Fall back, men, Afghanistan is a nasty war we can never win

[ahsan28]

Fall back, men, Afghanistan is a nasty war we can never win


From The Sunday Times
February 3, 2008


Every independent report on the Nato-led operation in Afghanistan cries the same message: watch out, disaster beckons. Last week America’s Afghanistan Study Group, led by generals and diplomats of impeccable credentials, reported on “a weakening international resolve and a growing lack of confidence”. An Atlantic Council report was more curt: “Make no mistake, Nato is not winning in Afghanistan.”

A clearly exasperated Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, has broken ranks with the official optimism and committed an extra 3,000 marines to the field, while sending an “unusually stern” note to Germany demanding that its 3,200 troops meet enemy fire. Germany, like France, has rejected that plea. Yet it is urgent since the Canadians have threatened to withdraw from the south if not relieved.

An equally desperate Britain is proposing to send half-trained territorials to the front, after its commanders ignored every warning that the Taliban were the toughest fighters on earth.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3295340.ece

[Cognescenti]

Ashan;

You do realize that this is an opinion piece and that nobody actually said the words in the title of the article?

NATO has its problems. The Germans are a serious disappointment. After all, it was NATO that kept West Germany from being part of the Communist block for 50 years. One woudl think they could put a bit more effort into it.

The French? To say they are a disappointment would imply that anyone expected something useful out of them in the first place.

That the Taliban are motivated and tough is not in question and clearly, it is impossible to kill every one. I am sure NATO would be happy if they simply rejected Al Quaeda and joined in some kind of political power-sharing.

[ahsan28]

I think they are heading in the same direction, which is evident from the reluctance of several countries to invest further in Afghanistan. NATO has failed and that appears a reality now. As I said earlier in another thread that nature of such operations varies from conventional war. You cannot simply rely on massive firepower for a favourable outcome. The Soviets adopted same strategy and they failed. In counterinsurgncy operations, you have to win hearts and minds of the locals, only then you can be hopeful of some positive results. But when you start killing innocent locals, suspecting everyone as fredom fighter/insurgent, be assured, you can never win, even if you keep investing for next 100 years.

[AvarAllahNoor]

They see that they should never have gone in to begin with. Oh how the 'infidels' fall lol

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[krypton6]

They should have gone in, but they should have gone in for the right reasons and not wrong reasons.

[Cognescenti]

I think they are heading in the same direction, which is evident from the reluctance of several countries to invest further in Afghanistan. NATO has failed and that appears a reality now. As I said earlier in another thread that nature of such operations varies from conventional war. You cannot simply rely on massive firepower for a favourable outcome. The Soviets adopted same strategy and they failed. In counterinsurgncy operations, you have to win hearts and minds of the locals, only then you can be hopeful of some positive results. But when you start killing innocent locals, suspecting everyone as fredom fighter/insurgent, be assured, you can never win, even if you keep investing for next 100 years.

Look guy. Nobody has lost anything, unless you mean the reatreat of Al Quaeda and the Taliban after a couple of dozen Rangers and a few B-52's showed up.

Afghanistan is an artificial country where warfare between tribes or clans of ethnic groups goes back many, many centuries. Few people there understand the benefits of cooperative national effort.

Do you think the Taliban were in complete control of the country when they were in power? Of course not. The neighboring country has "citizens" of some of the same ethnic groups, but they have a relatively safe enclave across the border.

Nobody is advocating a Soviet strategy. They dropped unguided bombs from 30,000 feet. They purposely exterminated whole villages.

BTW..the Soviets ultimately failed because US-supplied stinger missiles made their aircraft vulnerable.

Spare us the jingoistic crap about the immortal Taliban.

BTW...the CIA "misplaced" another Hellfire missile.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true

U.S. won't say who killed militant
Peshawar

February 2, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. military officer on Friday described the airstrike that killed a leading Al Qaeda commander in Pakistan as an important victory, but he refused to say whether the U.S. government had anything to do with it.

"The strike was a very important one, it was a very lethal one," Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference. He brushed aside questions about any role the Pentagon may have played.


The CIA and the Pakistani government also refused to say who might have fired the missile or missiles that are believed to have killed Abu Laith al Libi and perhaps other Al Qaeda leaders in a small compound in northwest Pakistan this week.

The U.S. government's reluctance to take public credit for the killing of Al Libi underscores the growing tensions between the United States and Pakistan over how to attack Al Qaeda as it entrenches itself on Pakistani territory, current and former U.S. officials and other experts said.

[Cognescenti]

They should have gone in, but they should have gone in for the right reasons and not wrong reasons.

