Apparently "they" are "winning in Afghanistan"

Frederico

According to Blair..

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1242377,00.html


This is just the latest in a line of statements, gathering momentum, for the big push to distract the public from the civil war/unholy quagmire in Iraq.. it will probably work too..

Villain

"We"????

spanner

irish1 wrote:

"We"????

free nations:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

irish1 wrote:

"We"????

Ireland has a small contingent there. One of my sergeants worked in a commo shop with an Irish Commandant. I didn't believe him until he showed me some of the 'gimmes' he got.

NTM

AbusesToilets

So i take it you think they are losing in Afghanistan?

MrJoeSoap

Manic Moran wrote:

Ireland has a small contingent there. One of my sergeants worked in a commo shop with an Irish Commandant. I didn't believe him until he showed me some of the 'gimmes' he got.

NTM

Still wouldn't justify the use of the term "we", imo.

JaysusMacfeck

"We". Oh dear, oh dear..

Rock Climber

We changed to they as its misleading,given this is not a British site.

flogen

Hasn't there been an upsurge in action by the Taliban in recent months as they try to take control of key points (and poppy supplies)?

banaman

They said they were wining in Vietnam too.

Its a load of spherical objects related to the genitalia of male mammals.

If they are winning why are they looking for more money, more troops etc?

mike65

To press home the advantage before winter sets in and then have enough man-power to snuff out trouble next spring before it takes hold.

Mike.

sovtek

Blair thinks things in Iraq are going well too...isn't saying much.

Fratton Fred

So should NATO pull out then and return the country to it's former ways of producing heroin, oppressing women and supporting terrorism?

For years the left were demanding something be done about the oppressive regime in Afghanistan, now they have people are complaining again.

leninbenjamin

Fratton Fred wrote:

So should NATO pull out then and return the country to it's former ways of producing heroin, oppressing women and supporting terrorism?

For years the left were demanding something be done about the oppressive regime in Afghanistan, now they have people are complaining again.

the NATO presence simply hasn't stopped the country returning to thier old ways, that's why they are losing. The Irish Times on Monday said that Opium production has reached record levels in AFghanistan, and accounts for about 60 % GDP. Suicide bombings were up four fold this year so far. That says a lot about the success of NATO there. They are having sweet f*ck all of an effect there. While Blair continues to shout how they are "winning," he is really just trying to convince the leaders of other nations in NATO to remain there and fork up more troops. The rest of NATO are talking about pulling out so they don't continue to make a mockery of themselves. The country will continue down that route regardless...

Fratton Fred

leninbenjamin wrote:

the NATO presence simply hasn't stopped the country returning to thier old ways, that's why they are losing. The Irish Times on Monday said that Opium production has reached record levels in AFghanistan, and accounts for about 60 % GDP. Suicide bombings were up four fold this year so far. That says a lot about the success of NATO there. They are having sweet f*ck all of an effect there. While Blair continues to shout how they are "winning," he is really just trying to convince the leaders of other nations in NATO to remain there and fork up more troops. The rest of NATO are talking about pulling out so they don't continue to make a mockery of themselves. The country will continue down that route regardless...

So the world should surrender to the terrorists and leave the decent people of Afghanistan (ie the majority) to suffer at the hands of the Taliban then?

leninbenjamin

Fratton Fred wrote:

So the world should surrender to the terrorists and leave the decent people of Afghanistan (ie the majority) to suffer at the hands of the Taliban then?

i) the average innocent afghan isn't helping much. they don't want to fight the Taliban with the suicide bombbings and all. And it's your average innocent Afghan farmer who harvests the opiates.

ii) it would require a hell of a lot more troops (and deaths) than NATO are willing to commit. most of the nations of NATO who have troops in there have national caveats limiting what troops commit to. most of them will only commit troops to the safer areas.

iii)you have Pakistan next door funding and supplying the Taliban, as they don't want to see Afghanistan ever grow into a rival.

so as it stands today, NATO will never win control of Afghanistan, they are just wasting thier time causing needless damage and suffering.

NATO needs a massive overhaul, and countries have to commit a lot more if they ever want to improve the situation in AFghanistan. And a serious international stance would have to be made against Pakistan (which wont happen as they have nukes). Until then, they are just wasting their time and people's lives.

Fratton Fred

leninbenjamin wrote:

i) the average innocent afghan isn't helping much. they don't want to fight the Taliban with the suicide bombbings and all. And it's your average innocent Afghan farmer who harvests the opiates.

ii) it would require a hell of a lot more troops (and deaths) than NATO are willing to commit. most of the nations of NATO who have troops in there have national caveats limiting what troops commit to. most of them will only commit troops to the safer areas.

iii)you have Pakistan next door funding and supplying the Taliban, as they don't want to see Afghanistan ever grow into a rival.

so as it stands today, NATO will never win control of Afghanistan, they are just wasting thier time causing needless damage and suffering.

