Afghanistan

mike65

NATO have been meeting in an effort to drum up some extra troops and resources so the war against the Taliban in the south can be prosected with effect. Several members who could commit troops have been conspicuously reluctant notably the Germany which has made sure its troops are in the quiet north.

All member states commited to the programme back in 2001 but the bulk of the work has fallen to a handful of states who are, not suprisingly a bit pissed off at those governments not willing to help spead the load.

from London Independant

"We are flattening places we have already flattened, but the attacks have kept coming. We have killed them by the dozens, but more keep coming, either locally or from across the border," one said. "We have used B1 bombers, Harriers, F16s and Mirage 2000s. We have dropped 500lb, 1,000lb and even 2,000lb bombs. At one point our Apaches [helicopter gunships] ran out of missiles they have fired so many. Almost any movement on the ground gets ambushed. We need an entire battle group to move things. Yet they will not give us the helicopters we have been asking for.

"We have also got problems with the Afghan forces. The army, on the whole, is pretty good, although they are often not paid properly. But many of the police will not fight the Taliban, either because they are scared or they are sympathisers."

British officers in Helmand acknowledge that the next few months will be crucial in this conflict, which they insist can still be won with an additional thousand extra fighting troops.

Last week General James Jones, the Nato military chief, called for 2,500 extra troops, armour and helicopters from member states. But at the Warsaw summit currently under way, the countries with significant forces, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey, say they will have their hands full with Lebanese peacekeeping duties and have no troops to spare.

Can the war against the Taliban be won? Whats the price of failure in the long run?

Afghanistan has been pretty much overlooked, if its just left "to do its own thing" the country is bound to end up under Taliban control once again and we know where that'll lead.

Mike.

Frederico

Well unfortunately it was part of Operation "Lash Out" after 9/11, which was very quick and not thought out. Too few troops were left to guard the country from the "defeated" Taliban. As usual the country got forgotten because of the sheer amount of rubbish propaganda put out by various administrations.

There's a famine underway there that has barely been noticed by the media yet.

The whole thing is a disgrace because the people really do need our help and will accept it. We are too proud to talk or negotiate with the Taliban (because they are hideous non human turrists, another fault with the propaganda) and therefore conflict will always exist.

I think dumb people, many included in the current Bush administration think somehow there are a finite number of "Talibans" (turban headed turrists with beards) maaaybe 36,481 of them and if you kill them all then they are gone. In the real world the Taliban can never be "defeated" like this. Unfortunately Iraq has drawn too many troops and funds away from Afghanistan.

gandalf

The problem is they went into Iraq before they finished the job in Afghanistan and now its biting them in the ass. They should have put the troops and effort into sorting out Afghanistan that they have in Iraq. At this stage it would have been stable and more than likely Bin Laden would have been caught or killed.

As regards the current situation with the new agreement between Pakistan and the Taliban http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Pak+leader+defends+truce+with+militants&id=93119 then the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan in reality will be pourous and the Taliban will be resupplied with men and supplies with relative ease. Then without a major effort by the occupying forces with additional resources Afghanistan is heading for a disaster.

The Corinthian

mike65 wrote:

Afghanistan has been pretty much overlooked, if its just left "to do its own thing" the country is bound to end up under Taliban control once again and we know where that'll lead.

The Afghan adventure was the US’s first unilateral military action following 9-11, and because of 9-11, not to mention a general dislike for the Taliban regime, the rest of the World was largely supportive of what was considered justifiable ‘payback’.

Bizarrely then Iraq, and its secular state, was targeted and the US has been stuck there ever since and so Afghanistan has pretty much taken a back seat. Of course simply increasing resources on the ground may ultimately be too little too late if history is anything to go by - just ask the Russians (something that was never done).

Villain

Since the Taliban has been removed from power (over 4 years ago I believe) Opium production has soared, reports I have read on BBC.co.uk say that "in 2004, Afghanistan produced 90% of the world's opium"

Now thats a lot of money for those Drug Traffickers and would I be mad to suggest that some if not a lot of that money is used to finance the Taliban?

I know the US have plans which encourage Farmers to grow other products but surely a lot more has to be done to stop the supply of millions to the taliban. I mean its a win win for the US and other governments, they help reduce the drug trade and stop the profits from been fed to the Taliban?

Dirk Gently

It certainly looks like Afghanistan is getting out of control. The days of ruling foreign countries with only minimal troops died with the British Empire. Part of me is pissed off that America and Britain started these wars in the middle east and now have the brass neck to ask other countries to clean up their mess because surprise surprise there is resistance to their occupations but on the other hand the only other option is to have far worse regimes take control of Iraq and Afghanistan should international troops pull out. I would say the deployment of more troops from more nations will depend largely on what cut of the spoils of war they are offered by way of oil / construction contracts / regional influence.