OK...I'm listening.

Afghan natural gas pipeline?

Secure the opium crop?

Start a new capture the headless goat on horseback league?

[ahsan28]

They dropped unguided bombs from 30,000 feet.

Strategy is the same, only unguided have been replaced by guided.

[wilberhum]

They should have gone in, but they should have gone in for the right reasons and not wrong reasons.

Please enlighten us. :(
What are the "Right Reasons"?
What are the "Wrong Reasons"?

[Cognescenti]

Strategy is the same, only unguided have been replaced by guided.

No it isn't. The strategy is not the same and the geopolitical goals are not even remotely the same.

Toward the end, the Russian startegy was to deny support to the mujahadeen by simply destroying whole villages and making sure no civilians returned. There is no need for guided weapons in such circumstance..in fact, it is a waste of money.

If the Afghans wish to have beard police and keep their women in a state of frozen animation..well then, so be it. If they wan't to host foreign terrorists...well then, there is a problem.

[snakelegs]

They should have gone in, but they should have gone in for the right reasons and not wrong reasons.

what would have been the right reasons?

[krypton6]

what would have been the right reasons?

The right reasons would be to help the people, to help the country generally and to correct the taliban in what they were doing wrong, the wrong reasons would be to invade a country in order to help your own governmental position and eliminate a bunch of revolutionaires who are against the western and more specifically american dictating imperialism.

America didnt go to Afghanistan to help the people, they went in to help themselves firstly and more importantly.

On their way, a bunch of afghanis managed to make some money out of it while the lives of the afghani majority were forgotten and betrayed.

[Keltoi]

The right reasons would be to help the people, to help the country generally and to correct the taliban in what they were doing wrong, the wrong reasons would be to invade a country in order to help your own governmental position and eliminate a bunch of revolutionaires who are against the western and more specifically american dictating imperialism.

America didnt go to Afghanistan to help the people, they went in to help themselves firstly and more importantly.

On their way, a bunch of afghanis managed to make some money out of it while the lives of the afghani majority were forgotten and betrayed.

Nobody is suggesting the U.S. went into Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. Taliban support for a terrorist organization was and still is the reason. Any other country attacked by a terrorist organization given safe haven by a host government would have taken the same action...except for perhaps the French.

[wilberhum]

The right reasons would be to help the people, to help the country generally and to correct the taliban in what they were doing wrong, the wrong reasons would be to invade a country in order to help your own governmental position and eliminate a bunch of revolutionaires who are against the western and more specifically american dictating imperialism.

America didnt go to Afghanistan to help the people, they went in to help themselves firstly and more importantly.

On their way, a bunch of afghanis managed to make some money out of it while the lives of the afghani majority were forgotten and betrayed.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.
When a group declares war on you, commits several acts of war against you, carries out a massive attack that kills thousands of your citizens, and receive there government's protection, we should "Correct them in what they were doing wrong".

What planet did you come from?

If we took your advise, we would all be speaking German or Japanese. :hiding::hiding:

krypton is an inert gas. Is that why you took the name?

[snakelegs]

The right reasons would be to help the people, to help the country generally and to correct the taliban in what they were doing wrong, the wrong reasons would be to invade a country in order to help your own governmental position and eliminate a bunch of revolutionaires who are against the western and more specifically american dictating imperialism.

America didnt go to Afghanistan to help the people, they went in to help themselves firstly and more importantly.

On their way, a bunch of afghanis managed to make some money out of it while the lives of the afghani majority were forgotten and betrayed.

nations act in what they consider to be their best interests. we lost interest in the afghan people completely as soon as the russians left. it was never about helping the people.

[Roasted Cashew]

What planet did you come from?


krypton is an inert gas. Is that why you took the name?

Please NO personal attacks. You seem good at it.

[ahsan28]

No it isn't. The strategy is not the same
If the Afghans wish to have beard police and keep their women in a state of frozen animation..well then, so be it. If they wan't to host foreign terrorists...well then, there is a problem.

OK the word strategy could be replaced by methodology, if you feel convenient. You would acknowledge the fact that the US and NATO are thinly held on ground. The inability to make sufficient numbers available for the operations forces them to rely heavily on airpower, which leads to collatoral damage. In the ist half of the last year, they carried out 1000 air strikes in Afghanistan, four times as compared to the strikes in Iraq during the same period. I think we all have consensus that mere use of brutal force leads to retaliation. The killing of one innocent in Afghanistan means rising of 10 new Talibans, which is again evident from the fact that suicidal attacks in Afghanistan increased considerably last year as compared to the years 2005-6.

