Apparently "they" are "winning in Afghanistan"

Gurgle

Frederico wrote:

If the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden and a few cronies the UK government would have been all chummy with them.

Sure, if the Taliban 'had' Bin Laden & Cronies.

If you think the Afghanistan war can be won, have a look at their history. Look closely at the 80s, and how the cold war Soviet army fared there.

From Wikipedia:

Between December 25th, 1979 and February 15th 1989 a total of 620,000 soldiers serviced with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 force at one time in Afghanistan)

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier and internal security troops came to 14,453

Material losses were as follows:

118 jet aircrafts
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

Considering that Soviets couldn't control the place at the height of their power, and the US & Britain have most of their efforts concentrated on Iraq, a final victory in Afghanistan seems decidedly unlikely.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Which stable country is it that you are referring to there?
They're security is improved by virtue of the US and others taking an active role in hunting down the terrorist groups,something that the EU countries for the most part are not willing to commit to in any meaningful way.NATO's situation in Afghanistan is an example of this. It's not just in the Middle-East,you're talking about Southern Asia,North Africa,even South America.There is a very large,concerted effort going on to combat these groups,an effort being paid in the majority by the US.Europe is as much of a target as the US is,yet the EU is happy for the US & Britain to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to combating the threat.

Since 911 the actions of the US and UK have only increased the threat of terrorism across the board, so if Europe just sits back and does nothing at all, its still better than the actions of the UK and the US. There is a very large and concerted effort to stop drugs coming into America but every year they increase.. to most voters its the 'effort' that counts not the actual results.

It wasn't much of an 'effort and burden' for Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and Norway.. no that was the fun bit, the effort and burden came later with the consequences of those actions.. the effort and burden that are falling on the US and UK now are CONSEQUENCES of their little fun jaunts into other countries.

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

Since 911 the actions of the US and UK have only increased the threat of terrorism across the board, so if Europe just sits back and does nothing at all, its still better than the actions of the UK and the US. There is a very large and concerted effort to stop drugs coming into America but every year they increase.. to most voters its the 'effort' that counts not the actual results.

It wasn't much of an 'effort and burden' for Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and Norway.. no that was the fun bit, the effort and burden came later with the consequences of those actions.. the effort and burden that are falling on the US and UK now are CONSEQUENCES of their little fun jaunts into other countries.

so what prompted the 9/11 attacks then?

What prompted the Madrid train bombings?

What prompted the Bali pub bombing?

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

so what prompted the 9/11 attacks then?

What prompted the Madrid train bombings?

What prompted the Bali pub bombing?

Do you honestly not know what prompted the 9/11 attacks? Many reasons and factors, alot dating back to the Cold War and up to the first Gulf War, I don't know how to put it in a nutshell really.. Bin Laden was a friend of the US, then he became an enemy, for many reasons.

Bali pub bombing - personally I believe it was a show of strength from Al Qaeda who were still very isolated after 911, they didn't have the means to hit the US again, so they hit a very soft target.

Madrid train bombings - Spain participated in Iraq, it was timed just before the elections and it had the desired effect.


The dumb hawkish rightwing sledgehammer type approach to terrorism will never ever work, it just creates more hate and a bigger support base for the terrorist groups, both of which help those groups grow and become stronger and more morally justified (in their own minds).

Take away that hate and the support base will decline, the terrorist groups will become more isolated, then you are dealing with a more limited number of targets.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are taking huge losses, but they can sustain these losses quite easily because the anti-American hate & sentiment is so strong at the moment. I mean take a look at what Pakistan did recently.. they just blew up that school full of 'potential terrorists'.. killed a hundred of them.. to do what? 'send out a tough message to terrorism'?, what a dumb easy simplistic approach to the problem.. the military presses a few buttons and blam they are somehow 'tackling terrorism'.. nope, they've just increased the hate base and made the terrorists even stronger, increase the recruits, the suicide bombers, etc.

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

Do you honestly not know what prompted the 9/11 attacks? Many reasons and factors, alot dating back to the Cold War and up to the first Gulf War, I don't know how to put it in a nutshell really.. Bin Laden was a friend of the US, then he became an enemy, for many reasons.

Bali pub bombing - personally I believe it was a show of strength from Al Qaeda who were still very isolated after 911, they didn't have the means to hit the US again, so they hit a very soft target.

Madrid train bombings - Spain participated in Iraq, it was timed just before the elections and it had the desired effect.


The dumb hawkish rightwing sledgehammer type approach to terrorism will never ever work, it just creates more hate and a bigger support base for the terrorist groups, both of which help those groups grow and become stronger and more morally justified (in their own minds).

Take away that hate and the support base will decline, the terrorist groups will become more isolated, then you are dealing with a more limited number of targets.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are taking huge losses, but they can sustain these losses quite easily because the anti-American hate & sentiment is so strong at the moment. I mean take a look at what Pakistan did recently.. they just blew up that school full of 'potential terrorists'.. killed a hundred of them.. to do what? 'send out a tough message to terrorism'?, what a dumb easy simplistic approach to the problem.. the military presses a few buttons and blam they are somehow 'tackling terrorism'.. nope, they've just increased the hate base and made the terrorists even stronger, increase the recruits, the suicide bombers, etc.

so what's the answer, give in? run away and hide? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban so they can train more terrorists?

If the Iraqis hate the US, why are they killing each other? Why were there public celebrations when Saddam was captured and then again when he was sentenced to death?

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

so what's the answer, give in? run away and hide? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban so they can train more terrorists?

I think you're missing the point. Afghanistan is still being used to train "terrorists". They have the perfect training ground in having plenty of Western soldiers to train on. The weak die, and the strong survive. And for every terrorist that falls in combat with the west, they have a new martyr to promote their cause.

The Soviets used alot more violent, and unrestrained methods in Afghanisatan against the resistance with the viewpoint of wiping them out. They Failed. How are the Western powers who can't use even close to the same methods going to destroy the resistance through violent means?

I can't think of any truely successful campaign by a government to destroy an organisation like the Taliban, or other such groups. The times I've seen them change was only when they evolved into joining the governments and becoming political entities. No use of violence has managed to date to destroy such an organisation (unless you can think of any...?). So why should that change now, when the West has to use less force than has gone before...?

If the Iraqis hate the US, why are they killing each other? Why were there public celebrations when Saddam was captured and then again when he was sentenced to death?

Irish people hated the British for centuries, and yet we still continued to fight amongst ourselves. Just because the west provides a good target, its not going to remove the internal politics and hatreds that were there before the current set of conflicts. They're going to be able to hate the US, the UK, or any foreign troops, and at the same time, also hate their fellow citizens that don't conform to their own superior views.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote:

I think you're missing the point. Afghanistan is still being used to train "terrorists". They have the perfect training ground in having plenty of Western soldiers to train on. The weak die, and the strong survive. And for every terrorist that falls in combat with the west, they have a new martyr to promote their cause.

The Soviets used alot more violent, and unrestrained methods in Afghanisatan against the resistance with the viewpoint of wiping them out. They Failed. How are the Western powers who can't use even close to the same methods going to destroy the resistance through violent means?

I can't think of any truely successful campaign by a government to destroy an organisation like the Taliban, or other such groups. The times I've seen them change was only when they evolved into joining the governments and becoming political entities. No use of violence has managed to date to destroy such an organisation (unless you can think of any...?). So why should that change now, when the West has to use less force than has gone before...?

that highlights the problem and i agree, but what is the answer? Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will not make the problem go away.

Deleted User wrote:

Irish people hated the British for centuries, and yet we still continued to fight amongst ourselves. Just because the west provides a good target, its not going to remove the internal politics and hatreds that were there before the current set of conflicts. They're going to be able to hate the US, the UK, or any foreign troops, and at the same time, also hate their fellow citizens that don't conform to their own superior views.

good point well made.

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

so what's the answer, give in? run away and hide? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban so they can train more terrorists?

Whats the answer? DON'T use the sledgehammer approach. It will never work. Its not like the world hasn't seen terrorism before? the IRA.. ETA.. etc..

If the Iraqis hate the US, why are they killing each other? Why were there public celebrations when Saddam was captured and then again when he was sentenced to death?

You have to remember that the US used to be friends with Saddam. After the first Gulf War they didn't help the Iraqi's get rid of him and notably didn't support the uprising against Saddam. Also years of sanctions by the West had resulted in the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, this also meant that no matter how bad Saddam was, individual Iraqi's were also resentful of the West and namely the US.

Even so, the Iraqi's largely welcomed the Americans despite knowing that this time much of the world was against the invasion (a fact which gave many who opposed the invasion a moral upper ground). The ordinary Iraqi man found that while the oil ministry was seized straight away, the Americans had dismantled all the other apparatus of a normal country almost straight away... imagine what Ireland would be like after 2 weeks if there were no police, no army, no government.. it would be chaos.. there was little electricity/water/essentials and basically NO security and as the months passed, the situation was only getting worse..

However despite this, general support for the American occupation remained relatively strong.. there was still hope for the future..

Unfortunately the insurgency was growing and growing, I mean when you have an occupying force in a country firing over a quarter of a million rounds of ammunition a day in anger there is bound to be resentment amongst the ordinary civilians. The average Iraqi's life has been steadily becoming worse and worse since the invasion, not better..

Then the foreign fighters came.. with a new tactic.. to spark sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia.. and it worked.. I remember noticing the first major terrorist strikes against large groups of Shia/Sunnis undoubtably by foreign terrorists who could claim to be neither.. only to affect the overall goal of destabilising the region.. this has been the nail in the coffin so to speak, because sectarian violence is self sustaining..

Why do the Iraqis celebrate when Saddam was caught and then later sentenced? because the majority HATE him, quite obvious really considering what he's done.

Why do the Iraqis hate the Americans? Well what have the Americans done besides capturing Saddam? nothing, they have made the country MUCH MUCH worse than it was before.. the Iraqi people are getting killed every day by America soldiers (crossfires with insurgents, etc), before the Americans came there was no terrorism, now there are death squads, huge bombings.. the electricity still barely works in most areas, intermittant water supplies.. too dangerous for kids to go to schools in alot of areas.. huge inflation.. (if you read blogs by Iraqi's many of them also hate the insurgents and especially the foreign fighters, but you have to understand that they blame the US for these guys being there in the first place).

In the past few years its become a cynical joke almost to say "we might aswell let Saddam back at least he will control the country".. Ironically enough, the unthinkable is most probably the best logical solution for a country that now has no solutions.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

that highlights the problem and i agree, but what is the answer? Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will not make the problem go away.

Actually we don't actually know that it won't. I don't think its been tried. Has it?

Usually the first response is to look to using force to resolve the problem since the enemy uses force, however, surely we can use more subtle forms of influence over the region, without physically going in and providing them with even more reasons to be angry with us.

Look at iraq for instance. Iraq hadn't invaded anyone since Kuwait, and hadn't made an aggressive move against anyone during the last decade. Going in, and replacing Saddam has changed a reasonably stable region, into a cesspit which just gobbles up resources.

I can't actually see what occupying Afghanistan has actually achieved. Has it seriously reduced the effectiveness of terrorist attacks? Not noticeably for me. Has it reduced their income? I doubt it, since they've gained a whole new market in the US army itself.

Violence hasn't worked in the past, and I don't see it working in the future in combating these types of organisations. All it does is give them a reason to exist.

AbusesToilets

Contrary to what you believe Fredrico,they're not using "Sledgehammer" tactics in Afghanistan.It was from the start and continues to be a largely SF directed missions,with teams going in,establishing bases and raising/training indigenous Afghan fighters to combat the Taliban.In this they are being supported by conventional units.The intitial invasion was a classic example of a successfully executed UW campaign. Right now the country is in the difficult transition phase from insurgency(the US supported one against the Taliban) to a functioning government conducting Counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban.
Having a largely unpoliced mountainous border with Pakistan obviously doesn't help matters.Getting the Pakistani government to commit to hunting down Taliban fighters in this region remains one of the biggest challenges to date.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Contrary to what you believe Fredrico,they're not using "Sledgehammer" tactics in Afghanistan.It was from the start and continues to be a largely SF directed missions,with teams going in,establishing bases and raising/training indigenous Afghan fighters to combat the Taliban.In this they are being supported by conventional units.The intitial invasion was a classic example of a successfully executed UW campaign. Right now the country is in the difficult transition phase from insurgency(the US supported one against the Taliban) to a functioning government conducting Counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban.
Having a largely unpoliced mountainous border with Pakistan obviously doesn't help matters.Getting the Pakistani government to commit to hunting down Taliban fighters in this region remains one of the biggest challenges to date.

I was talking about sledgehammer tactics used against terrorism in general.. in the war on terror..

There was never enough troops in Afghanistan, there was never even CLOSE to enough troops in Afghanistan. The money was practically non-existant. Afghanistan was forgotten by the media and people's lives there have not changed very much. Its a country largely run by warlords, contrary to the propaganda thats been spewed out over the last few years.

The only reason why we are talking about it now is because Tony Blair is desperate to take the attention off Iraq which is in an even worse situation. I would love to see some change in that country (Afghanistan) because I feel its a country that really deserves it, and unlike Iraq, it was far more simple situation, with easily identifiable bad guys and a much more compliant population.. but they (US and UK) even managed to screw it that up, saving much needed troops and money for their stupid oil jaunt in Iraq.

I am tired of phrases like 'difficult transitional phase' to be honest, Afghanistan will be lost to the Taliban unless alot more troops and money is pumped in now.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

I am tired of phrases like 'difficult transitional phase' to be honest, Afghanistan will be lost to the Taliban unless alot more troops and money is pumped in now.

To do what exactly? I haven't seen any evidence that more troops = success. Look at the dozens of conflicts at the moment, or in the last 30 years. In many cases, its the government against some rebels, or terrorists, or freedom fighters. More often than not, these governments throw in the military, backed by plenty of resources, and the conflict turns into a stalemate for years, if not decades.

Israel couldn't and can't pacify Palestine. France couldn't pacify Algeria. Britain couldn't pacify the North for decades. America failed in Vietnam, and currently fails in Iraq. Russia in Chechnya. Alot of troops have been put against these organisations/factions in the past. A military occupation means you're there for the long run, with alot of casualties, and alot of resources spent. A pacification of Afghanistan, & westernisation would take decades. If its possible at all...

And unfortuently, I think the people the Taliban recruit, are easily as resiliant or fanatical as the rebels/terrorists or freedom fighters of any of the above conflicts. And having western troops occupying their land, would be little different than what drove the above conflicts. The west hasn't exactly a good history in dealing with Middle eastern politics from the side of the Arab nations. Western troops on or very near their territories is just another to encouragement for "freedom fighters" cells to form against western oppression. Its just a matter of perspectives.

AbusesToilets

The situation in Afghanistan isn't a question of not enough troops being present.A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.
Military operations have been quite successful in the country,there is no great danger that the Taliban are going to sweep across the country and route out NATO forces.Whether you like the phrase or not,Afghanistan is in a difficult transition period.It's going to take a long time for that country to become stable and i absolutely agree that military force won't be the deciding factor in the outcome.The fate of the democratic endeavor there will be decided by a number of different factors,economic viability,it's ability to control it's borders,convincing the people of the merits of a more stable society etc.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

To do what exactly? I haven't seen any evidence that more troops = success. Look at the dozens of conflicts at the moment, or in the last 30 years. In many cases, its the government against some rebels, or terrorists, or freedom fighters. More often than not, these governments throw in the military, backed by plenty of resources, and the conflict turns into a stalemate for years, if not decades.

