The Conflict in Afghanistan

[Section_31]

Thoughts?

 

Just been watching a homecoming feature on Sky, with some RAF pilots returning home amid all the usual fanfare, and I must admit I find it amazing how we're considered to be losing this conflict now. Tanks, spy satellites, Google Street Maps, intelligence divisions, unmanned aircraft, jets, gunships, troops, yet still what are effectively - Dad's Army with turbans - are holding their own, and some say winning.

 

Madness.

 

Regarding the conflict itself, unlike Iraq which has overshadowed it, I've never had a problem with taking the Taliban down. They knowingly harboured a terrorist organisation - probably many more - and refused to surrender Bin Laden when offered the chance. I believe it's a just war, but can't believe it's become bogged down in the shit the way it has.

[Stouffer]

Have you read the book 3 Para by Patrick Bishop, provides a very good insight into the immense constraints on the fighting there.

[DJLJ]

As you, I also don't have a problem with this conflict, they brought it onto themselves with harbouring Bin Laden. 2 things that stand out for me,

1) is the massive upsurge in Heroin production that has occurred since the 'war' started

and

2) they should never have taken their eyes of the ball, finished this first and then have gone onto whatever next. Reminds a little of WWII, Hitler starting on 2 fronts, which led to defeat. It isn't as bad yet, but they could have put much more personnel and material into the afghan fight and most likely finished it already. Now it looks like the taliban is on the uprise again. Such a shame that nothing has been learnt from previous mistakes in wars.

[Section_31]

As you, I also don't have a problem with this conflict, they brought it onto themselves with harbouring Bin Laden. 2 things that stand out for me,

1) is the massive upsurge in Heroin production that has occurred since the 'war' started

and

2) they should never have taken their eyes of the ball, finished this first and then have gone onto whatever next. Reminds a little of WWII, Hitler starting on 2 fronts, which led to defeat. It isn't as bad yet, but they could have put much more personnel and material into the afghan fight and most likely finished it already. Now it looks like the taliban is on the uprise again. Such a shame that nothing has been learnt from previous mistakes in wars.

 

One thing that fascinates me is the fact the Americans - behind closed doors at least - seem to be laying a lot of the blame on British military tactics. They think we're too soft apparently, but the fact that the yanks will bomb the shit out of anything, including weddings of 50 people, has turned the man in the street against them.

 

There was a large amount of people in that country who hated the Taliban, now they hate us more.

 

Reminds me of an interview with the leader of a Militia in Basra not long ago, he was talking about the Brits pulling out and he said "I am their enemy but I respect them, the British are clever - the Americans, they are not so clever."

 

The American military is like a big stupid Elephant which is trying to hoover up a single ant from an ant hill.

[George Costanza]

Its become a fine balancing act. Trying to act as the saviours to the Afghan & Pakistan people while trying to root out the coniving, devious Taliban. You can't just go about blowing up houses, villages etc due to 'civilian' casualties

 

What the allied forces don't seem to realise, is that you can'y fight a war in a foreign country against people whose country it is.

 

Fuck pleasing the geneal population, action should have swift, heavy and decisive. If the Afghan people were so concerned about there well being they would have revolted against the Taliban regime a long time ago.

 

Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini didn't gain power because they were popular, they gained power because oppositon against them was so weak/apathetic. Only once they are in power can they exert influence over the masses. Even then it takes a good deal of colabaration from the majority.

[Stu Monty]

Just mentioned this on the Images of war thread and, as promised, went and found it. Very interesting reading I thought.

 

An Open Letter to President Obama

[Anubis]

Regarding the conflict itself, unlike Iraq which has overshadowed it, I've never had a problem with taking the Taliban down. They knowingly harboured a terrorist organisation - probably many more - and refused to surrender Bin Laden when offered the chance.

 

I'd agree with that. Even as we went to war with Iraq I was telling people it was a pointless war and that we should be sending large numbers of troops to Afghanistan.

 

As for the way the conflict has gone, you can have all the technology you want, but the terrain and climate are great levellers. And there is no substitute for a determined foe who are partly driven by religious rhetoric, and partly driven by the knowledge that modern western societies have little taste for any appreciable number of casualties.

