Why the USA loses in Afghanistan

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
.....

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.

But something like that requires another Pearl Harbor, else all the denialists will gang up and do another anti-Iraq. That's the Hobsonian choice.

 

[Lemon law]

By the way John or JOS, I know exactly who you are, and while I think you are a pawn, and a not very bright pawn at that, we have been debating Afghanistan ideas for almost three years now. In those three years, the inescapable conclusion is that Nato is now in far worse shape than it was three years ago. You can accuse me of aiding and abetting the enemy until you are blue in the face, but truth be told, I am only a honest observer.

And as a pawn I don't hate you, I hate your clueless leaders who are totally bumbling the Afghan occupation, I don't know about you, but I want Nato to win, but when they use the wrong tactics and are clueless, yes its my responsibility to say we are cutting our own throats.

Unlike you, I think, and not only that, I am a pretty good chess player. And chess not only requires thinking ahead, it also requires an ability to play both sides of the board. And just because I thus understand Taliban reasoning does not mean I root for the Taliban, it instead means I can understand the joy the Taliban takes when Krazai slits Nato's throat with this new brainfart. And maybe if you and your leaders were a little more open to doing what it takes to win Afghan hearts and minds, Nato might do better for a CHANGE.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
By the way John or JOS, I know exactly who you are, and while I think you are a pawn, and a not very bright pawn at that, we have been debating Afghanistan ideas for almost three years now. In those three years, the inescapable conclusion is that Nato is now in far worse shape than it was three years ago. You can accuse me of aiding and abetting the enemy until you are blue in the face, but truth be told, I am only a honest observer.

And as a pawn I don't hate you, I hate your clueless leaders who are totally bumbling the Afghan occupation, I don't know about you, but I want Nato to win, but when they use the wrong tactics and are clueless, yes its my responsibility to say we are cutting our own throats.

Unlike you, I think, and not only that, I am a pretty good chess player. And chess not only requires thinking ahead, it also requires an ability to play both sides of the board. And just because I thus understand Taliban reasoning does not mean I root for the Taliban, it instead means I can understand the joy the Taliban takes when Krazai slits Nato's throat with this new brainfart. And maybe if you and your leaders were a little more open to doing what it takes to win Afghan hearts and minds, Nato might do better for a CHANGE.

Son, i'm not NATO nor do i respond to NATO command, i have no upper authority here.

Most of your post falls flat right there.

I've told you this over ten times, perhaps if you read others posts instead of repeating uninformed opinions all the time you'd actually learn something?

But no, and you're a chess player, well whooopdefucking do, that might work out great for you but it has no relevance in this war, this is not about strategic landgrabs, this is about a straight line to Islamabad and all players are peasents and expendable.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
.....

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.

But something like that requires another Pearl Harbor, else all the denialists will gang up and do another anti-Iraq. That's the Hobsonian choice.

No, it requires 1/5th of what was done in Iraq and that is all.

I'd say it's high treason for a commander to leave his troops vulnerable to pursue other tasks for unknown reasons.

It is, look it up.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
.....

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.

But something like that requires another Pearl Harbor, else all the denialists will gang up and do another anti-Iraq. That's the Hobsonian choice.

No, it requires 1/5th of what was done in Iraq and that is all.

I'd say it's high treason for a commander to leave his troops vulnerable to pursue other tasks for unknown reasons.

It is, look it up.

Cowboy up.

 

[Lemon law]

So JOS asserts, "this is about a straight line to Islamabad and all players are peasants and expendable. "

Somehow missing in action in all that is using your brains to make the job easier or an understanding that getting to Islamabad will not win the war if the Taliban steps a side and just lets you surge through.

Sadly you are letting the the Taliban play you like a violin.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: 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.

Recent experiences have shown that none of these kinds of wars are won through negotiations. The full blown insurgency in Indian Punjab went through all kinds of pandering to the terrorists before the government wiped it with a "take no prisoners" approach in the '80s. The three decade old civil war that stalemated Sri-Lanka for so long now has the LTTE being cornered in a few square kilometers after the Sri-Lanka army adopted a similar approach.

The Taliban terrorists are cut from the same cloth and, as such, need to be dealt with in the same manner because they see negotiations as a sign of weakness. That can only happen if the U.S. stops pandering to their main benefactors, viz. the Pakistani army.