Once the disaster on occupation has been achieved what else is there to do other than accept the reality that massive troop deployments are needed or else more extreme elements take control of the power vacuum leaving the invading countries more at risk from unfriendly regimes than before.

I don't think this will be won in the short or even medium term, especially seen as the boys can just piss off into Pakistan every time the coalition get close to them. What's the answer then, get Pakistan to crack down further on dissidents, risking a civil war there?

I know it's not an answer, more of an "I told you so" but invasion and occupation were the wrong options and once they were achieved it was always going to end up in a mess which will eventually leave the invaders looking for "honourable" get out clauses. You cannot go to war with terrorism by deploying full armies because terrorism is not a tangible target.

RedPlanet

The Taliban were the only ones to try to eradicate opium production in Afghanistan in the first place. To alledge that it is they that are profiteers is dubious at best. More likely, all warlords tribal leaders and local government officials regardless of persuasion have got their fingers in the pie.

Lookit Afghanistan post-Soviet occupation has always been a place of changing alliances between the various factions/warlords.
It is no different today regardless of how Rupert Murdoch propaganda dresses it up.

I won't pretend to know whats best for Afghanistan. I would like to see Afghans sort it out amongst themselves, even if that results in Taliban 2. I think ultimately it'll be the regional players influencing events on the ground that will have to lock step and figure out a solution.
Particularly Pakistan, Iran and China but not excluding Uzbekistan, and the others.

Edit:
I got most of my information about Afghanistan from reading "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" by Ahmed Rashid, published i think, in 1999 or 2000.
It's worth reading albeit a little dated post 911

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

Can the war against the Taliban be won?

Whos at war? I recall reading an article that stated the Taliban would be try putting someone into government in Afganistan. Although they won't do this until America leaves the country.

Another saying that Pakistan had opened up relations with the taliban.

Although there was another where one of the guys from Pakistan said he was misquoted when they said they would not arrest any Taliban in Pakistan (what he meant was any that had not committed a crime).

mike65

Well if its not a war its a very loud, bloody peace.

Mike.

Frederico

As simple as this, I believe that if the Taliban had helped capture Bin Laden and allowed a US airbase(s) in Afghanistan the US administration would have let them carry on as usual.

Pick country, decide they are all evil, demonise them, use the media to demonise them (Iran), rinse repeat. Ignore countries with US airbases (Uzbekistan).

The US easily has the capacity to make the world a better place, with those resources, but it can't, ruthless men make it to the top, its always the case. Something will be engineered to steer our minds away from Afghanistan, not that its really in the media spotlight or ever has been.

lostexpectation

wher are germany in this, they are for afghan they must have plenty of troops

tallus

lostexpectation wrote:

wher are germany in this, they are for afghan they must have plenty of troops

They are up north in Afghanistan where it's allegedly quieter.

RedPlanet

Sounds like the krauts have their HQ in Mazar-e-Sharif.
Which would put them squarely in the area of this notorious warlord:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rashid_Dostum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1563344.stm
I've read some particularly upsetting stuff about him.

Sgt. Sensible

Put Saddam in charge of Afghanistan. There's a guy who could keep the muslim fundies under control in a reasonably secular state. He could consider it his community service.

mike65

Poles announce a deployment of 1000 for next Spring (about 6 months too late).

Mike.

Sgt. Sensible

mike65 wrote:

Can the war against the Taliban be won?

Not without killing lots and lots of people. But if the Victorian British and the Russians couldn't do it, no one can.

FYI

+The problem is+ this was also an illegal war and +a conscious act to murder+.

Why do people still entertain the idea of a 'just war'?

It is truly amazing that people continue to call these 'mistakes', this is not the local football team. These are highly advanced killing machines under the control of think tanks and committees and Parliaments and world wide organisations. These are not 'mistakes', these are calculated crimes.

"According to the New York Times there are 7 to 8
million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true
actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On
September 16th, the Times reported, I�m quoting it, that the United States
demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan�s civilian population."

"A week after the bombing began, RAWA issued a public statement (Oct. 11) that would have been front-page news wherever concern for Afghan women was real, not a matter of mere expediency. They condemned the resort to "the monster of a vast war and destruction" as the US "launched a vast aggression on our country," that will cause great harm to innocent Afghans. They called instead for "the eradication of the plague of Taliban and Al Qieda" by "an overall uprising" of the Afghan people themselves, which alone "can prevent the repetition and recurrence of the catastrophe that has befallen our country...." "

"After five years of intensive international involvement in Afghanistan, the country remains ravaged by severe poverty and the spreading starvation of the rural and urban poor."

"Two international think-tanks published reports yesterday highlighting failures of US and UK policy in Afghanistan, and warned the security situation in the country was deteriorating.

The Senlis Council claimed that the campaign by British forces against the Taliban had inflicted lawlessness, misery and starvation on the Afghan people."