 

I also think the Taliban's ability to slink in and out of Pakistan and regroup in rural mountainous border villages without much interference from the Pakistani government counts against allied forces.

 

Afghanistan is an unforgiving country and as far as I'm aware no outside force has ever held it against the natives. I suspect what Kipling wrote a hundred years ago is as equally relevant today....

 

 

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Edited October 5, 2009 by Anubis

[bri]

were fighting a war that demands results so people can get re elected, a war that costs billions, will get less popular and all the time costs lives. Lets not forget we went in October 7, 2001 so to the day were 8 years in. Islam doesn't give a fling fuck about cash, time, re election, etc. They'll fight for a 100 years and not even blink. I see them as the same mentality as the vietnamese where their lives are irrelevant to the cause.

 

We've blown the last chance for peace in our time

[Magic Sponge]

Thoughts?

 

Just been watching a homecoming feature on Sky, with some RAF pilots returning home amid all the usual fanfare, and I must admit I find it amazing how we're considered to be losing this conflict now. Tanks, spy satellites, Google Street Maps, intelligence divisions, unmanned aircraft, jets, gunships, troops, yet still what are effectively - Dad's Army with turbans - are holding their own, and some say winning.

 

Madness.

 

Regarding the conflict itself, unlike Iraq which has overshadowed it, I've never had a problem with taking the Taliban down. They knowingly harboured a terrorist organisation - probably many more - and refused to surrender Bin Laden when offered the chance. I believe it's a just war, but can't believe it's become bogged down in the shit the way it has.

 

You couldnt be more wrong mate. Having fought against them myself,I found them to be extremely brave soldiers. You must not forget that Dad's Army with turbans as you call them, managed to draw a stalemate with the might of the Soviet Army after 10 years of Fighting.

[Stu Monty]

I also don't know how you define winning. I don't see any course of action that can now repair the damage that has been done in fighting the battle for words and thoughts. I would imagine that the Al-Qaeda recruitment division are now struggling to cope with the influx of applicants; a situation infinitely worse than where we were ten years ago. You cannot bomb an idea and spin will do you no good to the people on the end of the reality of your actions.

[Section_31]

I'd agree with that. Even as we went to war with Iraq I was telling people it was a pointless war and that we should be sending large numbers of troops to Afghanistan.

 

As for the way the conflict has gone, you can have all the technology you want, but the terrain and climate are great levellers. And there is no substitute for a determined foe who are partly driven by religious rhetoric, and partly driven by the knowledge that modern western societies have little taste for any appreciable number of casualties.

 

I also think the Taliban's ability to slink in and out of Pakistan and regroup in rural mountainous border villages without much interference from the Pakistani government counts against allied forces.

 

Afghanistan is an unforgiving country and as far as I'm aware no outside force has ever held it against the natives. I suspect what Kipling wrote a hundred years ago is as equally relevant today....

 

 

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

 

I agree in part, but we've been told since childhood that the yanks have got satellites which can read a byline from orbit, and yet they can't track down the Taliban.

 

One has to wonder whether it's more about money, I've read that discussions have actually taken place at the MOD along the lines of "it's cheaper to send the boys in in jeeps than have them in choppers", knowing the job will be harder and bloodier, but cheaper.

 

I wonder how much of this high-tech shit is being kept under wraps for the same reason? A Tomahawk costs £1m, a soldier costs between 10-15k in compo.

 

Fuck that.

 

You couldnt be more wrong mate. Having fought against them myself,I found them to be extremely brave soldiers. You must not forget that Dad's Army with turbans as you call them, managed to draw a stalemate with the might of the Soviet Army after 10 years of Fighting.

 

Fair do's mate, it was tongue in cheek, and to be honest I meant more along the likes of 'ordinary blokes' with shit equipment rather than wanting to disparage their fighting skills, I have no doubt they're superb fighters, the proof is there for all to see.

[WaltonRed]

You can have all the firepower and military mite you want, but you wont win if you dont break the will of the people you are fighting.

