The Great Game, another loss

[KarlXII]

Just like Iraq?

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

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

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

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

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

The people care.

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

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

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

Because that's worked so well.

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

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

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

[Tribesman]

Just like Iraq?

Yes Panzer , like Iraq its another lost war .

The Taliban has no control over anything

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

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 .

[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.

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Thats exactly what was done in WW2.

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

[Koga No Goshi]

Thats exactly what was done in WW2.

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes Panzer , like Iraq its another lost war .

Try and keep up, bud.

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

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.

[Tribesman]

Try and keep up, bud.

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

And how much does the Taliban control?

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

If local leaders can keep the Taliban out and don't cause too much trouble, why waste time and resources doing it?

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

Also, have you been keeping up with recent events in Pakistan?

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 ?

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Not really.

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

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

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

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

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

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...wVTmAD93LN0UO2

[rotorgun]

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

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

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

[Incongruous]

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

[rotorgun]

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.

[rotorgun]

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

Perhaps quoting Thomas Payne was less then apt, but I am mainly addressing the issue of doing what is right in the face of certain adversity, such as our forefathers did in the earliest struggle of my nation's history.

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

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?

[Brenus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

[Incongruous]

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

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

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

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

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