Why the USA loses in Afghanistan

[Lemon law]

In the political stupidity that sets new records of don't get it, Krazai choose to embrace corruption, human rights abuses, drug running by choosing a Afghan war lord as his running mate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_...RzbGsDYWZnaGFucHJlc2lk

The job of Al-Quida and the Taliban just got much easier.

The job of Nato just got much harder.

Why are we supporting an idiot like Karzai who does nothing to unite Afghanistan.

No wonder Musharriff could not disguise his contempt for Karzai, and now we expect Pakistan to co-operate with such an inept Afghan government.

 

[bamacre]

Just more reason to get the hell out of there.

 

[Dari]

If he can get the job done, who cares? People are too worried about democracy sometimes. With the people that poor, I think they have more things to worry about.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Dari
If he can get the job done, who cares? People are too worried about democracy sometimes. With the people that poor, I think they have more things to worry about.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Data is right about the poor having other things to worry about, those worries are mainly centered on corruption, drugs, police on the take, courts that don't function, and many of the type of things Karzai's running mate personifies.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Do you have a better suggestion for who Afganistan should choose for a political leader?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Dari
If he can get the job done, who cares? People are too worried about democracy sometimes. With the people that poor, I think they have more things to worry about.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Data is right about the poor having other things to worry about, those worries are mainly centered on corruption, drugs, police on the take, courts that don't function, and many of the type of things Karzai's running mate personifies.

Quoted for actually using the Quote feature.

Chuck

 

[yllus]

NATO's task is to deny extremist elements a base in which they can organize and attack member states, not create a democratic utopia. Whereas those two goals overlap it's nice to see, but for the most part the region will develop socially at its own pace. You'd have to be pretty naive to think otherwise.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: yllus
NATO's task is to deny extremist elements a base in which they can organize and attack member states, not create a democratic utopia. Whereas those two goals overlap it's nice to see, but for the most part the region will develop socially at its own pace. You'd have to be pretty naive to think otherwise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will have to say that yllus is partly right but mostly wrong. Yllus is absolutely correct that the goal of Nato is to deny extremists a base to operate in. And thanks the failed democratic assumption of GWB who regarded democracy as an automatic panacea, we tried to habd off Afghanistan to a democratic government. Thereby creating an additional extremists group to advantage of anarchy chaos and ready drug money Afghanistan represented. And now by bolstering the warlords, as a group that seeks to oppose any reduction in anarchy, corruption, and Afghan government stability, we now enable that other group, namely the Taliban to say to the Afghan people, things will not get any better until we get rid of Western influences and Western stooges like the war lords who victimize us all.

And as we can see that message resonates and will resonate even stronger because Karzai will not fight the corruption of war lords, and by running with one of them, now shows he is part of the problem and has no solutions.

And because the Afghan government is so corrupt, we no longer have to worry about the Taliban wintering in Pakistan, because the Taliban can now winter in Afghanistan as the lesser of three evils. Doing anything but denying the taliban bases to operate, when it almost single handledly gives the taliban wlelcome in Afghanistan.

 

[chucky2]

And so, after the people of that country elected them, you want the US to do what?

Overthrow the elected officials?

That sends one of two messages to the Afghani's, totally depending on what each individual Afghani wants to believe at any point in time:

A.) You can elect anyone as long as they tow the US line, which makes the US look to be total hypocrites...

Or

B.) The US is looking out for our best interests and these people needed to be overthrown, and the temporary people in charge (whoever they are and wherever we get them from) are better that who we elected.

Given the brainwashing that goes on in that region, do you seriously think that B is going to be the decision reached by the masses?

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: chucky2
And so, after the people of that country elected them, you want the US to do what?

Overthrow the elected officials?

That sends one of two messages to the Afghani's, totally depending on what each individual Afghani wants to believe at any point in time:

A.) You can elect anyone as long as they tow the US line, which makes the US look to be total hypocrites...

