The Great Game, another loss

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

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 ? 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.

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

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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/ALeqM5h...wVTmAD93LN0UO2

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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 ? 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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?

oh stop you're killing me
Panzer you clearly hav't been keeping up with events in either Pakistan or Afghanistan .

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

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 ?

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

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 ?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 ?

Cause strategy =/= ideology.

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

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.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

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

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.

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

“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.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

“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.

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

Originally Posted by Goofball

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".

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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