Israel couldn't and can't pacify Palestine. France couldn't pacify Algeria. Britain couldn't pacify the North for decades. America failed in Vietnam, and currently fails in Iraq. Russia in Chechnya. Alot of troops have been put against these organisations/factions in the past. A military occupation means you're there for the long run, with alot of casualties, and alot of resources spent. A pacification of Afghanistan, & westernisation would take decades. If its possible at all...

And unfortuently, I think the people the Taliban recruit, are easily as resiliant or fanatical as the rebels/terrorists or freedom fighters of any of the above conflicts. And having western troops occupying their land, would be little different than what drove the above conflicts. The west hasn't exactly a good history in dealing with Middle eastern politics from the side of the Arab nations. Western troops on or very near their territories is just another to encouragement for "freedom fighters" cells to form against western oppression. Its just a matter of perspectives.

Yup, you're absolutely right in one sense.. however the one pretty unique factor you had with Afghanistan was that literally the whole population WANTED occupation. I remember for the months and years following the invasion in Afghanistan I read damning report after damning report of how there was too little money, too few troops, too little retraining, barely any reconstruction, etc, etc.. I have no doubt the country would still be having setbacks, but with more money and more troops I believe it could have been more like the Kurdish area in Iraq than how it is now, they were a people MORE than willing to accept the occupation.

The propaganda phrases now just ring so hollow "stay the course",etc, they are just plain dirty lies at this stage, from administrations who can't wait to cut and run but their arrogance won't let them

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

The situation in Afghanistan isn't a question of not enough troops being present.A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.
Military operations have been quite successful in the country,there is no great danger that the Taliban are going to sweep across the country and route out NATO forces.Whether you like the phrase or not,Afghanistan is in a difficult transition period.It's going to take a long time for that country to become stable and i absolutely agree that military force won't be the deciding factor in the outcome.The fate of the democratic endeavor there will be decided by a number of different factors,economic viability,it's ability to control it's borders,convincing the people of the merits of a more stable society etc.

How can Kharzai "assert" himself against powerful warlords? he is an American puppet, which doesn't exactly make him very assertive. You think Afghanistan will become stable? the violence in the country is INCREASING, attacks by the Taliban are INCREASING, the people are loosing hope, they see no changes to their daily life. This isn't a 'transitional phase' no more than foreign jihadists targeting Sunnis and Shias to provoke civil strife was a 'transitional phase'. Its slowly slipping away, but not as fast as Iraq is..

Iraq is already lost, Afghanistan is on its way there but slower..

Gurgle

AbusesToilets wrote:

A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.

The Taliban at the height of their power controlled about 95% of the country, and only that much with the co-operation of the warlords.

Drug production was almost stamped out under the Taliban, its only since the 'liberation' of the country that its taken off again.

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

How can Kharzai "assert" himself against powerful warlords? he is an American puppet, which doesn't exactly make him very assertive. You think Afghanistan will become stable? the violence in the country is INCREASING, attacks by the Taliban are INCREASING, the people are loosing hope, they see no changes to their daily life. This isn't a 'transitional phase' no more than foreign jihadists targeting Sunnis and Shias to provoke civil strife was a 'transitional phase'. Its slowly slipping away, but not as fast as Iraq is..

Iraq is already lost, Afghanistan is on its way there but slower..

Neither of these countries are "lost",they are extremely complex and difficult but not beyond redress.Have you been to Afghanistan lately,documented this loss of hope?People are trying to live their lives,lives which were fairly ****ty under the Taliban and slightly improved now.The main hopes in their lives are probably just that their families will survive and prosper,same as people in the rest of the world.
I like how that last sentence gives a real sense of suspense...there's a career in advertising just waiting for you.There's been a recent upsurge in attacks,no doubt.Does it look likely that the country is going to be overrun anytime soon?Don't think so.I don't think you understand the dynamics of going from a guerilla campaign to governance and conducting counter-insurgency operations against those you ousted. You've got to continue suppressing, in this instance,the Taliban,while simultaneously organising and implementing the functions of government,to include military operations. The biggest impedment IMO to a stable Afghanistan is the Warlords and the porous border with Pakistan.
As for Karzai being a US puppet,looking past the fact that he was an initial supporter of the Taliban he was elected by the people in his country with a UN panel that examined the results.He has gone against the wishes of the US in relation to the spraying of opium fields and he has critized the miltary effort and lack of international help in preventing terrorism.Is he friendly towards Washington,you bet,they helped put him in a position to win power.Is he a servile satrap serving the imperialist will of the US? I don't think so,i think he is far fomr perfect but he is trying to steer his country on the right path.Bear in mind that Afghanistan has only been free of Taliban rule for about 4 years or so and has no developed industry or educatiuonal system.

AbusesToilets

Gurgle wrote:

Originally Posted by AbusesToilets
A lot of the problems come from the failure of Karzai's government to assert itself throughout the country and for a viable alternative to drug production being offered to the peasant farmers.

The Taliban at the height of their power controlled about 95% of the country, and only that much with the co-operation of the warlords.

Drug production was almost stamped out under the Taliban, its only since the 'liberation' of the country that its taken off again.

So what exactly are you saying? Are you disputing what i said,am i wrong?

