[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/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3295340.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

 

[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/nationworld/world/la-fg-alqaeda2feb02,1,5609926.story?ctrack=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/mai...AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/02/04/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.