The new question, how will the Death of OBL effect the Tailban.

[Nebor]

There's no winning, Lemon Law. You can armchair general this thing as much as you want, but the entire operation has been an exercise in futility. In a group discussion the other day, someone was arguing in favor of our strategy in Afghanistan, comparing Afghanistan's tribe\province structure to our initial 13 colonies. Saying that we turned out ok, so Afghanistan can too. Several people (myself included) were quick to point out that the Afghans are literally nowhere near as developed culturally or technologically as the pilgrims that came here in the 1700s. They need another few centuries to advance to that point. Until then, we need to bail. It's sort of like the Prime Directive from those Star Trek TV shows.

 

[Lemon law]

There's no winning, Lemon Law. You can armchair general this thing as much as you want, but the entire operation has been an exercise in futility. In a group discussion the other day, someone was arguing in favor of our strategy in Afghanistan, comparing Afghanistan's tribe\province structure to our initial 13 colonies. Saying that we turned out ok, so Afghanistan can too. Several people (myself included) were quick to point out that the Afghans are literally nowhere near as developed culturally or technologically as the pilgrims that came here in the 1700s. They need another few centuries to advance to that point. Until then, we need to bail. It's sort of like the Prime Directive from those Star Trek TV shows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quit copping out Nebor, of course Nato can win, but if we come into Afghanistan with the attitude of we are father knows best and they are children, you can bet your sweep bippie that that mere Nato attitude by itself is a game loser.

We can't tell them our technology is superior, we must show them that it can work for them. And when we do the dead opposite and make their lives far worse, and then to add injury to insult saddle them with a turd of an Afghan government, its a no brainer that Nato can't win.

So rather than realize why Nato fails, people like Nebor scapegoat the Afghan people.

Get a clue Nebor, we have to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as they are, and when we fail to relate to them in any way as they are, we done lost.

But people all over the world are basically the same, they want better lives for themselves and their children. When Nato delivers a worse life for them and their children, there is nothing hard to understand.

 

[werepossum]

There are numerous opinion polls available. Example:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/v...stan-criticisms-us-stay-high/story?id=9511961

Like all broad based opinion polls it's a mixed bag. However, in no poll I've seen is overall support for the Taliban higher than 20% (usually less), and support for the U.S. and, surprisingly, their own central government, is substantially higher.

- wolf

Very good info, thanks. That actually gives me some hope that we're not wasting the lives of thousands of our best young people. It also incidentally strengthens my conviction that most people naturally crave and value freedom. All too often I feel like Muslims do not when intellectually I know they should be little different.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy for you to say JediY, but in Israel, during the period between 1900 to 1948. the Jews were the most effective and most frequent users of terrorists tactics. A fact you fail to mention. And that two former terrorists became PM's of Israel. And I refer to Mier and Begin.

The history of terrorism is at least 6000 years old. Islam is only 1200 years old.

Dude, seriously. Get help. The first half of the twentieth century represented merely a slowing of the age-old trend of state terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and the relatively powerless Jews (who had NO country and NO power in that time period) were much more often the victims than the instigators.

 

[Lemon law]

Jesus Christ werepossem, how dare you say, "Dude, seriously. Get help. The first half of the twentieth century represented merely a slowing of the age-old trend of state terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and the relatively powerless Jews (who had NO country and NO power in that time period) were much more often the victims than the instigators."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The worse instance of terrorism that killed the most people happened in basically the first half of the 20'th century. As man's inhumanity to man went high tech. And if we don't think Hitler was bad enough, its arguable that Stalin killed even more. Nor has the latter half of the 20'th century been much better, as we saw the the killing field's of Cambodia, the butcheries in Rwanda, and the Christian Bosnian mass murders in Yugoslavia.

And then you go on to bleat, "and the relatively powerless Jews (who had NO country and NO power in that time period) were much more often the victims than the instigators." I will certainly basically agree that the Jews were clearly the victims and not the instigators of terrorism prior to 1945, but after the formation of Israel, sad to sad, the Jews become the instigators of Palestinian mass discrimination, genocide, and the mass robbers of Palestinian line------- and still are as I write this.

Now the only real question is and remains, will the the Palestinians finally win the right to establish their own State at or around 9/2011 so we can correct the effects of Israeli instigation that is a living monument to man's inhumanity to man in the first part of the 20'th century.

 

[BeauJangles]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually BeauJangles, I hope you are right, but the criteria that you cite just shows you have little understanding of terrorism tactics. Its not that the terrorist is too cowardly to take on the US army directly, its a matter that the smart terrorists attack only at points weakly defended. And this has shown true for the recent history of the Afghan war.

Of course the Taliban wants to attack weak targets, but we're seeing that they've become less and less capable of doing so. Engagements directly with US military forces are declining and the 'masses' that were once willing to blow themselves up, pick up a rifle, or provide material support to terrorism are waning.

We have three excellent case studies on this "take the battle to the enemy strategy": Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel. In all three, the terrorized country first reacted by sitting back and doing little (think US reaction after 1993 WTC attacks). By leaving these terrorist groups "alone" and letting them operate unabated in countries like Afghanistan, we let their dialogue dominate the people there.

By taking the fight to these terrorists' homelands they've been forced to use their deadly tactics on the very people that support them. That didn't go over very well. In Hamas' case, a combination of suicide bombings, Israeli incursions, and economic stagnation essentially forced terrorism to take a back seat to people's practical needs and wants. We're seeing the same thing in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That doesn't mean the war is won. There are still committed terrorists out there (see Iraq), but they are no longer garnering the support of everyone around them and, for the most part, their tactics have turned people against them.

Nato can launch an offensive in any Taliban controlled point, go in with guns blazing , shoot the place up while dislocated civilians in lots greater than 100,000. And then declare the location Taliban free. Then Nato goes somewhere else to rinse and repeat. And as Nato packs off from place A to place B, the Taliban is right at their heels, setting back up their shadow government and control of place A.

In theory, but that theory requires that the Taliban has a limitless supply of bodies. They don't and, after this winter in which the US military forced these combatants to come out and basically fight them to toe-to-toe in freezing cold weather, they're finding it harder and harder to get the young men they need to keep their operations going. Not to mention that those operations targeted important people in the Taliban, the ones who would be out recruiting more young people to join their fight.

Meanwhile, US drone strikes and DA missions by SOCOM have helped eliminate many of their middle managers and kept many others in hiding. Again, it's hard to recruit when your leaders are stuck in caves, running for their lives, or dead.

Let's also consider that the Taliban is actively trying to change tactics from roadside bombings to suicide attacks. Why? Primarily because the US has gotten extremely good at detecting roadside bombs - over 70% are found. Those that aren't found are having a harder time killing Americans thanks to MRAPs and such, but are killing civilians more and more often. These increased deaths are leading to more reports of roadside bombs, the bomb labs, and the bomb makers.

If Nato ever want to consolidate any gains and win the war against the Taliban, they need at least 100,000 more troops and the commitment of development resources.

Those numbers sound pretty arbitrary to me and considering that the Taliban's Spring Offensive this year has been nothing but a bunch of yelling and screaming at the Western media, I would say that there is evidence to the contrary.

Even if the Afghan people may want Nato to win, they also realize they get perpetual anarchy because Nato will never commit enough resources to defeat the Taliban. As the Guerrilla war opponent, the Taliban does not have to defeat Nato, they only have to outlast Nato.

Not particularly true. Most people are eager for a more effective central government. Coalition forces will make significant progress when they realize that having a centralized Western government in Afghanistan won't work. They will have to compromise on some very key issues to build a constituency of local leaders that will act far more like a feudal government than the ones we are used to. That being said, I think it can be done.

Meanwhile the corrupt government of Karzai

Every bit of information the world has says that the Afghans would rather have corruption than the Taliban, who is pretty careless with the lives of the civilians under its control. In border regions corruption can trigger Taliban support, but it seems that it is short-lived. Particularly once the ultra-religious rules return and the "traitors" start being beheaded.

and US drone use, keep the Taliban flush with new recruits.

I think that a few years ago the predator strikes in Afghanistan were driving people towards the Taliban. The Taliban is a lot weaker than it was a few years ago though and the thought of randomly being blown up while training to fight the infidels is a pretty strong motivator to keep people away from the Taliban.

With the US and Nato pullout scheduled in 2014, my best guess is the Taliban will stay the course for at least 3 years more. If anything else, other than some Arab raised Taliban funding, losing OBL is an asset to the Taliban.

Considering AQ and the Taliban had a shaky, at best relationship, the death of OBL, who kept their rather awkward alliance together, is a major blow to their ability to receive outside assistance. They'll try to spin it some other way, but the truth is that most Taliban leaders couldn't stand AQ because they looked down on them and AQ couldn't stand them because they thought they were idiots. Not exactly good grounds for a continued to partnership.

But a Taliban victory could come sooner, if Pakistan tells Nato they can no longer use Pakistani roads as a supply line.

The US will find ways to bring supplies into Afghanistan. That isn't what will turn the war.

What I alluded to above was that the US will have to compromise on a Western-style government in order to end this conflict. If the Taliban can be convinced to lay down its weapons and join some sort of political process (and idea that was impossible two years ago, but is closer to a reality now) and if some of these warlords can also be brought in (issues with drugs are a big problem), then we could have the makings of a relatively stable, if unconventional, government.

Your fundamental assumption is wrong, though. The Taliban aren't very well liked in most of Afghanistan, either, so it's not like they'll be hailed as heroes if they somehow survive the rest of this war.

 

[Fern]

The new question, how will the Death of OBL effect the Tailban

(Not sure if you meant "Al Qiada" instead of the Taliban?)

IMO, his death will not have much effect.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

The primary BeauJangles delusions are contained in the following sentences, In all three, the terrorized country first reacted by sitting back and doing little (think US reaction after 1993 WTC attacks). By leaving these terrorist groups "alone" and letting them operate unabated in countries like Afghanistan, we let their dialogue dominate the people there. "

If what BeauJangles thinks what he says is true, he fails to understand, that we have more terrorism all over the planet now than before the GWB so called war on terrorism started.

But point granted BeauJangles, the Obama strategy is slightly better than the strategy of GWB, it remains to be seen if Nato can finally win in Afghanistan or not in the limited time left. You remind me of all those US army savants in Vietnam who claimed they could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[BeauJangles]

The primary BeauJangles delusions are contained in the following sentences, In all three, the terrorized country first reacted by sitting back and doing little (think US reaction after 1993 WTC attacks). By leaving these terrorist groups "alone" and letting them operate unabated in countries like Afghanistan, we let their dialogue dominate the people there. "

What delusion are you talking about? The fact is that this country was rocked by several terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. In each one our military / government acted like a law enforcement agency; we collected evidence, we pursued leads, and we tried to make arrests. That was ineffective.

After 9/11, the US took the initiative and brought the fight directly to AQ in its home base of operation. Since then, we have damaged AQ's ability to conduct operations, stopped several major terrorist plots, and have had ever-increasing success against the Taliban.

Those are the facts.

If what BeauJangles thinks what he says is true, he fails to understand, that we have more terrorism all over the planet now than before the GWB so called war on terrorism started.

More terrorism? How? In your counter-factual world where if we sat back and had done nothing maybe big bad AQ would have left us alone? Terrorism was on the rise before the 9/11 attacks, but you're obviously not interested in discussing the facts.

But point granted BeauJangles, the Obama strategy is slightly better than the strategy of GWB, it remains to be seen if Nato can finally win in Afghanistan or not in the limited time left. You remind me of all those US army savants in Vietnam who claimed they could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

You remind me of someone who has the pessimism of Vietnam jammed so far into your brain that you cannot, do not, and will not think differently. The war in Afghanistan is NOT the war in Vietnam and the minute that you and (assuming you are of that generation) your generation realizes it, the better off we all are.

Whatever though, you clearly are interested in Afghanistan going down in history as Vietnam #2 and you're willing to simplify, ignore, and evade the facts that get in your way. Have fun with that. The rest of us will happily recognize the tremendous successes we've had and the tremendous failures we've suffered.

I'm not interested in Vietnam-era hubris, nor am I interested in blind American hubris or AQ / Taliban hubris, what I'm interested in is the fact that the Taliban has utterly failed to launch any sort of Spring Offensive like they have in the past. I'm interested in the fact that they are slowly abandoning roadside bombs, I'm interested in the fact that their main link to AQ is now dead, and I'm interested in trying to figure out how these changes can be exploited to end the war in Afghanistan.

 

[Lemon law]

Now BeauJangles says, ' I'm interested in trying to figure out how these changes can be exploited to end the war in Afghanistan."

Well then we agree, let us see what happens.

 

[werepossum]

Jesus Christ werepossem, how dare you say, "Dude, seriously. Get help. The first half of the twentieth century represented merely a slowing of the age-old trend of state terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and the relatively powerless Jews (who had NO country and NO power in that time period) were much more often the victims than the instigators."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The worse instance of terrorism that killed the most people happened in basically the first half of the 20'th century. As man's inhumanity to man went high tech. And if we don't think Hitler was bad enough, its arguable that Stalin killed even more. Nor has the latter half of the 20'th century been much better, as we saw the the killing field's of Cambodia, the butcheries in Rwanda, and the Christian Bosnian mass murders in Yugoslavia.

And then you go on to bleat, "and the relatively powerless Jews (who had NO country and NO power in that time period) were much more often the victims than the instigators." I will certainly basically agree that the Jews were clearly the victims and not the instigators of terrorism prior to 1945, but after the formation of Israel, sad to sad, the Jews become the instigators of Palestinian mass discrimination, genocide, and the mass robbers of Palestinian line------- and still are as I write this.

Now the only real question is and remains, will the the Palestinians finally win the right to establish their own State at or around 9/2011 so we can correct the effects of Israeli instigation that is a living monument to man's inhumanity to man in the first part of the 20'th century.

I realize that you can't really be held responsible for the things you say, or even expected to understand them. But you specifically stated:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy for you to say JediY, but in Israel, during the period between 1900 to 1948. the Jews were the most effective and most frequent users of terrorists tactics. A fact you fail to mention. And that two former terrorists became PM's of Israel. And I refer to Mier and Begin.

The history of terrorism is at least 6000 years old. Islam is only 1200 years old.

Please note that Jewish massacres by Arabs were a regular feature of the Palestine Mandate as well as in Arab nations during the twenties and thirties, at least until the Nazis began to organize the Holocaust. Of the time period 1900 - 1948, Jewish groups that by any stretch of the imagination could be labeled terrorist only began carrying out reprisal attacks (an eye for an eye) in 1936, during the three years long Arab riots. Prior to that, illegal Jewish groups merely patrolled, hoping to encounter the next batch of murderous Arab Muslims before they actually began killing unarmed women and children; their "terrorism" consisted largely of helping Jews run away from the Arabs coming to kill them. In terms of terrorism, Jews came a very poor second to any of the Arab nations - for that matter, any of the Christians in the European nations as well.

 

[Nebor]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quit copping out Nebor, of course Nato can win, but if we come into Afghanistan with the attitude of we are father knows best and they are children, you can bet your sweep bippie that that mere Nato attitude by itself is a game loser.

We can't tell them our technology is superior, we must show them that it can work for them. And when we do the dead opposite and make their lives far worse, and then to add injury to insult saddle them with a turd of an Afghan government, its a no brainer that Nato can't win.

So rather than realize why Nato fails, people like Nebor scapegoat the Afghan people.

Get a clue Nebor, we have to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as they are, and when we fail to relate to them in any way as they are, we done lost.

But people all over the world are basically the same, they want better lives for themselves and their children. When Nato delivers a worse life for them and their children, there is nothing hard to understand.

NATO and the US never had a chance at winning. Have you ever even been to Afghanistan? Because it looks a lot different in person compared to articles and scholarly papers by think tanks.

You blame NATO, I blame the situation. It's a combination of the Afghan people not wanting to advance (your supposition that they want a better life for their children is unfounded, I've seen them do horrible things to their kids on a grand scale) and NATO being confused as to our goals.

We've given them enough weapons and ammunition to kill each other for another 30 or 40 years, and it's time for us to bail before we lose more lives and credibility. That's the cycle of Afghanistan. The people who want power will continue to wage a civil war, and the rest of the country will go back to farming goats. The million dollar power plants and water treatment facilities we've built will fall into disrepair just like all other imported technology of the past has.

I'm baffled at how you can believe that NATO is fully responsible for bungling things so badly so far, but yet somehow believe that we can recover and do things right. News flash: we can't. Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to believe that we are simply not capable of winning this thing. We don't want to. We're incompetent and unqualified to do what you want us to do. The Afghan insurgents are smarter than us. Their weapons are more effective than ours. Like I said, whatever you need.

 

[BeauJangles]

Now BeauJangles says, ' I'm interested in trying to figure out how these changes can be exploited to end the war in Afghanistan."

Well then we agree, let us see what happens.

We don't agree on anything, you're just too unwilling to address ANY of the successes of the war.

edit: you predicated this thread on the theory that the Taliban will be stronger after OBL's death and alluded to this spring's offensive. Evidently you've got no defense or aren't interested in discussing whether that's true.

 

[JTsyo]

My hope is for a massive suicide by all extremist. But in all seriousness, I dunno.

I think it's time the US pulled out of both areas. We should let the cockroaches kill each other off but what makes me hesitate is the innocent people that get stuck in the middle. What we really need is for the fucking politicians to let the soldiers do their job. But that's outside the scope of this thread

Maybe we can set something up on facebook.