NATO needs a massive overhaul, and countries have to commit a lot more if they ever want to improve the situation in AFghanistan. And a serious international stance would have to be made against Pakistan (which wont happen as they have nukes). Until then, they are just wasting their time and people's lives.

I think you are being a bit harsh on Pakistan there. A lot of Pakistani soldiers have died fighting the Taliban/Al Qeada in the Afghan border, but the truth is, that part of Pakistan is very tribal and very very hard line Muslim.

I totally agree that unless NATO puts more troops on the ground, then it is not going to be easy for the British, American and Canadian troops on the frontline and without the "Average" Afghan, it will never be won.

One of the problems is the fact that the country is skint and can;t afford to feed it's own people and, like parts of South America, producing drugs is an easy way for farmers to make a living. Unless the west realises this (such as making it easier for farmers to export their crops into the EU rather than paying our own farmers to sit on their arses) it will not change.

But we/they should not stop trying.

mike65

Might as well kick Germany out of NATO for all thier usefullness.

Mike.

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

So should NATO pull out then and return the country to it's former ways of producing heroin, oppressing women and supporting terrorism?

For years the left were demanding something be done about the oppressive regime in Afghanistan, now they have people are complaining again.

"The left"? what are you talking about? If the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden and a few cronies the UK government would have been all chummy with them.. Blair does not give one toss about the people's suffering in Afghanistan, he is just trying to divert out attention from the mess they (UK + US) have created in Iraq..

This is nothing to do with the "people", Blair and Bush arrogantly ignored everyone, all critics, all experts, all ex-diplomats, all thinktanks and dived in with far too few troops, far too little reconstruction money, etc, etc, etc, its all been predicted and pointed out many times over for the past 5 years..

AbusesToilets

I don't think the situation is as dire as you believe it to be in Afghanistan.There has been an upswing in violence recently but the Taliban hasn't succeeded in seizing back areas of the country.I think one of the main causes of the problems NATO is having is due to the unwillingness of the member countries to fully commit to the mission,with sufficient troops and willpower.

Fratton Fred

AbusesToilets wrote:

I don't think the situation is as dire as you believe it to be in Afghanistan.There has been an upswing in violence recently but the Taliban hasn't succeeded in seizing back areas of the country.I think one of the main causes of the problems NATO is having is due to the unwillingness of the member countries to fully commit to the mission,with sufficient troops and willpower.

If Spain, Italy, France and Germany got off their arses then Afghanistan would be sorted out in no time at all.

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

"The left"? what are you talking about? If the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden and a few cronies the UK government would have been all chummy with them.. Blair does not give one toss about the people's suffering in Afghanistan, he is just trying to divert out attention from the mess they (UK + US) have created in Iraq..

This is nothing to do with the "people", Blair and Bush arrogantly ignored everyone, all critics, all experts, all ex-diplomats, all thinktanks and dived in with far too few troops, far too little reconstruction money, etc, etc, etc, its all been predicted and pointed out many times over for the past 5 years..

So, what you are saying is that Britain are doing the right thing, but because it is Britain we will have a dig at them anyway?

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

So, what you are saying is that Britain are doing the right thing, but because it is Britain we will have a dig at them anyway?

er? it could be Finland for all I care. I am curious, do you think Blair a) is genuinely concerned for the people of Afghanistan or is b) desperately trying to divert public attention from the mess in Iraq?

Kharzai said awhile back that Afghanistan would be a paradise now IF it had had the money that was spent on the war in Iraq.

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

If Spain, Italy, France and Germany got off their arses then Afghanistan would be sorted out in no time at all.

Blaming other countries now?

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

er? it could be Finland for all I care. I am curious, do you think Blair a) is genuinely concerned for the people of Afghanistan or is b) desperately trying to divert public attention from the mess in Iraq?

Kharzai said awhile back that Afghanistan would be a paradise now IF it had had the money that was spent on the war in Iraq.

2/3rds of the countrys in the world would be a paradise if they were given that sort of money.

to answer your question, no I don't think Blair has any great love for the Afghan people, I can't accept it is to divert attention from Iraq. The British armed forces are already stretched as it is witout getting bogged down in another long term conflict.

Maybe, just maybe, Blair thinks he is doing the right thing for world peace.

Can anyone tell me why they (NATO) are still there? Frankly, I can't imagine them the type to be able to wipe out the Taliban, even if it was possible.

