New US offensive in Afghanistan

[Andrew Hertford]

Obama has launched a big new offensive against the Taliban. The parrallels with Viet-Nam have never been more obvious, but unlike the Viet cong, the Taliban are surely evil personified. More innocent people are going to die, but shouldn't we support the Americans this time?

 

[TitanSound]

Support them for what? Invading a country on the flimsiest evidence possible?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

that's me sold

 

[Random]

This looks like it's all about keeping the Pakistani and Afghan allies on board - launching a major prestige operation using elite units to raise the credibility of US forces. Especially since there have been tentative steps by EU countries to raise their troop levels.

But, basically, what will happen is that some villages will change hands, the Taliban will fight a bit, many will die, the rest will melt away, and then when the marines have gone, the Taliban will be back again.

This also goes to show that BHO really thinks that military power can win this one for the US and allies, which is a bad sign.

The US military says about 4,000 Marines as well as 650 Afghan troops are involved, supported by Nato planes.

The operation would have an initial highly aggressive stage lasting 36 hours, AFP news agency reported.

It aims to improve security ahead of presidential elections on 20 August, allowing voter registration where before there was none, Gen Nicholson said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8129789.stm

 

[Barking_Mad]

All the might of the US military and yet the Taleban are still fighting and each year kill more foreign troops.

Not bad for a bunch of folk with RPG's, Kalashnikov's and jeeps.

 

[newharper]

Obama has launched a big new offensive against the Taliban. The parrallels with Viet-Nam have never been more obvious, but unlike the Viet cong, the Taliban are surely evil personified. More innocent people are going to die, but shouldn't we support the Americans this time?

Just because the "enemy" are morally a bit more than dubious, is no reason to back strategically unsound action.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

So assuming we all agree that the Taliban are little more than nazis, is there anything the west should do to stop them?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

"Bunch of folk"? "Dubious"? Hardly does them justice!

 

[spring-peeper]

Support them for what? Invading a country on the flimsiest evidence possible?

They were invited - I think you have the wrong country.

 

[spring-peeper]

I can't wait until 2011.

That is went Canada is supposed to pull out of all military operations in Afghanistan.

 

[kained&able]

Innit! iraq and afgahestan are completely different!


dave

 

[Kaka Tim]

So assuming we all agree that the Taliban are little more than nazis, is there anything the west should do to stop them?

Well - we could kill a few more thousand Afghans and bomb the fuck out of the country some more. Never fails ...... to fail.

Or we could arm some of the other tribal warlords and let them have a turn at terrorising the population instead.

 

[TitanSound]

They were invited - I think you have the wrong country.

Sorry...should have been more specific.

I know they had an agreement with the Northern Alliance but to invade on the premise of wiping out Al-Qaeda and capturing Bin Laden in my eyes was bullshit. Are they going to start invading all other countries with a known Al Qeada presence? They got Saddam so why has it been so hard to find Bin Laden?

 

[butchersapron]

So assuming we all agree that the Taliban are little more than nazis, is there anything the west should do to stop them?

Well, we could stop participating in or supporting idiotic assualts like this that actually help produce and sustain the Taliban. It's like the incredibly effective internment policy of ther early 70s on a larger scale isn't it?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Well - we could kill a few more thousand Afghans and bomb the fuck out of the country some more. Never fails ...... to fail.

Or we could arm some of the other tribal warlords and let them have a turn at terrorising the population instead.

Sure, but my question was what should we do?

 

[DotCommunist]

Nobody ever wins in Afghanistan.

St. Obama must be aware of the epic fail of two previous mighty empires

 

[Idris2002]

The Soviets had six times the number of troops in Afghanistan that the international coalition has.

And they did just brilliantly, didn't they?

 

[Random]

Well, we could stop participating in or supporting idiotic assualts like this that actually help produce and sustain the Taliban. It's like the incredibly effective internment policy of ther early 70s on a larger scale isn't it?

