spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
vicious cycle
New US offensive in Afghanistan
- Thread starter Andrew Hertford
- Start date
vicious cycle
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Lost/Captured US soldier.
JimW
支那暗杀团
I'd read this about the fragmentation of the taliban in Pakistan http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KB03Df02.html and this (shitty interface) set of 42 interviews with taliban fighters gives you a sense of mixed tribal etc loyalties:
See if I can find a better source.
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/talkingtothetaliban/
See if I can find a better source.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
There was an article by a UK military bod on the Guardian website...ohh maybe 2 years back, saying how many of the 'Taleban' were locals who'd just got pissed off and taken up arms. He said it was pointless back then, so lord knows how it's changed since.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
After the Pakistan invasion of the Swat Valley, I read an estimated breakdown of the Taliban forces. They reckoned it was 4/5 local youth and the balance was made up of mercenaries and criminals.
It was the latter part that gave me concern. I got to wondering if all those mercenary magazines I've heard about are running ads for the Taliban or AQ.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
what of fighters from other countries joining in for ideological reasons?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
the way I heard it is that farmers are being paid to destroy opium crops which they don't actually destroy. FFS it's a game theorists typical no-win scenario.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
It just keeps getting worse and worse
I wonder how long the Taliban would last if they didn't have outside help?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Alexander the Great just about managed it, or at least didn't actually lose, although it was more of a truce based on his marrying the Bactrian king's daughter and both sides being worn flat from exhaustion if I recall right.
Gen. Roberts pretty much did win, despite a few battles lost in the Second Afghan war, but then rather sensibly negotiated a treaty and left.
The third Afghan war is very hard to call and obviously the first was a complete rout followed by a bit of nasty retaliation.
So ... definitely not a good idea.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
It just keeps getting worse and worse
I wonder how long the Taliban would last if they didn't have outside help?
during Iraq the first recon marines searched bodies and found egyptian, libyan etc passports with the 'reason for visit' section being 'jihad'
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
It just keeps getting worse and worse
I wonder how long the Taliban would last if they didn't have outside help?
Then they wouldn't be the taliban - the whole point is that they are a pakistani movement as well, from the start
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
did someone just move this thread from general to p&p?
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Started in afghan refuge camps, iirc.
turing test
Nearly Toowrong
He cleaned it up for you Poms now maybe he will straighten it out for Uncle Sam
Andrew Hertford
Chocolate Jesus
That's where we've been going wrong. Khaki is so not right for Afghanistan.
The ones in Phnom Penh, or the jungle?
Andrew Hertford
Chocolate Jesus
Couldn't tell you. Perhaps she was right, perhaps we are too eager to lump our enemies together under one convenient name.
JHE
.
Andrew,
The Soviet Union tried militarily for a decade to save Afghanistan from an Islamic insurgency against the reforming Afghan Communists (PDPA) in government. The Soviet Union was ruthless. A few years later, the Communist government was overthrown. Some time after that, the warring Islamist factions were out-Islamed and out-fought by the ultra-puritan Islamists of the Taliban.
In short: The SU and the PDPA failed miserably
The United States and its allies invaded in late 2001, fed up with the Taliban hosting Bin Liner and chums. The current regime is another bloody Islamist regime, though a little less extreme than the Taliban. In the seven and a half years since the invasion, have the US and its allies come anywhere near defeating the Taliban? No. They win many small battles. They kill many Taliban. But they are not winning the war and the army and the journalists who go to see how the army is getting on know it. The Taliban gets as many recruits as it wants. What's more, their military campaigns are now on both sides of the Pakistan border.
In short: The US and its allies (Afghan and foreign) are failing
Foreign invaders, infidels, kuffars, especially when they bomb the shit out of civilians, just make the Taliban stronger.
If there were some way of saving Afghanistan from Islamist horrors, you might have a point. Maybe, just maybe, it would be justified to fight a war of liberation in faraway Afghanistan to save the poor bloody Afghans from their more fanatical compatriots. But that's not the situation.
Bring the troops home!
The Soviet Union tried militarily for a decade to save Afghanistan from an Islamic insurgency against the reforming Afghan Communists (PDPA) in government. The Soviet Union was ruthless. A few years later, the Communist government was overthrown. Some time after that, the warring Islamist factions were out-Islamed and out-fought by the ultra-puritan Islamists of the Taliban.
In short: The SU and the PDPA failed miserably
The United States and its allies invaded in late 2001, fed up with the Taliban hosting Bin Liner and chums. The current regime is another bloody Islamist regime, though a little less extreme than the Taliban. In the seven and a half years since the invasion, have the US and its allies come anywhere near defeating the Taliban? No. They win many small battles. They kill many Taliban. But they are not winning the war and the army and the journalists who go to see how the army is getting on know it. The Taliban gets as many recruits as it wants. What's more, their military campaigns are now on both sides of the Pakistan border.
In short: The US and its allies (Afghan and foreign) are failing
Foreign invaders, infidels, kuffars, especially when they bomb the shit out of civilians, just make the Taliban stronger.
If there were some way of saving Afghanistan from Islamist horrors, you might have a point. Maybe, just maybe, it would be justified to fight a war of liberation in faraway Afghanistan to save the poor bloody Afghans from their more fanatical compatriots. But that's not the situation.
Bring the troops home!