 

See Vietnam

[kelster]

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are unparalleled in stupidity. Vietnam was the template in sending soldiers to foreign countries to fight a determined enemy who don't pose any direct threat.

 

Even with hindsight and short of a complete annihilation, I can't envisage a strategy that could make either country safe enough for the coalitions to declare any sort of victory, especially in Afghanistan. The only way we can keep from losing is to keep troops there indefinitely and suck up the casualties. The Labour party's snivelling to George Bush has put us in an impossible position where we can't win, but we can't afford to lose.

[kelster]

You can have all the firepower and military mite you want, but you wont win if you dont break the will of the people you are fighting.

 

See Vietnam

 

This is exactly the 'problem'. Politicians seem to have come up with the new concept "war-lite", where you try to defeat the enemy but try and be mates with a population who may harbour and support that enemy. Try and win hearts and minds and change their minds. That'll fucking work.

 

I wouldn't condone it in this day and age, but can you imagine Alexander the Great or Rome carrying out their conquests in that manner. They wouldn't have got out of Macedonia or Rome. You either teach everyone a lesson they'll never forget (see Persepolis) or stay at home.

[Section_31]

The biggest mistake of the USA and UK in the last decade was turning the 'war on terror' into a 'war on Islam'.

 

If the Islamic world - especially the rank and file in Pakistan - had been kept onside, Afghanistan could have been 'won' IMO. Without the rest of the Muslim world to ratify it, back it and hid it, the Taliban could not continue to fight. Afghanistan itself had a powerful Northern Alliance who were at the throat of the Taliban in the early days too, and they're pretty much out of the picture.

[kelster]

The biggest mistake of the USA and UK in the last decade was turning the 'war on terror' into a 'war on Islam'.

 

If the Islamic world - especially the rank and file in Pakistan - had been kept onside, Afghanistan could have been 'won' IMO. Without the rest of the Muslim world to ratify it, back it and hid it, the Taliban could not continue to fight. Afghanistan itself had a powerful Northern Alliance who were at the throat of the Taliban in the early days too, and they're pretty much out of the picture.

 

Won? What would a win constitute. Defeat the Taliban and have the old tribal warlords funded by opium back in power? Go into Pakistan and defeat them there as well so they can't come back over the border?

 

You can't attack a Muslim country and not have it turn into a religious thing. The Soviet Union, an atheist entity, attacked Afghanistan and spawned a mujahideen, in effect a holy Islamic army. A lesson not learned.

[Section_31]

Won? What would a win constitute. Defeat the Taliban and have the old tribal warlords funded by opium back in power? Go into Pakistan and defeat them there as well so they can't come back over the border?

 

You can't attack a Muslim country and not have it turn into a religious thing. The Soviet Union, an atheist entity, attacked Afghanistan and spawned a mujahideen, in effect a holy Islamic army. A lesson not learned.

 

Fair point.

 

I just think a massive part of the problem there is the support they get from Islamic nations, and if they could have been brought onside, they would have lost a great deal of their power base.

 

Bin Laden and friends have exploited both conflicts as a west vs Islam issue, and they've managed to raise what is effectively a global resistance movement to fend it off.

 

If it'd been made clear from word go "look we're not arsed about the middle east, we just want the people who brought the towers down", I think America could have used a great deal of the goodwill it had at its disposal in 2001 to create a coalition, and from there the Taliban could have been replaced with a more benign regime.

[Stu Monty]

Fair point.

 

I just think a massive part of the problem there is the support they get from Islamic nations, and if they could have been brought onside, they would have lost a great deal of their power base.

 

Bin Laden and friends have exploited both conflicts as a west vs Islam issue, and they've managed to raise what is effectively a global resistance movement to fend it off.

 

If it'd been made clear from word go "look we're not arsed about the middle east, we just want the people who brought the towers down", I think America could have used a great deal of the goodwill it had at its disposal in 2001 to create a coalition, and from there the Taliban could have been replaced with a more benign regime.