The issues of beard and general behaviour with women have no linkage with the issue being discussed.


Sickness thins the ranks of troops on front line

Telegraph. UK
4/2/2008


One in 14 soldiers is sick or injured at a time when every regiment of 600 faces a shortfall of 100 men because of problems with recruitment and the numbers leaving the Army.

For at least a year, military chiefs have been aware that the strain of two substantial missions in Iraq and Afghanistan would prove a massive drain on manpower and now the Armed Forces are at the very limit of being able to provide personnel for the front line.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ntroops104.xml

[wilberhum]

Please NO personal attacks. You seem good at it.

I find myself incapable of ignoring totally stupid statements.

It is a bit odd though that you ask for no personal attacks and then make a personal attack. :hmm:

How stupid is that? :giggling::giggling::giggling:

Oh well rejoice. I'm going to see my grandson and this is probably my last post for a couple of weeks.

[krypton6]

Nobody is suggesting the U.S. went into Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. Taliban support for a terrorist organization was and still is the reason.

The "terrorist" organizations that your talking about are in fact only killing the people who feed the forces traumatizing every muslims life, can you really call those people who they kill, civilians? That same "terorrist" organization is attacking your country, a country that supports millions of terrorists and criminals.

When a group declares war on you, commits several acts of war against you, carries out a massive attack that kills thousands of your citizens, and receive there government's protection, we should "Correct them in what they were doing wrong".

Well actually they did offer america peace MANY times but they were always ignored by the americans. They offered peace to america, but recuired that america would get the hell out of the islamic nations, america ignored them every single time and by doing so americans made it clear that they did not want peace.

By supporting and runing israel and by dictating the islamic nations and torturing its people, america are in fact the ones who started the war!

"Killing and attacking Americans and their allies -- regardless of armed or unarmed -- is an individual duty for every Muslim, Arab and Human who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque of Mecca from their grip, in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim, and in order to return happiness and joy to our people."
Bin Laden

The way I see it, america can at any time stop this war, but they chose not to!

If we took your advise, we would all be speaking German or Japanese. :hiding::hiding:

The japanese and nazis never killed any of my people, the americans along with their allies did, so the way I see it I would rather speak German or Japanese than English.

By correcting I mean negotiating. They recuire something of you and in return you will recuire something of them! They recuire that america stops dictating the middle east, and in return you recuire that they stop attacking america and its allies.

Its all up to america, it seems to me that they have created this war and can whenever they wish to end it.

It was never about helping the people.

Yes and that is why I say that they should have gone in for the right reasons and with the right intentions instead of the wrong.

[Roasted Cashew]

It is a bit odd though that you ask for no personal attacks and then make a personal attack. :hmm:

You call that an attack? That's more like an advice isn't? or an order but certainly not an attack.

[ahsan28]

The war that can bring neither peace nor freedom

Tuesday February 5, 2008
The Guardian


The crisis of the Afghan occupation is a reminder of its fraudulent claims, growing cost in blood, and certainty of failure :embarrass

The intensity of this armed campaign reflects a significant broadening of the Taliban's base, as it has increasingly become the umbrella for a revived Pashtun nationalism on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, as well as for jihadists and others committed to fighting foreign occupation. The original aims of the US-led invasion were of course the capture of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, and Osama bin Laden, along with the destruction of al-Qaida.

None of those aims has been achieved :embarrass

The war in Afghanistan, which claimed more than 6,500 lives last year, cannot be won. It has brought neither peace, development nor freedom, and has no prospect of doing so :embarrass

The only real chance for peace in Afghanistan is the withdrawal of foreign forces as part of a wider political settlement, including the Taliban and neighbouring countries like Iran and Pakistan. But having put their credibility on the line, it seems the western powers are going to have to learn the lessons of the colonial era again and again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...252640,00.html

[ahsan28]

UK aid effort in Afghanistan "dysfunctional"


Britain's aid efforts in Afghanistan are failing, undermining military gains and fuelling the Taliban insurgency, a think-tank with long experience in the country said on Wednesday.

The United States has criticised its European allies saying many of them don't know how to conduct counter-insurgency operations and that others have shown a distinct unwillingness to commit more troops to combat roles in Afghanistan.

Senlis said in its report "Afghanistan - Decision Point 2008" that NATO needed to double its force if it were to have any impact against the Taliban, which it said was fully entrenched throughout southern regions of the country.

MacDonald said Taliban militants, or those allied to the movement, were in control of most roads in Helmand and were running checkpoints :embarrass


Feb 06, 2008

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=35583




The good war?


POLAND has become the latest country to echo recent Canadian and German frustration over Nato’s apparent inability to successfully confront the downside in Afghanistan.

As has become apparent, Nato’s fortunes are dipping primarily because of members’ “unwillingness” to commit troops, which owes to fierce resistance by resurgent Taleban elements. Every year fighting dies down as Afghanistan comes under cover of thick snow, and for some years now every time the Taleban have done better jobs of recuperating and planning ahead of spring, when fighting resumes. It bears noting that despite Nato’s shortcomings, the bulk of the responsibility for the Afghan failure must rest with the United States.

The short sightedness has now all but made for a repeat performance of the famous Soviet jihad, when Afghanistan’s rag-tag militias bled a military behemoth to death. :embarrass


Khaleej Times
6 February 2008


http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...editorial&col=



Blame the mission, not the alliance


As Allin points out, Nato went into Afghanistan under its Article 5 - a commitment to stand by a member when attacked, as the US had been on 9/11. “It was necessary to do that or Nato would have been in a mess”. But the invasion has become a long-term mission directed to trying to help one of the poorest countries in the world. The problem is not with the strength of Nato but the evolving demands of the mission.

A large majority of Germans - 85 per cent - are strongly opposed to sending their forces to the south of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was always going to be a difficult campaign, presenting enormous military and social challenges. :embarrass


From The Times
February 7, 2008


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3322157.ece

[MaiCarInMtl]

I just wish they would get our Canadian troops out of there. I think many of us were duped into going in to "help" and were abandonned once the going got tough and there was another country to take advantage of. Ijust want our troops out of there, back home, safe... I want my cousin to come back alive. :( He never wanted to go, he never believe in "the mission". I feel bad for all people who have lost loved ones, regardless of nationality.

[krypton6]

I just wish they would get our Canadian troops out of there. I think many of us were duped into going in to "help" and were abandonned once the going got tough and there was another country to take advantage of. Ijust want our troops out of there, back home, safe... I want my cousin to come back alive. :( He never wanted to go, he never believe in "the mission". I feel bad for all people who have lost loved ones, regardless of nationality.

Why did he go then? How was he forced into it?

[MaiCarInMtl]

Why did he go then? How was he forced into it?

He signed up for the US National Guard when he was a teenager (it was goign to help get him through school). His contract was going to expire within a month and he was ordered to ship out. He couldn't get out of it.

I think he was stupid to sign up for the National Guard in the first place. He never believed in anything they ever sold people concerning sending the army over and helping people out. Why fight for a "cause" you don't believe in. I'm still mad at him for signing up for the army (even though he was quite young when he did, probably naive), but he's still my cousin and I still want him to come home safe. He's been over there for over a year now and he won't be coming back until the summer... that'll make it an 18 month tour. They have to turn off the power at his base at night or else they keep getting bombarded.

This whole mess all because people wanted more power, more money! The blood of all the people that died are on their hands. May God deal with them as he sees fit.

[krypton6]

He signed up for the US National Guard when he was a teenager (it was goign to help get him through school). His contract was going to expire within a month and he was ordered to ship out. He couldn't get out of it.

I think he was stupid to sign up for the National Guard in the first place. He never believed in anything they ever sold people concerning sending the army over and helping people out. Why fight for a "cause" you don't believe in. I'm still mad at him for signing up for the army (even though he was quite young when he did, probably naive), but he's still my cousin and I still want him to come home safe. He's been over there for over a year now and he won't be coming back until the summer... that'll make it an 18 month tour. They have to turn off the power at his base at night or else they keep getting bombarded.

This whole mess all because people wanted more power, more money! The blood of all the people that died are on their hands. May God deal with them as he sees fit.

By attacking and invading a nation your cousin made a decision, he chose to ruin the lives of millions of people in order to save a few months or years of his own life.

Unless the punishment for disobeying is life in prison, many years in prison or execution, your cousin was in fact not forced to hold up his rifle and step on that plane.

[MaiCarInMtl]

By attacking and invading a nation your cousin made a decision, he chose to ruin the lives of millions of people in order to save a few months or years of his own life.

Unless the punishment for disobeying is life in prison, many years in prison or execution, your cousin was in fact not forced to hold up his rifle and step on that plane.

He did not invade, he was shipped off! Can you NOT READ?! HE NEVER WANTED TO GO, HE NEVER BELIEVED IN GOING, HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE THERE! You do know that they send deserters to prison, right?

My cousin never wanted to go in and hurt people, he never wanted to ruin lives, he never wanted to be sent off to some country and be forced to fight for the wrong reasons. Did you ever think that some people join the National Guard to help their country, to bring aid to people within their country? Many never wanted to be sent over.

