the Bush administration have been saying since late 2006: the poppy yield in 07 and 08 would be huge, which would provide more funds for the Taliban, which means more Taliban with more weapons and more equipment, which means surge in Taliban activity in 09.

Wild card Pakistan notwithstanding, not a lot is going to change without more troops and more money. The majority of the NATO forces in country have jacked up ROEs which pretty much take them out of the fight, which leaves the burden on a few select participants. We need to flood Afghanistan with troops and money because its turning into a logistics war. The meat and potatoes of the war there is mobility, supply and keeping villages fed and protected. This would be a lot easier with better roads, more airstrips, running water and cell phones.

[rory_20_uk]

Afghanistan is a black hole where time, money, resources and lives will disappear.

There are so many better things to spend money on than waste it on them. Cell phone towers will be bombed, and possibly dams and power sources too (unIslamic). In a world of infinite resources perhaps this is worth it. As it stands the aim should be containment as cheap as possible. Possibly view the place like Japan viewed Manchuria - a good training ground for green troops. Winnable / civilisable? not a chance.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH I see taking out Bin Laden to stop Al Qaeda being quite similar to taking out Obama to stop the US military... wouldn't really have much of an effect... the most reason it would change it becase of the new guys policy (for both examples) but i imagine bin laden's no.2 and so on are going to be pretty similar guys...

[KukriKhan]

TBH I see taking out Bin Laden to stop Al Qaeda being quite similar to taking out Obama to stop the US military... wouldn't really have much of an effect... the most reason it would change it becase of the new guys policy (for both examples) but i imagine bin laden's no.2 and so on are going to be pretty similar guys...

You think alQaeda is stoppable? It's a laterally-organized outfit, not a hierarchically-organized one. So, I agree: 'taking out' binLaden won't stop them. But getting him was the sole reason for this entire adventure in the first place.

We had no reason to fight the Taliban, except that they were in charge of the region, and refused to deliver binLaden, who they said was their guest, and therefore protected by them, so we had to go through them to get him. Well, we got the "go through them" bit done, but never accomplished the mission of get-binLaden.

Now that the distraction of Iraq is winding down, war-weary eyes turn to Afghanistan, and folks wonder what we're doing there, still. If the full force (minus nukes) of the militaries of the Western world can't track down and apprehend one guy, it's time to go home, and leave it to the spooks. In my opinion.

Snag Osama, or go home. Building up Afghan infrastructure = not our job. And only facilitates the druglords, warlords and religiouslords there.

[Husar]

So what about the numerous people there that are trying to work for their country in a democratic way in order to improve their country, introduce more modern values etc. etc.? Leave them behind to get slaughtered/oppressed by returning taliban and warlords?

The argument that cell phone towers will get bombed might be true, but how will the population react when their perfect new cellphone network gets bombed by their wannabe overlords who they were hiding from NATO all the time? Or are they ALL religious nutters down there? :inquisitive:

[Incongruous]

You think alQaeda is stoppable? It's a laterally-organized outfit, not a hierarchically-organized one. So, I agree: 'taking out' binLaden won't stop them. But getting him was the sole reason for this entire adventure in the first place.

We had no reason to fight the Taliban, except that they were in charge of the region, and refused to deliver binLaden, who they said was their guest, and therefore protected by them, so we had to go through them to get him. Well, we got the "go through them" bit done, but never accomplished the mission of get-binLaden.

Now that the distraction of Iraq is winding down, war-weary eyes turn to Afghanistan, and folks wonder what we're doing there, still. If the full force (minus nukes) of the militaries of the Western world can't track down and apprehend one guy, it's time to go home, and leave it to the spooks. In my opinion.

Snag Osama, or go home. Building up Afghan infrastructure = not our job. And only facilitates the druglords, warlords and religiouslords there.

The reasosn for invading Afghanistan were many and had been in the pipes for a long time, you guys loved the Taliban while they managed to keep the prospect of a nice little pipeline open.

You were even friends of Osama, I find it increadible that you think you were justified in devastating a country for the sake of catching a man you created...

The Taliban had no way of bringing in Osama, and your government knew it, but that didn't matter because they had lost control and had outlived their use.