AbusesToilets

I think they are there so they can have some justification for their existance.Plus i think the US & Britain are getting tired of being ( for the most part) the only countries willing to go in after the Taliban etc. Most of the Eu countries are happy to complain about US actions in the Mid-east while profiting from them at the same time,with regards to their security and the opening up of potentially lucrative markets.

Dar

AbusesToilets wrote:

Most of the Eu countries are happy to complain about US actions in the Mid-east while profiting from them at the same time,with regards to their security and the opening up of potentially lucrative markets.

Exactly how has any nation's security been improved by US actions in the middle-east? All they've managed to do is turn a stable nation into a hotbed of sectarian violance and a recruiting poster for Islamic terror groups.

AbusesToilets

Dar wrote:

Exactly how has any nation's security been improved by US actions in the middle-east? All they've managed to do is turn a stable nation into a hotbed of sectarian violance and a recruiting poster for Islamic terror groups.

Which stable country is it that you are referring to there?
They're security is improved by virtue of the US and others taking an active role in hunting down the terrorist groups,something that the EU countries for the most part are not willing to commit to in any meaningful way.NATO's situation in Afghanistan is an example of this. It's not just in the Middle-East,you're talking about Southern Asia,North Africa,even South America.There is a very large,concerted effort going on to combat these groups,an effort being paid in the majority by the US.Europe is as much of a target as the US is,yet the EU is happy for the US & Britain to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to combating the threat.

Dar

AbusesToilets wrote:

Which stable country is it that you are referring to there?

Pre-invasion Iraq. It wasns't a nice place my any measure - but it was stable.

They're security is improved by virtue of the US and others taking an active role in hunting down the terrorist groups,something that the EU countries for the most part are not willing to commit to in any meaningful way.NATO's situation in Afghanistan is an example of this. It's not just in the Middle-East,you're talking about Southern Asia,North Africa,even South America.There is a very large,concerted effort going on to combat these groups,an effort being paid in the majority by the US.Europe is as much of a target as the US is,yet the EU is happy for the US & Britain to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to combating the threat.

Afghanistan is doing to the dogs and Iraq is in full fledged civil war, muslim hatred of the western nations is at an all time high. What the US/UK have obviously failed to realise is that you can't defeat terrorism through force of arms - you need to take their power and recruiting base away from them. All they have achieved in the last 6 years is to turn Al'Quida from an organisation on the brink of collapse into a poster child for all Islamic Terror groups.

AbusesToilets

you can't defeat terrorism through force of arms - you need to take their power and recruiting base away from them.

No,you need to do a combination of the above and actively hunting them down.The Coalition has not been as active with the above as they could be but that doesn't change the fact that you still need to go out and kill these people.

Gurgle

Frederico wrote:

If the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden and a few cronies the UK government would have been all chummy with them.

Sure, if the Taliban 'had' Bin Laden & Cronies.

If you think the Afghanistan war can be won, have a look at their history. Look closely at the 80s, and how the cold war Soviet army fared there.

From Wikipedia:

Between December 25th, 1979 and February 15th 1989 a total of 620,000 soldiers serviced with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 force at one time in Afghanistan)

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier and internal security troops came to 14,453

Material losses were as follows:

118 jet aircrafts
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

Considering that Soviets couldn't control the place at the height of their power, and the US & Britain have most of their efforts concentrated on Iraq, a final victory in Afghanistan seems decidedly unlikely.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Which stable country is it that you are referring to there?
They're security is improved by virtue of the US and others taking an active role in hunting down the terrorist groups,something that the EU countries for the most part are not willing to commit to in any meaningful way.NATO's situation in Afghanistan is an example of this. It's not just in the Middle-East,you're talking about Southern Asia,North Africa,even South America.There is a very large,concerted effort going on to combat these groups,an effort being paid in the majority by the US.Europe is as much of a target as the US is,yet the EU is happy for the US & Britain to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to combating the threat.

Since 911 the actions of the US and UK have only increased the threat of terrorism across the board, so if Europe just sits back and does nothing at all, its still better than the actions of the UK and the US. There is a very large and concerted effort to stop drugs coming into America but every year they increase.. to most voters its the 'effort' that counts not the actual results.

It wasn't much of an 'effort and burden' for Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and Norway.. no that was the fun bit, the effort and burden came later with the consequences of those actions.. the effort and burden that are falling on the US and UK now are CONSEQUENCES of their little fun jaunts into other countries.

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

Since 911 the actions of the US and UK have only increased the threat of terrorism across the board, so if Europe just sits back and does nothing at all, its still better than the actions of the UK and the US. There is a very large and concerted effort to stop drugs coming into America but every year they increase.. to most voters its the 'effort' that counts not the actual results.

It wasn't much of an 'effort and burden' for Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and Norway.. no that was the fun bit, the effort and burden came later with the consequences of those actions.. the effort and burden that are falling on the US and UK now are CONSEQUENCES of their little fun jaunts into other countries.

so what prompted the 9/11 attacks then?

What prompted the Madrid train bombings?

What prompted the Bali pub bombing?

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

so what prompted the 9/11 attacks then?

What prompted the Madrid train bombings?

What prompted the Bali pub bombing?

Do you honestly not know what prompted the 9/11 attacks? Many reasons and factors, alot dating back to the Cold War and up to the first Gulf War, I don't know how to put it in a nutshell really.. Bin Laden was a friend of the US, then he became an enemy, for many reasons.

Bali pub bombing - personally I believe it was a show of strength from Al Qaeda who were still very isolated after 911, they didn't have the means to hit the US again, so they hit a very soft target.

Madrid train bombings - Spain participated in Iraq, it was timed just before the elections and it had the desired effect.


The dumb hawkish rightwing sledgehammer type approach to terrorism will never ever work, it just creates more hate and a bigger support base for the terrorist groups, both of which help those groups grow and become stronger and more morally justified (in their own minds).

Take away that hate and the support base will decline, the terrorist groups will become more isolated, then you are dealing with a more limited number of targets.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are taking huge losses, but they can sustain these losses quite easily because the anti-American hate & sentiment is so strong at the moment. I mean take a look at what Pakistan did recently.. they just blew up that school full of 'potential terrorists'.. killed a hundred of them.. to do what? 'send out a tough message to terrorism'?, what a dumb easy simplistic approach to the problem.. the military presses a few buttons and blam they are somehow 'tackling terrorism'.. nope, they've just increased the hate base and made the terrorists even stronger, increase the recruits, the suicide bombers, etc.

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

Do you honestly not know what prompted the 9/11 attacks? Many reasons and factors, alot dating back to the Cold War and up to the first Gulf War, I don't know how to put it in a nutshell really.. Bin Laden was a friend of the US, then he became an enemy, for many reasons.

Bali pub bombing - personally I believe it was a show of strength from Al Qaeda who were still very isolated after 911, they didn't have the means to hit the US again, so they hit a very soft target.

Madrid train bombings - Spain participated in Iraq, it was timed just before the elections and it had the desired effect.


The dumb hawkish rightwing sledgehammer type approach to terrorism will never ever work, it just creates more hate and a bigger support base for the terrorist groups, both of which help those groups grow and become stronger and more morally justified (in their own minds).

Take away that hate and the support base will decline, the terrorist groups will become more isolated, then you are dealing with a more limited number of targets.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are taking huge losses, but they can sustain these losses quite easily because the anti-American hate & sentiment is so strong at the moment. I mean take a look at what Pakistan did recently.. they just blew up that school full of 'potential terrorists'.. killed a hundred of them.. to do what? 'send out a tough message to terrorism'?, what a dumb easy simplistic approach to the problem.. the military presses a few buttons and blam they are somehow 'tackling terrorism'.. nope, they've just increased the hate base and made the terrorists even stronger, increase the recruits, the suicide bombers, etc.

so what's the answer, give in? run away and hide? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban so they can train more terrorists?

If the Iraqis hate the US, why are they killing each other? Why were there public celebrations when Saddam was captured and then again when he was sentenced to death?

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

so what's the answer, give in? run away and hide? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban so they can train more terrorists?

I think you're missing the point. Afghanistan is still being used to train "terrorists". They have the perfect training ground in having plenty of Western soldiers to train on. The weak die, and the strong survive. And for every terrorist that falls in combat with the west, they have a new martyr to promote their cause.

The Soviets used alot more violent, and unrestrained methods in Afghanisatan against the resistance with the viewpoint of wiping them out. They Failed. How are the Western powers who can't use even close to the same methods going to destroy the resistance through violent means?

I can't think of any truely successful campaign by a government to destroy an organisation like the Taliban, or other such groups. The times I've seen them change was only when they evolved into joining the governments and becoming political entities. No use of violence has managed to date to destroy such an organisation (unless you can think of any...?). So why should that change now, when the West has to use less force than has gone before...?

If the Iraqis hate the US, why are they killing each other? Why were there public celebrations when Saddam was captured and then again when he was sentenced to death?

