Afghanistan - A Lost Cause?

MaxSteele

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

No. I suggested the US and the brits have ulterior motives aside from the war on terror in terms of expanding they're influence in that general region. You tried sweeping it under the conspiracy rug. Please don't tar me like Run To Da Hills.

Doesn't strike you as odd that they basically have puppet governments in Iraq and under Kharzai in Afghanistan and are now throwing threats back and forth with Iran, while backing Israel ? Hard to tell what they're final plans are in the middle east, but I don't really believe the War On terror angle anymore.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Micro

MaxSteele wrote: »

No. I suggested the US and the brits have ulterior motives aside from the war on terror in terms of expanding they're influence in that general region. You tried sweeping it under the conspiracy rug. Please don't tar me like Run To Da Hills.

Doesn't strike you as odd that they basically have puppet governments in Iraq and under Kharzai in Afghanistan and are now throwing threats back and forth with Iran, while backing Israel ? Hard to tell what they're final plans are in the middle east, but I don't really believe the War On terror angle anymore.

None of the above, especially the big players are there for their health, it is what they can/will get out of it. No nation is that altruistic. The war on terror is pure invention to keep the gullible in line. There is money in it for some.

Fratton Fred

MaxSteele wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

No. I suggested the US and the brits have ulterior motives aside from the war on terror in terms of expanding they're influence in that general region. You tried sweeping it under the conspiracy rug. Please don't tar me like Run To Da Hills.

Doesn't strike you as odd that they basically have puppet governments in Iraq and under Kharzai in Afghanistan and are now throwing threats back and forth with Iran, while backing Israel ? Hard to tell what they're final plans are in the middle east, but I don't really believe the War On terror angle anymore.

And the other 40 members of ISAF, not to mention the UN security council are supporting them in this?

Cork boy 55

WakeUp wrote: »

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.

Whats your source for one million civilian dead in North Vietnam by USA bombing?
Define carpet bombing and list the cities in North Vietnam that where carpet bombed?

list all USA massacres by USA ground troops in south Vietnam you claim many?

Cork boy 55

In Vietnam the allies after defeating the Communist's in the attrition 1965-1972 snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by refusing to support South Vietnam war post 1973 with air and adequate logistics
resulting in a communist democide post 1975 in Vietnam and Cambodia.
Had air and plenty of logistics been provided to South Vietnam might well have held it's ground. If the afghan government is supported post withdrawal
the probability of a major defeat for the Kabul government is slim IMO.

To understand Afghanistan one must look at the demographics of the different ethic groups and It hard to predict whats going to happen
there is a whole range of scenarios with different probability of occurrence.
I do not have time to go thru them all

One scenario that is not mentioned in the MSM media at all
is that once NATO ground troops are gone
The afghan government now with a big army and with air cover can
forget about hearts and minds and start fighting very dirty
and terrorize the southern groups still loyal to the Taliban into submission

For example the old Uzbek Warlord Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum
said he could destroy the taliban in six months.
example of his handy work at link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasht-i-Leili_massacre

he said

Then you would see what will happen in just six months," he said through an interpreter in a rare interview from his stronghold in northern Afghanistan. "If President Karzai gives me the power, I can guarantee him and assure the international community and the people of Afghanistan that we can play a significant role in defeating and breaking the back of the Taliban."

---

Dostum says NATO and the U.S. are making a mistake by building the Afghan national army along the lines of a western military force because ANA troops are no match for seasoned Taliban fighters. The answer, he maintains, are the hardened combat veterans from Afghanistan's past wars.
"The Taliban are recruiting people who know war and suffering and have nothing to lose," he explained. "Of course they will be tougher than the ANA recruits."

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=1acb5330-dfe8-4f0e-8a1b-4f581478244f&k=44800&p=1


also

“If you support me, I will destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda,” Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum told The Washington Times in an interview at his northern stronghold. “I don’t want to be a minister, not even the defense minister. I need to be with my soldiers. Give me the task and I will do it.”

---

Gen. Dostum insists he is ready to raise a militia and sweep across the north again, without the support of Afghan government forces which he deems “too weak” to do the job.
“All the way to Waziristan if I must,” he said, referring to the tribal refuge of the Taliban and al Qaeda across the Pakistan border.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/22/afghan-warlords-will-fight-if-us-gives-aid/?feat=home_headlines&

MaxSteele

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And the other 40 members of ISAF, not to mention the UN security council are supporting them in this?

Like I said, ulterior motives. So I'd highly doubt it.

Let's not forget it was the US who used the loophole of the UN security councils Resolutions 660 and 678 as justifications to invade Iraq. I don't see any other ISAF countries lobbying on Israel's behalf in their national government or flooding destroyers into the persian gulf, everytime Iran defends itself over false accusations.

The US and Britain are the ones who got both the balls rolling for these wars and no doubt will be the first ones to cry wolf to the UN when they feel ready to invade Iran.

MaxSteele

Mr.Micro wrote: »

None of the above, especially the big players are there for their health, it is what they can/will get out of it. No nation is that altruistic. The war on terror is pure invention to keep the gullible in line. There is money in it for some.

They didn't send conventional armies in there to bring freedom and democracy anyway.

The area from Iran to central asia has always been a buffer zone contested between the great powers, from Chinese dynasties to the British and Russian empires.

Same thing is happening now with the west, Russia and China. A tug of war over support and sanctions for Iranian uranium development. Sure you could even see the Russians boycotting every UN idea on dealing with Libya and Syria. They were selling arms to the Syrians well into the conflict just to flaunt their power.

Manic Moran

Still can't find the original document I was looking for, but this is by an Air Force Research Institute lad along the same lines, covers income, race and education.

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-58/JFQ58_75-81_Lowther.pdf

That's a pretty cheeky jump in logic TBH.

Not really. Miss a few vaccinations early in life, could have debilitating consequences. From the Government Accounting Office:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05952.pdf

"The wealthiest and the poorest segments of the applicable U.S. population are less likely than others to serve in the military. The
wealthiest have other post-high school options such as attending college, and the poorest are more likely to be ineligible because of
medical, aptitude, or moral disqualifiers."

As to the use of zip codes, also from the GAO report:
"DOD used the median household income of the recruits’ and
civilians’ home communities to represent socioeconomic status
because data typically used to identify socioeconomic status are not
collected on recruits. DOD performed the analyses with commercial
marketing industry software that uses data from the U.S. Census
Bureau and other sources to identify the social and economic
characteristics of each U.S. postal zip code"

The report does acknowledge that it one cannot account for someone whose family's income is significantly higher or lower than the zip code, but it's the best they can do. It certainly isn't the Heritage Foundation using their own standards.

NTM

The Corinthian

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not really. Miss a few vaccinations early in life, could have debilitating consequences. From the Government Accounting Office:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05952.pdf

"The wealthiest and the poorest segments of the applicable U.S. population are less likely than others to serve in the military. The
wealthiest have other post-high school options such as attending college, and the poorest are more likely to be ineligible because of
medical, aptitude, or moral disqualifiers."

I hate to be pedantic, but that's not quite the same as:

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

Fratton Fred

MaxSteele wrote: »

Mr.Micro wrote: »

None of the above, especially the big players are there for their health, it is what they can/will get out of it. No nation is that altruistic. The war on terror is pure invention to keep the gullible in line. There is money in it for some.

They didn't send conventional armies in there to bring freedom and democracy anyway.

The area from Iran to central asia has always been a buffer zone contested between the great powers, from Chinese dynasties to the British and Russian empires.

Same thing is happening now with the west, Russia and China. A tug of war over support and sanctions for Iranian uranium development. Sure you could even see the Russians boycotting every UN idea on dealing with Libya and Syria. They were selling arms to the Syrians well into the conflict just to flaunt their power.

Then why didn't China and Russia veto the security council resolution?

Manic Moran

I hate to be pedantic, but that's not quite the same as:

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

True. That said, I think you have to apply the common sense filer. It's not as if I'm trying to imply that all persons from high crime areas will have a criminal record, or no persons from areas of poor education will have a GED. Similarly I am not implying that all persons without healthcare will be unfit for service, but it -does- increase the likelihood, and there is correlation.

MaxSteele

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then why didn't China and Russia veto the security council resolution?

The Russians were actually the ones who leaked the rumour of Iraq having WMD's and were very vocal in support of the US immediately after 9/11.

Why they didn't veto the UN resolution ? I don't know, but they were one of many who didn't support it aside from Spain, Italy, Romania and a few Balkan countries. Both Russia and China were against an invasion.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/russ-m29.shtml

The Chinese also have a policy of turning a blind eye to other countries misgivings so long as there's an economic benefit. N Korea, Burma, Venezuela, Sudan etc.

