The Great Game, another loss

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

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'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....