I won't go any further into this. But thanks for saying my cousin is selfish and destroys lives, it's very much appreciated.

[krypton6]

So in order to stay away from prison your cousin invaded and attacked a weak and poor country. A few years in prison is nothing, not that he would have bin prisoned!

I've heard of former marines who refused to fight, but they were not prisoned! They were send back to america and then kicked out of the country.

Your cousin was not forced unless......

[ahsan28]

This whole mess all because people wanted more power, more money! The blood of all the people that died are on their hands. May God deal with them as he sees fit.

Brother I appreciate your views regarding the on-going illegitimate operation in Afghanistan. Here are few lines regarding expenditure of small arms ammunition fired by Canadians in two years:-

Canadians fired almost five million bullets in Afghanistan in two years

February 06, 2008


OTTAWA -- Canadian troops fired more than 4.7 million bullets at insurgents over the last 20 months in Afghanistan, according to new statistics released by the military.

In an abrupt reversal tonight, the Defence Department issued the figures requested by the Ottawa Citizen two weeks ago. The request was made after U.S and British governments provided similar figures to the public.


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...ae9b8a9&k=2200


You can imagine the casualties yourself.

[krypton6]

^ How many canadians are there in Afghanistan?

[ahsan28]

Berlin says it has no plan to boost troops in Afghanistan :?

BERLIN, Feb. 11 (Xinhua) -- The German government on Monday denied news reports that it is considering to increase its troop levels in Afghanistan.

"There is no such consideration at this time," said Defense Ministry spokesman Thomas Raabe at a press conference.

At the annual security meeting in the southern German city of Munich, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused some NATO allies of failing to share burdens in addressing global threats, especially in Afghanistan.

Without mentioning Germany's name, Gates said some nations are "forcing other allies to bear disproportionate share of the fighting and the dying."


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_7591405.htm



No plan to send extra Australian troops to Afghanistan :X

Australia is not planning to send more combat troops, the government says.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said today the government would take a new approach to Australia's involvement in Afghanistan, but that does not include any increased military commitment.

Australian soldiers are currently serving in the conflict-ravaged country, performing dangerous work. "We currently don't have in contemplation any increase of the numbers that we have," Mr Smith told ABC TV today.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...578584591.html



Allies' refusal to boost Afghanistan troops a threat to Nato, Gates says :enough!:

Monday February 11 2008

The US administration warned yesterday that Nato could be destroyed if European allied troops were not prepared to fight and die in Afghanistan and argued that, unlike the Americans, Europeans were failing to grasp how much was at stake for western security in Afghanistan. The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, also pointed to the dangers of a western alliance divided between US forces who do the fighting and Europeans who follow later to conduct the civilian clean-up operations.

Following weeks of recrimination between Washington and European capitals, particularly Berlin, over troop contributions and fighting capacity in Nato's troubled Afghan mission, Gates told a conference of defence policy-makers and security experts in Munich that Nato's future was on the line in the war against the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/afghanistan

[root]

The British are sending in a couple of divisions from it's airborne brigade, it is the biggest deployment of airbourne forces since world war 2. The paras are one of Britains elite troops,

Nice......

[krypton6]

^I wish them good luck:raging:^

[Cognescenti]

Allies' refusal to boost Afghanistan troops a threat to Nato, Gates says :enough!:

Monday February 11 2008

The US administration warned yesterday that Nato could be destroyed if European allied troops were not prepared to fight and die in Afghanistan and argued that, unlike the Americans, Europeans were failing to grasp how much was at stake for western security in Afghanistan. The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, also pointed to the dangers of a western alliance divided between US forces who do the fighting and Europeans who follow later to conduct the civilian clean-up operations.

Following weeks of recrimination between Washington and European capitals, particularly Berlin, over troop contributions and fighting capacity in Nato's troubled Afghan mission, Gates told a conference of defence policy-makers and security experts in Munich that Nato's future was on the line in the war against the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/afghanistan

Gates is right about this. The credibility of NATO is at stake, but the US knows who its true allies are and we know there aren't very many. This is not new information.

German troops would fight hard if there were an attack on Germany, as would the Poles in defending their country.

The French, if some other power surged across their Eastern border would....well...never mind.

Ashan...you do realize that even with talk about US troop drawdowns in Iraq, virtually nobody has argued domestically for abandoning the effort in Afghanistan. They can't, even if they wished as they have contrasted Afghanistan to Iraq as the "good war" vs. the "mistake".

I would not buy taliban futures if I were you.