Irish people hated the British for centuries, and yet we still continued to fight amongst ourselves. Just because the west provides a good target, its not going to remove the internal politics and hatreds that were there before the current set of conflicts. They're going to be able to hate the US, the UK, or any foreign troops, and at the same time, also hate their fellow citizens that don't conform to their own superior views.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote:

I think you're missing the point. Afghanistan is still being used to train "terrorists". They have the perfect training ground in having plenty of Western soldiers to train on. The weak die, and the strong survive. And for every terrorist that falls in combat with the west, they have a new martyr to promote their cause.

The Soviets used alot more violent, and unrestrained methods in Afghanisatan against the resistance with the viewpoint of wiping them out. They Failed. How are the Western powers who can't use even close to the same methods going to destroy the resistance through violent means?

I can't think of any truely successful campaign by a government to destroy an organisation like the Taliban, or other such groups. The times I've seen them change was only when they evolved into joining the governments and becoming political entities. No use of violence has managed to date to destroy such an organisation (unless you can think of any...?). So why should that change now, when the West has to use less force than has gone before...?

that highlights the problem and i agree, but what is the answer? Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will not make the problem go away.

Deleted User wrote:

Irish people hated the British for centuries, and yet we still continued to fight amongst ourselves. Just because the west provides a good target, its not going to remove the internal politics and hatreds that were there before the current set of conflicts. They're going to be able to hate the US, the UK, or any foreign troops, and at the same time, also hate their fellow citizens that don't conform to their own superior views.

good point well made.

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

so what's the answer, give in? run away and hide? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban so they can train more terrorists?

Whats the answer? DON'T use the sledgehammer approach. It will never work. Its not like the world hasn't seen terrorism before? the IRA.. ETA.. etc..

If the Iraqis hate the US, why are they killing each other? Why were there public celebrations when Saddam was captured and then again when he was sentenced to death?

You have to remember that the US used to be friends with Saddam. After the first Gulf War they didn't help the Iraqi's get rid of him and notably didn't support the uprising against Saddam. Also years of sanctions by the West had resulted in the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, this also meant that no matter how bad Saddam was, individual Iraqi's were also resentful of the West and namely the US.

Even so, the Iraqi's largely welcomed the Americans despite knowing that this time much of the world was against the invasion (a fact which gave many who opposed the invasion a moral upper ground). The ordinary Iraqi man found that while the oil ministry was seized straight away, the Americans had dismantled all the other apparatus of a normal country almost straight away... imagine what Ireland would be like after 2 weeks if there were no police, no army, no government.. it would be chaos.. there was little electricity/water/essentials and basically NO security and as the months passed, the situation was only getting worse..

However despite this, general support for the American occupation remained relatively strong.. there was still hope for the future..

Unfortunately the insurgency was growing and growing, I mean when you have an occupying force in a country firing over a quarter of a million rounds of ammunition a day in anger there is bound to be resentment amongst the ordinary civilians. The average Iraqi's life has been steadily becoming worse and worse since the invasion, not better..

Then the foreign fighters came.. with a new tactic.. to spark sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia.. and it worked.. I remember noticing the first major terrorist strikes against large groups of Shia/Sunnis undoubtably by foreign terrorists who could claim to be neither.. only to affect the overall goal of destabilising the region.. this has been the nail in the coffin so to speak, because sectarian violence is self sustaining..

Why do the Iraqis celebrate when Saddam was caught and then later sentenced? because the majority HATE him, quite obvious really considering what he's done.

Why do the Iraqis hate the Americans? Well what have the Americans done besides capturing Saddam? nothing, they have made the country MUCH MUCH worse than it was before.. the Iraqi people are getting killed every day by America soldiers (crossfires with insurgents, etc), before the Americans came there was no terrorism, now there are death squads, huge bombings.. the electricity still barely works in most areas, intermittant water supplies.. too dangerous for kids to go to schools in alot of areas.. huge inflation.. (if you read blogs by Iraqi's many of them also hate the insurgents and especially the foreign fighters, but you have to understand that they blame the US for these guys being there in the first place).

In the past few years its become a cynical joke almost to say "we might aswell let Saddam back at least he will control the country".. Ironically enough, the unthinkable is most probably the best logical solution for a country that now has no solutions.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

that highlights the problem and i agree, but what is the answer? Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will not make the problem go away.

Actually we don't actually know that it won't. I don't think its been tried. Has it?

Usually the first response is to look to using force to resolve the problem since the enemy uses force, however, surely we can use more subtle forms of influence over the region, without physically going in and providing them with even more reasons to be angry with us.

Look at iraq for instance. Iraq hadn't invaded anyone since Kuwait, and hadn't made an aggressive move against anyone during the last decade. Going in, and replacing Saddam has changed a reasonably stable region, into a cesspit which just gobbles up resources.

