US strike kills 11 Pakistani soldiers

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Aimster
Any source Pakistan helps AQ?

There are paper trails from the ISI into AQ and the Taliban.

Yet TGB states that Pakistan has no beef with the Taliban but with AQ.

Given that AQ & the Taliban have been joined at the hip for the past 10-15 years; Pakistan refused to seal the Afghan border when the Taliban & AQ were initially routed, it makes one wonder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But there in lies the rub. The USA& Nato may want to put US boots on the ground and actively fight both the Taliban and Al-Quida inside of Pakistan. And palehorse is telling this forum that the only reason we fail in Afghanistan is that the taliban can rest aand resupply inside of Pakistan. And Pakistan refuses to allow the USA and Nato the permission they seek
to operate at all inside of Pakistan.

And there is a certain justification there, if the too few Nato forces can't exert any control in Afghanistan, how can it have any better success when the mission area gets bigger. And it will get much much bigger if the taliban and or Al-Quida decides to flee into any one of the Stans to the North as I can only see an endless game of wackomole occurring as the Nato hounds chase a few fleeing as the rest of taliban hares circle into their rear and watch their pursuers vanish into trackless wastes while they come right back.

But as I said, we now have a living experiment in different ways to combat the taliban. If palehorse is correct, Pakistan will regret allowing the taliban to operate in the tribal areas of Pakistan because the larger tribal population will get horribly oppressed. And we should be hearing these reports coming in profusion already.

But if palehorse is wrong, we should expect to see life little changed as the taliban tries to show it can responsibly govern these areas.

And the USA and Nato have a middle ground course they can take, they can let the tribal areas of Pakistan to go to hell in a handbasket because thats Pakistan's problem, but escalate troops numbers enough to prevent rested and resupplied taliban fighters from re-entering Afghanistan. There are only a few roads to funnel in heavy supplies and mountain passes make excellent ambush points for small foot patrols augmented by aerial bombing. And all the advantages heavily favor the side that has command of the skies and has the technology to put sensors on the ground.

Yet palehorse claims that we can't do that because we can't control the border. While palehorse does claim we can somehow get all the taliban inside of Pakistan?

Pardon me, that simply does not make any sense to assert Nato can't control a fairly short border but can control a much larger operation area when they can't even control the operational area they have.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Aimster
Any source Pakistan helps AQ?

There are paper trails from the ISI into AQ and the Taliban.

Yet TGB states that Pakistan has no beef with the Taliban but with AQ.

Given that AQ & the Taliban have been joined at the hip for the past 10-15 years; Pakistan refused to seal the Afghan border when the Taliban & AQ were initially routed, it makes one wonder.

Afghan hero Ahmad Shah Massoud noted before he was asassinated that wihout Pakistan and the ISI, the Taliban & AQ could not have gained the strength they did ...

The news of Massoud's death was reported almost immediately, appearing in BBC, European and North American newspapers on 10 September 2001. It was quickly overshadowed by the September 11, 2001 attacks, which proved to be the terrorist attack that Massoud had warned against.

The timing of the assassination, two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, is considered significant by commentators who believe Osama bin Laden ordered the assassination to help his Taliban protectors and ensure he would have their protection and cooperation in Afghanistan. The assassins are also reported to have shown support for bin Laden in their questions of Massoud.

The Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Mujahideen leader Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan Wahhabi Islamist, have also been mentioned as a possible organizers or assisters of the assassins. Massoud was a strong opponent of Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan.

No one in the West was interested in supporting him and the Northern Alliance from 1996 (when the Taliban & OBL called for a jihad against them) until 9/11.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
One can not control the border because it is very porus.

There are large trails/roads that can be used, monitored and blocked.
However, there are also footpaths that prevent heavy supplies but allow small bands to transit.

However, one can chase after people because you then have a trail to follow as long as you do not have to stop at a line across the road.
And while chasing people, you can identify them for aerial attack and keep them as a target for the 20-30 minutes to get air support.

Aerial bombing only works when you can detect a group and have the airpower already in the area or are able to target the group when the air support arrives. This also does not work well at night, especially in mountaineous areas. Precision bombing does not work well at night without laser guidance and that technology will not work against groups fleeing.

AQ and the Taliban fled to protected areas; remember the assult came down from the north out the the area of the Stans; squeezing the Taliban/AQ south toward Iran and east toward Pakistan. At the time, NATO knew that Iran would be of little help, but it was thought that Pakistan would block the border, allowing the Taliban/AQ to be squeezed tight.
Pakistan did not block the border, but welcomed them with open arms.

A Taliban/AQ fighting force will have serious issues transitioning through that controlled area of Afgahnistan to the Russian Stans without major losses. They would be too exposed.

Pakistan does not worry about their tribal ares. They have been afraid to show the government in that area for years (well before the AQ issue). It is land of no economic or strategic value to the Pakistani government.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Taliban sheltered AQ and therefore until they deliver what was requested, are on the hit list.
That may have been true until we actually got there and saw their handiwork firsthand -- only then did we realize the true depth of their evil. What began as an effort to capture and/or destroy those responsible for 9/11 has grown into a mandatory humanitarian effort to rid the world of the sickness that is the Taliban.

That said, step one is eliminating their safe-havens everywhere. Once we have them on the run, without a centralized location to rally and rest, it will be much easier to hunt and destroy them -- not to mention that the farther we push them from Afghan soil, the easier it will be for Afghans to reclaim their freedoms and finish building their nation.

Pakistan can help or hinder those efforts... that choice, and the subsequent repercussions of either, is theirs to decide.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
One can not control the border becuase it is very porus.

There are large trails/roads that can be used, monitored and blocked.
However, there are also footpaths that prevent heavy supplies but allow small bands to transit.

However, one can chase after people because you then have a trail to follow as long as you do not have to stop at a line across the road.
And while chasing people, you can identify them for aerial attack and keep them as a target for the 20-30 minutes to get air support.

Aerial bombing only works when you can detect a group and have the airpower already in the area or are able to target the group when the air support arrives. This also does not work well at night, especially in mountaineous areas. Precision bombing does not work well at night without laser guidance and that technology will not work against groupds fleeing.

AQ and the Taliban fled to protected areas; remember the assult came down from the north out the the area of the Stans; squeezing the Taliban/AQ south toward Iran and east toward Pakistan. At the time, NTATO knew that Iran woiuld be of little help, but it was though that Pakistan would block the border, allowing the Taliban/AQ to be squeezed tight.
Pakistan did not block the border, but welcomed them with open arms.

A Taliban/AQ fighting force will have serious issues transitioning through that controlled area of Afgahnistan to the Russian Stans without major losses. They would be to exposed.

Pakistan does not worry about their tribal ares. They have been afraid to show the government in that area for years (well before the AQ issue). It is land of no economic or strategic value to the Pakistani government.
:thumbsup: It's always nice to see someone around here who actually gets it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The major fairy tale is here-------A Taliban/AQ fighting force will have serious issues transitioning through that controlled area of Afgahnistan to the Russian Stans without major losses. They would be to exposed.

Now tell me again why they ( the taliban ) are not totally exposed crossing the Afghani Pakistani border but are glaring exposed and will suffer major losses if they go North into former Russian Stans that basically have little control of their own territory, little if any aerial surveillance capacity, and if anything are even more primitive than Afghanistan itself?

The logic fact check brought to you by reality as it should set off the bullshit detectors of anyone who examines a very dubious contention logically.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The major fairy tale is here-------A Taliban/AQ fighting force will have serious issues transitioning through that controlled area of Afghanistan to the Russian Stans without major losses. They would be to exposed.

Now tell me again why they ( the Taliban ) are not totally exposed crossing the Afghani Pakistani border but are glaring exposed and will suffer major losses if they go North into former Russian Stans that basically have little control of their own territory, little if any aerial surveillance capacity, and if anything are even more primitive than Afghanistan itself?

The logic fact check brought to you by reality as it should set off the bullshit detectors of anyone who examines a very dubious contention logically.

1) The terrain between the two areas is fairly flat.
2) The terrain on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border is similar to the central Rockies, not the civilized hills of the Appalachians.
3) There are villagers in Afghanistan that may not be very happy to see Taliban and also military outputs exist. If a general movement of Taliban is detected, patrols can be easily beefed up to intercept.

The problem is not within the Stans but getting to them.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Once again pure manure in the following.

1) The terrain between the two areas is fairly flat.
2) The terrain on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border is similar to the central Rockies, not the civilized hills of the Appalachians.
3) There are villagers in Afghanistan that may not be very happy to see Taliban and also military outputs exist. If a general movement of Taliban is detected, patrols can be easily beefed up to intercept.

The problem is not within the Stans but getting to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If anything, having flat terrain greatly increase the options of those fleeing in small groups. Even low scrub brush provides enough cover.
2. With mountainous terrain, the very topography tends to funnel all movement into the valley floors and the visibility for a searcher is much better. Especially if its above the tree line.
3. And the biggest piece of bullshit is point three. Because once a rested and resupplied taliban fighter sneaks from Pakistan and back into Afghanistan,
they must run a gauntlet of villages and Nato military outposts. And if the villagers hated their guts and called on the Nato every time they spotted the taliban,
these rested and resupplied taliban fighters would not get but a few miles into Afghanistan before being wiped out. But the fact is that these rested and resupplied fighters
pass right through like fishes through water and now openly operate in nearly all parts of Afghanistan. We can bite on the palehorse contention, hook line and sinker, that the Afghani people LOVE Nato and the taliban is only able to create their ability to filter through by sheer terror and intimidation, or we can examine the contention logically and entertain some alternate explanations that might better explain the situation. But the more likely explanation lies in the fact the the Afghani people somewhat hate NATO, they hate the various war lord thugs NATO has placed in charge of nearly all parts of Afghanistan except Kabul, and they are none too happy with the taliban either. And now these lucky Afghani villagers get to live their lives in the middle of a shooting gallery. Suck up to any of the three and the other two will kill you. Get quizzed by any of the three groups
and you tell them what they want to hear rather than the truth, and then their lives of abject misery and anarchy might continue for another day. But of the three groups, only the taliban is partly composed of people just like themselves. And the taliban, for all its downsides rose to power only because it was better than the war lord thugs that rose to power after the Russian withdrew.

Now this forum can believe palehorse or you can believe me and logic. There may be no absolute truth here, but still, my explanation explains what is happening on the ground
in Afghanistan, and the palehorse explanation almost 100% does not. And if we believe palehorse this is a 100% military problem in which the Afghani people don't matter, the
thinking of the Pakistani people don't matter, past and present historical forces don't matter, and the only thing that matters is wiping out the taliban. I don't know about you, but
this very palehorse metric sets him up as some arrogant power mad prig who self assumes the role of judge jury and executioner. His thinking very much reminds me of GWB&co and we see how their popularity has worn over time and how successful they are on winning hearts and minds. That kind of thinking did not work in Vietnam, its not working in Iraq, and its not working in Afghanistan. And if I were an Afghani and had to deal with a prig like palehorse, I would likely hate his guts even more than I hate the taliban.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now this forum can believe palehorse or you can believe me and logic. There may be no absolute truth here, but still, my explanation explains what is happening on the ground
in Afghanistan
, and the palehorse explanation almost 100% does not.
That's some sort of joke, right? You wouldn't know or understand what is happening "on the ground in Afghanistan" if it bit you on the ass.

My entire job, on the ground in Afghanistan, has been to speak with the people, understand their culture and issues, and try to solve each of those using every asset we have at our disposal. How can you sit there, presumably with a straight face, and try to sell your version of their situation as more informed than my own? How is that even remotely reasonable or logical!? :confused:

And if we believe palehorse this is a 100% military problem in which the Afghani people don't matter, the thinking of the Pakistani people don't matter, past and present historical forces don't matter, and the only thing that matters is wiping out the taliban. I don't know about you, but this very palehorse metric sets him up as some arrogant power mad prig who self assumes the role of judge jury and executioner. His thinking very much reminds me of GWB&co and we see how their popularity has worn over time and how successful they are on winning hearts and minds. That kind of thinking did not work in Vietnam, its not working in Iraq, and its not working in Afghanistan. And if I were an Afghani and had to deal with a prig like palehorse, I would likely hate his guts even more than I hate the taliban.
The only reason I chose to respond to your post, after promising that I would never do so again, is to correct the falsehoods and lies you are attempting to spread in my name. I have NEVER stated that the solution is military-centric, or that it should even be our primary focus... NEVER.

That is the lie you've been trying to sell around here for months, and I'm absolutely fucking sick of it. You may be known for putting words into peoples' mouths around here, but it's long past time when you get called the fuck out on it.

For years, in this very forum, I have called for a solution in Afghanistan that combines diplomacy, infrastructure and economic development, AND military actions against the Taliban wherever they take refuge. I have ALWAYS stated that it will take a very coordinated effort in all three areas for our mission to be successful. However, none of the three can operate without a simultaneous full commitment to the other two. If we continue to allow the Taliban a safehaven, anywhere, it essentially negates any/all progress we make with the local populace, and it also has a very direct impact on the success of our infrastructure development.

One way to describe to describe our efforts and progress in Afghanistan, due to the continued existence of Taliban safehavens in Pakistan, would be "two steps forward, two steps back."

This stalemate must end, and everyone who has ever been there knows the source of the stalemate.

You really need to stop using my fucking name in every one of your posts. Almost everything you write on this subject is inaccurate. In fact, I have never met anyone so far off-base on this subject. I'm serious, you are wayyyyyyy out in left field on this subject, without a clue to save your life.

You even have the arrogance (ignorance?) to try and sell your version as the "on the the ground" truth!?!?

Fucking stop. STOP acting so damn confident in yourself and your entirely inaccurate analysis of the situation in Afghanistan; and, most importantly, STOP putting words in my fucking mouth.

bah...
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: palehorse

My entire job, on the ground in Afghanistan, has been to speak with the people, understand their culture and issues, and try to solve each of those using every asset we have at our disposal.

With people like yourself doing what they are no wonder so many people in those areas hate America.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
No Palehorse, you are not to be believed. If you were successful in winning hearts and minds inside of Afghanistan, the taliban would be totally unable to operate inside of Afghanistan no matter how rested and resupplied they were.

Yet after six years of proven failure in which you make negative progress each and every year, Nato is further from success than when they started six years ago. And rather than accept the political limitations of not being allowed to operate inside of Pakistan, you embrace the excuse as the sole reason for your failure. Which totally fails any logic sniff test, because if your contention were true, one could expect taliban mischief at only the Pakistani Afghani border, when in fact, the taliban is now freely operating all over Afghanistan. Which can only mean the taliban has better popular support than Nato.

But finally, you say something I can partially agree with in-------For years, in this very forum, I have called for a solution in Afghanistan that combines diplomacy, infrastructure and economic development, AND military actions against the Taliban wherever they take refuge. I have ALWAYS stated that it will take a very coordinated effort in all three areas for our mission to be successful.

Funny palehorse, I totally agree that its going to take diplomacy, infrastructure, and economic development to have have any success in Afghanistan. I just take exception with your contention that you have been saying it for years or saying it all. Every once in a blue moon you dredge this contention up when you are 99.99% unwilling to state they are the most important reasons why Nato is failing. And 99.99% of the time you have a one track mind that you must kill anything taliban when you are trying to kill an idea that has positive and negative parts to its appeal. And many of teh sons of the Afghani people are the very taliban you would shoot on sight.

Maybe you and the Nato command structure would be better advised to start demanding the economic development that would bring the very modern ideals that will cause even the taliban to abandon its negative ideas. But no, you are long on self righteousness and pitifully short on results. So instead of rethinking what you can do, you make excuses that can't stand logical examinations. And then basically say, if pigs could fly, what a wonderful world it would be.

The fact is and remains, when you start to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, Nato will prevail, you are not, and therefore you continue to fail.

If Nato needs more economic development assistance, say so, if they need better roads, say so in your posts, if they need better diplomacy, say so and where, if you need more troops say so, but just don't keep harping on this failed we can't stop them from crossing the border stuff when your attitudes quite clearly can't even out appeal the taliban who therefore get free run of the country.

But when I suggest that the failures are in any other areas, you are there saying nothing matters except killing the taliban. What part of being a failure are you so proud of palehorse? Because so far Nato is accomplishing nothing and it has very little to do with the taliban having a place to run to.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But finally, you say something I can partially agree with in-------For years, in this very forum, I have called for a solution in Afghanistan that combines diplomacy, infrastructure and economic development, AND military actions against the Taliban wherever they take refuge. I have ALWAYS stated that it will take a very coordinated effort in all three areas for our mission to be successful.

Funny palehorse, I totally agree that its going to take diplomacy, infrastructure, and economic development to have have any success in Afghanistan. I just take exception with your contention that you have been saying it for years or saying it all. Every once in a blue moon you dredge this contention up when you are 99.99% unwilling to state they are the most important reasons why Nato is failing. And 99.99% of the time you have a one track mind that you must kill anything taliban when you are trying to kill an idea that has positive and negative parts to its appeal. And many of teh sons of the Afghani people are the very taliban you would shoot on sight.

Stop.. fucking.. lying.. I have lectured you on this exact three-pronged approach for years.

Nothing you have ever written on this subject is even remotely accurate. Not. One. Thing.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: palehorse

My entire job, on the ground in Afghanistan, has been to speak with the people, understand their culture and issues, and try to solve each of those using every asset we have at our disposal.

With people like yourself doing what they are no wonder so many people in those areas hate America.

:roll:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Perhaps the most telling palehorse contention is the following----------Fucking stop. STOP acting so damn confident in yourself and your entirely inaccurate analysis of the situation in Afghanistan; and, most importantly, STOP putting words in my fucking mouth.

bah...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me palehorse, I am just using logic to DEBUNK what you are saying. But I sure was not the one who told you to threaten The Green Bean and all of Pakistan while you were at it by saying you and the US army would soon invade Pakistan. That is something you said, no one put words into your mouth, and while I can't speak for Pakistan, I have to guess the majority of the Pakistani are in basic agreement with The Green Bean.

Thank God you are not making decisions for the US military, but I strongly suspect you are violating all sorts of military protocol by making wreck less and inflammatory statements like that.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Perhaps the most telling palehorse contention is the following----------Fucking stop. STOP acting so damn confident in yourself and your entirely inaccurate analysis of the situation in Afghanistan; and, most importantly, STOP putting words in my fucking mouth.

bah...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me palehorse, I am just using logic to DEBUNK what you are saying. But I sure was not the one who told you to threaten The Green Bean and all of Pakistan while you were at it by saying you and the US army would soon invade Pakistan. That is something you said, no one put words into your mouth, and while I can't speak for Pakistan, I have to guess the majority of the Pakistani are in basic agreement with The Green Bean.

Thank God you are not making decisions for the US military, but I strongly suspect you are violating all sorts of military protocol by making wreck less and inflammatory statements like that.

:roll:
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Perhaps the most telling palehorse contention is the following----------Fucking stop. STOP acting so damn confident in yourself and your entirely inaccurate analysis of the situation in Afghanistan; and, most importantly, STOP putting words in my fucking mouth.

bah...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me palehorse, I am just using logic to DEBUNK what you are saying. But I sure was not the one who told you to threaten The Green Bean and all of Pakistan while you were at it by saying you and the US army would soon invade Pakistan. That is something you said, no one put words into your mouth, and while I can't speak for Pakistan, I have to guess the majority of the Pakistani are in basic agreement with The Green Bean.

Thank God you are not making decisions for the US military, but I strongly suspect you are violating all sorts of military protocol by making wreck less and inflammatory statements like that.

You really need an education LL. To start, this link GWOT analysis is one of the best sites around for a non-partisan, intelligent discourse onAfghanistan, Iraq and other topics.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Perhaps the most telling palehorse contention is the following----------Fucking stop. STOP acting so damn confident in yourself and your entirely inaccurate analysis of the situation in Afghanistan; and, most importantly, STOP putting words in my fucking mouth.

bah...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me palehorse, I am just using logic to DEBUNK what you are saying. But I sure was not the one who told you to threaten The Green Bean and all of Pakistan while you were at it by saying you and the US army would soon invade Pakistan. That is something you said, no one put words into your mouth, and while I can't speak for Pakistan, I have to guess the majority of the Pakistani are in basic agreement with The Green Bean.

Thank God you are not making decisions for the US military, but I strongly suspect you are violating all sorts of military protocol by making wreck less and inflammatory statements like that.

You really need an education LL. To start, this link GWOT analysis is one of the best sites around for a non-partisan, intelligent discourse onAfghanistan, Iraq and other topics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You evidently did not even bother to read the very link you tout.

I cut and paste an article from that link that is saying much of what I am saying and similarly debunking what palehorse is saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamid Hussain's comments



I have had interaction with large number of Pakistani officers of all ranks from Lieutenant to Lieutenant General and frankly this officer is one of few with such insight into the region?s military history. He does not mince his words and has a unique perspective with which many may disagree. My comments are in italics and blue. These are exchanges between two eccentrics who have interest in military history and based on hypothetical scenarios. He can be counted as an expert but I?m surely a spectator. Most official and non-official reports and briefings tend to be polite and do not touch ?inflammable? topics pertaining to the conflict but for a meaningful and informed discussion, no aspect should be a taboo. My comments are based on my recent three week trip to the region and interaction with people of different backgrounds with main focus on Pushtuns.



Readers should be mindful that this is a very limited perspective and based on armchair spectators like me who have the luxury to pass judgments sitting in the comfort of their homes. Not even hot air of the conflicts touched them or their loved ones. Those who live through the horrors of violence will surely have a very different take on these issues. )



Hamid



Need for a New Long Term US Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan





(It should be clear at outset that several competing interests are involved in terms of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. A number of government agencies with different approach and perspective are engaged in various activities in Afghanistan and this makes the coordination task a nightmare. Expanding role of NATO has further complicated the task. Now there are severe limitations on U.S. maneuvers due to heavy commitment in Iraq. Former Secretary of State had duly warned before the Iraq war that? this thing will suck oxygen from everything else? and he was right. On part of Afghans, it will be naïve to expect that U.S. & NATO will continue the heavy lifting indefinitely while they will have the luxury where some Afghans making money from the foreign funding and reconstruction while another group of Afghans making money by blowing up this infrastructure. The solution will be dictated by Afghans and at the end of the day they have to decide among themselves whether they will slaughter each other or decide to live with each other. As far as the foreign factor is concerned, Afghans will need to make their mind about choosing sides. They have to pick one side whether to ally with U.S. or with Taliban. They can not be just spectators and expect that their country will simply drift forward and foreigners will have unlimited money and patience. Having said that, it is an undeniable fact that Afghanistan is much better in the last seven years. Good news is usually not news but common Afghan has benefited from the changed situation. Off course, more is needed but looking at all standards realistically Afghanistan is better. Even if one looks at violence and compares it with Pakistan things are not that bad. Again, more effort is needed to avoid loss of innocent lives. Those who oppose U.S. presence in Afghanistan have this simplistic notion that if tomorrow U.S. leaves Afghanistan, everything will be fine. Strategically, for U.S. the main question is whether heavy military presence will serve their security interests or more covert and less visible presence will be more cost effective. U.S. policy in Afghanistan for the next decade will revolve around this question and benefits and risks equation will depend on which path is taken.)



The USA occupied Afghanistan in November 2001 and its almost more than 6 years since then and yet the United States has failed to win the hearts and minds of a substantial part of Afghan populace. The reason lies in abject failure of USA's economic policy .This in turn has led to a counterproductive situation.



There is nothing inevitable in history but those who cannot identify the critical time span in any crisis and who fail to seize it by the horns are bound to fail. Such unfortunately has been the case with US strategy in Afghanistan. The US president failed to find the right strategic talent for Afghanistan and thus thrust mediocre US policy makers on Afghanistan who know, nor recognize anything higher than their shallow mediocrity!



The main thrust of USA's policy was to construct roads and schools and clinics. These were important but no substantial class of stakeholders which had a vested interest in success of US policy inside Afghanistan was created. No major employment opportunities were created. No major effort was made to encourage private enterprise. No major attempt was made to privatize Afghanistan's main economic potential i.e. its massive custom revenues most of which do not land in government coffers and are skimmed away by corrupt custom officials as bribes and by smugglers as profits once Afghan imports are re-exported i.e. smuggled to Pakistan.



US approach in short was bureaucratic, conservative and in final summing up timid!



(When confronted by a problem, we usually throw in more bodies and money and hope that the problem will go away. In fact this creates another bureaucratic layer further slowing down the process. British approach was for long haul. General Abraham Roberts spent 50 years in India while his son Fredrick Roberts 44 years which means that between father and son, ninety four years. We are sending young kids on three to six months stints. Almost none of them speak either Dari or Pushtu. Result is that we are being fleeced by every one. On top of it corrupt U.S. officials are treating these funds in a manner which reminds me of old west ways. It looks like a wagon loaded with cash has broken down on the main road and every body is taking money as he pleases with no sheriff in sight. First we went to bed with warlords to find out later that it was not good. Then we shook hand with drug lords to find four years later that we were successful in making Afghanistan a leading exporter of opium and bringing it on top of chart. Now we are trying to arm tribesmen. And then surprise, we found that it was the same guy who was wearing different hats depending on the situation. I don?t see any coherent game plan. We are just adjusting to changing tactical ground realities. Unfortunately, we do not have desserts on the menu. Our choices are limited to which brand of castor oil we want to take. To be fair, the work itself is a messy one with no perfect solution.)



Bearing Point a large US firm got the major contract for economic reform. It hired Americans and expatriates who would not have got any decent job in USA or even a medium level country. In addition they hired some Afghan Americans who came to Afghanistan for a short term period, to make a quick buck and go back to their relatively far more comfortable permanent places on the California coast.



(There is no perfect solution to any given problem. A certain amount of wastage/corruption is expected, however most important thing to focus on is to make sure that this wastage does not derail the whole project where everyone walks away with whatever he can get hold of leaving only ruin behind. A number of Afghan-Americans who were owners of pizza places and some used car salesmen ended up running mega projects in Afghanistan. No wonder we are now scratching our heads what went wrong. Almost all Americans who deal with them are polite as they have to work with them and don?t want to offend them. In reality, they are disgusted by the petty fights about personal gains among a whole lot of Afghans. None other than President Bush remarked that ?you can not buy an Afghan but you can surely rent a one? and make no mistake we are renting a whole lot by dozens. It took central state hundred years to create a sense of nationhood among Afghans. Thirty years of civil war shattered the very foundation and it will be hard work to rebuild it again. Realism and not romanticism will save Afghanistan. Afghans will need a lot of soul searching.)



The magnum bonus achievement of US advisors was creation of AISA a government agency funded and administered by USA and some European donors to regulate licensing and setting up of industrial parks. Again since little private enterprise was involved with Bearing Point is in the background and making a good buck hiring Afghans with US or Canadian passports at relatively low salaries and some local Afghans. The main industrial project of AISA industrial parks in Jalalabad, Kabul, Kandahar, Herat and Mazar took six years to be awarded and will take another one year to complete. Having said that it is good if AISA has licensing/registration alone and Industrial Parks are handled by a highly professional international company with full support of the US Government and with zero percent interference from the Afghan Government.



A better approach could have been to award the contract to a private firm on turnkey basis with a profit incentive instead of hiring Afghans on fixed salary in AISA.This combined with a 30 or 50 year incentive to industries to export quota free to USA , combined with a buy back guarantee with USA with the condition that all quality standards were met would have let to creation of industrial parks in Afghanistan by mid 2004 and by mid 2005 or late 2005 many hundreds of industrial units would have been functioning in Afghanistan. Thus at least permanent long term employment could have been created for 200,000 to 500,000 Afghans. Instead the main thrust of US economic policy was on roads ,schools and clinics which benefited a coupe of construction companies of foreign companies and created a low income short term employment for an Afghan labour which could not have exceeded 300,000 at any time. Schools and clinics awarded to LBGI were in turn sub contracted by LBGI to Afghan contractors , many being US and European passport holders at about 25 % to 30 % of the total cost. These contractors in turn sub contracted these to local Afghan petty contractors at low rates.Thus hardly 10 % of the total amount earmarked for these schools and clinics were actually spent resulting in leaking and collapsing roofs and highly sub standard construction. This faux pas was well covered by the Washington Post in late 2005.



It has been estimated that the contraband non drug mafia in Afghanistan is larger than the drug mafia of Afghanistan. In turn both the mafias have overlapping key figures involved in both the trades. It has been estimated that some 80 % of Afghanistan's imports are smuggled back to neighboring Pakistan where custom duties are very high. The United States made a somewhat lukewarm effort to re-structure the low paid and highly corrupt and inefficient Afghan customs .Another approach could have been to award the custom collection and enforcement task to an international private firm like Cotecna or SGS. This way Afghan custom revenues could have been multiplied by 400 % to 600 % and Afghan Government could have been made financially far stronger, while also reducing its overwhelming dependence on foreign aid. It is significant to note that many key Afghan governors on the bordering provinces as well as some ministers are known to have a close link with the non drug contraband mafia.



(Those who have even only rudimentary knowledge of the country well know that they and their forefathers have been involved in this business. It is important to note that it is not considered illegal, unethical or immoral. They consider it as a legitimate business and fight every effort by nation states to regulate this activity.))



During the past six years many Afghans and many Pashtuns saw daisy cutters, Chinooks and armored cars but no one saw the benefits of USA's advent in Afghanistan. Both the countries got a lot of hot lead and shrapnel but no Marshall Plan other than a Marshal being created in Afghanistan!



(Each theatre is different and no two Marshal plans can be same. Most important factor is the social and psychological make up of the population. In the aftermath of Second World War, two nations; Japan and Germany took a different path. At individual level, even loss of a single innocent human life is a tragedy and every effort should be made to preserve human life. However, in the life of nations internal and external factors can catapult them into the midst of a horrible storm. Japanese and Germans are first rate fighters and they plunged the world into a horrible carnage. Both nations came out of the conflict devastated and defeated. However, both nations made a difficult choice at a critical juncture of their history. They used the resources of their conquerors judiciously and in fifty years came out as front runners among the league of nations. Even Vietnamese after a brutal war came out with their nation intact. In contrast, look at Palestinians and Afghans. Palestinians unable to solve their own problem tried to hop on a different train. They dragged every neighboring Arab country into direct conflict and thus were able to directly contribute to crushing defeats to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. They produced gentlemen such as late Abdullah Azam who had nothing for his own people but was very successful in brutalizing societies such as Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan with his extremist ideologies. Afghans ended up burning up their own house for good in the struggle to get rid of the Russians. Pakistan is now an assembly plant of suicide bombers.)



In Afghanistan this was a case of lack of vision on part of US Government. In Pakistan which got more than 10 Billion USD in aid, the corrupt non Pashtun dominated government spent a very nominal part of this aid on the Pashtun areas despite the fact that this aid was meant to basically pacify the Pashtun areas of Pakistan which are definitely the centre of gravity of Al Qaeda/Taliban.No special export zone with the right to quota free guaranteed export reinforced by buy back guarantees was created in the NWFP and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan. These zones could have gone a long way in creating employment and prosperity in the Pashtun areas and vastly reduce the sense of alienation in the Pashtuns.The reasons for this were more ethnic than anything and the USA made no effort to arm twist the tin pot Musharraf regime into spending this money on the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. The only investment that Pakistan's non Pashtun dominated government made on the Pashtun areas was in form of Cobra helicopter munitions, 7.62 mm bullets, 155 mm artillery etc in pounding the Pashtun areas indiscriminately, targeting mostly non combatant?s women and children.



(There is a common perception which has never been seriously debated which takes the view that if Washington simply pumps more money into the region then the problem will go away. As a spectator of Afghan civil war, I came to the conclusion and I may be totally wrong that when there are more spoils the game becomes more brutal and uglier. Every Afghan faction and sub-faction took money from everyone and his cousin and turned their homeland into rubble. Without understanding the sociology of the population in the conflict zone, one may deduce wrong conclusions. One example may give some insight. In early 1990s, towns started to fall to Afghan rebels fighting against Soviet backed government. Afghan rebels conquered a town in Khost and all spoils were declared booty and distributed among various factions. They had gathered in a school and there was quandary about how to distribute the furniture of the school among the men. They decided to chop all the furniture and distribute the wood to be used for fire. It looks like time has frozen in some areas. They routinely executed school teachers labeling them as communists. A new generation of leaders with a different mindset emerged when every sensible Afghan was either killed or forced to leave the country. The jungle was left for the wolves only. You are more familiar with luxurious dwellings of these new leaders in one of the most expensive real estate enclaves in Kabul. In my humble view the situation is tribal territories along Pakistan-Afghan border is more complex with a number of players with different agendas. I fear that rather than learning the lesson from Afghanistan, the region is following the Afghan example.)



In addition no major effort was made to create a stock exchange or float investment bonds giving good interest which could have created a substantial class in Afghanistan whose success and prosperity was linked to US policies in Afghanistan. It was just a matter of a little imagination and printing bonds with the backing and sovereign guarantee of US government for payment of interest in USD for a period of 10 to 20 years. Unfortunately there was no brilliant man like Nixon in the US leadership who could think of a coup like delinking of gold standard in the early 70s.A condition could have been imposed that in order to buy these Afghanistan Fund Bons all companies had to register in Afghanistan thus bringing money to Afghanistan as well as a long term class of stake holders in Afghanistan.



(This is a good idea which could have benefited the country in the long run.)



I developed friendship with a US official in Kabul in 2005.We discussed many aspects of US policy in Afghanistan.In the end the US officer pessimistically concluded that his superiors were a bunch of w_t p______s .Similar ideas were expressed by many US military officers I met in Afghanistan in the course of military contracting in course of 4 years.



(You just got the small sample of the feeling of frustration. Patience has never been an American virtue. I don?t think that we will pack from Afghanistan tomorrow or after small setbacks. We will be engaged but the methodology may change depending on the public support and economic situation of U.S. I see future with more covert operations rather than heavy military presence. We may decide about this inevitable outcome in a wise way before more damage is done or we will learn the usual way after burning a number of fingers and toes: both ours and of others. The battle will be fought by Afghans themselves with or without our help. I don?t know whether it will be good or bad but I think that if violence crosses a certain threshold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then there is a possibility of division of Afghanistan along Hindu Kush line. I don?t think non-Pushtuns are in a mood for Pushtun hegemony anymore. This probably will not be in the form of separation or emergence of new countries but it will be de facto just we are seeing in Iraq. Each community entrenched in its own ethnic enclave with protracted fight along contested areas. If that event comes first then in addition to increasing intra-Pushtun violence there will be increase pressure on the state of Pakistan. If the current cycle of violence emanating from tribal areas continue to kill and maim people in big non-Pushtun cities such as Rawalpindi, Lahore, Karachi then it will be naïve not to expect a backlash against Pushtuns in general. This will estrange different ethnic communities. Only a concerted effort by concerned citizens can prevent the schism. The problem is that even informed people do not analyze these trends rationally. They are easily carried away by emotions and dwell on conspiracy theories preventing a concerted effort to prevent fragmentation. They keep looking for the hidden hands and not paying attention to their actions and evident social, economic and political factors which push events in a particular direction.)



It may be added that the same policy should have been followed in Pakistan , particularly its tribal areas creating industrial zones guaranteeing 10 to 20 years quota free exports to USA with buy back guarantee instead of doling out many billion US Dollars to Pakistanis highly corrupt military junta. This way employment would have been created and potential recruits of Al Qaeda and Taliban given decent risk free long term jobs in the industrial units established as part of this policy.



(It may work but then who could guarantee that the same Wazir or Mahsud who would make $500 per month from working in an industry in tribal areas will also not sell his tomatoes at $50 per kilogram to al-Qaeda up in the mountains to make some extra change. Money is only one factor and other aspects need to be tackled along with economic activity. I think it is naïve to expect that the young chap who has life and death authority when he is member of one of the extremist outfits will go back and run a tea stall on the roadside suffering daily humiliation. These are social factors which need to be studied. I fear more kids will follow this model and it will be of different shapes in different parts of the country. In Karachi Muhajir youth have joined the fascist strain of MQM and living comfortably on the extortion from the urban areas. Rural Sindhis are following the same path. Their preference is kidnapping for ransom. They are now quietly moving to urban areas after learning lessons from MQM. In Darra Adam Khel, flashy SUVs come and distribute monthly stipend to the Taliban foot soldiers openly. This kid getting a regular salary, brandishing a brand new AK-47, instilling some fear through his coercive capability and also gaining some respect being the enforcer of some good is now on a different plane. He has crashed into the party and it will not be an easy task to reverse this trend. The phenomenon needs serious research.)



No major effort was made to regulate the visa regime. A Work Permit was issued by the Ministry of Labour for visa extension but this permit was not honored by the Ministry of Interior when AISA issued them visa extension letters for multiple visas in many cases thus restricting in country and out country movement of expatriates. The Afghan Embassies particularly those in Pakistan followed yet another highly absurd practice of granting a 15 day single entry visa to all applicants with the condition that after they had visited Afghanistan once and exited they could not apply for another Afghan visa till the three month period of the visa expired. Thus an expatriate with a valid Afghan Work Permit was told that work permit had no legal value in eyes of Afghan Embassy Staff and that they could not apply for another visa till the three months visa validity period expired.



Afghanistan and even Pakistan may be compared to a sort of West Germany and South Korea for USA.Any withdrawal from Afghanistan would straight away lead to re-occupation of the country by Taliban with an active re-entry of Russia, Iran and India on side of non Taliban forces. The Afghan Army needs at least 10 to 15 years to recover its military effectiveness. Thus all this would be a 100 percent disaster for USA.



(Same argument was forwarded in case of Vietnam. The two situations are not the same but I think strategically it will be more cost effective and may be more productive if U.S. concentrate on covert measures to tackle the extremist issue rather than embarking on the projects of huge military footprints and nation building. Plenty of local players are more than willing to rent their guns at a much lower price tag. This is strictly looking at the menace of extremists. On bigger canvas, helping these countries build their own societies will make the world a better place for our children. I would prefer my children going as exchange students or scholars to Afghanistan or Pakistan and vice versa. This is much better than sending our kids with M-16s and in return expecting their kids blowing themselves up. )



The only viable strategy for USA in Afghanistan is to settle in for next two decades. Introduce a Marshall Plan which creates employment and prosperity .Introduce public bonds with good interest that make US presence in Afghanistan a cause of progress and prosperity for many. Keep a watchful eye on the region. Build up the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police. Any withdrawal by USA would be a cardinal strategic blunder. Something which the USA cannot afford and an event which would constitute a Clausewitzian culminating point of USA.



(Afghanistan and Pakistan will be saved only by Afghans and Pakistanis. Even if U.S. comes in with good intentions it can surely help in some aspects but it is unlikely to change the dynamic of economics, governance and conflict. Both countries are nations in terms of definitions but a long process over the last sixty years has widened the fault lines. Present geographic boundaries of Afghanistan have not changed much in the last three hundred years. Efforts in 20th century mainly coercive helped to strengthen the central state but ethnic, tribal and political Islamic forces have significantly weakened the foundation. A Herculean effort by wise Afghan leadership with a grand bargain among various groups will be needed to even to go back to the status quo of the last century. Pakistan is a new state which has struggled to cobble a nation. It embarked on using the religion as an anchor but it didn?t work. On one end, it opened Pandora boxes by declaring some citizens as non-Muslim i.e. Ahmadis and on the other end sectarian fault line widened. Bengalis were as good or as bad Muslims as any other Pakistani but they finally rejected the Pakistani identity and were able to achieve independence. The ethnic fault lines have widened in the last twenty years and I don?t see any mechanism in place either at government or at civil society level to address this crucial issue. Baluchs are completely alienated to a point where Baluchistan university is now a no go area for armed forces personnel of the country?s army. This was frankly admitted none other than the Commandant of the Staff College at Quetta. Ethnic and sectarian forces will realign and if violence stays above a certain threshold then international players will have no choice but to work with local players rather than routing everything through Islamabad. That will be a bad day for Pakistan. )



Further the USA has to reinforce the democratic forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan while making use of Pakistan's mercenary army which is still far cheaper than any Western force even if their pay is tripled by US aid. At the same time the Pakistani forces being more than 60 % non Pashtuns have to be restrained from causing collateral damage.



(I sincerely hope and pray that I?m wrong but the seeds of chaos sowed two decades ago are bearing fruit now. Off course, a different methodology is needed but majority of Pakistanis think that if they simply unilaterally withdraw from the fight against extremists everything will be fine. It will not be an easy task to put the extremism genie back in the bottle. This has now become truly native and even if U.S. walks away from the scene, this devil will devour many more souls before it is exorcised. Case of Iraq is a good example to study.)
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
LL.. what was that you were saying about Karzai? hmmm...

Afghanistan: Karzai threatens to send troops into Pakistan to hunt Taliban
Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai today inflamed tensions with neighbouring Pakistan by threatening to send troops across the border to hunt the Taliban leadership.

Karzai said his country had the right to defend itself against insurgents crossing from rear bases in Pakistan's tribal belt. His comments came as the manhunt for 900 escaped prisoners continued across southern Afghanistan.

"When they cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same," he told journalists in Kabul.


"Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house," he said, referring to the militant leader accused of orchestrating the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

"And the other fellow, Mullah Omar of Pakistan, should know the same," he continued, referring to the Taliban's one-eyed leader Mullah Omar.

His language and message was aggressive even by the testy standards of Afghan-Pakistani relations. Pakistan's prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani responded firmly, saying he would "[not] allow anyone to interfere in our national limits and our affairs", and insisting that a stable Afghanistan was in Pakistan's interests.

Karzai's outburst came on the heels of Friday night's spectacular jail break by the Taliban in Kandahar, when dozens of militants mounted a multi-pronged assault on the city jail that freed 890 prisoners including 390 Taliban fighters.

The US military said today that it killed 15 suspected insurgents during a firefight at a farmhouse outside Kandahar as troops combed the area the fugitives. A statement said that fighters opened fire on coalition troops as they approached the building, prompting an American air strike. That version of events could not be independently confirmed.

In Kandahar city authorities urged citizens to remain inside to facilitate the manhunt. But a senior foreign official working there, speaking on condition of anonymity by phone, said traffic was flowing and people were venturing into the streets. "I don't see anything abnormal," he said.

The jail break was another humiliation for Karzai, who survived an assassination attempt six weeks ago. Addressing journalists in the Kabul presidential palace today, he said it demonstrated the need to strengthen security and "to be a lot more alert and steadfast in our resolve in confronting terrorism".

But he reserved his harshest words for neighbouring Pakistan. In the past Karzai called for western Pakistani soldiers to flush the Taliban from their tribal hide-outs, but never threatened to do the job himself.

Afghans would no longer flinch from going on what he termed a "two-way road journey". He said: "We will complete the journey and we will get them and we will defeat them. We will avenge all that they have done to Afghanistan for the past so many years."

