This will determine the fate of the mission in Afghanistan

[Arkaign]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan

I've been digging really deep into the crisis with Afghanistan, and have come to the logical conclusion that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan means pretty much nothing to the Taliban and the deep-rooted forces which support AQ. The fight has to be brought through to the enemy where they live, and such an initiative will only succeed if occupying forces stay and offer protection and infrastructure-building long after initial combat operations have been completed.

I don't really put much faith in this offensive, seems far too weak to effectively accomplish any reasonable goals. Only 30k soldiers? The Pakistani army is woefully unequipped to deal with mountainous guerrilla warfare, in tactics, in equipment, and in training. I think for such an offensive to have a solid change of succeeding one would need more like 200k-300k soldiers with far superior tactics, equipment, and training, along with very solid supply lines.

Chances for this offensive to make a significant impact? 5% or less.
Chances that if this offensive makes some headway, that the political will and resources will be committed towards entrenching long-term stability (infrastructure, offering reasons to turn the locals into allies)? 1% or less.
Chances that this will fail, leaving the region a hotbed of Taliban/AQ? 95%+.

 

[SandEagle]

wow dude. you should like be in the military.. you can be a commander's assistant or something.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

*shakes head*

Going after them in Waziristan would be great, if it had been done in 02 when they were cornered but nuh uh, the "imminent threat" was more important.

It's 6-7 years too late and 500K soldiers would not be able to do anything more than 30K can.

The Special Forces will target, the Airforce will bomb and the regular army will move in to take out survivors. Unfortunatnly there are more Al Quaida troops living in Bagram than in Waziristan at this point, we had them fucking cornered and the US and UK admins decided that it was better to let them operate in peace than to eradicate them when there was a chance.

Just fucking move out, it's over.

 

[Oceandevi]

Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

Yeah, that is the bad news, the good news is that there are more dead Talibans every day.

I can not think of a single reason to let a Taliban live, "he has kids" well kill him off and they have a chance in life, "he's the sole provider" well the Saudis are known for supporting the families of martyrs. (something that apparently was bad enough to go to war for against Iraq but good enough to lick the arses of Saudi princes).

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

Yeah, that is the bad news, the good news is that there are more dead Talibans every day.

I can not think of a single reason to let a Taliban live, "he has kids" well kill him off and they have a chance in life, "he's the sole provider" well the Saudis are known for supporting the families of martyrs. (something that apparently was bad enough to go to war for against Iraq but good enough to lick the arses of Saudi princes).

I was just mocking his off-hand statistics. Sometimes I wish we could repair all those broken shells of nations we call the middle east. Such a mess. Bring Back Persia!!!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

Yeah, that is the bad news, the good news is that there are more dead Talibans every day.

I can not think of a single reason to let a Taliban live, "he has kids" well kill him off and they have a chance in life, "he's the sole provider" well the Saudis are known for supporting the families of martyrs. (something that apparently was bad enough to go to war for against Iraq but good enough to lick the arses of Saudi princes).

I was just mocking his off-hand statistics. Sometimes I wish we could repair all those broken shells of nations we call the middle east. Such a mess. Bring Back Persia!!!

Ehhh, Afghanistan is NOT in the ME.

In the olden timey days there were no distinct nations in the area and certainly no Persian dominance in those parts.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

Yeah, that is the bad news, the good news is that there are more dead Talibans every day.

I can not think of a single reason to let a Taliban live, "he has kids" well kill him off and they have a chance in life, "he's the sole provider" well the Saudis are known for supporting the families of martyrs. (something that apparently was bad enough to go to war for against Iraq but good enough to lick the arses of Saudi princes).

I was just mocking his off-hand statistics. Sometimes I wish we could repair all those broken shells of nations we call the middle east. Such a mess. Bring Back Persia!!!

My obviously loose 'statistics' are better read as severe doubts as to the viability of this mission in terms of succeeding. If you have some info or other data which will further clarify and flesh out a reason to believe this will end in anything but abject failure, do us a favor and clue us in

As to Afghanistan being in the Middle East, it depends on what definition you apply. Afghanistan is generally accepted as being part of the 'Greater Middle East', but not the traditional Middle East that is formed by the areas between Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and the countries within that group. In any case, it's a somewhat arbitrary rather than concrete definition, and considering the political sphere, it makes sense to include Afghanistan and Pakistan in any serious discussion of the region's politics and military issues.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

Yeah, that is the bad news, the good news is that there are more dead Talibans every day.

I can not think of a single reason to let a Taliban live, "he has kids" well kill him off and they have a chance in life, "he's the sole provider" well the Saudis are known for supporting the families of martyrs. (something that apparently was bad enough to go to war for against Iraq but good enough to lick the arses of Saudi princes).

I was just mocking his off-hand statistics. Sometimes I wish we could repair all those broken shells of nations we call the middle east. Such a mess. Bring Back Persia!!!

My obviously loose 'statistics' are better read as severe doubts as to the viability of this mission in terms of succeeding. If you have some info or other data which will further clarify and flesh out a reason to believe this will end in anything but abject failure, do us a favor and clue us in

As to Afghanistan being in the Middle East, it depends on what definition you apply. Afghanistan is generally accepted as being part of the 'Greater Middle East', but not the traditional Middle East that is formed by the areas between Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and the countries within that group. In any case, it's a somewhat arbitrary rather than concrete definition, and considering the political sphere, it makes sense to include Afghanistan and Pakistan in any serious discussion of the region's politics and military issues.

Take a quick look at the population and understand why it doesn't make any sense what so ever.

Neither the culture nor the people are the same.

Afghanistan is not in the ME, the people in Afghanistan are not from the ME and it NEVER was part of greater Persia.

So in a word, NO.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

Yeah, that is the bad news, the good news is that there are more dead Talibans every day.

I can not think of a single reason to let a Taliban live, "he has kids" well kill him off and they have a chance in life, "he's the sole provider" well the Saudis are known for supporting the families of martyrs. (something that apparently was bad enough to go to war for against Iraq but good enough to lick the arses of Saudi princes).

I was just mocking his off-hand statistics. Sometimes I wish we could repair all those broken shells of nations we call the middle east. Such a mess. Bring Back Persia!!!

My obviously loose 'statistics' are better read as severe doubts as to the viability of this mission in terms of succeeding. If you have some info or other data which will further clarify and flesh out a reason to believe this will end in anything but abject failure, do us a favor and clue us in

As to Afghanistan being in the Middle East, it depends on what definition you apply. Afghanistan is generally accepted as being part of the 'Greater Middle East', but not the traditional Middle East that is formed by the areas between Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and the countries within that group. In any case, it's a somewhat arbitrary rather than concrete definition, and considering the political sphere, it makes sense to include Afghanistan and Pakistan in any serious discussion of the region's politics and military issues.

Take a quick look at the population and understand why it doesn't make any sense what so ever.

Neither the culture nor the people are the same.

Afghanistan is not in the ME, the people in Afghanistan are not from the ME and it NEVER was part of greater Persia.

So in a word, NO.

One could say that about many nations in the ME in the traditional understanding of that term. Turkey has very little to do with Iran or Israel for that matter, and Egpyt is quite unique as well. Even within single nations in the ME, many contain different sections with utterly differing cultures, languages, and so on.

Given that AQ has had a stronghold in the Afghan/Pakistan border region for quite some time, and that we deal heavily with Pakistan on those issues as well as with other negotiations related to the general ME policies, for the current timeframe it does make sense to consider the Afghanistan and Pakistan nations in context with the classical Middle East.

As for what was part of the height of the Persian empire, that's so long ago it has almost no bearing at all on what is happening now.

 

[cwjerome]

I think something to consider is that the increased Taliban operations in Afghanistan is ongoing maybe not because they are getting stronger in Afghanistan... it may be more likely because they are anticipating being forced out of Pakistan- as they have been largely chased out of Swat and now maybe from Waziristan. They have to relocate somewhere and create operational space for themselves. I am not sure it is a sign of strength or part of a bluff that they appear stronger than they really are.

Does it matter? The military tries nation building because we think it's necessary, and essentially, DoS doesn't mobilize to do it in war zones. The American way of war is to hand off the the job to the generals while the rest of the government engages in business as usual. The military pretty much likes it that way, as there is less 'interference' down range. But it also means that our activities are truncated, as there is no "full spectrum" effort which applies all of the resources, skills and agencies of the Federal Government to solve the myriad of problems in the conflict zone. Just another hole in the failboat.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The land of Cain She never been defeated in war ever.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The land of Cain She never been defeated in war ever.

I think I don't know where Cain had his farm but if it was from the India border due west to Greece and up to oh... Tibet and beyond a bit and to parts of Egypt, I'd say Alexander III might take offense to that... Alex 'The Great'.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The land of Cain She never been defeated in war ever.

I think I don't know where Cain had his farm but if it was from the India border due west to Greece and up to oh... Tibet and beyond a bit and to parts of Egypt, I'd say Alexander III might take offense to that... Alex 'The Great'.

Your reaching , Thats histories version, including an area within an area does not a conquest make. Afganstan I wouldn't go near it for all the oil that ever existed . This isn't about anything other than oil pipeline murder for profit . This is one people the world could do without . GOOD luck with that. The great alex. was pretty smart man. He wouldn't touch that land with a 10 foot poll.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The land of Cain She never been defeated in war ever.

I think I don't know where Cain had his farm but if it was from the India border due west to Greece and up to oh... Tibet and beyond a bit and to parts of Egypt, I'd say Alexander III might take offense to that... Alex 'The Great'.

Your reaching , Thats histories version, including an area within an area does not a conquest make. Afganstan I wouldn't go near it for all the oil that ever existed . This isn't about anything other than oil pipeline murder for profit . This is one people the world could do without . GOOD luck with that. The great alex. was pretty smart man. He wouldn't touch that land with a 10 foot poll.

Don't you have social security checks to be cashing?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The land of Cain She never been defeated in war ever.

I think I don't know where Cain had his farm but if it was from the India border due west to Greece and up to oh... Tibet and beyond a bit and to parts of Egypt, I'd say Alexander III might take offense to that... Alex 'The Great'.

Your reaching , Thats histories version, including an area within an area does not a conquest make. Afganstan I wouldn't go near it for all the oil that ever existed . This isn't about anything other than oil pipeline murder for profit . This is one people the world could do without . GOOD luck with that. The great alex. was pretty smart man. He wouldn't touch that land with a 10 foot poll.

Don't you have social security checks to be cashing?

not till wed. not everyone gets paid on the 3rd. I dropped my medicare conerage. to give self raise. that also removes $100 from the medicare fund . I covered on wifes policy . But I took the B policy anyway to kinda help . . But Obama changed all that. There more than one way to skin a skunk So i got the raises I should have recieved plus 250 more this year. So it amouts to a 1200 dollar loss to medicare fund every year , and a $1200 increase in what I recieve in a year . Not bad . Pretty happy . To bad the elderly cann't do this.

 

[Jhhnn]

The only real solution in Afghanistan would be a political one, and that simply can't happen because the Karzai govt is irredeemably corrupt, rotten to its core, propped up only by American arms and money. Just the way it is, the way the Bushistas made it, and that alone is the greatest recruiting tool the Taliban will ever have. Whatever else they may be, the Taliban aren't corrupt, something that earns the respect and support of many Afghans. The Pakistani govt is only marginally better.

The American practice of holding detainees indefinitely w/o charge or trial is also viewed as corrupt and cowardly, rightfully so. We say one thing and do another, something that won't win a lot of hearts and minds anywhere, particularly not in Afghanistan. We won't win any using artillery and airpower against "suspected" insurgent gatherings that turn out to be wedding parties, either...

Which is not to say that the Obama Admin is doing any better- they're keeping their eyes clamped wide shut, buying into the same losing perspective as their predecessors. It was a chancreous cockup long before they inherited it, however...

 

[Lemon law]

Except for Jhhnn, everyone on this thread seems to cling to the delkusion that Afghanistan is a military problem. And its really a sad indictment of Nato behavior and tactics when we can't beat the hell out of the Taliban in a win the hearts and minds battle. Our chief sin, treating them like dirt in an occupation of the cheap. And trying to foist off the Krazai narcostate government as an acceptable answer.

Its, IMHO, possible to win in Afghanistan, but Nato is raedically going to have to change in tactics. And stamp out the opium profiteering that now drives all the thuggery on all sides.

Ansd as Jhhnn corre ctly points out, if Obama stays with GWB type tactics he will get GWB results. Thyis crap about saying its GWB'S war or now Obama's lead nowhere, what matters is starting to win which will NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MILITARY MEANS.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Oh man I was ready to be all supportive of whoever is gonna kill some talibani asshats... And then you start with the stats. ugh

Yeah, that is the bad news, the good news is that there are more dead Talibans every day.

I can not think of a single reason to let a Taliban live, "he has kids" well kill him off and they have a chance in life, "he's the sole provider" well the Saudis are known for supporting the families of martyrs. (something that apparently was bad enough to go to war for against Iraq but good enough to lick the arses of Saudi princes).

I was just mocking his off-hand statistics. Sometimes I wish we could repair all those broken shells of nations we call the middle east. Such a mess. Bring Back Persia!!!

Ehhh, Afghanistan is NOT in the ME.

In the olden timey days there were no distinct nations in the area and certainly no Persian dominance in those parts.

Nonetheless, by the 5th century BCE the kings of Persia ruled over territories roughly encompassing today's Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Bulgaria, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Caucasia, many parts of Greece, parts of Central Asia, Libya, and northern parts of Arabia. Eventually by 480 BCE the Achaemenids went on to hold the greatest percentage of world population for an empire,[8][9] and became the largest empire in ancient history.




Stolen from wiki. I also stand by my statement about the OP's stats. He asks me to go and find better ones? Using percentages in this manner is stupid IMO. Saying that one side in a conflict has 1% chance... I just don't see the point of looking at it like that. It seems false and meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..._of_the_Ottoman_Empire

This is what I wish never happened, but hindsight eh?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Except for Jhhnn, everyone on this thread seems to cling to the delkusion that Afghanistan is a military problem.

Reading comprehension failure strikes again. Re-read my post and think this time.

And Jhhnn's little tirade is a freshmen level partisan cliche.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Except for Jhhnn, everyone on this thread seems to cling to the delkusion that Afghanistan is a military problem.

Reading comprehension failure strikes again. Re-read my post and think this time.

And Jhhnn's little tirade is a freshmen level partisan cliche.

So, uhh, the Karzai govt isn't corrupt? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that military victory is possible w/o some sort of political solution as well?

Yeh, I reread your post- it's the usual pooh-poohing and apologisms for the Bush Admin's absolute ineptitude and arrogant stupidity wrt Afghanistan. If I'd been looking for a way to create a total quagmire and perpetual war, I'd have done it the GWB way...

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Except for Jhhnn, everyone on this thread seems to cling to the delkusion that Afghanistan is a military problem.

Reading comprehension failure strikes again. Re-read my post and think this time.

And Jhhnn's little tirade is a freshmen level partisan cliche.

So, uhh, the Karzai govt isn't corrupt? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that military victory is possible w/o some sort of political solution as well?

Yeh, I reread your post- it's the usual pooh-poohing and apologisms for the Bush Admin's absolute ineptitude and arrogant stupidity wrt Afghanistan. If I'd been looking for a way to create a total quagmire and perpetual war, I'd have done it the GWB way...

No, what I'm saying is only a tool could state the latest, obvious political talking points as if it were insightful or meaningful, as a cover -no less- for another tired Bush-bash. In fact, I think you've set the world record for using the word "Bushista" in every post in any and all topics you've posted in. And only someone like you could take what I wrote and somehow spin it into anything about Bush, particularly anything positive.

I would invite you to try seeing (and thinking) without your partisan lenses, but you'd probably have no clue what to say. Yeah, you better stick to the script. Carry on...

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice Ad-hom, CWJ. It's actually a compliment, being the last refuge of somebody who has nothing meaningful to say.

thanks.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice Ad-hom, CWJ. It's actually a compliment, being the last refuge of somebody who has nothing meaningful to say.

thanks.

Actually my Ad-Homs are usually the result of lack of patience with hacks.

There is no productive use in force-fitting the rather vague U.S. domestic "liberal" and "conservative" labels onto COIN choices. In practice, liberals and conservatives do not follow significantly different patterns in matters of counterinsurgency.

Political policy disagreements are one thing but this topic isn't so much about that, and it's bad form to come in and blast off a few irrelevant partisan jabs... I know it's hard, but try and control yourself.

 

[Jhhnn]

More false equivalency apologisms, CWJ?

Anybody with a passing knowledge of Afghan history and culture recognized the Bush Admin's approach as stupid and arrogant. They said so at the time, and haven't exactly kept quiet. Not that the media gave them much attention being too busy fawning over the Bush Admin so as to maintain "access". The Bush admin was so eager to invade Iraq that they basically left a token force in Afghanistan while providing token aid as well. Strong believers in the notion that perception creates reality, they pooh-poohed the growing problems as long as possible, refused to act decisively, allowed the situation to deteriorate even as they used the old body-count scorecard to obfuscate.

That needs to be acknowledged, because there won't be any sort of new beginning without it.

The Obama Admin inherited a lit mountain of dynamite thanks to their predecessor, something that took years of stupidity to produce, and there's really no end in sight unless they can get out of the rut that's been established. It remains to be seen if that's possible.