Oh and it has been the U.S which has facilitated the druglords, the warlords and the rapists and thugs...

[KukriKhan]

So OK, yeah, sure. Everything wrong with Afghanistan is America's fault.

Do we stay, or do we go, in the Book of Default the Magyar?

[Incongruous]

So OK, yeah, sure. Everything wrong with Afghanistan is America's fault.

Do we stay, or do we go, in the Book of Default the Magyar?

Well you can be as harsh on your nation as you like, but don't go ahead and try to prove me wrong...

I think you have to stay, but to do so means a rapid change in tactics, the halting of high altitude bombings is the first change needed.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well you can be as harsh on your nation as you like, but don't go ahead and try to prove me wrong...

A little exercise in reading the history of Afghanistan from the 18th century onwards is all that is needed to prove you wrong.

[Incongruous]

A little exercise in reading the history of Afghanistan from the 18th century onwards is all that is needed to prove you wrong.

Uhuh...

Sorry Banqo but no, a little reading about how the U.S has run the country over the past years will allow you to realise that the U.S mission to "liberate" is bollox, how close do you think the U.S is to the scumbags who really run the country now? Very, very close.

Lets drop the guilty charges placed upon history and look at the policies which the U.S has implemented in the country. The U.S cannot wash its hands clean by pointing to an Oxford History of Afghanistan.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Uhuh...

Sorry Banqo but no, a little reading about how the U.S has run the country over the past years will allow you to realise that the U.S mission to "liberate" is bollox, how close do you think the U.S is to the scumbags who really run the country now? Very, very close.

Lets drop the guilty charges placed upon history and look at the policies which the U.S has implemented in the country. The U.S cannot wash its hands clean by pointing to an Oxford History of Afghanistan.

There is quite a difference between alleging that everything wrong with Afghanistan is America's fault (your avowed position) and washing that country's hands clean of current responsibility (the position you ascribe to me).

But complexity has ever been anathema to the pure of vision.

[Incongruous]

There is quite a difference between alleging that everything wrong with Afghanistan is America's fault (your avowed position) and washing that country's hands clean of current responsibility (the position you ascribe to me).

But complexity has ever been anathema to the pure of vision.

Yeah, umm nice of you to choose a position for me but I'm ok on my own.

Nor did I ascribe a position to you, so lets move on, and go ahead and try and refute what I actually said Banquo...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yeah, umm nice of you to choose a position for me but I'm ok on my own.

Nor did I ascribe a position to you, so lets move on, and go ahead and try and refute what I actually said Banquo...

If I misunderstood your position, then I apologise.

However, that leaves me in a quandary, for I now don't know what your position actually is, even from re-reading your posts.

Is this the best summary of what you are arguing?


The reasosn for invading Afghanistan were many and had been in the pipes for a long time, you guys loved the Taliban while they managed to keep the prospect of a nice little pipeline open.

You were even friends of Osama, I find it increadible that you think you were justified in devastating a country for the sake of catching a man you created...

The Taliban had no way of bringing in Osama, and your government knew it, but that didn't matter because they had lost control and had outlived their use.

Oh and it has been the U.S which has facilitated the druglords, the warlords and the rapists and thugs...

[Incongruous]

Sure is, I don't think I wrote that the U.S was to blame for everything in Afghanistan, Kukri took up that argument.

[Furunculus]

TBH I see taking out Bin Laden to stop Al Qaeda being quite similar to taking out Obama to stop the US military... wouldn't really have much of an effect... the most reason it would change it becase of the new guys policy (for both examples) but i imagine bin laden's no.2 and so on are going to be pretty similar guys...

i disagree here, as i said in a previous thread about the possible waning of al-quada's influence.

the western representative democracy has no figurehead, and suffers not from the cult of personality.
this cannot be said of al-quada.

knocking of OBL will be a major blow to the perceived virility of al-quada in a way that killing even Saint Obama never would.

[KukriKhan]

Yeah, umm nice of you to choose a position for me but I'm ok on my own.

Nor did I ascribe a position to you, so lets move on, and go ahead and try and refute what I actually said Banquo...