 

Not sure that is marketable really, Mark. People clearly know they do care about furthering their interests in the region and can definitely see that there's more to it than settling 9/11. The Bin Laden thing is laughable once you're versed on the situation. If they wanted him then all they'd have to do is trace the money he gets from the Saudis; but that's off limits to the CIA, for the obvious reason: oil.

[Section_31]

Not sure that is marketable really, Mark. People clearly know they do care about furthering their interests in the region and can definitely see that there's more to it than settling 9/11. The Bin Laden thing is laughable once you're versed on the situation. If they wanted him then all they'd have to do is trace the money he gets from the Saudis; but that's off limits to the CIA, for the obvious reason: oil.

 

I'm not so sure you can put the Afghan invasion down to oil Stu. People will always find ways to tie the USA military adventures to profit, but I think Afghanistan was about revenge more than anything, it was about a people wanting immediate payback. Would the USA have gone into Afghanistan if Gore or Clinton were in charge back then? Quite possibly, would they have gone into Iraq? Almost certainly not.

 

r.e Bin Laden, these always make superb entertainment.

 

[YOUTUBE]7DI7u-TytRU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[YOUTUBE]3L2513JFJsY[/YOUTUBE]

[Kevin D]

I'd agree with that. Even as we went to war with Iraq I was telling people it was a pointless war and that we should be sending large numbers of troops to Afghanistan.

 

As for the way the conflict has gone, you can have all the technology you want, but the terrain and climate are great levellers. And there is no substitute for a determined foe who are partly driven by religious rhetoric, and partly driven by the knowledge that modern western societies have little taste for any appreciable number of casualties.

 

I also think the Taliban's ability to slink in and out of Pakistan and regroup in rural mountainous border villages without much interference from the Pakistani government counts against allied forces.

 

Afghanistan is an unforgiving country and as far as I'm aware no outside force has ever held it against the natives. I suspect what Kipling wrote a hundred years ago is as equally relevant today....

 

 

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

 

Of my limited understanding of this war, I actually didn't think it would last longer than two years, this is the part that gets me. Why on earth are we allowing the Pakistan government to do nothing, and in some cases encourage this?

 

Declare victory and get out.

[WaltonRed]

It was either level the place ie. Nuke it or it was unwinnable.

 

The public knows its a war we've lost, get the troops home and learn a very valuable lesson...

 

Will they though? Unlikely and we'll have a repeat performance it years to come in Iran or North Korea.

[Stu Monty]

I'm not so sure you can put the Afghan invasion down to oil Stu. People will always find ways to tie the USA military adventures to profit, but I think Afghanistan was about revenge more than anything, it was about a people wanting immediate payback. Would the USA have gone into Afghanistan if Gore or Clinton were in charge back then? Quite possibly, would they have gone into Iraq? Almost certainly not.

 

r.e Bin Laden, these always make superb entertainment.

 

[YOUTUBE]7DI7u-TytRU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[YOUTUBE]3L2513JFJsY[/YOUTUBE]

 

No, I completely agree. What I was saying is that the easy route to Bin Laden is one that is categorically off-limits due to political and economic reasons. When tracking someone the easy way is always to follow the money, and Bin Laden gets plenty of "don't be a nuisance to us" money from Saudi. Fortunately for Bin Laden they not only big contributors to both major parties in the US but also have a complete choke hold over oil prices and production on this planet; due to their massive reserves.

 

Therefore the US have to take other routes.

[Stu Monty]

Of my limited understanding of this war, I actually didn't think it would last longer than two years, this is the part that gets me. Why on earth are we allowing the Pakistan government to do nothing, and in some cases encourage this?

 

Declare victory and get out.

 

Read the article mate. The Pakistani government is not a powerful force.

[Liverpool lad]

Read the article mate. The Pakistani government is not a powerful force.

 

The last I heard it was on its arse, no real leadership being shown, an economy on its knees and extremism on the rise. Correct me if I am wrong, but commentators were talking about the possibility of a failed state.

[cochcaer]

There's simple not enough troops numbers to go on the offensive and all the military commanders seem to want re-enforcements. The military need clear objectives rather than this semi UN peace-keeping role where there just targets to be attacked when they go on patrol. Either do the job properly or fuck off out of it.