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_AfghanistanThe Taliban, having taken control of 90% of the country, actively encouraged poppy cultivation. With this, they not only fulfilled their promises and obligations to their partners - the regional mafia - but also increased their own desperately needed income by imposing taxes on local farmers and through subsidies by international organised crime gangs. According to the above UN source, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,600 million tonnes in 1999, which was the height of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

According to a Swiss security publication, 'SicherheitsForum' (April 2006, pp:56-57), this resulted in supply exceeding demand and a drop in the high-street price of heroin and morphine in the West, endangering the profitability of European drug smugglers. To stop this trend, Westerns international drug barons demanded a reduction in supply. The regional mafia instructed the Taliban accordingly. It is alleged in the report that, Obeying his financiers, Mullah Omar (the Taliban leader) issued a ban on poppy cultivation "on religious grounds", resulting in one of the lowest opium production levels in 2002.

You can see for yourself,the ony reason production went down was because it was requested by the drug dealers.Before that, production was taking off.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Neither of these countries are "lost",they are extremely complex and difficult but not beyond redress.Have you been to Afghanistan lately,documented this loss of hope?People are trying to live their lives,lives which were fairly ****ty under the Taliban and slightly improved now.The main hopes in their lives are probably just that their families will survive and prosper,same as people in the rest of the world.
I like how that last sentence gives a real sense of suspense...there's a career in advertising just waiting for you.There's been a recent upsurge in attacks,no doubt.Does it look likely that the country is going to be overrun anytime soon?Don't think so.I don't think you understand the dynamics of going from a guerilla campaign to governance and conducting counter-insurgency operations against those you ousted. You've got to continue suppressing, in this instance,the Taliban,while simultaneously organising and implementing the functions of government,to include military operations. The biggest impedment IMO to a stable Afghanistan is the Warlords and the porous border with Pakistan.
As for Karzai being a US puppet,looking past the fact that he was an initial supporter of the Taliban he was elected by the people in his country with a UN panel that examined the results.He has gone against the wishes of the US in relation to the spraying of opium fields and he has critized the miltary effort and lack of international help in preventing terrorism.Is he friendly towards Washington,you bet,they helped put him in a position to win power.Is he a servile satrap serving the imperialist will of the US? I don't think so,i think he is far fomr perfect but he is trying to steer his country on the right path.Bear in mind that Afghanistan has only been free of Taliban rule for about 4 years or so and has no developed industry or educatiuonal system.

Yes, I hear what you are saying, but to me it sounds like every other regurigated military line used for the past 5 years, and you know what I'll be hearing this crap in 10 years, and then in 20 years, and so on and so on. Media-wise Afghanistan has been out of the spotlight, until surprise surprise the last 6 months or so. In those 4 years since the invasion the real reports (not by military/government officials) have been far and few between, those magazine/newspaper reports + some documentaries have ALL been completely damning. I cannot remember reading a single independantly written report or story that even comes remotely close to the Blair/military line we are hearing from that country.

Its like the military/government line is always; its okay, we're getting there, blah improving, peoples lives better.. all the standard morale rubbish and convenient spin for the government.

The country HAD potential (2001 - 2002ish).. lack of troops and money at that particular CRUCIAL time is pointing directly to the slow slide it is experiencing now, every step forward, two steps back.. and the US/UK/Everyone will have to pull their socks up very quick, because when they pull out of Iraq in a year or so, then you can be sure the jihadists will be focusing ALOT more attention on Afghanistan.

AbusesToilets

Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps the reports you read reflect the bias of those writing them and their desire to represent the situation in a negative light? Why are the reports put out by the military who are living and fighting on the ground less viable than those of journalists who aren't necessaryily exposed to the full reality of the situation?
I agree that it's a difficult time and the unwillingness of the NATO countries to commit more troops and will to the situation makes it worse.At the end of the day,the effort towards stabilization is driven by the people themselves.It's the jon of the Coalition to help support their efforts and give them the ability to succeed.Right now that's not happening fully,but the situation is far from helpless.The same goes for Iraq,it is possible to succeed in Iraq.The steps to that are difficult and frought with hardship and suffering though,so the question becomes one of whether the will is there to adapt and achieve those goals.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps the reports you read reflect the bias of those writing them and their desire to represent the situation in a negative light? Why are the reports put out by the military who are living and fighting on the ground less viable than those of journalists who aren't necessaryily exposed to the full reality of the situation?
I agree that it's a difficult time and the unwillingness of the NATO countries to commit more troops and will to the situation makes it worse.At the end of the day,the effort towards stabilization is driven by the people themselves.It's the jon of the Coalition to help support their efforts and give them the ability to succeed.Right now that's not happening fully,but the situation is far from helpless.The same goes for Iraq,it is possible to succeed in Iraq.The steps to that are difficult and frought with hardship and suffering though,so the question becomes one of whether the will is there to adapt and achieve those goals.

Sorry, I don't agree, first I have to say that the Iraq situation is alot more grim than the one we are presented with in the media.. it just came out in the ISG report that 'allegedly' the violence in Iraq has been underreported by up to a factor of 10, its also becoming clear the US has little idea about the enemy they are fighting and up to 90% of Iraqi's when asked say they want the US out. Get Syria and Iran on board? don't think so, once again the US administration has put too much distance between them. You do understand commentators, military officials, polititians were saying Everything you have been saying right up to the last day in Vietnam.