Poor Bopa. He wants to argue the rightness-wrongness of US FoPo since 1945 - but nobody else wants to play. We're too busy looking for a way through our involvement in Afghanistan.

Some day US & NATO will leave that place. The question is when, and how. I say: tomorrow, the original mission having been 50% accomplished, and prospects for the other half getting done looking dim. He says:

I think you have to stay

but he doesn't say why, or for how long, or to accomplish... what?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sure is, I don't think I wrote that the U.S was to blame for everything in Afghanistan, Kukri took up that argument.

Very well then, let me address your points:


The reasosn for invading Afghanistan were many and had been in the pipes for a long time, you guys loved the Taliban while they managed to keep the prospect of a nice little pipeline open.

I certainly don't know of any solid evidence that the Taliban were supported by the US government - except perhaps through studiously ignoring them. Before 9-11 Islamicists barely figured on any administration's radar, which is possibly one reason that 9-11 happened. However, if you have any reliable links, I'm prepared to be proven wrong.


You were even friends of Osama, I find it increadible that you think you were justified in devastating a country for the sake of catching a man you created...

Whilst it is true that bin Laden was funded and trained by the CIA, 9-11 changed everything. Even I think it was acceptable to attack Afghanistan in the hope of destroying his infrastructure and apprehending him. He is, after all, a major war criminal. It is completely unreasonable to think that any country could sustain an attack like 9-11 and not do something immediate and overt to retaliate. No government would have survived such a low-key response, however noble their intention.

In addition, I think you are guilty of some hyperbole - the country is far from being devastated as its exports of opium testify. It has not progressed much, however.


The Taliban had no way of bringing in Osama, and your government knew it, but that didn't matter because they had lost control and had outlived their use.

Whilst the Taliban were pretty much powerless to facilitate President Bush's demands, and those demands were entirely unreasonable in their scope and timetable, said Taliban made it remarkably easy for the bellicose nature of the neo-cons to find expression. If they had possessed the wiles of Pakistan's Musharraf (who was similarly threatened at the time) they would have allowed US troops to conduct a search and destroy mission and gratefully accepted the millions of dollars which would have followed. As with all extremists, however, they were much happier to see their country and countrymen burn for purity's sake.


Oh and it has been the U.S which has facilitated the druglords, the warlords and the rapists and thugs...

Here, we do not substantially disagree. The funding of warlordism is pragmatic, but entirely counter-productive to the stated aim of nation-building. However, nation-building was and remains, a misguided and amorphous aim. When bin Laden eluded capture, the United States and their NATO allies should have quit. The hunt for bin Laden would be better served by special forces infiltrating into Pakistan's North West frontier.


the western representative democracy has no figurehead, and suffers not from the cult of personality.
this cannot be said of al-quada.

knocking of OBL will be a major blow to the perceived virility of al-quada in a way that killing even Saint Obama never would.

Had bin Laden been killed or captured in the first year, you would have had some point. Al-Qa'eda has always been a hydra-like entity (if entity is the right word) and extremely disparate. It coalesced for a while around the figurehead of bin Laden and the "success" of the 9-11 attacks. Now it has decayed back into lots of local Islamicist groups with differing agendas and bin Laden's demise is largely irrelevant to them.

In the real world, al-Qa'eda is much more useful to the West as a soundbite "black hat" organisation (like SPECTRE but without the ugly women :wink:) rather than being any kind of co-ordinated group whose leadership can be targeted or engaged.

[Jolt]

Counter-Insurgence experts (Well the enitre Coalition army) could most certainly learn a thing or two from the Portuguese Colonial War. We're the only country to have successfully defeated insurgency in large territorial spaces. That said, in what status is the situation of the Pakistani offensive against the Taliban on their side of the border?

[Pannonian]

Counter-Insurgence experts (Well the enitre Coalition army) could most certainly learn a thing or two from the Portuguese Colonial War. We're the only country to have successfully defeated insurgency in large territorial spaces. That said, in what status is the situation of the Pakistani offensive against the Taliban on their side of the border?
What do you mean by defeating an insurgency?

[Furunculus]

i think he means this:


It was a decisive ideological struggle and armed conflict of the cold war in African (Portuguese Africa and surrounding nations) and European (mainland Portugal) scenarios..........

