What is going on here? Afghanistan

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
The US mission in Afghanistan will "likely result in failure" unless troops are increased within a year, the top general there has said in a report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8266072.stm

Things were not this bad under Bush. Plus Obama sent more troops, so what's the problem?

Are we just not taking the fight to the enemy? Is this a case of micro-management like LBJ and Vietnam? Are we restricting our troops from wiping out these people, or are we still way under powered, and the problem is simply not enough boots on Afghan soil?

What's up with this?
 
Werbung:
there are many problems to say there is one, would be foolish.

1. We lost focus on the war, went to Iraq, and while we where there the taliban was able to regroup and reform its intel and supply lines. They set up new bases of operations in Pakistan and used more and more funding from Heroin to gain allies and pay for new recruits and training/arms.

2. more then a few mistakes costing large amounts of civilans there lives have hurt our image and turned many more against us, and to the taliban. At best in many areas the best we ever got was the enemy of the Enemy is our freind...as we went after the taliban. It does not take much to go back to just the enemy in such a case when you kill 70 civilans in a wedding or such.

3. The Education and readyness to form a Afgan army is far less then what was in Iraq...Its going to take more money time, and people to try to build a army that can hold of the taliban itself.

4. we never had enough troops to start with, for the mission at hand we need alot more, and always did...Bush never sent them, and we realy did not have much to send with them tied up in Iraq.

5. the leadership is not in afganistan making it harder to kill. While strikes at pakistan can cost us support there and risk giving the taliban more support there, where its even more important that they dont.

6. Americans dont deal well with long wars..quick to support the start of it, but then when the bodies come home after 8+ and 2 wars...they are growing very weary of it and want to see them ended.

7. The taliban and others know #6...

8. As I hinted in a few other places,,,,,we need more troops

9. more troops are needed

10. less F ups killing large amounts of civilans

11. More building up of schools food, and econ to give people a reason to care who wins or at least not side with the taliban and the Drug trade.
 
It is impossible for us to win, because the mission is simply unwinnable. So long as a single person in the are is willing to detonate a bomb in a market, we lose. So long as a single one can achieve that goal, they win.

The definition of 'victory' they were given can never be achieved. Ever.
 
It is impossible for us to win, because the mission is simply unwinnable. So long as a single person in the are is willing to detonate a bomb in a market, we lose. So long as a single one can achieve that goal, they win.

The definition of 'victory' they were given can never be achieved. Ever.


based on what you just said, the merican Revolution was never even won, as there is I am sure, and they will at some point in time, blow up a bomb in a market. Look at OK City...so I guess that means we have not won,

A win would be a nation that can deffend itself, and is not a host to radical islamist who can use it as a springboad for attacks....a democracy would be nice....

it will be hard to win, but we can win...its not impossible
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8266072.stm

Things were not this bad under Bush. Plus Obama sent more troops, so what's the problem?

Are we just not taking the fight to the enemy? Is this a case of micro-management like LBJ and Vietnam? Are we restricting our troops from wiping out these people, or are we still way under powered, and the problem is simply not enough boots on Afghan soil?

What's up with this?


There are some disturbing parallels with Vietnam to be sure:

There is no clear, articulated goal. How will we know when we've "won"?

The voters are sick and tired of war that has dragged on now for nearly eight years. The "conflict" in Vietnam lasted from '54 to '73, nineteen years, and the people of this country were war weary to say the least.

The Viet Cong, like the Taliban, hid among the civilians.

Cambodia was off limits to the US, just as Pakistan is off limits now, yet the enemy has a hiding place.

There are some reassuring differences, of course:

The Afgans, or most of them at least, hate the Taliban.

We are not trying to prop up a right wing dictatorship against a popular government.

Still, getting out of Afganistan without leaving a hot bed of terrorism and a failed state behind is not going to be an easy task. If the general says we need more troops, then, by all means, let's send more troops. While doing that, let's set up a clear goal so we'll know when to bring those troops home.

If we do that, we may be more successful than the Soviet Union was.
 
based on what you just said, the merican Revolution was never even won,

There ahs never been an 'American Revolution'

as there is I am sure, and they will at some point in time, blow up a bomb in a market.
The definition of victory for the Patriots was kicking the king out. In that, they succeeded. The American War for Independence was a success.

You don't seem to grasp the importance of defining victory and objective.

What you speak of is the 'war on crime', which can never be won, but is on ongoing struggle by the Collective/Society to maintain order for the good of the collective and the individuals which comprise it.
A win would be a nation that can deffend itself,

define a successful defense

and is not a host to radical islamist who can use it as a springboad for attacks....

Do you know why so many muslims hate us?

a democracy would be nice....

Kindly hang for a rope, if you wish for a mob with no order, which is what you shall get with a democracy


it will be hard to win, but we can win..

No, we can't. Bush defined victory as something which can never be achieved. Victory can only come with a different objective.
 
Trying to get rid of a hated puppet government and their sponsors is what is going on.

Obviously the lessons of Vietnam and the failed British and Russian attempts to control this country are off the curriculum at the useless military academies of the US and the UK.

You will notice of course that anyone who tries to get rid of a foreign invader is labelled as "the Taliban" or a "militant".

Comrade Stalin of Gori
 
The Marxist Perspective

"...The thrust of the document, submitted by McChrystal to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month, is hardly a surprise. It is an argument for a more aggressive—and bloodier—war in Afghanistan with a substantial increase in the number of American troops occupying the country.

While McChrystal gives no numbers in relation to the additional soldiers and Marines he believes should be thrown into the Afghanistan “surge,” he is expected to submit his proposal to the White House shortly.

McChrystal’s 66-page report bluntly describes the situation in Afghanistan as “deteriorating.” The general acknowledges that a “resilient and growing” resistance to the occupation has seized the “initiative” from US-led forces, which—after nearly eight years of fighting—have antagonized the population by inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties and by propping up a corrupt and hated puppet regime.

Media reports on McChrystal’s proposed change in strategy invariably refer to a supposed shift from hunting down “insurgents” to “protecting” the Afghan population. This innocuous rhetoric disguises the real content of the proposal, which is the prosecution of a far more aggressive counterinsurgency campaign that would send American troops into hostile population centers, like Kandahar City, to systematically suppress and intimidate popular opposition to US aims.

The US commander repeatedly criticizes what he describes as a preoccupation on the part of US and NATO commanders with “force protection” and calls for the occupation troops to operate with “less armor and less distance from the population.”

McChrystal acknowledges that the result will be a further escalation in bloodshed. “It is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase,” he writes.

Given McChrystal’s background as the former chief of the US military’s Joint Special Operations Command—tasked with hunting down and assassinating individuals deemed terrorists by the US government—the increasing use of similar methods in Afghanistan can be anticipated. This would likely involve death squads composed of Afghan security forces and US “advisors” killing suspected opponents of the occupation and intimidating the rest of the population.

The general’s report also includes a section on the detention of “insurgents,” which stresses that this should be an “Afghan-run system” that would guarantee US forces “access to detainees for interrogation.” No doubt, McChrystal is incorporating lessons learned in Iraq, when the unit he commanded became notorious for the torture of detainees at the prison facility it operated. Giving Afghan security forces formal responsibility for the detention system provides the US military with a buffer against similar torture charges.

more lies of the wicked imperialists at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/afgh-s22.shtml

Comrade Stalin of Gori
 
There are some disturbing parallels with Vietnam to be sure:

There is no clear, articulated goal. How will we know when we've "won"?

The voters are sick and tired of war that has dragged on now for nearly eight years. The "conflict" in Vietnam lasted from '54 to '73, nineteen years, and the people of this country were war weary to say the least.

The Viet Cong, like the Taliban, hid among the civilians.

Cambodia was off limits to the US, just as Pakistan is off limits now, yet the enemy has a hiding place.

There are some reassuring differences, of course:

The Afgans, or most of them at least, hate the Taliban.

We are not trying to prop up a right wing dictatorship against a popular government.

Still, getting out of Afganistan without leaving a hot bed of terrorism and a failed state behind is not going to be an easy task. If the general says we need more troops, then, by all means, let's send more troops. While doing that, let's set up a clear goal so we'll know when to bring those troops home.

If we do that, we may be more successful than the Soviet Union was.

I would say the goal is the complete and utter destruction of the Taliban.

That said, the key thing that's confusing me is, I don't remember hearing about all these problems between 2003 and 2007. So what has changed?

Pocket says it's because we changed focus, yet after 2002 when we went into Afganistan, It didn't sound like we had reduced troop levels. What happened in 2008, that allows them to rebuild?

If we don't determine to either wipe them out or leave, then yes Afghanistan will be our new Vietnam. Which is stupid.

If they are in Pakistan launching attacks into Afghan, then we need to either call it quits and go home, or march straight into Pakistan and wipe them out.
 
I would say the goal is the complete and utter destruction of the Taliban.

That said, the key thing that's confusing me is, I don't remember hearing about all these problems between 2003 and 2007. So what has changed?

Pocket says it's because we changed focus, yet after 2002 when we went into Afganistan, It didn't sound like we had reduced troop levels. What happened in 2008, that allows them to rebuild?

If we don't determine to either wipe them out or leave, then yes Afghanistan will be our new Vietnam. Which is stupid.

If they are in Pakistan launching attacks into Afghan, then we need to either call it quits and go home, or march straight into Pakistan and wipe them out.

I like how you always break things , no matter how complext, into some black and white idea..go in and invade pakistan, or leave afganistan....and how you cant see how Iraq took alot of troops , and weapons systems money, that could have been used in Afganistan....how if we realy wanted this done, we should have put more troops in....8 years ago when it would have helped the most....not now after we let the Taliban retake 3/4 of the nation again. of course that would have ment no going into Iraq to get the WMD that where not there.....
 
I would say the goal is the complete and utter destruction of the Taliban.

That said, the key thing that's confusing me is, I don't remember hearing about all these problems between 2003 and 2007. So what has changed?

Pocket says it's because we changed focus, yet after 2002 when we went into Afganistan, It didn't sound like we had reduced troop levels. What happened in 2008, that allows them to rebuild?

If we don't determine to either wipe them out or leave, then yes Afghanistan will be our new Vietnam. Which is stupid.

If they are in Pakistan launching attacks into Afghan, then we need to either call it quits and go home, or march straight into Pakistan and wipe them out.

Or perhaps support the Pakistanis, and let them wipe out the Taliban in their own country.
 
Or perhaps support the Pakistanis, and let them wipe out the Taliban in their own country.

We have offered loads of support to date, and the problem remains. I wager part of the problem is that Pakistan is not able or willing to eliminate the Taliban completely from certain areas of that country.
 
We have offered loads of support to date, and the problem remains. I wager part of the problem is that Pakistan is not able or willing to eliminate the Taliban completely from certain areas of that country.

That could be. The "tribal" areas appear to be pretty much ungovernable.

Is there a way we could help them and keep them as an ally, or do you think it's time to go in with guns blazing and wipe the Taliban out ourselves?
 
It is impossible for us to win, because the mission is simply unwinnable. So long as a single person in the are is willing to detonate a bomb in a market, we lose. So long as a single one can achieve that goal, they win.

The definition of 'victory' they were given can never be achieved. Ever.

You are correct, but you are discussing the unwinnable war on terror, not the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

The Definition of victory in Afghanistan is when Islamic extremists no longer control the nation and are no longer a majority in Afghanistan. We are making no progress on that, since military force does not and cannot change people's beliefs.
 
Werbung:
That could be. The "tribal" areas appear to be pretty much ungovernable.

Is there a way we could help them and keep them as an ally, or do you think it's time to go in with guns blazing and wipe the Taliban out ourselves?

the problem with the guns blazing part is, that you have to understand that when you do that....its goiing to crush the support of teh goverment in many other areas of the nation. To many civilans end up dead at the goverments hands, its used to fuel the idea they are fighting islam. They have to be ready to basicly rule the nation with a heavy hand, drop Democracy, and ignore Casualties......or find a way to fight them, but limit civilan deaths, but still hurt them...at the same time it must not be viewed as the US lapdog....thus most likey it will have to keep fighting , but let the US do some as well...and then for there own sake they attack the US for doing so...even if they asked us to do it, or gave us the info to do it...

what we need most is good intel in the west part of Pakistan....problem is Pakistans Intel Service is to infiltrated by the Taliban, Al Quida, and those who while may not be with them...support them still.
 
Back
Top