U.S. says Pakistan, Iran helping Taliban

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Dari
Not sure how this is going to help McChrystal. Best if he kept his fucking mouth shut and dealt with this more discreetly. The Iranians and Pakistanis live in that neighborhood, the US doesn't. Best to work with the neighbors rather than calling them out for looking after their own interests. IMHO, I doubt he is making his job any easier.

He didn't inform the Washington Post... He sent his report up to his appropriate senior and they or their senior decided it was a prudent move to give a 'cleansed' version to the Post. That is his job, I'd think, to inform the boss of the situation so the boss can determine policy.?

Well, whoever leaked this isn't making our job any easier.

I've opinions on all of this Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran and the rest but not the best foundation to do much of an argument.
I figure if true the folks doing it already know it. (assisting the taliban)
I figure to let them know we know sorta gives them a chance to deny it and back away from doing it.
To know and not let them know might serve to have them hunker down when and if we intend to do something there. (Not that what we do do will result in Victory or even break even) It would or may could cement their feet into something that may destabilize more than what could be the case.
I think, anyhow.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You do not get this at all, you are both idiots trying to make sense of what politicians tell you happened but when someone WHO WAS THERE tells you you just deny it.

The only reason why i equated you with Lemon Law is that you are both like that, you jump up and down and scream at things that are not even close to truth and refuse to listen when someone actually tells you the truth.

Though i might agree that equating you to Lemon was kinda... too much.

My apologies for that.

When have I ever once questioned you or any other service member's perspective on Afghanistan (or Iraq)? We certainly can have a roll when it comes to other politics, but I defer to boots on the ground as being the experts.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its all well and fine for alcmemize to say, " When have I ever once questioned you or any other service member's perspective on Afghanistan (or Iraq)? We certainly can have a roll when it comes to other politics, but I defer to boots on the ground as being the experts."

But when those so called experts are focusing on the standard things a military is good at which is breaking things and killing people, they can easily lose sight of what skills sets are needed to win an occupation.

And when we look at the JOS new found pessimism, its quite clear that its the new information gained from troops on the ground has totally shattered his prior illusions of what Afghanistan REALLY looked like.

Since much of our current military leadership cut their teeth in Vietnam, we ought to have really experienced people, but until they can view the war through Vietnamese of Afghan eyes, and win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, all they have is a failing mutual admiration society.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting commentary on NPR this morning. Obama has backed himself into a corner. The military says we can't win without Iraq-level troops and commitment, which is going to result in Iraq-level costs and casualties. But he's made it "his war". Does he:

1) Fully commit, as he's promised, and enrage the left wingers (and potentially enter a quagmire)
2) Back out, and give the right wingers huge political ammo for the next election
3) Take a middle-road approach and definitely end up in a quagmire, enabling outrage from both fringes.

My bet is he goes with #1. Might even be worth another thread...

It's always amusing to hear ants cough.

With what it would take to get full commitment on the war you can rest assured of one thing, it'll never happen. It wouldn't matter if one MILLION soldiers were there today, the war was over the day troops were pulled out and let the Talibans regain control of all civilian areas.

You can't fight them now, there is simply NO WAY, they are not in uniform and they are moving freely.

We had them in one area, about to finish the job but oh no, the mission was over before we had a chance to deal with them and we were pulled out, those left were there to "defend the peace".

I don't know if there was any political reason behind that decision, to prolong a war that was almost over but if you ask me for speculation... Then yes, they were not eliminated because of a political agenda of which the intent was to eliminate resistance for the Taliban so they could go right ahead and take over all civilian areas.

Very sobering.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I have to ask who the "we" were when JOS asserts, "We had them in one area, about to finish the job but oh no, the mission was over before we had a chance to deal with them and we were pulled out, those left were there to "defend the peace".

When the fact is and remains the "we in Nato" were pitifully small and few. But in providing the air power end of the bargain,
not many Nato were needed. But the ground troop muscle was provided by the newly rearmed losers in the prior Afghan civil war, namely the Corrupt Northern alliance that lost to the Taliban because of their very corruption.

And once the Northern alliance used Nato to chase the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they all raced back home to re set up corruption at their same old stands. Because the Northern alliance had no bone to pick with Al-Quida, and without the ground troops of the Northern alliance, Nato air power alone could do little or nothing as the Taliban and Al-Quida retreated and regrouped.

Simply more revisionist history excuses from JOS, granted not his fault, but piss poor planning on the part of Dumsfeld and Nato leadership. If we had air lifted reliable Nato troops to the other side of Tora Bora, history might be different, as that retreat might have been cut off, but it did not happen and we have to deal with the mistake.

Wouda coulda shouda is still a logistical problem Nato never had the personnel to take advantage of.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
U.S. says Pakistan, Iran helping Taliban
This fact has been true for years, but it bears repeating until someone influential, courageous, and powerful enough actually listens, cares, and does something to stop it. But, I will not hold my breath waiting for ANY politician to come along with courage enough to do what's necessary to end their collusion once and for all.