Or

B.) The US is looking out for our best interests and these people needed to be overthrown, and the temporary people in charge (whoever they are and wherever we get them from) are better that who we elected.

Given the brainwashing that goes on in that region, do you seriously think that B is going to be the decision reached by the masses?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer the last chucky2 question, in a word YES.

The Afghan people are every bit as smart as you and I, and they know what side their bread is buttered on and who screws them. They already choose the Taliban as the lesser of two evils before, and Nato is doing zip to make them selves as a better alternative than the Taliban when Karazai cuts their throats.

 

[yllus]

As usual, you know exactly zilch about the topic on which you've expended countless hours trying to lecture the rest of us.

Afghanistan is always near total anarchy, dumbass. Nothing was created by "us". It was anarchy when NATO invaded. It was anarchy when the USSR invaded. It was anarchy when Alexander the Great invaded. There hasn't ever been a great power that has been able to bring the rule of law to more than a fraction of the country. Whether or not NATO shrugs at the duly elected leader of Afghanistan's teaming up with criminals is immaterial. Our job is merely to deny Al Qaeda a safe base of operations and perhaps try to dilute the extreme actions of the Afghani congress. Incentivizing the populace to take up civilian life instead of the glamourous lifestyle of a terrorist is also merely a secondary objective. Frankly, it's probably more cost effective to simply kill them.

If you weren't such a dimwitted blowhard with a hard-on for blaming NATO for all that's wrong in the Indian subcontinent you'd get that, but for some reason you've decided that you'd like to spend eternity writing about a people, culture and geography you know nothing about. GG.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the political stupidity that sets new records of don't get it, Krazai choose to embrace corruption, human rights abuses, drug running by choosing a Afghan war lord as his running mate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_...RzbGsDYWZnaGFucHJlc2lk

The job of Al-Quida and the Taliban just got much easier.

The job of Nato just got much harder.

Why are we supporting an idiot like Karzai who does nothing to unite Afghanistan.

No wonder Musharriff could not disguise his contempt for Karzai, and now we expect Pakistan to co-operate with such an inept Afghan government.

No, the US is losing in Afghanistan because there are not enough troops.

Ask ANYONE who has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan about the differences among the civilian population.

Of course, you don't get it.

What we need is live air support, not target practice directed from a few men on the ground done by UAV's.

Of course, you support the torture of civilians by the hands of the Taliban as "their way of life" so i don't expect you to be a supporter.

I am even willing to bet that you cream your panties every time you hear about a NATO soldier getting killed.

 

[Jaskalas]

In these Muslim countries, our enemies and our friends are one in the same. Our friends just don't happen to be holding a gun or IED at the moment, so we shake hands with them. Doesn't mean they won't hold dinner with the guys that are holding those weapons.

Of course, their policy of trying to appease their warlords can stem from our own attitudes and policies. Are we in there killing those warlords ourselves? We?re not doing anything to permanently get rid of our enemies over there, so why should the locals take the lead and do what we ourselves are unwilling to do?

We?re not willing to burn Afghanistan to the ground, so I say it?d be best to not be involved at all. You fight a war properly, with everything you've got, or you should not fight at all.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the political stupidity that sets new records of don't get it, Krazai choose to embrace corruption, human rights abuses, drug running by choosing a Afghan war lord as his running mate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_...RzbGsDYWZnaGFucHJlc2lk

The job of Al-Quida and the Taliban just got much easier.

The job of Nato just got much harder.

Why are we supporting an idiot like Karzai who does nothing to unite Afghanistan.

No wonder Musharriff could not disguise his contempt for Karzai, and now we expect Pakistan to co-operate with such an inept Afghan government.

No, the US is losing in Afghanistan because there are not enough troops.

Ask ANYONE who has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan about the differences among the civilian population.

Of course, you don't get it.

What we need is live air support, not target practice directed from a few men on the ground done by UAV's.

Of course, you support the torture of civilians by the hands of the Taliban as "their way of life" so i don't expect you to be a supporter.

