Afghanistan - A Lost Cause?

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

The Taliban make up only 2 of the over 90 different factions killing anglo-American forces. Most fighters sat on the sidelines as civilians untill the invaders started bombing weddings etc.

Could we have a source for this?

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

It's being fought by NATO Fred.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

It's being fought by NATO Fred.

Not exclusively. NATO make up a large part.of ISAF, but there are several non NATO countries involved.

CatFromHue

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way?

I suppose the objectives would be a start.

Vietnam: stop communism, install democracy, defeat Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Army aided by foreign countries.
Afghanistan: capture Bin Laden, install democracy, defeat Taliban who are possibly aided by foreign countries.

The escalation into other countries would be another.

Vietnam: bombing runs in Cambodia
Afghanistan: drones being deployed into Pakistan and that's were Bin Laden was eventually found.

The help from locally trained armies and them turning on their outside forces is another. As shown in the original link and this was reported in Vietnam as well.

The similarities in both countries as both were/are third world.

The length and progress of both wars are very similar. Large scale troops first arrived in Vietnam in 1965 and finally left ten years later. The war in Afghanistan is now 10 years old too.

Fratton Fred

CatFromHue wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way?

I suppose the objectives would be a start.

Vietnam: stop communism, install democracy, defeat Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Army aided by foreign countries.
Afghanistan: capture Bin Laden, install democracy, defeat Taliban who are possibly aided by foreign countries.

The escalation into other countries would be another.

Vietnam: bombing runs in Cambodia
Afghanistan: drones being deployed into Pakistan and that's were Bin Laden was eventually found.

The help from locally trained armies and them turning on their outside forces is another. As shown in the original link and this was reported in Vietnam as well.

The similarities in both countries as both were/are third world.

The length and progress of both wars are very similar. Large scale troops first arrived in Vietnam in 1965 and finally left ten years later. The war in Afghanistan is now 10 years old too.

One major difference though is the level of input from other countries.

ISAF is made up of over 42 nations and has the full backing of the UN.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

CatFromHue

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One major difference though is the level of input from other countries.

ISAF is made up of over 42 nations and has the full backing of the UN.

Just looking at Wikipedia (yeah I know!) but they list the American troop levels as 90,000 and the combined troop levels of all other countries as 39706 (I counted up the troop numbers listed). So the US has over twice the amount of troops as all the other countries combined!

Lantus

Afghanistan and is people hold a totally different value system to us and therefore our ability to understand them is compromised.

If we were to expend as much effort and money (trillions) into negotiation, problem solving, peace talks with the people of this nation then no lives would need to be lost on either side.

The army and espeically the US military has no concept or real understanding of peace. They are trained to kill under orders from their superiors. If we let people like this keep deciding the best outcome then we are doomed as a species. The ordinary soldiers have even less idea on why they are fighting being predominantly from a poor educational background. Nations have ensured that the people who pull the trigger to deliver death have not the intellect to question or query the rational decisions of what they do.

War is also incredibly profitable to many organisations and companies. The US supports a great many industries by offering financial incentive to build the weapons of war.

Until we expend serious effort to bridge the gap and understand other cultures we are doomed to create war which will become ever more savage and brutal. The justification to start wars now has become blurred to the extent that if the US was to engage in another country people would hardly bat an eyelid it has become so saturated in the news. We almost take it for granted that the US can enter any country it chooses for 'freedom' and no one can question or query or prevent that.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

CatFromHue

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Yes, Barack Obama ordered what was called "The surge" in which he deployed thousands of troops to Afghanistan. He Did this so he could keep his pre-election promise that all COMBAT troops would be withdrawn at the end of 2014

Ah right. Just looking though and was the surge in Afghanistan troop numbers mentioned as 30,000?

This still would have put US forces at a higher number (by approx 20,000) than all other nations combined.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

If anybody's interested, read a book by journalist called Johnathan Steele Called "Ghosts Of Afghanistan". Its a political book which discuses the war and why it was always doomed to fail. The author has been reporting from Afghanistan since the Russians were around in the 80s and says they are making the same vital mistakes.

The Americans have never been very good about learning from history or asking the advice of nations with experience in a military theatre (in 2001 they were on good terms with Russia) before jumping in. They didn't seem to bother learning from the Russian experience in Afghanistan any more than they did from the French experience in Vietnam.

An American friend of mine once told me that one of the things that he learned from living abroad was that there are ways to do things that work well and are not American, or even better than the American way of doing them. He felt that had he never left America, he'd never have realised this as the mentality there is that the American way of doing things is the best way; full stop.

I can't attest to this myself, but I do wonder is this is at the root of what appears to be hubris?

Its all just a big game.

Funny you should call it that.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred

CatFromHue wrote: »

Just looking at Wikipedia (yeah I know!) but they list the American troop levels as 90,000 and the combined troop levels of all other countries as 39706 (I counted up the troop numbers listed). So the US has over twice the amount of troops as all the other countries combined!

That's as much down to capabilities as it is political support. The US are simply able to put 90,000 bodies on the ground, the only other countries that could do that are Russia and China and they aren't going to join a NATO lead mission.

Countries don't commit people unless they 100% support the mission and I think that's the big difference, there is a real global intention to sort out Afghanistan.

The Corinthian

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

im sure you will have seen the video of the marines pissing on dead Arabs, or when Barack Obama had to publicly apologize when the American POW camp burned dozens of Korans. Even the case of when the Marine went into the town and shot all the civilians.

I think you're confusing the American psyche where it affects military or foreign policy and the misbehaviour of the average American military personnel. What I was theorising upon was the former - it may also be an affect on the latter, but I suspect a lesser one as the reasons for such individuals' behaviour are not a specifically 'American' trait.

The friend I mentioned earlier had also been a US marine and his take on it was largely a social one in that the bulk of the troops (certainly at NCO, or lower, level) are presently drawn largely from both young recruits from disadvantaged backgrounds (without a scholarship, this is essentially the only hope they have of getting a university education) and those who had joined the reserves (again for economic reasons; for example, doing so gives them free medical insurance, which they otherwise may not be able to afford).

As a result, you tend to get uneducated, often immature, individuals who have been poor all their lives and suddenly get thrust into positions of responsibility (such as running Abu Ghraib) or the stresses of combat which they are completely unprepared for.

Personally I would be surprised if people like didn't end up abusing their positions or just going postal.

WakeUp

CatFromHue wrote: »

I suppose the objectives would be a start.

Vietnam: stop communism, install democracy, defeat Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Army aided by foreign countries.
Afghanistan: capture Bin Laden, install democracy, defeat Taliban who are possibly aided by foreign countries.

The escalation into other countries would be another.

Vietnam: bombing runs in Cambodia
Afghanistan: drones being deployed into Pakistan and that's were Bin Laden was eventually found.

The help from locally trained armies and them turning on their outside forces is another. As shown in the original link and this was reported in Vietnam as well.

The similarities in both countries as both were/are third world.

The length and progress of both wars are very similar. Large scale troops first arrived in Vietnam in 1965 and finally left ten years later. The war in Afghanistan is now 10 years old too.

I would agree with what you are saying here, but I think overall the two wars cant be compared as Vietnam was in a different league when you break down US strategy on the ground in both places.

Im sure you know this apologies for pointing it out if you do ,Vietnam was the first time American military gains/victory was to be measured not by territorial gains or geography but by body count - kill as many charlies as they can - this was the strategy. Obviously goes without saying that this type of war involves some brutal type killing which I dont see being carried out in Afghanistan by the forces there. Granted some GI's go on mad ones and light up villages but its rare. In Vietnam this was the strategy day in day out and it was brutal.