If I had my way, we'd carpet-bomb a 50-mile-wide stretch along both borders, every single day, for the next ten years. (It may even be cheaper than what we're doing now! :|)

Then, while hell on earth prevents their entering Afghnaistan along its borders, we can clean out the corruption in the Afghan government itself one scumbag and one bullet at a time.

Unless we're willing to commit to such tactics to achieve total victory, we should leave tomorrow. Go all-in, or stay the fuck at home.

These half-fought wars gamed by suits in D.C. must end.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
U.S. says Pakistan, Iran helping Taliban
This fact has been true for years, but it bears repeating until someone influential, courageous, and powerful enough actually listens, cares, and does something to stop it. But, I will not hold my breath waiting for ANY politician to come along with courage enough to do what's necessary to end their collusion once and for all.

People have the courage, just not the ability or resources. And it's chicken/egg: Pakistan's government lack the courage to act because it doesn't have the resources to. And it lacks the resources to because it lacks the courage to state its agenda publicly.

Most of the ~200 million people in Pakistan don't want what they're forced to put up with. They're just helpless against that motivated, organized minority responsible.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I think yellus is wrong but he still hit the nail on the head for both Afghanistan and Pakistan with, "Most of the ~200 million people in Pakistan don't want what they're forced to put up with. They're just helpless against that motivated, organized minority responsible."

Because what we have here is really a twin battle of anarchy and chaos v. a stable government plus a battle between modernity and technology v. a primitive and reactionary force that wants to lead its residents back to the stone age.

The bulk of the 200 million Pakistanis long ago choose modern technology over the bad old days. As will virtually everyone on the planet. The myth is that the tribal areas of Pakistan is really part of Pakistan or anything Pakistan really cares about. When in fact the tribal areas of Pakistan have always been a semi-autonomous region that time forgot. But at least the tribal areas of Pakistan escaped the total anarchy and musical chair governments that characterize the rest of the highly similar Afghanistan where anarchy and chaos has been the rule and not the exception to the rule.

And it was first the Russians who decided to take over Afghanistan using the wondrous gifts of Western civilization, namely helicopter gun ships that brought new and better ways to kill Afghans. Then Uncle Reagan decided to arm Afghan terrorists with missiles that could shoot down helicopters. The Russians were forced out and Afghanistan descended into another civil war that became extra special bloody because of all those left over Russian arms. And even more benefits of modern technology, all kinds or corrupt rascals and war lords found they could enrich themselves with corruption, thuggery, and drug dealing as they encouraged opium cultivation. One has to be especially mentally retarded to not get the idea of why the man on the street Afghan decided if those are the only benefits of modern technology, we don't want it. Which also explains the rise of the Taliban, who were willing to use any level of violence to return to the glories of an ancient Afghan past that never was. But to the limited credit of the Taliban, they did stamp out a lot of Afghan corruption, did form stable government, but at a draconian cost as they disenfranchised all females and spurned the modernity that could lift Afghanistan from the basic stone age they had always been mired in.

Then to further make everything worse, Ossama Bin Laden received shelter from the Taliban, and then without the knowledge or consent of the Taliban used it to launch 911. And when the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden, it was suddenly resolved the Taliban had to go. So nato invaded with a skeleton force, allied with the umber corrupt Northern Alliance, the very rascals that made the Taliban the better choice, and chased the Taliban into Pakistan. And once the Northern alliance got done using Nato to get rid of the Taliban, they raced back home to reset up corruption, thuggery, and drug dealing even better than before.

But the ever war weary Afghans were willing to take Nato at its word, as Nato talked about the wonders of modern technology, democracy, and all that stuff. But unfortunately, in an occupation of the cheap, Nato miserably failed to even try to make good.
The Afghan government and democracy instead delivered a government even more corrupt than any preceding it, and even better, instead of just having two violent groups that would rather kill the average Afghan than look at them, now they have four. In the Taliban, corrupt war lords, the Afghan government, and Nato who will kill any number of Afghan villagers if it even thinks it can get one Taliban member. As the entire Afghan countryside becomes a shooting gallery.

As for any benefits of Modernity, that does and has not happened in an occupation on the cheap. As for the Afghan man on the streets, his government does not work, his courts do not work, if he sides with anyone, he gets killed by other groups, and he has no tangible benefits from the promises of Nato. No roads, no schools, no, no , and no nothing.

And now we in this forum fails to understand the appeal of the Taliban when they shout throw the Western devils out.

And why I believe the answer to the Taliban is simple, show the Afghan people the real benefits of Modernity. Even if we have to start in a small area and build outward. The Afghan people want the same thing everyone else wants, things we take for granted,
and they will not side with Nato if we can't deliver anything but death, destruction, corruption, and anarchy.

 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I bet that LL plays a mean game of C&C Generals!

No joke, that dude probably pwns.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I bet that LL plays a mean game of C&C Generals!

No joke, that dude probably pwns.
:laugh: :laugh: