Taliban leader was an imposter

[PLC1]

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

OMG! What a circus!

And, the US gave money to the fake!

 

[BigRob]

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor



OMG! What a circus!

And, the US gave money to the fake!

Prime example of just how "good" our intel is for that nation.

 

[PLC1]

Prime example of just how "good" our intel is for that nation.

It sure is. What are the chances we will ever "win" that conflict?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It sure is. What are the chances we will ever "win" that conflict?

you would think there would be some afghan custom about that being very wrong....man we are screwed...I think we had a shot at what we could accept as a win before...( not what Bush called for, that was unrealistic) but we needed to have done it very early on...now all we can do is try to weaken them as much as possible before we leave i think.

 

[PLC1]

If we had just gone in and found Bin Laden and his henchmen, and then left, we'd have been done with Afganistan years ago.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If we had just gone in and found Bin Laden and his henchmen, and then left, we'd have been done with Afganistan years ago.

well that would have meant more boots on the ground, and we needed those for Iraq of course....be basically had Bin Ladin at Tora Bora,,,but we did not put the resources down on the border they ask for, we sent in untrustworthy after groups.

 

[BigRob]

It sure is. What are the chances we will ever "win" that conflict?

Depends on how you define "win" I suppose.

 

[Gipper]

I say we should just declare victory and leave.

I am surprised the smartest man in the world (obama) has not done that yet.

 

[PLC1]

If we leave Afganistan now, it is quite likely that the Taliban will take over again and create more terrorists than there were before our ill advised invasions in the name of the "war on terror."

If we stay in Afganistan, the likely outcome is a long, drawn out, and expensive stalemate.

See what a great idea it was to go adventuring in foreign nations? It is a lot like the situation in Vietnam. After 19 years, we decided to declare victory and leave. The result was the fall of Saigon. The difference is that Vietnam never was a terrorist state, nor was it a Communist state as the war apologists maintained.

But, that's another war, another story. Maybe this time we will have learned from history, but I'm not counting on it, are you?

 

[BigRob]

If we leave Afganistan now, it is quite likely that the Taliban will take over again and create more terrorists than there were before our ill advised invasions in the name of the "war on terror."

Why was the invasion of Afghanistan "ill advised" in your opinion?

If we stay in Afganistan, the likely outcome is a long, drawn out, and expensive stalemate.

Possibly, possibly not... that was what everyone said about Iraq, and we turned things around in a decent manner there.

See what a great idea it was to go adventuring in foreign nations? It is a lot like the situation in Vietnam. After 19 years, we decided to declare victory and leave. The result was the fall of Saigon. The difference is that Vietnam never was a terrorist state, nor was it a Communist state as the war apologists maintained.

Perhaps it never "became" a Communist state because the United States held out for 19 years. I don't think you can totally discount the domino theory based on what you know today.. you have to look at it through the lens of what was known at the time. Additionally, the war was fought against a major communist element in Vietnam.

Additionally, Vietnam is now a great ally to the United States, which is telling since the war did not end all that long ago (relatively).

But, that's another war, another story. Maybe this time we will have learned from history, but I'm not counting on it, are you?

Afghanistan is not Vietnam... unless we make the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

 

[PLC1]

Why was the invasion of Afghanistan "ill advised" in your opinion?

Because the outcome has been the situation I just described.

Possibly, possibly not... that was what everyone said about Iraq, and we turned things around in a decent manner there.

Do you think Iraq is over because the "combat troops" have been pulled out? I hope you're right, but I'm afraid there is more to come there. McCain and his "hundred years" may turn out to be more accurate.

Perhaps it never "became" a Communist state because the United States held out for 19 years. I don't think you can totally discount the domino theory based on what you know today.. you have to look at it through the lens of what was known at the time. Additionally, the war was fought against a major communist element in Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh was never really a part of the Communist bloc. He used an unfortunate word, and for that was denied the independence his nation had fought for and won against the French.

Additionally, Vietnam is now a great ally to the United States, which is telling since the war did not end all that long ago (relatively).

Yes, it is telling. It tells us that Vietnam was never really an enemy. The wa.. excuse me, police action, was taken based on faulty intelligence and the attack in the Gulf of Tonkein that never happened. Faulty intelligence? Where have I heard that phrase before I wonder?

Afghanistan is not Vietnam... unless we make the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

Then let's by all means quit making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. Let's learn from history, and not repeat it.

 

[Goodknight]

I thought that i misunderstood what i heard
but, i didn't

 

[BigRob]

Because the outcome has been the situation I just described.

So.. "ill-advised" in hindsight?

Do you think Iraq is over because the "combat troops" have been pulled out? I hope you're right, but I'm afraid there is more to come there. McCain and his "hundred years" may turn out to be more accurate.

I did not say Iraq was "over", I just said it was going better. Putting that aside, does it really matter if we operate in bases there for the next hundred years? Why is that automatically a bad thin? We are not complaining about out soldiers in Germany, Japan, Korea etc.

Ho Chi Minh was never really a part of the Communist bloc. He used an unfortunate word, and for that was denied the independence his nation had fought for and won against the French.

Well, words have consequences... especially that word at that time.

Yes, it is telling. It tells us that Vietnam was never really an enemy. The war.. excuse me, police action, was taken based on faulty intelligence and the attack in the Gulf of Tonkein that never happened. Faulty intelligence? Where have I heard that phrase before I wonder?

Vietnam was a pawn in a larger chess match...that is just part of the game.

Then let's by all means quit making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. Let's learn from history, and not repeat it.

What (specifically) mistakes are we remaking?

 

[PLC1]

So.. "ill-advised" in hindsight?

More as an "I told you so." I knew it was a bad idea. It's too bad our representatives in Congress didn't.

I did not say Iraq was "over", I just said it was going better. Putting that aside, does it really matter if we operate in bases there for the next hundred years? Why is that automatically a bad thin? We are not complaining about out soldiers in Germany, Japan, Korea etc.

Sure, as long as we can afford it and support a huge military presence all over the world without going into debt to pay for it. Tax cuts anyone?

Well, words have consequences... especially that word at that time.

Yes, they do, and that one was pretty costly for both the Vietnamese and the US. It's too bad we couldn't just look beyond the word to the meaning, but, then, the military industrial complex would have lost power and income.

Vietnam was a pawn in a larger chess match...that is just part of the game.

Yes, just a big, complex game in which some got rich, while many others died. That's what most small wars are.

What (specifically) mistakes are we remaking?

The same mistake the Romans made: Trying to impose a pax americana on the rest of the world through force of arms.

 

[BigRob]

More as an "I told you so." I knew it was a bad idea. It's too bad our representatives in Congress didn't.

It was not a bad idea from the get go... it became a problem when we started to ignore the country and focus on Iraq.

Sure, as long as we can afford it and support a huge military presence all over the world without going into debt to pay for it. Tax cuts anyone?

We get a far greater return on our investment by being able to project power in this fashion than we do by funding some new Social Security program in my view.

Yes, they do, and that one was pretty costly for both the Vietnamese and the US. It's too bad we couldn't just look beyond the word to the meaning, but, then, the military industrial complex would have lost power and income.

You are looking at a historical event through the eyes of today... that is an unfair comparison.

Yes, just a big, complex game in which some got rich, while many others died. That's what most small wars are.

It is the way of the world.

The same mistake the Romans made: Trying to impose a pax americana on the rest of the world through force of arms.

In your opinion we are doing that more so now than during the height of the Cold War?