"The steps to that are difficult and frought with hardship and suffering though,so the question becomes one of whether the will is there to adapt and achieve those goals."
- No offense, but I have heard 5 years of polititians and military officials spewing stuff like this out, its rhetoric, it means nothing, I'm tired of it. This isn't a front in some war, not even close. Its a military stuck in a quagmire, faced by a population that doesn't want it there, faced by an enemy with unlimited manpower and unlimited tactics.
Right now if Saddam escaped back into the Iraqi populace.. it would be a MORE hopeful situation for the country than there is now.. that's to put it in perspective for you. I am not being a lefty doomsayer, I am being realistic here. It's almost like people are afraid to admit the truth.

Afghanistan is not as severe, but it is drifting quicker and quicker. The ISG report also mentioned (which the media hasn't really picked up on) that the dire situation in Afghanistan may require more US soldiers to be shifted from Iraq. There is also the looming threat of a largescale famine there, due to floods, etc and officials talk of spraying the drugs crop?

What about the reconstruction in Afghanistan? the infrastructure? the polititians and military officials have constantly moved and changed the goalposts, next they'll be saying we should be thankful the country isn't a communist hellhole.. it amazes me how these people can always spin the worst situations into some kind of fake optimism when policy and objectives fail over and fail again.

If intelligent well informed decisions had been made about Iraq and Afghanistan, if there was a true desire by the administrations in the US and UK to help those people, etc, etc then I would not be so scathing. There may be good men and women on the ground doing their best, but whats the point when such arrogant and ignorant administrations continue to make bad decisions, mistakes, blunders, etc.

AbusesToilets

I tend to agree with you on the point of civilian leadership causing more problems in Iraq by virtue of it's policies.At the same time however,you speak of being a realist and not a doomsayer,yet all you point to are the negatives in the situation.There are positives there,the largest one i think being the Iraqi peoples desire to live a peaceful life free of terrorism.
What are the options being presented by people with similiar viewpoints to yours?Claims of being "realistic" while damning the situation without offering any ideas for a solution.Yet when others,such as myself,recognise the current difficulties and say that the situation can be rectified,it's presented as being some more political spin and avoidance of reality.
Like it or not,the only way the country has a chance of achieving social stability is going to be along the lines of what exists now,with the Coalition forces providing security and counter-insurgency operations while building up the government forces to gradually take over.On a larger level,diplomatic engagement with the other countries in the region is necessary.Iran & Syria have a lot to answer for with regards to fermenting and supporting the insurgents in Iraq.Unfortunately the we're now in the position where we have to balance Irans possible help in the country with taking a hard stance against their nuclear ambitions. I think that the Iraqi people might be better served if the initial government hadn't been filled with former crooks and ousted cronies of corporations but at the moment that's who is in power and must be worked with.
Afghanistan presents a similar picture,abeit not as severe.I agree that better investment in building infastructure is needed,and some more honest investment,as opposed to oportunistic,would be of benefit to the people there.Bear in mind that infastucure has been rebuilt,schools,utilities etc.A lot of the reasons for the lack of success in this stem from the level of insurgency attacks.It's not easy to work on rebuilding something when you're in fear of being killed by a rocket attack.On the other side,those mismanaging the funds alocated to the task have a lot to answer for also.Though whether that will happen is another issue altogether.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

Yup, you're absolutely right in one sense.. however the one pretty unique factor you had with Afghanistan was that literally the whole population WANTED occupation. I remember for the months and years following the invasion in Afghanistan I read damning report after damning report of how there was too little money, too few troops, too little retraining, barely any reconstruction, etc, etc.. I have no doubt the country would still be having setbacks, but with more money and more troops I believe it could have been more like the Kurdish area in Iraq than how it is now, they were a people MORE than willing to accept the occupation.

The interesting thing is that many occupied countries change from the initial occupation welcome, to open distrust & hatred. Look at the occupied territories that welcomed Russian rescue, which turned to occupation.
Same with Vietnam, when many of those in the US occupied territories left for the enemy territories. They probably welcomed the US initially aswell.

The "West" is probably seen as the aggressor in most Arabs eyes, and probably other peoples eyes. I certainly think we've ("the West", that is) had our fair share of wars over the decades. The invasion of Iraq, following the invasion of Afghanistan, would have ignited many peoples resentment for western aggression against fellow arab countries. A rescurer is welcome, an long-term Occupation isn't.

And a UN force would need to be there long term to change that system. And the people themselves likely know it aswell.

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote:

I tend to agree with you on the point of civilian leadership causing more problems in Iraq by virtue of it's policies.At the same time however,you speak of being a realist and not a doomsayer,yet all you point to are the negatives in the situation.

Actually, I agree with him. What he's saying is being realistic. Sorry, but I would disagree with you also.

There are positives there,the largest one i think being the Iraqi peoples desire to live a peaceful life free of terrorism.

I've seen no sign of that to date. While there are Western troops occupying Afghanistan, Afghan's will attack those troops. Just as Iraqi's attack Coalition forces in Iraq. There are many conflicts in the world at the moment that contain either arabs, or those that follow their religions. Terrorism is how they answer.

What are the options being presented by people with similiar viewpoints to yours?Claims of being "realistic" while damning the situation without offering any ideas for a solution.Yet when others,such as myself,recognise the current difficulties and say that the situation can be rectified,it's presented as being some more political spin and avoidance of reality.

I haven't seen any solutions that don't involve UN/Western forces remaining in Afghanistan for the next few years.... And judging by Iraq's response to the Coalition, I can't see Afghan's responding with anything less. Do you really believe that Afghans will accept foreign troops on their soil, when there's so much conflict going on?

Like it or not,the only way the country has a chance of achieving social stability is going to be along the lines of what exists now,with the Coalition forces providing security and counter-insurgency operations while building up the government forces to gradually take over.

Yup, It could work. Or more likely that the force will be made up of people either directly under the influence of the crime syndicates, or could be easily turned.

Iraq's forces aren't exactly the amazing force needed there. The Palestinian Authority formed a police force of thugs, and those owed favours. I can't think of too many occupied police forces, that don't have such problems. And then add the level of resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq's history, my intiution tells me that Afghanistan will follow Iraq in the records its' set.

On a larger level,diplomatic engagement with the other countries in the region is necessary.Iran & Syria have a lot to answer for with regards to fermenting and supporting the insurgents in Iraq.

And they would be dealt with how? What would likely need to happen for Syria & Iran, to withdraw all their influence, and investment in this conflict?

Unfortunately the we're now in the position where we have to balance Irans possible help in the country with taking a hard stance against their nuclear ambitions.

How? By introducing a military element, conquering Iran, defeating the threat, and spend at least 5 years watching news reports of dead soldiers & civilians come pouring past. An occupation of Iran would need to occur, and an occupation of Iran would make Iraq look like a picnic.

So, if the military option is out. How do you enforce your will? You can't ignore their natural resources, business resources, or the aid they would receive from every other arab nation.

I think that the Iraqi people might be better served if the initial government hadn't been filled with former crooks and ousted cronies of corporations but at the moment that's who is in power and must be worked with.

Work from the inside out or Tear it down, and rebuild? Who will you trust to lead the force, and who will serve under them? How will you know when to trust them, so they can be hated by their own people? I haven't seen anything to suggest that a local police force actually improves an occupation, considering Iraq is the closest example.

Afghanistan presents a similar picture,abeit not as severe.I agree that better investment in building infastructure is needed,and some more honest investment,as opposed to oportunistic,would be of benefit to the people there.

And where is this money going to come from? Considering how much is apparently being spent in Iraq, I think most nations (and the UN) will tighten their aid to conflicts like these. And businesses will find it difficult to settle or invest if they see fighting going on, especially if they don't have the encouragement of their own governments. I don't think too many nations will go any distance to actually help Afghanistan.

Bear in mind that infastucure has been rebuilt,schools,utilities etc.A lot of the reasons for the lack of success in this stem from the level of insurgency attacks.It's not easy to work on rebuilding something when you're in fear of being killed by a rocket attack.

This got me. The level of insurgency attacks? Wouldn't that show the level of support in the general population for the attacks to continue? Insurgents couldn't operate without the support of the population. UN/Coalition forces with the support of the population (information), could catch/kill any insurgents, or "strangers" within days.

AbusesToilets

I can't agree with your over all view that everything is doom and gloom.People in Afghanistan and Iraq want a peaceful life.They often resent Coalition forces but still recognise their necessity.They already accept the presence of Coalition forces,might not like them,but they accept them.Certainly in Afghanistan where the Coalition footprint is much less intrusive and where a significant portion of the effort is driven by special forces.
As to the make up of the indigenous forces,well if they cannot be manned from the local populations then i'm at a loss as to where they will come from.What you are really calling into question is the character of the people themselves.I don't see why it's more likely that the force be made up of people with a criminal disposition.Given the high numbers of police and army members who are killed with regularity,perhaps you shouldn't be in such a hurry to condemn the entire endeavor.
With regards to dealing with Iran etc. Diplomatic negotiations and possible sanctions are the only way to do it.War is not going to be an option,for obvious reasons.Iran has plenty to worry about if Iraq collapses,so it's in their best interest to see it succeed.They will want things to succeed in a particular way to suit their desires,same as the US and Britain have their own desires for the country.I think the important thing is that effort is made to have the Iraqis decide the outcome of the situation.But again,that's stating the obvious.
The fact attacks take place is not indicitve of a populace giving it's support to the insurgents.Especially seeing as the local population is the main target for the attacks.Locals want the Coalition to leave but not at the cost of their lives.

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote:

I can't agree with your over all view that everything is doom and gloom.People in Afghanistan and Iraq want a peaceful life.They often resent Coalition forces but still recognise their necessity.

The situation as it is pretty bad, and the indications lead towards it getting worse. I'm not saying its hopeless, but rather its not as positive as you try to make out.

Unless the Coalition forces receive alot more help and information from the local population concerning the insurgents, the violence will continue. Insurgency cannot survive long where their movements and descriptions are released to the security forces in a quick manner. That is the way for Afghanistan to become a peaceful place. For the population to decide enough with the violence, and decide to side with the coalition forces in the region.

Only then will the insurgents, and the crinimals be brought to a stop, and people will start considering Afghanistan as a place worth investing in. But the insurgents will need to be defeated first, and there is nothing to indicate that the local population will work with the security forces to bring this about. Things could change, but frankly I think there is alot more support for violent opposition to the Coalition forces, than you make out.