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
It makes it easier to find a common enemy - someone to hate.
I think we did a thread once that had all the groups and tribes that were fighting there. It was really long and not all areas of the country had the same groups. It's too confusing for the average reader, so the media lumps them all together.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Andrew Hertford
Chocolate Jesus
Actually JHE I agree with much of what you say. Perhaps my original question wasn't put very well, and it was indeed meant as a question and not a statement.
I've always pitied the Afghans a lot, ever since making friends with a refugee back in the early eighties. I don't agree with the notion that we can or should do nothing to help them and just leave their fate in the hands of the Taliban, but I've no idea what. Seems the collective wisdom of Urban75 doesn't either.
I've always pitied the Afghans a lot, ever since making friends with a refugee back in the early eighties. I don't agree with the notion that we can or should do nothing to help them and just leave their fate in the hands of the Taliban, but I've no idea what. Seems the collective wisdom of Urban75 doesn't either.
I think it's well worth a big offensive, so long as they can sustain it and not kill civilians. There are one or two things in favour of the NATO forces. The Taliban are losing public support in Pakistan and they're very busy with their war there. The Americans will give Pakistan more money to ensure that the Taliban are fighting two wars at once. No-one is supplying them with sophisticated weapons, as the Americans did to help them beat the Russians. All they've got is rifles, RPGs, some small unguided rockets, IEDs and suicide bombers. The Americans and Brits have learnt a lot about fighting them and their weapons are improving. The new ASTOR system might make a big difference over the next couple of years - for a start it ought to take care of the IEDs which seem to be our biggest problem. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/13/322438/uk-hails-success-of-astors-afghan-debut.html
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Your post makes me sad.
Canada is in Afghanistan and we got dealt one of the most violent provinces. So far, we have have mourned and buried 120 of our military and countless volunteers working in other provinces throughout the country.
When we first answered Afghanistan most recent cry for help, we went. This was the first time we allowed our peace keepers to fire first while on a UN mission and we pulled most of our UN troops out of other areas to help. We have always believed in peace and understanding, but we recognize that there are times that you have to stand up and say "no" to what is going on and to respond with violence in the interest of the common good. Planting landmines along the side of the roads is not in the common interest and most of our military have been killed while trying to dismantle them.
Not all of Canada wanted to go and there has been division, but it was a common theme that it might be alright if we do more harm than good. So, in the hearts of some, Afghanistan became part of ourselves. Through the help of our media, we have been able to learn about the people, their lifestyles and their cultures. We even have a reality television show following a group of people as they enter the military, train for Afghan and then some of their missions while over there.
It was with outrage that this nation found out that, according to the latest stats from one agency or another, that Afghan's infant mortality rate was amongst the worlds highest - still!!! There were other showing that there has been little improvement for the average person and we questioned why the heck we were there.
Our mission is up in 2011 and, imo, it would be political suicide to stay there in a military capacity. We will go back to doing what we do best. Follow behind the Americans and clean up. I mean, go back to our other project in the area.
After all the resources that have been spent on Afghanistan, Canada isn't going to abandon them. The rest of the world might get distracted by something else (oh yes please - go squabble someplace else), but Canada is there for the long haul.
Afghan will be alright, no matter the outcome. I just hope this is the last time the world uses their country as a playground for their petty squabbles.
It's not the only major offensive. The UK launched Op Panthers Claw around Lashker Gar and the US have a major op in the east too.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/06/coalition_strikes_at.php
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/06/coalition_strikes_at.php
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Most of your post makes me want to just post this:
But you seem to actually beleive in what you're saying, I feel the sentiment is sinsere and laudable, even if disconected to the usal degree from the way your (Canada's) political masters in Canada Prime see things.
It's the same for us in the UK too, good-hearted ignorance on the part of the people, ruthless predatory calculation by those that send the troops.
Bombs and air-strikes won't fix Afganistan, I don't know what will but no Western nation (or any nation ever) has ever sent troops to a far away land for altruistic intentions.
It's always Aggressive self interest that moves armies (as in like bopping someone over the head to take their stuff). don't let anyone dupe you into beleiving any different, even from jolly nice and civilised compared to the US Canadia.
Noooo!
Saint Tony de Blère only sent our lads to Iraq because God told him that Saddam was evil.
JimW
支那暗杀团
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Most of your post makes me want to just post this:
I know, don't worry about it. I was aware that my post was making me vunerable, but he sounded so sad.
Find me one link to support your claim that my prime minister has said anything to the contrary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your country invade Iraq? Mine didn't!!!!
Bombs and air strikes will not fix anything, but they can help bring the situation under control. Some breathing room, a little time without roadside bombs, would be a nice break and allow some semblance of normalcy into the area.
Who are you again????
*scrolls up*
Ah - November.
*suppresses giggle*
Hi there, I'm spring-peeper - nice to meet you.
JHE
.
The various Afghan factions fight it out.
It's highly unlikely that the future will be determined by elections. With the Taliban in contention it is also unlikely that there will be agreements and compromise peace.
We can't be sure who will win where, but my guess is that the Taliban will win in much of Afghanistan, as they did before. It seems highly likely that they'd prevail in the most Pashtun areas.
What's the alternative? More war (the Afghans have had war for three decades already) going on for another decade, two decades, three decades.... after which the Taliban still win?
Similar threads
- Poll
