Printable View
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/news...ith-warns.html
Well, where to next?
Could give France another go 'spose
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 ~:)
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 .
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?
What?
Not to win it?
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yep, sure do, killing beards with the rest of themQuote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
You may want to check your sources on that one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
2006 - Highest Opium production levels on record
2007 - 2006 record broken
Opium Production spread - Interestingly it says the Taliban banned opium production in 2000 and introduced a death penalty for it.
2007 - Production doubled since 2005
As for making the Taliban useless. Great idea but... errr... I'm afraid that isn't happening either.
And as for your claim about no ground, how about this observation in the New York Times:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Maybe locally, but it's opium that grows them fat.
Yeah you are right. Al-Qaeda striking the WTC showed a lessening influence. Seriously, now you aren't even trying.Quote:
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.
6 Fatalities. Don't call them beards.Quote:
How many casualties do you ozzy's have, here about 20 vs hundreds of 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.Quote:
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
This guy seems to be a little flakey to be in such a position of power.
Maybe next month he'll declare victory? :laugh4:Quote:
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".
Well you know the British can understate things. Perhaps he was referring to a spot of tea.
But yea, bi-polar generals are bad.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Your military and the few brighter minds in your government .Quote:
Who really thought we went in there to win the war by 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 .Quote:
I could care less about rebuilding Afghanistan.
I agree Seamus, but unfortunately the ball was dropped very early on so staying isn't going to work either .Quote:
I do not believe that withdrawing will end up working.
Its a lost war , and unfortunately unlike Iraq this one was actually important .
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Stupid buggers.:2thumbsup:
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.
We broke it, we own it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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 .Quote:
Tough if we didn't do our history homework first.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Just like Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
For every 1 Taliban that dies in battle, about 3 take his place. This is a war you cannot win just by shooting everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I always thought the Southern Regions were primarily ISAF responsibility, and they've been doing a good job with what they got.Quote:
The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.
The people care.Quote:
Will Afghanistan sustain democracy or revert back to tribalism? Who cares.
The problem is that they are growing, Panzer, they don't need to hold land.Quote:
The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power.
Because that's worked so well.Quote:
The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman and form a benevolent autocracy,
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.Quote:
There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to.
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.