Afghanistan

[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?

[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.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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 ) rather than being any kind of co-ordinated group whose leadership can be targeted or engaged.