I can't actually see what occupying Afghanistan has actually achieved. Has it seriously reduced the effectiveness of terrorist attacks? Not noticeably for me. Has it reduced their income? I doubt it, since they've gained a whole new market in the US army itself.

Violence hasn't worked in the past, and I don't see it working in the future in combating these types of organisations. All it does is give them a reason to exist.

AbusesToilets

Contrary to what you believe Fredrico,they're not using "Sledgehammer" tactics in Afghanistan.It was from the start and continues to be a largely SF directed missions,with teams going in,establishing bases and raising/training indigenous Afghan fighters to combat the Taliban.In this they are being supported by conventional units.The intitial invasion was a classic example of a successfully executed UW campaign. Right now the country is in the difficult transition phase from insurgency(the US supported one against the Taliban) to a functioning government conducting Counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban.
Having a largely unpoliced mountainous border with Pakistan obviously doesn't help matters.Getting the Pakistani government to commit to hunting down Taliban fighters in this region remains one of the biggest challenges to date.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Contrary to what you believe Fredrico,they're not using "Sledgehammer" tactics in Afghanistan.It was from the start and continues to be a largely SF directed missions,with teams going in,establishing bases and raising/training indigenous Afghan fighters to combat the Taliban.In this they are being supported by conventional units.The intitial invasion was a classic example of a successfully executed UW campaign. Right now the country is in the difficult transition phase from insurgency(the US supported one against the Taliban) to a functioning government conducting Counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban.
Having a largely unpoliced mountainous border with Pakistan obviously doesn't help matters.Getting the Pakistani government to commit to hunting down Taliban fighters in this region remains one of the biggest challenges to date.

I was talking about sledgehammer tactics used against terrorism in general.. in the war on terror..

There was never enough troops in Afghanistan, there was never even CLOSE to enough troops in Afghanistan. The money was practically non-existant. Afghanistan was forgotten by the media and people's lives there have not changed very much. Its a country largely run by warlords, contrary to the propaganda thats been spewed out over the last few years.

The only reason why we are talking about it now is because Tony Blair is desperate to take the attention off Iraq which is in an even worse situation. I would love to see some change in that country (Afghanistan) because I feel its a country that really deserves it, and unlike Iraq, it was far more simple situation, with easily identifiable bad guys and a much more compliant population.. but they (US and UK) even managed to screw it that up, saving much needed troops and money for their stupid oil jaunt in Iraq.

I am tired of phrases like 'difficult transitional phase' to be honest, Afghanistan will be lost to the Taliban unless alot more troops and money is pumped in now.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

I am tired of phrases like 'difficult transitional phase' to be honest, Afghanistan will be lost to the Taliban unless alot more troops and money is pumped in now.

To do what exactly? I haven't seen any evidence that more troops = success. Look at the dozens of conflicts at the moment, or in the last 30 years. In many cases, its the government against some rebels, or terrorists, or freedom fighters. More often than not, these governments throw in the military, backed by plenty of resources, and the conflict turns into a stalemate for years, if not decades.

Israel couldn't and can't pacify Palestine. France couldn't pacify Algeria. Britain couldn't pacify the North for decades. America failed in Vietnam, and currently fails in Iraq. Russia in Chechnya. Alot of troops have been put against these organisations/factions in the past. A military occupation means you're there for the long run, with alot of casualties, and alot of resources spent. A pacification of Afghanistan, & westernisation would take decades. If its possible at all...

And unfortuently, I think the people the Taliban recruit, are easily as resiliant or fanatical as the rebels/terrorists or freedom fighters of any of the above conflicts. And having western troops occupying their land, would be little different than what drove the above conflicts. The west hasn't exactly a good history in dealing with Middle eastern politics from the side of the Arab nations. Western troops on or very near their territories is just another to encouragement for "freedom fighters" cells to form against western oppression. Its just a matter of perspectives.

AbusesToilets

The situation in Afghanistan isn't a question of not enough troops being present.A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.
Military operations have been quite successful in the country,there is no great danger that the Taliban are going to sweep across the country and route out NATO forces.Whether you like the phrase or not,Afghanistan is in a difficult transition period.It's going to take a long time for that country to become stable and i absolutely agree that military force won't be the deciding factor in the outcome.The fate of the democratic endeavor there will be decided by a number of different factors,economic viability,it's ability to control it's borders,convincing the people of the merits of a more stable society etc.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

To do what exactly? I haven't seen any evidence that more troops = success. Look at the dozens of conflicts at the moment, or in the last 30 years. In many cases, its the government against some rebels, or terrorists, or freedom fighters. More often than not, these governments throw in the military, backed by plenty of resources, and the conflict turns into a stalemate for years, if not decades.

Israel couldn't and can't pacify Palestine. France couldn't pacify Algeria. Britain couldn't pacify the North for decades. America failed in Vietnam, and currently fails in Iraq. Russia in Chechnya. Alot of troops have been put against these organisations/factions in the past. A military occupation means you're there for the long run, with alot of casualties, and alot of resources spent. A pacification of Afghanistan, & westernisation would take decades. If its possible at all...

And unfortuently, I think the people the Taliban recruit, are easily as resiliant or fanatical as the rebels/terrorists or freedom fighters of any of the above conflicts. And having western troops occupying their land, would be little different than what drove the above conflicts. The west hasn't exactly a good history in dealing with Middle eastern politics from the side of the Arab nations. Western troops on or very near their territories is just another to encouragement for "freedom fighters" cells to form against western oppression. Its just a matter of perspectives.

Yup, you're absolutely right in one sense.. however the one pretty unique factor you had with Afghanistan was that literally the whole population WANTED occupation. I remember for the months and years following the invasion in Afghanistan I read damning report after damning report of how there was too little money, too few troops, too little retraining, barely any reconstruction, etc, etc.. I have no doubt the country would still be having setbacks, but with more money and more troops I believe it could have been more like the Kurdish area in Iraq than how it is now, they were a people MORE than willing to accept the occupation.

The propaganda phrases now just ring so hollow "stay the course",etc, they are just plain dirty lies at this stage, from administrations who can't wait to cut and run but their arrogance won't let them

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

The situation in Afghanistan isn't a question of not enough troops being present.A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.
Military operations have been quite successful in the country,there is no great danger that the Taliban are going to sweep across the country and route out NATO forces.Whether you like the phrase or not,Afghanistan is in a difficult transition period.It's going to take a long time for that country to become stable and i absolutely agree that military force won't be the deciding factor in the outcome.The fate of the democratic endeavor there will be decided by a number of different factors,economic viability,it's ability to control it's borders,convincing the people of the merits of a more stable society etc.

How can Kharzai "assert" himself against powerful warlords? he is an American puppet, which doesn't exactly make him very assertive. You think Afghanistan will become stable? the violence in the country is INCREASING, attacks by the Taliban are INCREASING, the people are loosing hope, they see no changes to their daily life. This isn't a 'transitional phase' no more than foreign jihadists targeting Sunnis and Shias to provoke civil strife was a 'transitional phase'. Its slowly slipping away, but not as fast as Iraq is..

Iraq is already lost, Afghanistan is on its way there but slower..

Gurgle

AbusesToilets wrote:

A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.

The Taliban at the height of their power controlled about 95% of the country, and only that much with the co-operation of the warlords.

Drug production was almost stamped out under the Taliban, its only since the 'liberation' of the country that its taken off again.

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

How can Kharzai "assert" himself against powerful warlords? he is an American puppet, which doesn't exactly make him very assertive. You think Afghanistan will become stable? the violence in the country is INCREASING, attacks by the Taliban are INCREASING, the people are loosing hope, they see no changes to their daily life. This isn't a 'transitional phase' no more than foreign jihadists targeting Sunnis and Shias to provoke civil strife was a 'transitional phase'. Its slowly slipping away, but not as fast as Iraq is..

Iraq is already lost, Afghanistan is on its way there but slower..

Neither of these countries are "lost",they are extremely complex and difficult but not beyond redress.Have you been to Afghanistan lately,documented this loss of hope?People are trying to live their lives,lives which were fairly ****ty under the Taliban and slightly improved now.The main hopes in their lives are probably just that their families will survive and prosper,same as people in the rest of the world.
I like how that last sentence gives a real sense of suspense...there's a career in advertising just waiting for you.There's been a recent upsurge in attacks,no doubt.Does it look likely that the country is going to be overrun anytime soon?Don't think so.I don't think you understand the dynamics of going from a guerilla campaign to governance and conducting counter-insurgency operations against those you ousted. You've got to continue suppressing, in this instance,the Taliban,while simultaneously organising and implementing the functions of government,to include military operations. The biggest impedment IMO to a stable Afghanistan is the Warlords and the porous border with Pakistan.
As for Karzai being a US puppet,looking past the fact that he was an initial supporter of the Taliban he was elected by the people in his country with a UN panel that examined the results.He has gone against the wishes of the US in relation to the spraying of opium fields and he has critized the miltary effort and lack of international help in preventing terrorism.Is he friendly towards Washington,you bet,they helped put him in a position to win power.Is he a servile satrap serving the imperialist will of the US? I don't think so,i think he is far fomr perfect but he is trying to steer his country on the right path.Bear in mind that Afghanistan has only been free of Taliban rule for about 4 years or so and has no developed industry or educatiuonal system.