I think the USA are operating on the basis of the idea that most Afghans are floating voters, they'll go with the winning side. There was a major shift of 'Taliban' warlords and tribal chiefs to the Northern Alliance on the US-led bombing, since then many have been sliding away. So imo what the US seem to want to do is to boost the prestige of themselves and their allies in order to get more leaders to float their way again.

 

[DotCommunist]

The Soviets had six times the number of troops in Afghanistan that the international coalition has.

And they did just brilliantly, didn't they?

ah but the mujahadeen had weps and support from the US.

Of course no-one at all is surreptitiously aiding the Taliban

 

[spring-peeper]

Sure, but my question was what should we do?

There really isn't too much you can do but sit back and hope the death count is low.

Each time the Americans attempt to invade and loss, the war critics say it was because there were not enough troops to do the job properly.

This time there will be enough troops, hopefully, and then there will be some type of a win or they will have to figure out that the number of troops isn't the issue.

 

[JimW]

unlike the Viet cong, the Taliban are surely evil personified.

Except that now as I understand it there's taliban and taliban - forces who just don't like foreign occupiers/localists etc as well as the inheritors of the organised movement that formed the old administration.

 

[spring-peeper]

The Soviets had six times the number of troops in Afghanistan that the international coalition has.

And they did just brilliantly, didn't they?

The US has cooler toys.

 

[DotCommunist]

The US has cooler toys.

all the gear, no idea.

The soviets tried and before them the might of the british empire.

The landscape is perfectly suited for the sort of low-intensity guerrilla warfare which bleeds conventional forces one soldier at a time.

Nobody wins in Afghanistan

 

[spring-peeper]

Except that now as I understand it there's taliban and taliban - forces who just don't like foreign occupiers/localists etc as well as the inheritors of the organised movement that formed the old administration.

Really?

I thought that they didn't like anyone who did not hold the same religious views as they did.

Six of one/half a dozen of another I guess.

 

[kyser_soze]

The Soviets had six times the number of troops in Afghanistan that the international coalition has.

And they did just brilliantly, didn't they?

Stinger SAMs. Without the provision of handheld SAMs by the US the muj would've been ground underfoot by the Russians.

It's impossible to stress how important being able to deter and defeat the Russian air presence was - the Stinger literally turned the course of the resistance against the Russian occupation.

 

[spring-peeper]

all the gear, no idea.

The soviets tried and before them the might of the british empire.

The landscape is perfectly suited for the sort of low-intensity guerrilla warfare which bleeds conventional forces one soldier at a time.

Nobody wins in Afghanistan

And the civilians are the biggest losers.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Except that now as I understand it there's taliban and taliban - forces who just don't like foreign occupiers/localists etc as well as the inheritors of the organised movement that formed the old administration.

That's interesting and I'm sure you're right, but I can't help being reminded of Thatcher telling us that there were now two khmer-rouge: Good khmer-Rouge and bad Khmer-Rouge!

 

[DotCommunist]

Stinger SAMs. Without the provision of handheld SAMs by the US the muj would've been ground underfoot by the Russians.

It's impossible to stress how important being able to deter and defeat the Russian air presence was - the Stinger literally turned the course of the resistance against the Russian occupation.

and how much old soviet tech is still hoarded, how much new stuff provided by the house of saud?

It's been a proxy-war ground for ages and the only thing foriegn interests ever get is a bloody nose and flag draped coffins.

 

[kyser_soze]

My point being that had the US not provided Stingers, the Russian occupation may well have turned out differently - after all, quite a lot of people in Afghanistan quite liked having schools and the other civilian-side stuff the Soviets provided, even if the political indonctrination drove many into the arms of the muj.

The current situation has less to do with military power and more to do with the utter failure to manage the civ-side (again). No replacement for the Opium crop monies, for example, loses the H&M battle.

 

[butchersapron]

And the civilians are the biggest losers.

...the civilians don't stay civillians for long.