I am even willing to bet that you cream your panties every time you hear about a NATO soldier getting killed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be an idiot JOS, to start out with, your country and mine are too cheap to grant you enough troops. And now you want to bomb everyone from the air and really make yourself even more repulsive than the Taliban.

I am trying to tell you how not to lose and all you can do is grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

Tell me again, why you should embrace war lords and drug peddlers that make your job impossible?

Get a clue, we already discussed that catch 22 situation that you don't have enough troops
to apply your fantasies, and you have to be a total dimwit not to notice after eight years.

 

[maluckey]

All the troops in the world won't fix a damned thing in the Afghanistan or the ME. NATO is useless as an entity, and in reality, the U.S has lost focus on the goal....to punish/destroy the Taliban to the point to which they can't return to power. They (Taliban) understand power and fear. The U.S. doesn't show not enough force, and far too much restraint when they do.

Let's get real.....more troops? Did that help Iraq? Was the Iraqi public mindset helped by more troops? You drank the Kool-aid if you bought it. I was all over Northern Iraq, from Rabiyah to Irbil.........it's a freakin mess! Mosul is still not under control. The NOC now runs the show. 6 freakin years after invading, the city of Mosul is still at war. Tell me again the story of more is better.

Jakes right! Bomb the shit out of them. Bomb their hideouts, bomb their safe houses, bomb their supply roads. Bomb every bastard that shelters the Taliban. If nothing else, the Taliban will become as unpopular as the U.S.

That hate can work for you as well as against. The U.S has lost it's will to fight. Maybe if our self-indulged population would get their hands out of their pants long enough to do something useful, the situation might change. Until them, we're pouring money into a lost cause.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: maluckey
All the troops in the world won't fix a damned thing in the Afghanistan or the ME. NATO is useless as an entity, and in reality, the U.S has lost focus on the goal....to punish/destroy the Taliban to the point to which they can't return to power. They (Taliban) understand power and fear. The U.S. doesn't show not enough force, and far too much restraint when they do.

Let's get real.....more troops? Did that help Iraq? Was the Iraqi public mindset helped by more troops? You drank the Kool-aid if you bought it. I was all over Northern Iraq, from Rabiyah to Irbil.........it's a freakin mess! Mosul is still not under control. The NOC now runs the show. 6 freakin years after invading, the city of Mosul is still at war. Tell me again the story of more is better.

Jakes right! Bomb the shit out of them. Bomb their hideouts, bomb their safe houses, bomb their supply roads. Bomb every bastard that shelters the Taliban. If nothing else, the Taliban will become as unpopular as the U.S.

That hate can work for you as well as against. The U.S has lost it's will to fight. Maybe if our self-indulged population would get their hands out of their pants long enough to do something useful, the situation might change. Until them, we're pouring money into a lost cause.

^^ Well said. Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to be stable in our lifetimes, and probably not our children or grandchildren's either, outside of being under the bootheel of one dictator or another. There are too many different interests that will not and cannot cooperate without resorting to violence.

The US is the finest country in the world when it comes to confronting conventional military opponents, but occupations and dealing with guerrilla forces? That's a lose/lose.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The US is the finest country in the world when it comes to confronting conventional military opponents, but occupations and dealing with guerrilla forces? That's a lose/lose.

We consider it inhumane to root out guerrilla forces, and so we fail at that task. Better to cut our losses early and let them develop their own power structure. One that we are more willing to burn down if it turns around and bites us.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: maluckey
All the troops in the world won't fix a damned thing in the Afghanistan or the ME. NATO is useless as an entity, and in reality, the U.S has lost focus on the goal....to punish/destroy the Taliban to the point to which they can't return to power. They (Taliban) understand power and fear. The U.S. doesn't show not enough force, and far too much restraint when they do.

Let's get real.....more troops? Did that help Iraq? Was the Iraqi public mindset helped by more troops? You drank the Kool-aid if you bought it. I was all over Northern Iraq, from Rabiyah to Irbil.........it's a freakin mess! Mosul is still not under control. The NOC now runs the show. 6 freakin years after invading, the city of Mosul is still at war. Tell me again the story of more is better.

Jakes right! Bomb the shit out of them. Bomb their hideouts, bomb their safe houses, bomb their supply roads. Bomb every bastard that shelters the Taliban. If nothing else, the Taliban will become as unpopular as the U.S.

That hate can work for you as well as against. The U.S has lost it's will to fight. Maybe if our self-indulged population would get their hands out of their pants long enough to do something useful, the situation might change. Until them, we're pouring money into a lost cause.

^^ Well said. Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to be stable in our lifetimes, and probably not our children or grandchildren's either, outside of being under the bootheel of one dictator or another. There are too many different interests that will not and cannot cooperate without resorting to violence.

The US is the finest country in the world when it comes to confronting conventional military opponents, but occupations and dealing with guerrilla forces? That's a lose/lose.

I can't help but feel that Islamism is the new Nazism and, just like the civilized world pandered to the latter for decades before it said "enough is enough", there will be a tipping point (say the Taliban taking over Pakistan's nukes or another horrendous terrorist attack) when the collective will be mustered up to defeat this 21st century evil.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
[ Doing anything but denying the taliban bases to operate, when it almost single handledly gives the taliban wlelcome in Afghanistan.

Where the US occupies the country and is upping troop levels and where we don't need Pakistans blessing for anything. Sounds like a good move to me, this thing started in Afghanistan we should finish it in Afghanistan like we should have to begin with instead of getting side tracked by Gdub's vacation in Saddam's palaces.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: maluckey
All the troops in the world won't fix a damned thing in the Afghanistan or the ME. NATO is useless as an entity, and in reality, the U.S has lost focus on the goal....to punish/destroy the Taliban to the point to which they can't return to power. They (Taliban) understand power and fear. The U.S. doesn't show not enough force, and far too much restraint when they do.

Let's get real.....more troops? Did that help Iraq? Was the Iraqi public mindset helped by more troops? You drank the Kool-aid if you bought it. I was all over Northern Iraq, from Rabiyah to Irbil.........it's a freakin mess! Mosul is still not under control. The NOC now runs the show. 6 freakin years after invading, the city of Mosul is still at war. Tell me again the story of more is better.

Jakes right! Bomb the shit out of them. Bomb their hideouts, bomb their safe houses, bomb their supply roads. Bomb every bastard that shelters the Taliban. If nothing else, the Taliban will become as unpopular as the U.S.

That hate can work for you as well as against. The U.S has lost it's will to fight. Maybe if our self-indulged population would get their hands out of their pants long enough to do something useful, the situation might change. Until them, we're pouring money into a lost cause.

:thumbsup:
This country has turned into a bunch of pussies, we didn't learn anything from WWII or Korea or Vietnam.

If we would have responded the way we should have post 911 and properly smited the Taliban in Afghanistan it would have all been over in less than a year and many many lives and much $$$'s would have been saved.

But we worried about what other countries would think/do? concerned ourselves with collateral civilian casualties (exactly what was inflicted upon us) blah, blah, freaking blah
And we failed to understand that shear power is the only thing these people respect. And we allowed ourselves to become baby sitters.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: tvarad

I can't help but feel that Islamism is the new Nazism and, just like the civilized world pandered to the latter for decades before it said "enough is enough", there will be a tipping point (say the Taliban taking over Pakistan's nukes or another horrendous terrorist attack) when the collective will be mustered up to defeat this 21st century evil.

I have always stopped short of generalizing Islam as the enemy, but I'm starting to come around to your viewpoint. If there is as I've always beleived a majority of Islamics that are good and just, the time is now for them to step up and denounce and take care of these "extremist" factions.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: tvarad

I can't help but feel that Islamism is the new Nazism and, just like the civilized world pandered to the latter for decades before it said "enough is enough", there will be a tipping point (say the Taliban taking over Pakistan's nukes or another horrendous terrorist attack) when the collective will be mustered up to defeat this 21st century evil.

I have always stopped short of generalizing Islam as the enemy, but I'm starting to come around to your viewpoint. If there is as I've always beleived a majority of Islamics that are good and just, the time is now for them to step up and denounce and take care of these "extremist" factions.

No, I have never said Islam is the enemy in ANY of my posts. It's like generalizing and saying that all Germans were evil because Nazis were Germans.

I have great historical respect for Islam and the part it played in the continuance of civilization during the dark ages and well into the Renaissance before it atrophied into what it is today.The point I am making is that there is a subset of evil Muslims who are willing to bring the world down in the pursuance of their agenda and history has shown that such groups will go all the way if given a chance.

 

[Lemon law]

Why do I feel I am casting pearls before swine?

Regardless if we are talking Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, its never about raw force, its about winning hearts and minds. Lets compare Vietnam to Afghanistan, been there done that, you tossed up to 500,000 troops against a North Vietnam that had a population of less than 15 million and still lost.

Now we toss less than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan against a population of more than 31 million in Afghanistan and expect to win with brute force alone??????????????????

If nothing else, the lessons of eight years lead anyone with an iota of brains to question any brute force theory.

Somewhere lost in the shuffle is a smarter strategy that can win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

Somehow for the stupid, to question stupidity, must be an unacceptable alternative. Go figure??????????????????????

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: maluckey
All the troops in the world won't fix a damned thing in the Afghanistan or the ME. NATO is useless as an entity, and in reality, the U.S has lost focus on the goal....to punish/destroy the Taliban to the point to which they can't return to power. They (Taliban) understand power and fear. The U.S. doesn't show not enough force, and far too much restraint when they do.

Let's get real.....more troops? Did that help Iraq? Was the Iraqi public mindset helped by more troops? You drank the Kool-aid if you bought it. I was all over Northern Iraq, from Rabiyah to Irbil.........it's a freakin mess! Mosul is still not under control. The NOC now runs the show. 6 freakin years after invading, the city of Mosul is still at war. Tell me again the story of more is better.

Jakes right! Bomb the shit out of them. Bomb their hideouts, bomb their safe houses, bomb their supply roads. Bomb every bastard that shelters the Taliban. If nothing else, the Taliban will become as unpopular as the U.S.

That hate can work for you as well as against. The U.S has lost it's will to fight. Maybe if our self-indulged population would get their hands out of their pants long enough to do something useful, the situation might change. Until them, we're pouring money into a lost cause.

That and a few special forces troops to pick up the slackers is all i ask for.

BTW, not everyone here knows my name, so perhaps you should use John

The Taliban ARE grossly unpopular though, but if you have the choice of your daughter being continously raped, tortured and killed if she goes to school and yourself being tortured to death by these maniacs then you act as if you are on their side.

The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq can be summed up in how the people reacted to the first foreign troops on the ground, in Afghanistan, men, women and children came running towards us, in Iraq they ran away from us.

Hearts and minds? If we had concentrated on the WOT and not a wet dream from the twats that actually concocted that whole bullsheit story (US and UK both), that slogan might very well have worked, 200k+ in the beginning would have changed everything and a battleplan that wasn't fucking stupid would have worked even better.

Now, they are spread over too wide areas, you can't invade Pakistan and that is where they are, sure, some troops are free to travel, the ISI has joined the Taliban and the Pakistan government are packing their bags full of money before they have to flee, it's time to take charge.

I suggest a joint strike effort between France, UK and the US, eventually local actors might participate.

Rip them to shreds and leave a few special troops consisting of snipers/cleaners/recon men on the ground to secure it.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Just more reason to get the hell out of there.

Eh,
I'm fairly sure we can operate there w/o much repercussion. We do need to GTFO saudi arabia... that's like poking a hornet's nest with your finger.