The beleaguered president had just returned from a major donors' conference in Paris where allies pledged $20bn to rebuild Afghanistan over the next five years -- $30bn less than the amount sought by the Afghan government.

Realistically Karzai cannot despatch Afghan soldiers into Pakistan without consent from the US military and Nato, which together have around 62,000 troops in Afghanistan. But there, too, tensions are rising.

Last week Pakistan protested furiously after US warplanes apparently bombed a Pakistani border post, killing 11 soldiers, as they pursued suspected insurgents fleeing across the border. Both sides have agreed to a joint investigation.

In May American and allied deaths in Afghanistan passed the monthly toll in Iraq for the first time ? a grim gauge of two conflicts going in opposite directions.

Five British soldiers have been killed in the past week. A senior officer, Lieutenant Colonel David Richmond, commanding officer of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, was shot in the leg during a firefight near Musa Qala.

American military and diplomatic officials warn that unless Pakistan shuts down the Taliban sanctuary in tribal hotbeds like Waziristan, the Afghan insurgency could drag on for many years.

Pakistan's beleaguered government led by Yousaf Raza Gilani hopes to curb the problem through peace talks with militants like Mehsud. Based in the mountain of South Waziristan, Mehsud heads Tehrik I Taliban Pakistan, the largest militant grouping.

But negotiations are proceeding slowly and there is confusion about which branch of government is in charge. Meanwhile gunmen continue to torch girls schools and execute suspected informants, such as a woman found beheaded near the Afghan border last week.

Gilani's attention is also diverted by the continuing turmoil surrounding President Pervez Musharraf. Despite vocal urgings from all the major parties, Musharraf has refused to resign, clinging to his support from the army and President George Bush.

But public pressure is growing. On Friday night arch-rival and junior government partner Nawaz Sharif upped the ante by calling for Musharraf to be executed.

"Is hanging only for politicians?" he told tens of thousands of lawyers and opposition activists gathered near the presidency, in a reference to former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was hanged by the military in 1979. "Hang him, hang him" responded the crowd.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Yet the Taliban (both in Pakistan and Afganistan) aid AQ.

Is there a difference between the two other than where they sleep at night?

If the Pakistani Taliban (good guys) have a conflict with the UN forces, does that mean that the Pakistani military will allow them safe haven to launch attacks and/or retreat ?
So Common, what is our goal in Afghanistan, I'm curious. To displace the Taliban? To make Afghanistan the 51st state? How long do we increase troops there, until Osama is caught? What do you think.

To build the ol' Centgas pipeline and begin suckin' out that Turkman natural gas before the Rooskies get their hands on it. (I think the pipeline is now called TAP for either 'Trans-Afghan Pipeline' or 'Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan' pipeline)

Last I heard they were arguing as to whether to continue on the original path (through western Afghanistan and Kandahar) along the western portion of the 'Ring Road' - to swinging it around the northern portion of the Ring Road thru Kabul into Pakistan.

And yeah - getting that OBL guy 'dead or alive' would be nice, too ...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Palehorse, which Karzia are you talking about?

The great Stateman unifier of all of Afghanistan, or the fellow who is barely the de facto mayor of Kabul. So, like everyone else, he mouths mixed messages, but he is still
is only a toothless US puppet most of time.

Yet you seem thrilled when he mounts his bully soapbox and talks as if he could invade Pakistan with an army that can't even extent its control 30 miles outside of Kabul.
But you also may end up wondering what happened if the Pakistani government finally terminates its lease on the only viable supply line Nato has into Afghanistan.

And meanwhile you seem blissfully unaware of something that should alarm you, because while you seem to want to blame only the taliban, what we may have is a taliban Northern alliance co-operation in this jailbreak where the taliban gets 400 fighters back and the Northern alliance gets 700 of its thugs back. You remember the Northern alliance don't you, they were the very people who aided the USA and Nato in pushing the taliban out of Afghanistan so they could get back to oppressing all the rural areas of Afghanistan, yet when it came time to get Ossama Bin Laden when the Northern alliance had him cornered in Tora Bora, our great allies let Ossama slip away without making any real effort.

But the somewhat dubious contention being made is-----American military and diplomatic officials warn that unless Pakistan shuts down the Taliban sanctuary in tribal hotbeds like Waziristan, the Afghan insurgency could drag on for many years.

The real question is not that the Afghani insurgency will drag on for many years, its really a matter of when you want to start counting. By some measure the count should begin in 1937 which was when the last stable government Afghanistan had, or should we start counting from the time the Soviets got shoved out with US connivance, or should we start counting from when the US invaded after 911? By any measure the Afghani insurgency is likely to drag on for many years longer, and Pakistan has not been a reason for most of those 71 years--------------but when it comes to palehorse and the USA, the easy blame excuse of Pakistan is the only thing they have to blame as an external factor, and they bandy it about as sword, shield, and smokescreen.

Maybe its time to realize that much blame also belongs to US policy and good ole fashioned GWB bungling.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
wow.. just when I thought your hole couldn't get any deeper!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is only one infinitely deep logical black hole here and that the one you are posting out of palehorse.

Give us all a rest from your BS, you have 62,000 Nato troops, the best military equipment in the world, all kinds of air support, total permission to operate anywhere inside of Afghanistan, and you can't stop a bunch of irregular insurgents armed with little more than Ak-47's from having free reign all over Afghanistan after six years?

At least Israel had an excuse when Hezbollah stopped them in Lebanon two years ago because Hezbollah has some rather potent weapons. If the taliban ever gets that kind of aid or we send a US boy scout troop after you guys, it sure sounds like you would be toast because its obvious you people can't soldier your way out of a paper bag.

Effective people quietly make the best out of a bad situation and ineffective people loudly make phony excuses. Too bad your results can't match your brags.

But I can somewhat agree that maybe the goal of totally exterminating the taliban might be beneficial to a larger world, but when that goal becomes both impractical and impossible, its definitely time to consider alternate plans that will better accomplish the same basic end good for a larger world.

Right now, in my mind, the biggest danger to US interests is to lose the land supply line into Afghanistan, which we may be perilously close to losing now.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
If the taliban ever gets that kind of aid or we send a US boy scout troop after you guys, it sure sounds like you would be toast because its obvious you people can't soldier your way out of a paper bag.

wow... just wow. the hits just keep coming!