War on Taliban cannot be won, says army chiefChristina Lamb Helmand, Afghanistan
Britain's most senior military commander in Afghanistan has warned that the war against the Taliban cannot be won. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect a “decisive military victory” but should be prepared for a possible deal with the Taliban.
His assessment followed the leaking of a memo from a French diplomat who claimed that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British ambassador in Kabul, had told him the current strategy was “doomed to fail”.
Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan, said it was necessary to “lower our expectations”. He said: “We’re not going to win this war. It’s about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.”
The brigadier added: “We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency . . . I don’t think we should expect that when we go there won’t be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world. That would be unrealistic and probably incredible.”
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Bump, 'cos I'm interested in how long people think it will be before the International troops flee.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
hahahha lol it's the history of Afghanistan that no matter what, it cannot be defeated so there^^! And i'm proud of every muslim who wishes they were there and may Allah help our brothers and grant the victory and honour in this life and the next. Ameen
Oh Mankind! What keeps you from your Lord most Generous?
There is no Hand but the Hand of Allah is over it, and
There is no Opressor but he is tried with a Greater Opression.
Ofcourse they arn't going to win against the taliban. The people who in charge of making sure important decisions go through, are done by someone who knows very little militarily, so the military gets screwed - and ends up with not enough resources, soldiers, equiptment and what not.
How can there ever be a clear victory against the Taliban? Who are the Taliban? A figment of Bush and Blair's mind.
Taliban = 99.9% of the Afghan people.
They are not fighting the Taliban they are fighting the entire population of Afghanistan because you can't walk into someone's house and tell them how to live their life. Especially when it comes to Afghanistan because for the last few generations they have known nothing but fighting and death.
Bush needed someone to blame for 9/11 and just put the blame on Afghanistan and Saddam.
Anyone find it strange that Osama re-appeared out of nowhere on the night before the last US elections to threaten the people? Lame scare tactics. Osama works for Bush.
Same applies to Palestine. They just want their homes back.Also Iraq.
USA are fighting an invisible enemy.
And no its nothing to do with the fact that they are "Moslems". They just don't wanna bend over backwards and take orders from a foreign army.
The only solution would be to wipe out the entire race. Which is happening slowly anyway.
I was reading a few months back how 3000 UK troops fought for 3 days to transport this massive turbine through 200 miles of Taliban controlled territory. They killed a few hundred Taliban and one of the Brits was wounded as well.
Hundreds of Thousands of pounds of money , exhaustive effort and terrible risk to transport something that will never be used. It will sit on the top of the mountain with a part built power station around it rusting away forever. In many ways it symbolises the International effort. Trying to provide power, water, food and prosperity for a nation as a few percentage of that population destroy anything thats done with a gleam in their eye and a prayer on their lips.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
I was reading a few months back how 3000 UK troops fought for 3 days to transport this massive turbine through 200 miles of Taliban controlled territory. They killed a few hundred Taliban and one of the Brits was wounded as well.
Hundreds of Thousands of pounds of money , exhaustive effort and terrible risk to transport something that will never be used. It will sit on the top of the mountain with a part built power station around it rusting away forever. In many ways it symbolises the International effort. Trying to provide power, water, food and prosperity for a nation as a few percentage of that population destroy anything thats done with a gleam in their eye and a prayer on their lips.
It's not a true international effort. Very few are actually fighting. Countries like France and Germany have ROE where they aren't allowed to engage the Taliban. Many of them don't even carry weapons.
.... because you can't walk into someone's house and tell them how to live their life.
An interesting comment, as that is precisely what the Taliban did before and wish to do again. Despite your ridiculous '99.9%' comment the majority of Afghans don't want them, even as they don't want US and NATO troops stomping around carelessly dropping bombs, either.
The issue is the strategy. Right now the strategy is "whack a mole", which is what the Iraq strategy was until it was changed. There aren't enough resources in Afghanistan to manage a full-blown counter insurgency strategy. The issue isn't that the Taliban can defeat the U.S. or Great Britain military...they can't. The issue is whether the insurgency can be stopped altogether. That is a large task, especially since the Taliban have safe haven in a bordering country.
I would be watching who wins the U.S. presidency. Obama has staked his foreign policy on focusing on Afghanistan with more military resources. He has even mentioned defying Pakistani sovereignty is necessary. Something the U.S. is doing in spurts, but I think Obama is more serious about engaging the Taliban where they hide.
The British general who stated the war can't be won also mentioned that the reason was the strategy. That strategy will change.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
An interesting comment, as that is precisely what the Taliban did before and wish to do again. Despite your ridiculous '99.9%' comment the majority of Afghans don't want them, even as they don't want US and NATO troops stomping around carelessly dropping bombs, either.
How many Afghans do you know that welcome the US troops and are happy with their presence?
As I asked above... who are the Taliban? Do you know? Can you tell them apart from the rest of the Afghani people?
The issue is the strategy. Right now the strategy is "whack a mole", which is what the Iraq strategy was until it was changed. There aren't enough resources in Afghanistan to manage a full-blown counter insurgency strategy. The issue isn't that the Taliban can defeat the U.S. or Great Britain military...they can't. The issue is whether the insurgency can be stopped altogether. That is a large task, especially since the Taliban have safe haven in a bordering country.
I would be watching who wins the U.S. presidency. Obama has staked his foreign policy on focusing on Afghanistan with more military resources. He has even mentioned defying Pakistani sovereignty is necessary. Something the U.S. is doing in spurts, but I think Obama is more serious about engaging the Taliban where they hide.
The British general who stated the war can't be won also mentioned that the reason was the strategy. That strategy will change.
You think it can be won militarily?
The taliban are hidiously bad fighters. They are simply appauling. All they have is sheer rage and ignorance. They cant shoot, they cant fight for toffee. They take casulties at rates of 50:1. Their main victim is the innocent afgan civilian.
This dosnt matter. The west will lose because for every civilian the taliban kill will be another crime of the west in the eyes of the Western people, and that cannot be sustained.
The taliban havnt won a single battle face to face, they will win by the mere fact that the people that are rebuilding their country under gunfire have a different religion. This will bring an endless supply of misguided reinforcements to "protect" the afgans from "America" by killing afgan kids.
I predict all international forces out in less than 2 years and with the last chinooks carrying wounded kids from the rightious mob, as per Saigon.
Hopefully the bloodbath when they leave will be slightly less, but thats a pipe dream.
Last edited by barney; 10-14-2008 at 11:12 PM.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
The taliban are hidiously bad fighters. They are simply appauling. All they have is sheer rage and ignorance. They cant shoot, they cant fight for toffee. They take casulties at rates of 50:1. Their main victim is the innocent afgan civilian.
All that is true, which is why it shouldn't impossible to counter this insurgency with the right strategy.
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
This dosnt matter. The west will lose because for every civilian the taliban kill will be another crime of the west in the eyes of the Western people, and that cannot be sustained.
Possibly true, as far as the Afghan perception of the Coalition. It is a tight balancing act between doing what is necessary to find and kill the Taliban and not making too many mistakes which leads to more anger against the Coalition than the anger against the Taliban.
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
The taliban havnt won a single battle face to face, they will win by the mere fact that the people that are rebuilding their country under gunfire have a different religion. This will bring an endless supply of misguided reinforcements to "protect" the afgans from "America" by killing afgan kids.
If we simply clean our hands of the whole affair and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, as we did after the Soviet defeat, it will simply sew the seeds of an Al-Qaeda stronghold, just as it was pre 9-11.
I
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
predict all international forces out in less than 2 years and with the last chinooks carrying wounded kids from the rightious mob, as per Saigon.
Hopefully the bloodbath when they leave will be slightly less, but thats a pipe dream.
I seriously doubt that. This isn't exactly the North Vietnamese Army we're talking about here. Much less the Vietcong. The only way this would happen is if the Coalition...meaning primarily the U.S. and U.K., just wipe their hands of the whole affair. We're far from that point. At least from the American perspective.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Bump, 'cos I'm interested in how long people think it will be before the International troops flee.
You are obviously misinterpreting what this guy is saying.
His main point:
“What we need is sufficient troops to contain the insurgency to a level where it is not a strategic threat to the longevity of the elected Government,” he said.
...
He indicated that the only way forward was to find a political solution that would include the Taleban.
How that translates to him saying "the Taliban are victorious" is unclear to me! Of course foreign forces will be leaving eventually, when I do not know. Obviously the Afghan National Army and Police will have to bear the full brunt eventually. In 2003 there were a few thousand members in the ANA, now there are over 80,000.
Purely out of interest, what were you predictions on Iraq 'years ago'? Were they in any way similar?
How many Afghans do you know that welcome the US troops and are happy with their presence?
As I asked above... who are the Taliban? Do you know? Can you tell them apart from the rest of the Afghani people?
Well, there are some indicators that the Taliban are not wanted:
A majority voted in elections in 2004 and 2005, despite the Taliban opposing them. Does this not count as a legitimization of the current Kabul regime?
Millions upon millions of refugees returned to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001
Environics survey: (Oct 2007)
The Taliban. What is public opinion of the Taliban, who ruled the country prior to 2002? When asked, almost three quarters of Afghans nationwide have a very negative (53%) or somewhat negative (20%) opinion of the Taliban, compared with only 14 percent who hold a positive view. Opinions are marginally less critical in Kandahar (67% negative versus 20% positive), and among Pashtuns (64% negative versus 26% positive). Moreover, the public is most likely to believe that the Taliban enjoys the support of only a few Afghans (50%), rather than some (24%) or most (7%), with Kandahar opinion only slightly more positive toward the Taliban.
WPO poll: (Dec 2006)
Despite these problems, there is no indication that the Taliban are winning popular support. A near unanimous 92 percent of Afghans view the Taliban unfavorably, a slight increase from 88 percent in 2005.
BBC, ABC and ARD Poll (Dec 2007)
Many such views are worse in the Southwest, the main Taliban hotspot. There, nearly two-thirds rate U.S. efforts negatively, confidence in local authorities is down sharply – and opposition to the Taliban has weakened substantially. Twenty-three percent in the Southwest say people in their area support the Taliban, triple what it was last year, and compared to just 8 percent nationally.
Further, a year ago 81 percent in the Southwest said the Taliban had “no significant support at all” in their area; now just 52 percent say so. Preference in the Southwest for the current government rather than the Taliban has declined from 90 percent then to 77 percent now. And in the single biggest change, just 45 percent in the Southwest now support the presence of NATO forces there – dramatically down from 83 percent a year
ago. Civilian casualties blamed on these forces is a prime complaint
Now, you can criticize all of these indicators, but if you dismiss them you need to motivate why. So what reasons do you have to believe the Taliban are popular? What makes you say 99.9% of the Afghans support them? What is this based on? Especially when considering non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan. Do the 80,000 in the Afghan army support them? Do the 60% that voted in the elections support them?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks