Marines on the move in Afghanistan

[cwjerome]

First major military offensive of the Obama Administration

"Our focus is not the Taliban," Nicholson told his officers. "Our focus must be on getting this government back up on its feet."

It's a shame this operation A) wasn't done by NATO to begin with and B) wasn't done by the US earlier.

 

[Ackmed]

Sounds like fun.

 

[Lemon law]

To start out, cwjerome, this Nato military operation is only possible for two reasons. (1) The Obama increase in troops for Afghanistan.
(2) The fact that months before, Pakistani troops on the other side of the border are putting serious pressure on the Taliban.

But on the theory that the evil empire always strikes back, any military operation will never achieve the political results that are needed to solve the real problems.

And until Nato addresses the real political problems, its only going to be a endless game of wackomole.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
First major military offensive of the Obama Administration

"Our focus is not the Taliban," Nicholson told his officers. "Our focus must be on getting this government back up on its feet."

It's a shame this operation A) wasn't done by NATO to begin with and B) wasn't done by the US earlier.

A) it was done by... "NATO" forces to begin with but that force moved north rather quickly to assist the Northern Alliance which was desperatly needed as there were very few boots on the ground and minimal air support at the time.

B) Well, ISAF forces were withdrawn later because without any kind of air support (and the US denied other nations requests to support their troops by sending fighters) the mission was deemed impossible, now they go in with full air support, better late then never i guess.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To start out, cwjerome, this Nato military operation is only possible for two reasons. (1) The Obama increase in troops for Afghanistan.
(2) The fact that months before, Pakistani troops on the other side of the border are putting serious pressure on the Taliban.

But on the theory that the evil empire always strikes back, any military operation will never achieve the political results that are needed to solve the real problems.

And until Nato addresses the real political problems, its only going to be a endless game of wackomole.

1. read above and stop pretending that you know ANYTHING about this.

2. Take a fucking look at a map, there are no Pakistanian troops anywhere near where these marines are going.

The military problems have to be resolved before there is ANY kind of use for doing anything politically, as long as there is one Taliban still breathing the job isn't done.

People seem to forget that this isn't just a US/UK/NATO mission though, there are other nations involved in the ISAF troops and they should not be forgotten.

 

[Lemon law]

To rebut JOS point by point. My comments in parenthesized.

"1. read above and stop pretending that you know ANYTHING about this."
(JOS, you may know how to break things and kill people,
but that does not always translate into victory. And given the fact that Nato has been blundering around in Afghanistan for seven years now and making no real progress, I suggests you may be too close to the trees to see the forest of problems with the present approach. )

"2. Take a fucking look at a map, there are no Pakistanian troops anywhere near where these marines are going."
( And no one said that Pakistani troops were operating in Afghanistan. But the fact that those Taliban and other insurgents on the Pakistani side of the border are otherwise dealing with Pakistani troops, simply means its far harder for them to rush into more fighters or to resupply their brethren on the Afghan side of the border. And vice versa. Its military 101. The Taliban will be forced to give up areas they have controlled for some years now in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. But don't be fooled, they will look to regain it later. That is guerrilla war 101. And with Nato some 500,000 troops short of enough troops to control territory 24/7/365, its advantage insurgents. )

"The military problems have to be resolved before there is ANY kind of use for doing anything politically, as long as there is one Taliban still breathing the job isn't done."
( Many in any military will claim the same thing. It was said in Iraq during the so called surge, which mainly succeeded, not because of increased troops, but because of mainly political accommodations made with various Sunni groups that had the net effect of reducing the violence on all sides. Sadly, the Taliban are an ideological and non compromising bunch, but the Taliban are hardly all that Nato is facing in Afghanistan, there is an admixture of Al-Quida, imported foreign fighters, and most recently a large number of old line mujaheddin types that have little use for Taliban ideology, but make common cause because they have little use for Nato domination either. The point being JOS, Nato is not going to kill its way out of the problems. Worse yet, many people inside of the Afghan government have a vested interest in continuing anarchy, because they make a huge fortune in the drug and corruption business meanwhile. )

"People seem to forget that this isn't just a US/UK/NATO mission though, there are other nations involved in the ISAF troops and they should not be forgotten."
( I never said Nato was anything but a multinational force. But its mainly the extra troops US troops that Obama added that are the muscle behind this recent offensive, that puts boots on the ground and that is driving insurgents out of the areas that they controlled. Obama asked the Brits for more troops also but the Brits declined. As for the excessive use of air power, its a too blunt sledge hammer, and often backfires when it kills civilians instead of insurgents. And if Nato, which is already skating on thin ice with the 31 million Afghans, totally loses much more of the support of the Afghan people, any Nato occupation is doomed. But on the bright side, if these recent Nato and Pakistani military offensives against insurgents drives them to the negotiating table, the kind of political accommodations needed to solve many problems and reduce the overall violence, might help end this protracted anarchy in a positive way. )

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, the Taliban are an ideological and non compromising bunch

SInce I've read your post history on this subject, I know that it must have been exceptionally difficult for you to finally admit that point... and type it.

Congratulations.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To rebut JOS point by point. My comments in parenthesized.

"1. read above and stop pretending that you know ANYTHING about this."
(JOS, you may know how to break things and kill people,
but that does not always translate into victory. And given the fact that Nato has been blundering around in Afghanistan for seven years now and making no real progress, I suggests you may be too close to the trees to see the forest of problems with the present approach. )

"2. Take a fucking look at a map, there are no Pakistanian troops anywhere near where these marines are going."
( And no one said that Pakistani troops were operating in Afghanistan. But the fact that those Taliban and other insurgents on the Pakistani side of the border are otherwise dealing with Pakistani troops, simply means its far harder for them to rush into more fighters or to resupply their brethren on the Afghan side of the border. And vice versa. Its military 101. The Taliban will be forced to give up areas they have controlled for some years now in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. But don't be fooled, they will look to regain it later. That is guerrilla war 101. And with Nato some 500,000 troops short of enough troops to control territory 24/7/365, its advantage insurgents. )

"The military problems have to be resolved before there is ANY kind of use for doing anything politically, as long as there is one Taliban still breathing the job isn't done."
( Many in any military will claim the same thing. It was said in Iraq during the so called surge, which mainly succeeded, not because of increased troops, but because of mainly political accommodations made with various Sunni groups that had the net effect of reducing the violence on all sides. Sadly, the Taliban are an ideological and non compromising bunch, but the Taliban are hardly all that Nato is facing in Afghanistan, there is an admixture of Al-Quida, imported foreign fighters, and most recently a large number of old line mujaheddin types that have little use for Taliban ideology, but make common cause because they have little use for Nato domination either. The point being JOS, Nato is not going to kill its way out of the problems. Worse yet, many people inside of the Afghan government have a vested interest in continuing anarchy, because they make a huge fortune in the drug and corruption business meanwhile. )

"People seem to forget that this isn't just a US/UK/NATO mission though, there are other nations involved in the ISAF troops and they should not be forgotten."
( I never said Nato was anything but a multinational force. But its mainly the extra troops US troops that Obama added that are the muscle behind this recent offensive, that puts boots on the ground and that is driving insurgents out of the areas that they controlled. Obama asked the Brits for more troops also but the Brits declined. As for the excessive use of air power, its a too blunt sledge hammer, and often backfires when it kills civilians instead of insurgents. And if Nato, which is already skating on thin ice with the 31 million Afghans, totally loses much more of the support of the Afghan people, any Nato occupation is doomed. But on the bright side, if these recent Nato and Pakistani military offensives against insurgents drives them to the negotiating table, the kind of political accommodations needed to solve many problems and reduce the overall violence, might help end this protracted anarchy in a positive way. )

Clueless armchair militia posts again I see.

LL, you really need to post about things you have more personal and intimate experience in instead of what you study and read about. Anyone can do research and come up with your points, but I do not believe, and I could be wrong, that you have ever set foot in one of these war zones. Am I right? Of course you are entitled to your opinions, as we all are. Where I have a problem is when people act and post like they have first hand experience, but they don't. When that happens, you become, in military terms, a fucking twat! Scuttle butt is something that you put in your ass, or you zip your lips. Now would be an appropriate time to STFU! :|

 

[Red Irish]

The brother of a friend of mine just came back (he serves in the Spanish air force). I spoke to him about his experiences and he told me tales of various raids on villages, wherein all the male inhabitants were killed and the women gang raped by Taliban war chiefs and their followers.

Whilst I normally oppose military action and all forms of violence, I find it hard to justify leaving people at the mercy of these scum, irrespective of any hypocrisy on our part, opium issues or past history that would advise against the deployment of troops.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
The brother of a friend of mine just came back (he serves in the Spanish air force). I spoke to him about his experiences and he told me tales of various raids on villages, wherein all the male inhabitants were killed and the women gang raped by Taliban war chiefs and their followers.

Whilst I normally oppose military action and all forms of violence, I find it hard to justify leaving people at the mercy of these scum, irrespective of any hypocrisy on our part, opium issues or past history that would advise against the deployment of troops.

and no one has a cell phone movie of this? it just seems that in this day and age we'd have some propaganda pics to post to help the folks at home get riled up and supporting the action...

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: Red Irish
The brother of a friend of mine just came back (he serves in the Spanish air force). I spoke to him about his experiences and he told me tales of various raids on villages, wherein all the male inhabitants were killed and the women gang raped by Taliban war chiefs and their followers.

Whilst I normally oppose military action and all forms of violence, I find it hard to justify leaving people at the mercy of these scum, irrespective of any hypocrisy on our part, opium issues or past history that would advise against the deployment of troops.

and no one has a cell phone movie of this? it just seems that in this day and age we'd have some propaganda pics to post to help the folks at home get riled up and supporting the action...

Bush the butt fucker ruined that for us.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: Red Irish
The brother of a friend of mine just came back (he serves in the Spanish air force). I spoke to him about his experiences and he told me tales of various raids on villages, wherein all the male inhabitants were killed and the women gang raped by Taliban war chiefs and their followers.

Whilst I normally oppose military action and all forms of violence, I find it hard to justify leaving people at the mercy of these scum, irrespective of any hypocrisy on our part, opium issues or past history that would advise against the deployment of troops.

and no one has a cell phone movie of this? it just seems that in this day and age we'd have some propaganda pics to post to help the folks at home get riled up and supporting the action...

Bush the butt fucker ruined that for us.

that's a pretty interesting post... and what does that mean in regard to my post that you quoted?

 

[cwjerome]

The problem with LL is he is a pacifist trying to analyze military stability and support operations and counterinsurgency. As one would expect, it's a completely unworkable and in the end, ridiculous. But this is rather obvious, and most anyone who has read his posts the past few years know his position makes as much sense as an underwater BB-stacking battalion.

As far as JOS I would basically agree... neither the ISAF or the US separate from them had enough resources to actually hold the ground that needed to be held. Hopefully that will be changing soon.

Killing Taliban is a wonderful thing, but it appears more than ever that the US at least is recognizing that unless the national government is effective and the outlying areas benefit from good government, there can be no victory. This means staying in an area long term and living with the people. Hence the quote in the OP.

 

[Lemon law]

Well its wonderful that you have decided I am clueless, but given the amount on on the scenes JOS and palehorse braggadocio, Nato should have won in Afghanistan five years ago. But are these recent offensives just something ahead of the 8/2 Afghan election or something Nato can and will sustain?

Other funny thing, I opposed our tactics in Vietnam also, many thought I was crazy then, but I don't think sailing home waving flags, saying yippee we won with peace with honor, is any victory in Vietnam. Or better yet, face the fact that the USA lost the Vietnam war because we had too may generals not an iota smarter than JOS.

And if Red Irish believes all propaganda, there should not be a female alive in all of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
I still remember Kuwaiti claims the invading Iraqi troops were tossing new born infants out of incubators, it never happened, but in any war, the first causality is the truth.

At the end of the day, you can believe cwjerome and JOS.

Or look at actual results on the ground. I have been telling this forum our tactics stink in Afghanistan for almost four years now, JOS has been promising victory in another few weeks for almost as long if not longer.

 

[maluckey]

I just need to pipe in here.

I'm not as rabid as some, but far more than others, and I've served in several hotspots and will do so again. I'm NOT a REMF by trade, and I've held several military specialties over the years, so that being said...

I just don't see anything working so long as the PEOPLE aren't willing to die for what they seem to want. If they're not willng to stand and be counted, then nothing that NATO, the U.S. or any other army does, will change the end result which is inevitably...FAILURE.

They bow before warlords who rub their noses in what they call freedom, and force them to smell and fear what they consider unholy. All this for the aggrandisement of a warlord or chief who is happy to let his "people" live in filth, fear and disparity compared to other nations.

Tribalism is the cause and solution of most of their woes. Ask them if they are Afghani and the response is that they're (insert tribal name here), then Muslim, then MAYBE they will eventually get to Afghani after they tell you about their clan and the neighborhood and discuss the price of chai and opium.

Change tribalism to Nationalism and you may have a shot. Of course rabid Nationalism is sometimes equally as dangerous for sheeple (Nazis anyone?).

No matter, they haven't changed in 5000 years or so, and by Allah! They're not willing to change because some upstart nations of only a couple thousand years combined knowledge tell them there's a better way.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I just need to pipe in here.

I'm not as rabid as some, but far more than others, and I've served in several hotspots and will do so again. I'm NOT a REMF by trade, and I've held several military specialties over the years, so that being said...

I just don't see anything working so long as the PEOPLE aren't willing to die for what they seem to want. If they're not willng to stand and be counted, then nothing that NATO, the U.S. or any other army does, will change the end result which is inevitably...FAILURE.

They bow before warlords who rub their noses in what they call freedom, and force them to smell and fear what they consider unholy. All this for the aggrandisement of a warlord or chief who is happy to let his "people" live in filth, fear and disparity compared to other nations.

Tribalism is the cause and solution of most of their woes. Ask them if they are Afghani and the response is that they're (insert tribal name here), then Muslim, then MAYBE they will eventually get to Afghani after they tell you about their clan and the neighborhood and discuss the price of chai and opium.

Change tribalism to Nationalism and you may have a shot. Of course rabid Nationalism is sometimes equally as dangerous for sheeple (Nazis anyone?).

No matter, they haven't changed in 5000 years or so, and by Allah! They're not willing to change because some upstart nations of only a couple thousand years combined knowledge tell them there's a better way.

Sadly enough, I have to agree. Afghanistan was never a country outside the cities IMO.

Just take a look at the major ethnic groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...istan,_by_district.svg

Let alone the various subdivisions within each province and cross-border relations.

There's also this little detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...cations_and_technology

Under the Taliban, television was shut down in 1996, and print media were forbidden to publish commentary, photos or readers letters.[93] The only radio station broadcast religious programmes and propaganda, and aired no music.[93]

 

[ZeGermans]

ooorah who wants to take bets on how many women they rape, families they blow up, and livelyhoods they destroy? I'm going with 10, maybe 20k. How about you guys? God bless america!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
ooorah who wants to take bets on how many women they rape, families they blow up, and livelyhoods they destroy? I'm going with 10, maybe 20k. How about you guys? God bless america!

That's worth quoting. Say, who is the commander in chief nowadays?

 

[ZeGermans]

another war criminal.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
another war criminal.

Another moron. I'm assuming an ex-nam protester who called soldiers baby killers and never got his head out of his ass.

I'd like to send you to Afghanistan.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I just need to pipe in here.

I'm not as rabid as some, but far more than others, and I've served in several hotspots and will do so again. I'm NOT a REMF by trade, and I've held several military specialties over the years, so that being said...

I just don't see anything working so long as the PEOPLE aren't willing to die for what they seem to want. If they're not willng to stand and be counted, then nothing that NATO, the U.S. or any other army does, will change the end result which is inevitably...FAILURE.

They bow before warlords who rub their noses in what they call freedom, and force them to smell and fear what they consider unholy. All this for the aggrandisement of a warlord or chief who is happy to let his "people" live in filth, fear and disparity compared to other nations.

Tribalism is the cause and solution of most of their woes. Ask them if they are Afghani and the response is that they're (insert tribal name here), then Muslim, then MAYBE they will eventually get to Afghani after they tell you about their clan and the neighborhood and discuss the price of chai and opium.

Change tribalism to Nationalism and you may have a shot. Of course rabid Nationalism is sometimes equally as dangerous for sheeple (Nazis anyone?).

No matter, they haven't changed in 5000 years or so, and by Allah! They're not willing to change because some upstart nations of only a couple thousand years combined knowledge tell them there's a better way.

There's no doubt we face impossible odds (especially since we've had generally poor execution since 2001) but we've done the impossible before. I fully agree the tribal and cultural environment is a hard nut to crack... the tribal/clan system isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The key is I think the US knows this and is not working to change their universe... the key is to build a recognizable national government that serves the people while maintaining the basic cultural social system. If you can sell the tribal leaders that an effective government can help them while not destroying their social fabric, it's a good chance you can get them to play the game. Won't be easy though.

 

[Lemon law]

At least irish Scott, in his one sided diatribe, managed to accidentally hit one nail on the head in by saying, " They bow before warlords who rub their noses in what they call freedom, and force them to smell and fear what they consider unholy. All this for the aggrandisement of a warlord or chief who is happy to let his "people" live in filth, fear and disparity compared to other nations."

In 1980, when the Afghan oppressor was Russia, the US did step up and aid Afghan resistance fighters called the mujaheddin, we called them freedom fighters, the Russians called them terrorists, and once the nose of the Russian bear was properly tweaked, the USA abandoned the Afghan people like a obsolete and no longer used tool.

In the resultant civil war as elements of the Afghan resistant and various war lord thugs fought for control, it was the Taliban who emerged as the saviors because they got rid of the total corruption and won the support of the Afghan people. Even if it was a stinking bargain, Sharia law and Taliban control was infinitely better than anarchy and corruption, but came at a terrible price. As for the US role in the mix, they totally disappeared five years ago.

Then Al-Quida, basically without the knowledge and consent of the Taliban hatched 911, suddenly the USA remembered the Afghanistan it abandoned, and tried to play the role of Afghan savior.

Casting the Afghan people right back to their civil war when the Russians left but made one big level worse.

During the pre Taliban civil war, your basically unarmed Afghan civilian was only caught between various competing sides of the civil war, Afghan war lords financed by drugs, and corrupt governmental officials. Piss off any of those, and your life was toast. Get accidentally caught in the cross fire between competing groups, you paid the forfeit also.

After 911 it got even more dangerous, when Nato and Al-Quida joined the party, even if a given Afghan civilian wanted to rely on Nato as a new savior better than the Taliban, not only did the USA and Nato, as its first official act, ally itself with Afghan corruption,
Nato has proved totally unreliable as a savior, with a totally way way too small occupation with many Afghans with many Afghan troops not seeing a single US troop for better than a year. And then when they do see the Nato presence, they are more likely to find themselves on the receiving end of Nato violence.

And then irish Scott has the unmitigated gall to blame the Afghan people for not rallying around Nato that has established a miserable and morally bankrupt record of not doing a damn thing for the Afghan people in the past 25 years.

All so irish Scott can live with his delusions in the USA, while the people of Afghan and Pakistani people live lives in constant peril.

And then we wonder why the Taliban can say the root of all evil is the Western devil. And as a citizen of the USA, I am ashamed to admit, the Taliban has something that resonates. And Nato, sad to say, has done everything to earn that indictment.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
ooorah who wants to take bets on how many women they rape, families they blow up, and livelyhoods they destroy? I'm going with 10, maybe 20k. How about you guys? God bless america!

Go drown yourself in more tears.

 

[cwjerome]

Just like once a week or so some bright eyed doofus posts a Wiki link to the 1954 US involvement in Iran (like it's some startling, new info nobody knows about), LemonLaw has to give us his same, repeated sophomoric history lesson (like it's some startling, new info nobody knows about).

The problem -besides the repetitiveness- is the spin deejay LL puts on things. How in the hell can you agree when the Taliban says the root of all evil is the Western devil? HOW?? How are you ashamed to admit that the Taliban has something that resonates? HOW?? How can you keep saying that the Taliban is better than the ISAF? How can you keep saying that the Taliban was good for the country, that they had something that resonates?

Don't you understand that they happened to be the most powerful thugs and imposed their will on the populace? The only thing that resonates from the Taliban to the people is a bloody sword and a warm AK47.

You have always dismissed or minimized the Taliban while heaping an amazing amount of hyperbolic scorn on the US and NATO. You are probably one of those people from the Cold War who were bored by the rivers of blood coming out of the Soviet Union and China, yet got greatly agitated at any miniscule action by the United States. Yes, I know your type.

EDIT: BTW LL, I think your last post was supposed to be directed at Maluckey, not Irish Scott

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
At least irish Scott, in his one sided diatribe, managed to accidentally hit one nail on the head in by saying, " They bow before warlords who rub their noses in what they call freedom, and force them to smell and fear what they consider unholy. All this for the aggrandisement of a warlord or chief who is happy to let his "people" live in filth, fear and disparity compared to other nations."

In 1980, when the Afghan oppressor was Russia, the US did step up and aid Afghan resistance fighters called the mujaheddin, we called them freedom fighters, the Russians called them terrorists, and once the nose of the Russian bear was properly tweaked, the USA abandoned the Afghan people like a obsolete and no longer used tool.

In the resultant civil war as elements of the Afghan resistant and various war lord thugs fought for control, it was the Taliban who emerged as the saviors because they got rid of the total corruption and won the support of the Afghan people. Even if it was a stinking bargain, Sharia law and Taliban control was infinitely better than anarchy and corruption, but came at a terrible price. As for the US role in the mix, they totally disappeared five years ago.

Then Al-Quida, basically without the knowledge and consent of the Taliban hatched 911, suddenly the USA remembered the Afghanistan it abandoned, and tried to play the role of Afghan savior.

Casting the Afghan people right back to their civil war when the Russians left but made one big level worse.

During the pre Taliban civil war, your basically unarmed Afghan civilian was only caught between various competing sides of the civil war, Afghan war lords financed by drugs, and corrupt governmental officials. Piss off any of those, and your life was toast. Get accidentally caught in the cross fire between competing groups, you paid the forfeit also.

After 911 it got even more dangerous, when Nato and Al-Quida joined the party, even if a given Afghan civilian wanted to rely on Nato as a new savior better than the Taliban, not only did the USA and Nato, as its first official act, ally itself with Afghan corruption,
Nato has proved totally unreliable as a savior, with a totally way way too small occupation with many Afghans with many Afghan troops not seeing a single US troop for better than a year. And then when they do see the Nato presence, they are more likely to find themselves on the receiving end of Nato violence.

And then irish Scott has the unmitigated gall to blame the Afghan people for not rallying around Nato that has established a miserable and morally bankrupt record of not doing a damn thing for the Afghan people in the past 25 years.

All so irish Scott can live with his delusions in the USA, while the people of Afghan and Pakistani people live lives in constant peril.

And then we wonder why the Taliban can say the root of all evil is the Western devil. And as a citizen of the USA, I am ashamed to admit, the Taliban has something that resonates. And Nato, sad to say, has done everything to earn that indictment.

:laugh:

If you're going to quote/respond to someone, please make sure you're quoting the right person.

And I've known every detail of your little history lesson since late high school. I fail to see how international fuckups qualify the Taliban's stance. You "try" talk about Afghan and Pakistani lives in constant peril, yet you don't for an instant admit the crimes of the Taliban?

I'd like to send you to Afghanistan as well, specifically to a village that's about to be taken over by the Taliban. See how you fare.