Jonny7

17 Afghans beheaded for attending a mixed party with dancing and music.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/27/taliban-behead-17-afghan-partygoers

It's not so much the incident more a reflection of life under the Taliban that the Afghani's face. They are divided on the issue, but I very much doubt they can hold off the inevitable full return of Taliban rule in the long term.

wes

Jonny7 wrote: »

17 Afghans beheaded for attending a mixed party with dancing and music.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/27/taliban-behead-17-afghan-partygoers

It's not so much the incident more a reflection of life under the Taliban that the Afghani's face. They are divided on the issue, but I very much doubt they can hold off the inevitable full return of Taliban rule in the long term.

Update on the story, gives a different motive for that attack:

Taliban kill 17 civilians 'in argument over women'

Cork boy 55

Jonny7 wrote: »

17 Afghans beheaded for attending a mixed party with dancing and music.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/27/taliban-behead-17-afghan-partygoers

It's not so much the incident more a reflection of life under the Taliban that the Afghani's face. They are divided on the issue, but I very much doubt they can hold off the inevitable full return of Taliban rule in the long term.

The Taliban taking Kabul and controlling most of or all of Afghanistan is an event with a very low order of probability IMO.

For a good account of the Taliban rise to power in 1990's read
the book Taliban By Ahmed Rashid

The Taliban in the 1990's emerged as a force opposed to complete chaos criminality and feuding amongst warlords.
They never took control of the whole country only about 80-90% of it
and from late 1996-2001 they held Kabul and they only reached their max control line in 1998.
They only achieved this due to the division of their opponents and
due to massive support from Pakistan and others. The madressa's of Pakistan provided most of the Talibians fighters. The ISI provided the weapon's, logistics and even advisers/specialist embedded in every Taliban Unit.
In addition back then the Taliban where far more united, one army.
The Taliban will face a number of difficulties post NATO combat troop withdrawal

It is divided into dozens of factions no unified military command

It only main power base is support from Pashtun tribes in the southern rural areas.

The main plank of the resistance is the presence of foreign troops
The whole conflict 2006-2012 is really quite odd when you think about
Many Taliban grunts are "largely" fighting to get NATO out and NATO fighting to keep Taliban down. The whole thing was quite avoidable and ridiculous It should have been solved by negotiation ages ago.
I suppose you could say that about most conflicts.
anyway once NATO ground troops are gone so is the whole reason of the resistance what else do they have sharia law.

As NATO draws down the entire region will fill the the gap to some extent.
No one wants the Taliban coming back. The Iranians hate them and nearly went to war with them in 1998. The Indians will provide support. The Chinese want stability for mining and also don't want a training area for their Uighers. The Russians don't want a training area for their muslims.
All the Central Asian republics much stronger and stable than they where in the 1990's are going to be there backing the Government.
Also their is no way Pakistan can provide the massive overt support it did in the 1990's Although no doubt the ISI will still get involved with shenanigans

If we assume that NATO/CIA/ANA air cover is still overhead post ground combat troop withdrawls
How can the Taliban mass the fighters, logistics, weapons and vehicles needed to take large towns, cities and open territory. Even if they have the manpower and money. The only way is if they have mass popular support in the area and they can infiltrate do they?

---
The most likely scenario in my opinion.
Is we will see a surge post NATO troop withdrawal
lasting one fighting season In which the Taliban seize most of the remote rural areas of the south where they have support and then negotiate from that position of strength It will probably end up like Pakistan where certain regions have local autonomy (the tribal regions)
I don't think they have the means or the support to take the major cities
of the south(Kandahar and Jalalabad).

Map of Ethnolinguistics groups of Afghanistan

whitelines

What difference will a return to Taliban control make for:

(i) The peoples of Afghanistan?

(ii) The Western powers?

As opposed to full democracy in Afghanistan (presumably ethnic based)?

Chuck Stone

From very early on there were voices of discontent from within the Bush administration on how the peace was being won (lost).

The total value of American reconstruction aid to Afghanistan in the fiscal 2002 budget that the Congress approved amounted to $942.1 million. That was probably $500 million short of what was needed that year, but analysts might have argued that the country could not absorb more money at that time. The initial fiscal 2003 request, however, totaled just $151 million, with foreign military financing reduced to a laughable $1 million.

Bill Taylor, who was coordinating assistance to Afghanistan for the State Department, was outraged. He made his views clear in an unclassified e-mail distributed widely throughout the government: "Our request for FY 03 is $151 million. This is not serious. ... FMF goes from $57 million to $1 million? On this we train the ANA [Afghan National Army] next year?. . . [the] FY 03 OHDACA [overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid-a DOD program] request of $12 million had been reduced to $6 million ... can this be right? ... Zal [Khalilzad] is here and I just showed him the chart[listing the FY 03 request]. His response was the right one: `You're not serious.'"

www.foreignpolicy.com