In Afghanistan the Taliban are being engaged in dialogue in many instances by the different actors with interests. In Vietnam this wasnt the case with the NVA and VC. There are certainly some aspects of both wars that are the same but I dont think you can compare the two. Both are being/were processed differently.

karma_

WakeUp wrote: »

I would agree with what you are saying here, but I think overall the two wars cant be compared as Vietnam was in a different league when you break down US strategy on the ground in both places.

Im sure you know this apologies for pointing it out if you do ,Vietnam was the first time American military gains/victory was to be measured not by territorial gains or geography but by body count - kill as many charlies as they can - this was the strategy. Obviously goes without saying that this type of war involves some brutal type killing which I dont see being carried out in Afghanistan by the forces there. Granted some GI's go on mad ones and light up villages but its rare. In Vietnam this was the strategy day in day out and it was brutal.

In Afghanistan the Taliban are being engaged in dialogue in many instances by the different actors with interests. In Vietnam this wasnt the case with the NVA and VC. There are certainly some aspects of both wars that are the same but I dont think you can compare the two. Both are being/were processed differently.

Strategically Vietnam and Afghanistan do have similarities. During Vietnam, the US did not as you say fight for territory, they set up bases and dominated small areas, using air superiority and artillery and this essentially is what they are doing in Afghanistan today.

MaxSteele

Judging on the escalation and build up of tension between the US, Israel and Iran in the last couple of years, I think it's all too much a coincidence the US and British etc. have basically invaded countries bordering either side of Iran.

You can even see the same war rhetoric being thrown out there about these apparent WMD's Iran is developing although evidence suggests the opposite.

The Caspian Sea being one of the world's richest natural gas and oil reserves makes it a bit conspicuous too, not to mention the region is the main route used for the Heroin trade.

Democracy and stability my hole.

Fratton Fred

MaxSteele wrote: »

Judging on the escalation and build up of tension between the US, Israel and Iran in the last couple of years, I think it's all too much a coincidence the US and British etc. have basically invaded countries bordering either side of Iran.

You can even see the same war rhetoric being thrown out there about these apparent WMD's Iran is developing although evidence suggests the opposite.

The Caspian Sea being one of the world's richest natural gas and oil reserves makes it a bit conspicuous too, not to mention the region is the main route used for the Heroin trade.

Democracy and stability my hole.

You need the conspiracies forum.

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You need the conspiracies forum.

Are you saying you've never heard of The New Great Game?

You're naive in the extreme if you think that the control of resources is not an aspect of NATO's involvement in the region.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

WakeUp

karma_ wrote: »

Strategically Vietnam and Afghanistan do have similarities. During Vietnam, the US did not as you say fight for territory, they set up bases and dominated small areas, using air superiority and artillery and this essentially is what they are doing in Afghanistan today.

I do agree with you there are similarities between both, but I dont think the two wars can be put side by side and compared nor should they be not by a long shot. From NATO's point of view in Afghanistan they are dealing with an insurgency through force, diplomacy and winning hearts & minds well attempting to within the indigenous population thats how they roll.
The US military policy in Vietnam was a disgrace, it was horrific and it was wrong. They carpet bombed civilian cities in the North killing an estimated one million of them in the process and that would be a mid-range estimate. In the south they rampaged villages on seek and destroy missions carrying out many massacres in the process . Vietnam is the most bombed country in history. The US may well be have air superiority but they aint doing things like that. Artillery is pretty much redundent in Afghanistan and only being used in the main in a defensive way when bases come under attack or troops are ambushed on patrol within there range stuff like that. Again though I do agree with you and the other poster there are certain things similar, but Im of the opinion both conflicts pale in comparison and cant be compared overall.

Manic Moran

The Corinthian wrote: »

The friend I mentioned earlier had also been a US marine and his take on it was largely a social one in that the bulk of the troops (certainly at NCO, or lower, level) are presently drawn largely from both young recruits from disadvantaged backgrounds (without a scholarship, this is essentially the only hope they have of getting a university education) and those who had joined the reserves (again for economic reasons; for example, doing so gives them free medical insurance, which they otherwise may not be able to afford).