The combined guerrilla forces of the MPLA, the UNITA, and the FNLA, in Angola, PAIGC in Guinea-Bissau, and FRELIMO in Mozambique, succeeded in their rebellion not because of their overall success in battle, but because of elements of the Portuguese Armed Forces that staged a coup at Lisbon in 1974.[1][2] The Portuguese Armed Forces' Movimento das Forças Armadas overthrew the Lisbon government in protest of ongoing African colonial war in Portuguese Guinea, and better career bonuses.......

The Soviet Union[21] realising that a military solution it had so successfully employed in several other countries around the world was not bearing fruit, dramatically changed strategy.[22] It focused instead on Portugal...........

A group of Portuguese military officers under the influence of communists, would proceed to over throw the Portuguese government with what was later called the Carnation Revolution on 25 April 1974 in Lisbon, Portugal.[23] This led to a period of economic collapse and political instability.......

:p

[Furunculus]

Counter-Insurgence experts (Well the enitre Coalition army) could most certainly learn a thing or two from the Portuguese Colonial War. We're the only country to have successfully defeated insurgency in large territorial spaces. That said, in what status is the situation of the Pakistani offensive against the Taliban on their side of the border?

this might be a better example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

[Jolt]

Ooo. So the British can also win wars against guerrillas. My respect. :bow:

In any case, yeah Portugal did crush the nationalistic independent guerrillas in Angola and Mozambique. By the time of their own independence they were so utterly crushed and man handled, they were already fighting more each other (In Angola), with the permission of Portugal, then the 'colonizers'. In Mozambique, a huge encirclement of the guerrilla forces crushed most of their forces as well. Guinea was the only place where large combats still occurred. But those large combats were basically Guineans attacking from other countries, under the cover of their own artillery, based off in other countries. Whenever the Portuguese sallied out of their camps, the Guineans would immediatly flee to other countries (That's the pity of fighting a war in a small piece of territory, with neighbouring countries pro-actively helping the rebels.) A sollution would be to do like the Americans did in Vietnam, and raze to the ground with napalms several known hiding spots of guerrillas near the borders, so they would have nowhere to hide. But of course that would cause the uproar of the International Community due to the possible high civillian casualties, so such a conflict ending sollution was not used.

Still the Portuguese Commandoes did dozens of Covert operations (Assassinations and sabotage) in those countries that could fall nothing short of great blockbuster movies.

But yeah, considering the size of the territories, the Coalition could probably learn some things through the Portuguese methods. (Of course, the general scenario of both wars are different, but it's still counter-insurgency)

[Pannonian]

Given the postcolonial world, where pacification in the old style isn't so acceptable to the electorate any more, wouldn't it be more useful to think in terms of achieving one's goals at lowest cost, rather than straight out subjugation?

[Jolt]

Think is, by the time we had an Empire, we didn't have an electorate. It was a Dictatorship.

[Pannonian]

Think is, by the time we had an Empire, we didn't have an electorate. It was a Dictatorship.
Which can mean that strategies that were viable back then may not be viable now. If the British Army now in Afghanistan tried the same things that they did in Malaya, heads would roll, and not just those of insurgents. We build up our armed forces to be paragons, the brave defenders of our society, but stuff which they used to do as a matter of course would nowadays be seen as unworthy of our idealised heroes. So, as Kukri noted, it may be better for our "special forces" to take over, whom we can still accept in doing our dirty work.

[LittleGrizzly]

I certainly don't know of any solid evidence that the Taliban were supported by the US government - except perhaps through studiously ignoring them. Before 9-11 Islamicists barely figured on any administration's radar, which is possibly one reason that 9-11 happened. However, if you have any reliable links, I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

I know of what he's referring, apparently there was a deal in the works for the pipeline they are currently building in Afghanastan but the Taliban called it off so the pipeline was cancelled, can't remember where i heard that so ill leave the link for Bopa to get

I think Bin Laden is a useful PR icon at most, he possibly adds a bit of stardom to proceedings but most of these guys are very commited nutters, the loss of a useful PR icon will only slow them slightly... im sure they could replace him with a new guy as well

Big terrorist organisations survive leadership deaths... especailly one as spread out and fragmented as Al Qaeda

Edit: I think the much more important goal in Afghanastan was the destuction of AQ's training facilities and the removal of a safe haven....