 

[Lemon law]

Its all well and fine for Tvarad to say, "Recent experiences have shown that none of these kinds of wars are won through negotiations. The full blown insurgency in Indian Punjab went through all kinds of pandering to the terrorists before the government wiped it with a "take no prisoners" approach in the '80s."

The problem is that tvarad has a massive Indian army confused with a Nato force of less than 100,000 men. Trying to patrol an entire country of 31 million people. Even going by the recommended book of one soldier per 50 in population yields a figure of 620,000 troops required.

I did read an interesting link in the NYT today, and that one link lead to many other links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...asia/05fighter.html?hp

But if we really want to understand how thinly spread Nato is, its hard to beat this link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...ld/asia/22taliban.html

Which somewhat goes to show why we can't afford to cut our own throats.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/67501.html

To show what happens when Pakistan willy nilly dances to appease the USA.

 

[tvarad]

Lemon Law,
It was not the "massive Indian Army" which crushed the Punjab rebellion but the police force, headed by a no-nonsense cop called K.P.S. Gill. In fact, the army got a bloody nose and saw it's reputation tarnished and was unsuccessful in quelling the rebellion. The difference was that Gill turned the tables on the Khalistanis by using their own tactics on them and made the police the hunters instead of the hunted (like they are now in Pakistan). But more than that, the government was willing to say "enough is enough" and put it's tenuous hold on Punjab at that time on the line and allow the guy to go and do the job at hand unfettered by apologists like you who were bleating about all the "human rights abuses" and the like. Looks like the Sri-Lankans are doing the same to the Tamil Tigers (from whom the Taliban have learned tactics like suicide bombings).

At the end of the day, groups like the Taliban are cowards and bullies and will fold if the state is willing to stand up to them. Unfortunately, the spineless Pakistani govt. and the opportunistic Pakistani army will not. The West is making the same mistake of being tenuous with these groups so as not to lose "the hearts and minds" of the local populace (never mind that both have been pummelled out of them by three decades of continuous warfare). They will soon learn the same lessons and act like the Indian and Sri-Lankan Govts..

 

[Lemon law]

Tvarad, this is what wiki has to say about Gill, in some ways, as bad as the Taliban, and recently sacked as incompetent in a secondary career.

In terms would another Gill be effective, its very hard to be certain.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Build a really tall rock wall around North Waziristan. Let the Taliban have it.

Maybe in a few hundred years they may evolve into the 18th century.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Build a really tall rock wall around North Waziristan. Let the Taliban have it.

Maybe in a few hundred years they may evolve into the 18th century.

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

In some ways that is exactly why the Taliban will never be a threat to Pakistan, in many ways, Afghanistan and the Tribal areas of Pakistan are equally undeveloped, when modernity comes to those areas, Taliban type ideas will no longer fit.

Its already long past that point in the Modern areas of Pakistan, and most of Islam has gone down the same road. With only Saudi Arabia as the lone exception.

Nor is Christianity all that different, if we are willing to go back to even the 19'th century, in most of the Western world, women were treated as Chattel with lesser rights than males. In the USA, females did not get voting rights until the early 20'th century and it took 50 years of struggle and agitation to get there.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Tvarad, this is what wiki has to say about Gill, in some ways, as bad as the Taliban, and recently sacked as incompetent in a secondary career.

In terms would another Gill be effective, its very hard to be certain.

Guys like Gill are around to do the dirty cleanup jobs caused by the mess that politicians make , so they're not going to come out smelling like roses. The point was that he stopped the rampaging Khalistanis in their tracks and brought peace to Indian Punjab, which is what matters. The guy was cast in the "Dirty Harry" mold so he certainly didn't make too many friends after that.

The Punjab problem was one unholy mess born out of Indira Gandhi's plan to use Sikh extremists to neutralize political opponents. That's very similar to the Pakistani penchant to use Jihadi groups to further their military goals. Both came back to bite the hand that fed them.

And it's not so much whether Gill's tactics in Punjab will be effective in Afghanistan but ensuring that the Taliban is defeated unconditionally before we can all sit around a campfire in Afghanistan and sing "Kumbaya". That can happen only if a "whatever it takes" attitude sets in. And that requires fatigue to set in on the winning the hearts and minds attitude.

 

[Lemon law]

The tvarad analogy of Gill is somewhat similar to recurring sports rivalries. Just because team A beat team B last year, is seldom a good predictor that Team A
using the same tactics will beat team B again. To further complicate the tvarad assumption is a another factor missing when Gill used brutal police tactics 20 years ago. And that problem is that drug money has now corrupted the police forces and the power structure in both Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. And it simply behooves certain war lords to keep the region in a desirable state of anarchy, which also prevents their power from being eroded.

Sadly the other myth being pushed is that its ONLY the Taliban that exploits the flow of drug money, when in fact everyone, from the Afghan government and its war lords did it FIRST and still do it better. And because the police are now on the take also, that Tvarad argument of Gill the second does not look as likely.

I now see from various links that the Nato plans to crack down on opium production, something they should have done much earlier IMHO, but its sadly something that will likely alienate the entire Afghan government and hence be harder that it appears.

 

[Lemon law]

In a new and somewhat Pakistani government optimistic article, it looks like the Pakistani army is now preparing to confront that Taliban in both Swat and Buner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...a/06pstan.html?_r=1&hp

It certainly has to be good news for Nato, and if nothing else will reduce the effectiveness of the 2009 Taliban offensive on Afghanistan as it starts to be more of a two front war for the Taliban.

Only time will tell on the long term results and how attitudes will change.

In terms of later updates, some as estimating this Pakistani offensive will create up to 500,000
refugees.

And confirm the JOS prediction of, "this is about a straight line to Islamabad and all players are peasants and expendable." It now looks like a US bombing run may have killed 70-100 innocent civilians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...RzbGsDYWZnaGFuc3NheXVz

 

[maluckey]

And confirm the JOS prediction of, "this is about a straight line to Islamabad and all players are peasants and expendable." It now looks like a US bombing run may have killed 70-100 innocent civilians

Believe what you want....I choose to refrain from belief in the press in the ME. How many of them are in Iraqs second largest city? It's a trick question.......... Mosul is Iraq's second largest city, and it is still not under control, or open to the press. They (the press) have virtually zero presence there, and most alll of the "news" comes from the "pool".

My team once entered (unannounced) a "displacement" camp with more than 1500 souls without more than twenty or so males over 12 years old (where were they at?). Nobody knew anything about anything.....we found a schoolhouse full of tunnels stuffed full of ordinance. Apparently not for use as a booby trap, but to store the goods. Schoolchildren were studying on top of the mess until we sent them home. Could have been really something. The press wasn't allowed to print any details or even mention it until the operation was over. By then.... it wasn't news.

The press is often wrong, sometimes decieved, and ALWAYS subject to being played by one side or the other. HUMINT elements are just as bad as the press at times. They don't seem to be looking at the hard analysis enough, and ASSUME more than is there because of their almost blinding arrogance.

I don't claim to know the answers but I see what I see. I see almost a decade of wasted time and effort tying to play nice. No war was ever won by playing nice....

 

[Lemon law]

maluckey may have a point that, "No war was ever won by playing nice....", but many wars are lost by playing vicious. If the 41 million people now be directly conclude that the Taliban is the problem, the Taliban will lose, if they conclude Nato is the problem, Nato will lose.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
maluckey may have a point that, "No war was ever won by playing nice....", but many wars are lost by playing vicious. If the 41 million people now be directly conclude that the Taliban is the problem, the Taliban will lose, if they conclude Nato is the problem, Nato will lose.

For the umpteenth time, NATO will not lose because the outcome of this war directly affects the West, unlike Vietnam or any other wars that you allude to. A NATO loss is equivalent to a nuke cratered Afghanistan. Don't shed crocodile tears for the Afghans unless that is what you wish for their land.

People in the West fully understand why their troops are in Afghanistan. That is why you don't see flower children in the West singing protest songs about it like in the '60s. That is why you only see a few ghettoized muslim losers in Western countries protesting against their version of what is happening there.

BTW did the 31 million Afghanistan to procreate so furiously to become 41 million since your last Afghan census a couple of posts ago?

 

[Lemon law]

No Tvard, you misunderstand when you ask, "BTW did the 31 million Afghanistan to procreate so furiously to become 41 million since your last Afghan census a couple of posts ago?"

I am adding in a rough estimate of the residents of the Tribal regions of Pakistan, try as hard as you like, but they are more or less the same. For them, some border drawn in some foreign land is meaningless. And on those 41 million people do the burdens of the Afghan war fall.

I hope that clarifies your question.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: tvarad
For the umpteenth time, NATO will not lose because the outcome of this war directly affects the West, unlike Vietnam or any other wars that you allude to. A NATO loss is equivalent to a nuke cratered Afghanistan. Don't shed crocodile tears for the Afghans unless that is what you wish for their land.