AbusesToilets

Gurgle wrote:

Originally Posted by AbusesToilets
A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.

The Taliban at the height of their power controlled about 95% of the country, and only that much with the co-operation of the warlords.

Drug production was almost stamped out under the Taliban, its only since the 'liberation' of the country that its taken off again.

So what exactly are you saying? Are you disputing what i said,am i wrong?

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_AfghanistanThe Taliban, having taken control of 90% of the country, actively encouraged poppy cultivation. With this, they not only fulfilled their promises and obligations to their partners - the regional mafia - but also increased their own desperately needed income by imposing taxes on local farmers and through subsidies by international organised crime gangs. According to the above UN source, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,600 million tonnes in 1999, which was the height of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

According to a Swiss security publication, 'SicherheitsForum' (April 2006, pp:56-57), this resulted in supply exceeding demand and a drop in the high-street price of heroin and morphine in the West, endangering the profitability of European drug smugglers. To stop this trend, Westerns international drug barons demanded a reduction in supply. The regional mafia instructed the Taliban accordingly. It is alleged in the report that, Obeying his financiers, Mullah Omar (the Taliban leader) issued a ban on poppy cultivation "on religious grounds", resulting in one of the lowest opium production levels in 2002.

You can see for yourself,the ony reason production went down was because it was requested by the drug dealers.Before that, production was taking off.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Neither of these countries are "lost",they are extremely complex and difficult but not beyond redress.Have you been to Afghanistan lately,documented this loss of hope?People are trying to live their lives,lives which were fairly ****ty under the Taliban and slightly improved now.The main hopes in their lives are probably just that their families will survive and prosper,same as people in the rest of the world.
I like how that last sentence gives a real sense of suspense...there's a career in advertising just waiting for you.There's been a recent upsurge in attacks,no doubt.Does it look likely that the country is going to be overrun anytime soon?Don't think so.I don't think you understand the dynamics of going from a guerilla campaign to governance and conducting counter-insurgency operations against those you ousted. You've got to continue suppressing, in this instance,the Taliban,while simultaneously organising and implementing the functions of government,to include military operations. The biggest impedment IMO to a stable Afghanistan is the Warlords and the porous border with Pakistan.
As for Karzai being a US puppet,looking past the fact that he was an initial supporter of the Taliban he was elected by the people in his country with a UN panel that examined the results.He has gone against the wishes of the US in relation to the spraying of opium fields and he has critized the miltary effort and lack of international help in preventing terrorism.Is he friendly towards Washington,you bet,they helped put him in a position to win power.Is he a servile satrap serving the imperialist will of the US? I don't think so,i think he is far fomr perfect but he is trying to steer his country on the right path.Bear in mind that Afghanistan has only been free of Taliban rule for about 4 years or so and has no developed industry or educatiuonal system.

Yes, I hear what you are saying, but to me it sounds like every other regurigated military line used for the past 5 years, and you know what I'll be hearing this crap in 10 years, and then in 20 years, and so on and so on. Media-wise Afghanistan has been out of the spotlight, until surprise surprise the last 6 months or so. In those 4 years since the invasion the real reports (not by military/government officials) have been far and few between, those magazine/newspaper reports + some documentaries have ALL been completely damning. I cannot remember reading a single independantly written report or story that even comes remotely close to the Blair/military line we are hearing from that country.

Its like the military/government line is always; its okay, we're getting there, blah improving, peoples lives better.. all the standard morale rubbish and convenient spin for the government.

The country HAD potential (2001 - 2002ish).. lack of troops and money at that particular CRUCIAL time is pointing directly to the slow slide it is experiencing now, every step forward, two steps back.. and the US/UK/Everyone will have to pull their socks up very quick, because when they pull out of Iraq in a year or so, then you can be sure the jihadists will be focusing ALOT more attention on Afghanistan.

AbusesToilets

Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps the reports you read reflect the bias of those writing them and their desire to represent the situation in a negative light? Why are the reports put out by the military who are living and fighting on the ground less viable than those of journalists who aren't necessaryily exposed to the full reality of the situation?
I agree that it's a difficult time and the unwillingness of the NATO countries to commit more troops and will to the situation makes it worse.At the end of the day,the effort towards stabilization is driven by the people themselves.It's the jon of the Coalition to help support their efforts and give them the ability to succeed.Right now that's not happening fully,but the situation is far from helpless.The same goes for Iraq,it is possible to succeed in Iraq.The steps to that are difficult and frought with hardship and suffering though,so the question becomes one of whether the will is there to adapt and achieve those goals.