As a result, you tend to get uneducated, often immature, individuals who have been poor all their lives and suddenly get thrust into positions of responsibility (such as running Abu Ghraib) or the stresses of combat which they are completely unprepared for.

Oh, for the Love of God... Some myths just won't die, even amongst those who should know better.





There's another chart out there somewhere which shows education levels of servicemen compared to the general population. Military education rates are higher.

There are probably a number of reasons for this. Firstly, for example, poorer areas tend to have the poorest levels of education and highest levels of crime. If you haven't at least got your High School diploma, you're not getting into the Army barring rare waivers with a mandate to actually pass in the first term of enlistment (Less than 1% of recruits don't have high school diplomas, it's about 13% nation-wide). Similarly, significant criminal activity will also keep you out of the Army. And if you're not getting good healthcare, you won't get in either, because you won't pass the medical.

Only some 13% of those of an age to enlist are actually eligible to do so, due to the requirements of health, education, criminal and aptitude. A staggering 25% of those of enlisting age are obese. The lack of eligible candidates to pull volunteers from is actually a significant problem.

While I'm at it, the Army is disproportionately white. The combat units are heavily disproportionately white.

The Corinthian

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, for the Love of God... Some myths just won't die, even amongst those who should know better.

Fair enough, I was simply recounting what was said to me by someone who had actually been in the US military (albeit in the 1980's). If this is incorrect, then it's incorrect.

Given this, if you look at the backgrounds of those involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal, the term 'white trash' does oddly spring to mind.

And if you're not getting good healthcare, you won't get in either, because you won't pass the medical.

That's a pretty cheeky jump in logic TBH.

whitelines

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, for the Love of God... Some myths just won't die, even amongst those who should know better.





There's another chart out there somewhere which shows education levels of servicemen compared to the general population. Military education rates are higher.

There are probably a number of reasons for this. Firstly, for example, poorer areas tend to have the poorest levels of education and highest levels of crime. If you haven't at least got your High School diploma, you're not getting into the Army barring rare waivers with a mandate to actually pass in the first term of enlistment (Less than 1% of recruits don't have high school diplomas, it's about 13% nation-wide). Similarly, significant criminal activity will also keep you out of the Army. And if you're not getting good healthcare, you won't get in either, because you won't pass the medical.

Only some 13% of those of an age to enlist are actually eligible to do so, due to the requirements of health, education, criminal and aptitude. A staggering 25% of those of enlisting age are obese. The lack of eligible candidates to pull volunteers from is actually a significant problem.

While I'm at it, the Army is disproportionately white. The combat units are heavily disproportionately white.

Truly superb post. I stand in awe!

karma_

whitelines wrote: »

Truly superb post. I stand in awe!

There is a problem with this report. It doesn't actually use the income of the recruit, it bases it off the zipcode the recruit is from. That's a major problem. I believe these statistics are heavily massaged by the Heritage foundation in order to fulfil it's conservative bias.

MaxSteele

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You need the conspiracies forum.

I think Chuck Stone kind of blew that statement out of the water just now.

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

whitelines wrote: »

Truly superb post. I stand in awe!

There is a problem with this report. It doesn't actually use the income of the recruit, it bases it off the zipcode the recruit is from. That's a major problem. I believe these statistics are heavily massaged by the Heritage foundation in order to fulfil it's conservative bias.

I have no problem with it. I've seen the original report on the civilian/military comparison from G1 somewhere on the web, but the Army's website is terrible. I suspect that what Heritage Foundation did was combine from all services. I will have another hunt for it tonight, in about ten hours.

Fratton Fred

MaxSteele wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You need the conspiracies forum.

I think Chuck Stone kind of blew that statement out of the water just now.

So the whole Afghanistan thing is just about Britain and the US wanting oil.

And the other 40 countries that are there? Including Ireland.

Except of course that Afghanistan doesn't have any oil or gas.