"THE former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan has described the campaign in Helmand province as �a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency�.

�We�re now scattered in a shallow meaningless way across northern towns where the only way for the troops to survive is to increase the level of violence so more people get killed. It�s pretty shocking and not something I want to be part of.�"

Frederico

Sadly I wonder if any of this is filtering down to the American public

Hogmeister B

The war cannot be won militarily; the Americans and British consider it a victory to wipe out 200 fighters, but the deaths of those fighters will merely anger and incite say 400 more to join. The Russians killed a million Afghans over 8 years and still were nowhere near conquering the place.

It's a complete quagmire, and victory by conventional means would be so costly and take so long as to be beyond the endurance of the Americans and British. They just have to leave. there's been some ominous talk by Gen Jackson of NATO getting involved in destroying the poppy harvest, but the backlash from the destroyed livlihoods would increase resistance recruitment tenfold.

Mick86

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Put Saddam in charge of Afghanistan. There's a guy who could keep the muslim fundies under control in a reasonably secular state.

Yes but he did it by dropping chemical weapons on women and kids. Nice.

irish1 wrote:

"in 2004, Afghanistan produced 90% of the world's opium"

There's obviously a market for the stuff. If the US and Britain want to stop the production of this stuff they could use defoliants.

mike65 wrote:

Poles announce a deployment of 1000 for next Spring (about 6 months too late).
Mike.

Having experienced the Polish Army in Lebanon, they should be in action this time next year.

Frederico wrote:

Sadly I wonder if any of this is filtering down to the American public

The American public that thinks Afghanistan is a small town in Texas?

Hogmeister B wrote:

The war cannot be won militarily; the Americans and British consider it a victory to wipe out 200 fighters, but the deaths of those fighters will merely anger and incite say 400 more to join. The Russians killed a million Afghans over 8 years and still were nowhere near conquering the place.

It's a complete quagmire, and victory by conventional means would be so costly and take so long as to be beyond the endurance of the Americans and British. They just have to leave. there's been some ominous talk by Gen Jackson of NATO getting involved in destroying the poppy harvest, but the backlash from the destroyed livlihoods would increase resistance recruitment tenfold.

Wars can only be won militarily. Otherwise they aren't wars, they are football matches.

What happened Europe and the US? 60 years ago killing 200 Germans or Japs was something young lads did before breakfast. Nobody in the media and few in the general public objected. It was considered a good thing. Nobody worried about pissing them off just as they didn't worry about annoying the Brits or the Yanks by killing their lads in droves. Few people considered the sacrifice of their country's young men too high a price to pay to bring an end to oppression. And that was between civilised nations. Now what have we got. Any eastern type with a grievance can kill a human being and half the world is standing up for his right to do so. Apparently we should be empathising with him or something.

Hogmeister B

Mick86 wrote:

60 years ago killing 200 Germans or Japs was something young lads did before breakfast.

Any eastern type with a grievance can kill a human being and half the world is standing up for his right to do so. Apparently we should be empathising with him or something.

You appear to stand up for the right of western types to kill human beings, and empathise with them.

The grievance of the 'eastern types' in question is the occupation of their country by foreign troops.

Sgt. Sensible

Mick86 wrote:

Yes but he did it by dropping chemical weapons on women and kids. Nice.

Wars can only be won militarily. Otherwise they aren't wars, they are football matches.

What happened Europe and the US? 60 years ago killing 200 Germans or Japs was something young lads did before breakfast. Nobody in the media and few in the general public objected. It was considered a good thing. Nobody worried about pissing them off just as they didn't worry about annoying the Brits or the Yanks by killing their lads in droves.

Killing the enemy ruthlessly is ok except when Saddam does it?

Mick86

Hogmeister B wrote:

You appear to stand up for the right of western types to kill human beings, and empathise with them.

Indeed I do stand up for the right to self defence and to retaliate when attacked.

Hogmeister B wrote:

The grievance of the 'eastern types' in question is the occupation of their country by foreign troops.

Naturally but what do they expect when they launch attacks on other countries.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Killing the enemy ruthlessly is ok except when Saddam does it?

Correct.

A Dub in Glasgo

Mick86 wrote:

Correct.

Who exactly is the enemy then?

Frederico

Mick86 wrote:

Indeed I do stand up for the right to self defence and to retaliate when attacked.

So you support the right of the Insurgency to fight the Americans in Iraq then?

And the Taliban, and the Sudanese military, the Russian army, and so on.

I feel some people seem to only stand up to the WEST's right to self defence and retaliation.

Hogmeister B

Mick86 wrote:

Indeed I do stand up for the right to self defence and to retaliate when attacked.

Then you'll stand up for the Afghan's right to retaliate for the attack on their country, which was a gross violation of international law.

Mick86 wrote:

Naturally but what do they expect when they launch attacks on other countries.

The Taliban did not launch attacks on other countries. Several of those accused of doing so were in Afghanistan, but the Americans refused to provide evidence to justify their extradition. So the Taliban refused to extradite them. Whereupon the US attacked their country.

Sgt. Sensible

Mick86 wrote:

Correct.

I know I shouldn't but...why? Why was it unacceptable for Saddam to use methods similar to what the US/UK are using now to keep islamic fundamentalists in line in order to secure a secular state? I remember the 80's when Iraq was portrayed in the media as a progressive middle east state and friend of the west.

And as another poster asked, who is the enemy exactly?

Sgt. Sensible

Hogmeister B wrote:

The Taliban did not launch attacks on other countries. Several of those accused of doing so were in Afghanistan, but the Americans refused to provide evidence to justify their extradition. So the Taliban refused to extradite them. Whereupon the US attacked their country.

The taliban (heroes when fighting the soviets as we all know) offered to extradite Bin Laden to a 3rd party country, They thought he was a nutter and bad influence. He could have been captured in a jiffy with taliban co-operation, if that's what the US really wanted. That's what always bugged me.

uberpixie

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I know I shouldn't but...why? Why was it unacceptable for Saddam to use methods similar to what the US/UK are using now to keep islamic fundamentalists in line in order to secure a secular state? I remember the 80's when Iraq was portrayed in the media as a progressive middle east state and friend of the west.

And as another poster asked, who is the enemy exactly?

The ememy is which ever donkey you can pin the tail on the easiest.

God forbid picking a fight with a country that:

(A) Anyone in the West cares about, or anyone in the East might cut your oil for attacking.

(B) Any country that can put up a dacent fight.

(C) An Allied country*

*note this is subjct to change at short notice.

Sgt. Sensible

uberpixie wrote:

The ememy is which ever donkey you can pin the tail on the easiest.

God forbid picking a fight with a country that:

(A) Anyone in the West cares about, or anyone in the East might cut your oil for attacking.

(B) Any country that can put up a dacent fight.

(C) An Allied country*

*note this is subjct to change at short notice.

Indeedy, and sadly some (let's be frank) stupid (dangerously stupid) and weak people insist on regurgitating every bit of propaganda they're spoonfed. That's been one of the most shocking and dismaying things about the last few years, that nominally well educated people with more access to information than at any other time in history can still be so easily misled and deceived.

Mick86

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Who exactly is the enemy then?

Islamic Fundamentalists

Frederico wrote:

So you support the right of the Insurgency to fight the Americans in Iraq then?

No, because the US is in Iraq at this moment in support of the Iraqi government. The insurgents, as you call them, are not defending Iraq. Many of them are not even Iraqi. And they kill far more Iraqis than Americans.

Frederico wrote:

And the Taliban,..

No. The Taliban is part of the Islamic fundamentalist threat. Also they are not defending Afghanistan but trying to overthrow the Afghan government.

Frederico wrote:

and the Sudanese military, the Russian army, and so on.

I don't think they are fighting in Afghanistan but I'm open to correction.

Frederico wrote:

I feel some people seem to only stand up to the WEST's right to self defence and retaliation.

Correct. You're a fast learner.

Hogmeister B wrote:

Then you'll stand up for the Afghan's right to retaliate for the attack on their country, which was a gross violation of international law.

There is no law that says a country may not defend itself. The Allied attack on Afghanistan was entirely legal.

Hogmeister B wrote:

The Taliban did not launch attacks on other countries. Several of those accused of doing so were in Afghanistan, but the Americans refused to provide evidence to justify their extradition. So the Taliban refused to extradite them. Whereupon the US attacked their country.

Afghanistan provided sanctuary for those who did. Do you seriously believe that the Taliban would have extradited Bin Laden and co under any circumstances. Don't be so naive.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I know I shouldn't but...why? Why was it unacceptable for Saddam to use methods similar to what the US/UK are using now to keep islamic fundamentalists in line in order to secure a secular state? I remember the 80's when Iraq was portrayed in the media as a progressive middle east state and friend of the west...

Saddam and Iraq became a problem for the West when he invaded Kuwait. Kuwait is friendly to the west unlike Iran which is why nobody objected to Iraq starting that war. After the war Saddam then made a monkey of the entire world by turning the UN imposed sanctions against the UN. If Saddam had just kept torturing his internal enemies to death he'd still be in power and humanitarian idealists like yourself would apparently be much happier.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Indeedy, and sadly some (let's be frank) stupid (dangerously stupid) and weak people insist on regurgitating every bit of propaganda they're spoonfed. That's been one of the most shocking and dismaying things about the last few years, that nominally well educated people with more access to information than at any other time in history can still be so easily misled and deceived.

It's OK sarge, read a bit more, think things out for yourself and you'll get better at this. Meanwhile don't be so hard on yourself. You're not alone in being misled and deceived.