NATO can "lose" and if they do there will not be a nuke cratered Afghanistan. A lot of people want to treat the alliance's complex activities there as a test which, if failed, would cause NATO's humiliation and collapse. Yes, Afghanistan is a very important task for NATO, and its failure could trigger political and strategic destabilization for the whole region. However, NATO would not lose its importance and still remain the most influential military alliance in the world.

NATO operates there under a U.N. mandate and thus is an instrument of the international community. And from the very beginning, NATO intended a multidimensional approach to stabilization and reconstruction, with military operations only used to create the necessary conditions.

Therefore, the alliance's success will not be measured by the number of rebels killed, but by the level of support for and from the Afghan population. This support is being built with the arduous construction of new roads, irrigation systems, power plants, schools and hospitals, and this is unfortunately basically absent in the media.

The big problem NATO faces is keeping the terrain cleared of illegal armed forces. The allies can easily defeat groups in battle but don't have the numbers to hold the ground, which allows rebels to return and destroy everything that was built or helped. NATO will never have the personnel necessary to do this... which is why failure or success will ultimately rest with Afghan government forces, the only group capable of achieving this goal.

NATO will fail by default if the Afghan government cannot effectively control their territory in the mid to long term.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: Lemon law
maluckey may have a point that, "No war was ever won by playing nice....", but many wars are lost by playing vicious. If the 41 million people now be directly conclude that the Taliban is the problem, the Taliban will lose, if they conclude Nato is the problem, Nato will lose.

For the umpteenth time, NATO will not lose because the outcome of this war directly affects the West, unlike Vietnam or any other wars that you allude to. A NATO loss is equivalent to a nuke cratered Afghanistan. Don't shed crocodile tears for the Afghans unless that is what you wish for their land.

People in the West fully understand why their troops are in Afghanistan. That is why you don't see flower children in the West singing protest songs about it like in the '60s. That is why you only see a few ghettoized muslim losers in Western countries protesting against their version of what is happening there.

BTW did the 31 million Afghanistan to procreate so furiously to become 41 million since your last Afghan census a couple of posts ago?

Well maybe you can tell me why exactly is the west doing in Afghan. The last time I remembered was because Taliban refused to hand over Bin Ladin.

If Bin Ladin was the reason the West is in Afghan, why hasn't there been more concrete effort to capture and kill him. Why is the West getting involved in another nation build project? Why don't we see 200k troop searching the Afghan/Pakistan border and hunt down Bin Ladin, get this over with, head home and let Afghan people figure out what they want themselves.

I don't care what kind of firepower you think NATO and the west have, they will not "win" becase they are foreigner. Anybody they support are going to be seen as a foreign puppet and nobody other then corrupted war lords looking for their self interest will work with the West. And no, there is no winning the hearts and mind of the Afghan people, the only thing Afghan people want from the West is for the West to get the f out of their country.

I don't know what kind of people is leading the charge, but I really hope they get their reason in Afghan straight. If they think they can have another nation building project to make Afghan the way they want it to be, the US/West will most certainly lose this war, maybe no now, but certainly in 5~10 years.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well maybe you can tell me why exactly is the west doing in Afghan. The last time I remembered was because Taliban refused to hand over Bin Ladin.

If Bin Ladin was the reason the West is in Afghan, why hasn't there been more concrete effort to capture and kill him. Why is the West getting involved in another nation build project? Why don't we see 200k troop searching the Afghan/Pakistan border and hunt down Bin Ladin, get this over with, head home and let Afghan people figure out what they want themselves.

I don't care what kind of firepower you think NATO and the west have, they will not "win" becase they are foreigner. Anybody they support are going to be seen as a foreign puppet and nobody other then corrupted war lords looking for their self interest will work with the West. And no, there is no winning the hearts and mind of the Afghan people, the only thing Afghan people want from the West is for the West to get the f out of their country.

I don't know what kind of people is leading the charge, but I really hope they get their reason in Afghan straight. If they think they can have another nation building project to make Afghan the way they want it to be, the US/West will most certainly lose this war, maybe no now, but certainly in 5~10 years.

You are completely wrong in your premise, and all that follows is meaningless. The west did not invade Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden and that's not why the west is there now. What happened (and is currently happening) in Afghanistan is much larger and more important than one man.