I have to admit having paranoia boarding on conspiracy regarding both the pipeline and the poppy production...

[Incongruous]

It was all quite open, if not well publicised, UNOCAL was the oil company involved

http://www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au/bulletin/bulnov2.htm
They later denied this, as one would after the U.S began launching missiles at terrorist camps in Afghanistan.
You can no longer access many of these web pages it seems, including one on the U.S energy Department's site, which talked about their support for the Taliban, being the stable government the U.S needed to secure energy in the region.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AHM202Ap.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992717/posts
Glyn Davies is such a great guy right?
The U.S has had its hands dirty from the get go, money funding the Taliban and Al-Queda indirectly through friendly organisations like the ISI. During the eighties the U.S openly helped set up Bin-Laden's first Jihadi group.

But hey, a Taliban delegation did go and hang out with UNOCAL in Texas for few days to discuss the idea of mutual support.

Here is a nice timeline about the whole sordid afair.
Hey, the great ENRON is in there...

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a120497texasvisit

The current situation in Pakistan is so ironic
I almost lol'd

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25142

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ok, here's the short of it. 'We' are in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban from taking over the entire region and getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arms.

And to save the Afghan flying squirrel of course. Squeep squeep!In fifty years, in a thousand years, in fifty thousand years, the enlistment or not of Taliban as policemen means nothing.

The extinction of entire species means everything.


What is clear, is that the fortune of threatened species perfectly follows the ebb and flow of stable governments. This should be cause of grave concern for the powers that have assumed responsibility in Afghanistan:



Rare Kashmir deer 'makes comeback'



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45861000/jpg/_45861512_hangul_004.jpg It's hoped that the hangul has been saved from extinction after its numbers reached dangerously low levels


By Altaf Hussain
BBC News, Srinagar
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

The hangul - a sub-species of red deer found only in Indian-administered Kashmir - appears to have made an extraordinary comeback.
The latest census, conducted in March, puts the raw count of the endangered animal at 175. The increase in numbers may be nominal but wildlife authorities say it's a sign of hope. The hangul population started growing before the outbreak of armed conflict in the state two decades ago.

Last monarch
People living in neighbourhoods outside the park say the hangul then was so commonplace that it even used to visit their mustard fields and vegetable gardens, damaging crops as it did so.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45861000/jpg/_45861555_kashmirafp2.jpg Militancy in the Kashmir valley has reduced in recent years


Mohammad Qasim Wani, now aged about 90 and a retired wildlife official, says there were at least 3,000 hangul in the Kashmir area during the reign of the last monarch more than 60 years ago. "The hangul was widely distributed. I saw it in Lolab, Kupwara, Gurez, Teetwal, Uri, Kulgam, Pahalgam and other places," he said. "I saw herds of hangul as large as 200 and at times even 500. Today, when I think of the hangul, I cry."

Mr Qasim says the hangul became vulnerable after the fall of the monarchy in 1947. "Bureaucrats indulged in wanton killing of the hangul for sport."

Plummeted
Besides poaching, the hangul faced a threat to its existence from human encroachments on forestry which led to the fragmentation of its habitat.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45861000/jpg/_45861514_leopard_ap.jpg It's hoped that other animals in danger can be saved too

In the early 1970s the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources conducted the first ever census of the hangul population. It discovered that its population had plummeted to a mere 170 animals. Various measures by the government, including the enactment of Wildlife Act and the establishment of a fully-fledged department of wildlife, saved the animal from extinction. Its population grew four-fold.

But the outbreak of armed conflict in the late 1980s threatened the hangul again.

There were a lot of disturbances in its habitat, particularly in the upper reaches of Dachigam where it breeds in summer. Wildlife officials dared not move into these areas.

Taking advantage of the situation, nomadic shepherds known as bakarwals brought their sheep into the areas where the hangul used to graze. The return of near normalcy in the Kashmir Valley in the past few years has afforded yet another chance to the hangul. .


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8080079.stm