As to the make up of the indigenous forces,well if they cannot be manned from the local populations then i'm at a loss as to where they will come from.What you are really calling into question is the character of the people themselves.I don't see why it's more likely that the force be made up of people with a criminal disposition.

Because any police force will be a high target for infiltration by crinimal & insurgent elements, and with the level of unrest in Afghanistan proper screening of applicants will be quite difficult to achieve accurately. The crinimal and insurgent groups will want their own fingers in that pie, and I don't doubt that they will get in. And get in in force.

Given the high numbers of police and army members who are killed with regularity,perhaps you shouldn't be in such a hurry to condemn the entire endeavor.

I'm not suggesting that the whole force be made up of crinimals or insurgents. Just a fair share.

And don't you think that "Given the high numbers of police and army members who are killed with regularity" that the violence in Afghanistan is more than you make out?

I'll post again later.

AbusesToilets

I really don't think you understand what has been going on in Afghanistan vis a vis the counter insurgency.Special forces have been,since the start of the war,on the ground advising and leading Afghan forces against the Taliban.They have been working with local leaders and have been very successful in this.THis recent upsurge of violence doesn't take away from this fact.The Taliban is sending squad sized elements across the Pakistani border to infiltrate and attack Coalition and Government assets.The methods you lay out for success are already happening and have been happening since the very start of the war.
As to screening the igdigenous forces,do not think that this has been happening?,because it is.Applicants need to be vouched for,and AFAIK often times Afghan units will be formed out of local groupings,such as clans/tribes etc. This helps to counter somewhat the problems you raised.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

I really don't think you understand what has been going on in Afghanistan vis a vis the counter insurgency.Special forces have been,since the start of the war,on the ground advising and leading Afghan forces against the Taliban.They have been working with local leaders and have been very successful in this.THis recent upsurge of violence doesn't take away from this fact.The Taliban is sending squad sized elements across the Pakistani border to infiltrate and attack Coalition and Government assets.The methods you lay out for success are already happening and have been happening since the very start of the war.
As to screening the igdigenous forces,do not think that this has been happening?,because it is.Applicants need to be vouched for,and AFAIK often times Afghan units will be formed out of local groupings,such as clans/tribes etc. This helps to counter somewhat the problems you raised.

Heh I am working my way through a Vietnam documentary right now. The similarities are incredible. I mean the military does not allow any pessimism in any situation regardless of the true facts. No offense but I could sit here and say the same crap about Iraq, progress is being made here and the counter insurgency is blah and methods and positive blah.. its just rubbish.. both countries are in severe trouble, both are deteriorating, and this time next year both the US and UK will be pulled out or pulling out of Iraq and most likely Afghanistan.

AbusesToilets

Heh I am working my way through a Vietnam documentary right now. The similarities are incredible. I mean the military does not allow any pessimism in any situation regardless of the true facts. No offense but I could sit here and say the same crap about Iraq, progress is being made here and the counter insurgency is blah and methods and positive blah.. its just rubbish.. both countries are in severe trouble, both are deteriorating, and this time next year both the US and UK will be pulled out or pulling out of Iraq and most likely Afghanistan.

You make me laugh,seriously,not slagging you or anything. Of course there are similarities between Vietnam and the current wars,they were both largely asymetric in nature.I know people love to compare the situation and shout "QUAGMIRE".The situation is bad,but it's nowhere even close to how bad Vietnam was,in any terms - casualties,military tactics,morality, political involvement etc. The military allows plenty of pessimism,it forms a good part of any competant planning.What it doesn't stand for is defeatism,for pretty obvious reasons.This doesn't mean it's a head in the sand situation,just means that you adapt and overcome.Isn't the eventual goal to have the Coalition forces leave and handover full control to the Iraqis and Afghans? Something that they are in the process of doing,but not fast enough apparently.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

You make me laugh,seriously,not slagging you or anything. Of course there are similarities between Vietnam and the current wars,they were both largely asymetric in nature.I know people love to compare the situation and shout "QUAGMIRE".The situation is bad,but it's nowhere even close to how bad Vietnam was,in any terms - casualties,military tactics,morality, political involvement etc. The military allows plenty of pessimism,it forms a good part of any competant planning.What it doesn't stand for is defeatism,for pretty obvious reasons.This doesn't mean it's a head in the sand situation,just means that you adapt and overcome.Isn't the eventual goal to have the Coalition forces leave and handover full control to the Iraqis and Afghans? Something that they are in the process of doing,but not fast enough apparently.

They want to cut and run as fast as possible without making it look like a retreat.. is that too hard to say? of course it is, so noone says it, they just give the usual tripe we've been hearing for 5 years. Oh and I've heard everything, remember when the foreign fighters were suddenly arriving on the scene down in Iraq?.. well the US administration claimed they 'knew' that this would happen and Iraq was actually a honeytrap so they could lure all the terrorists in.

The comparison to Vietnam? different war, same spin/lies/bullsh*t.. just watching old footage of what the administration was coming out with back then.. such a striking similarity to what is being said today..

The strange thing is, the US administration and military seem to blame all their woes on lefty naysayers rather than the huge unending catalogue of unbelieveable blunders, mistakes and errors they have made and are still making in Iraq.