End of Afghanistan war

Victor

Gatling wrote: »

Pakistani intelligence services (who are American allies )

The Pakistani government and in particular the Inter-Services Intelligence like to keep their friends close and their enemies closer.

jmreire

Gatling wrote: »

One of their biggest mistakes we go in and a few weeks later we will wipe out ALQ and bin Laden and we go home victorious ,
18 years later fighting the Taliban , Pakistani intelligence services (who are American allies ) oh we will rebuild Afghanistan but can only control Kabul to a degree and little outside ,
Now they will withdraw and allow the Taliban and likely a new branch of isis to go to war again .

This won't end well at all

I don't see it ending well for the poor Afghan people.. but as the Taliban joining forces with isis?? I dont think so....isis are too set on being the lead agency, and the Taliban will never accept that..get rid of one "Boss" and find yourself with another, and possibly even worse one? If I remember rightly, isis tried that one time, with the Haqqani network, and got kicked out?
But maybe with AQL? They have form there. But the question is why would they need additional military back up? They will be in Government, and have access to all the levers of power...? unless they foresee trouble ahead when the US leaves? Now, that I could believe all right....where they were first welcomed for restoring peace after the Russians left, they alienated most of the Afghan people by their fanatical behavior, and I'm sure that people will not have forgotten that, despite what the "New" Taliban are promising ...time will soon tell,

Montage of Feck

Victor wrote: »

Notably, there has been war in Afghanistan since at least 1978. Less that 17% of Afghans were born before then.

There has been recent concern that Soviet casualties were much higher than published. Not to mention the 1 million Afghans that were killed in the 1980s.

Read something in Wikipedia that stated the red army had an even higher casualty rate in western Ukraine after WW ii at the hands of the Ukrainian Insurgant Army.

Montage of Feck

Victor wrote: »

Notably, there has been war in Afghanistan since at least 1978. Less that 17% of Afghans were born before then.

There has been recent concern that Soviet casualties were much higher than published. Not to mention the 1 million Afghans that were killed in the 1980s.

Read something in Wikipedia that stated the red army had an even higher casualty rate in western Ukraine after WW ii at the hands of the Ukrainian Insurgant Army.

ted1

Gatling wrote: »

Looks like we have officially seen the end of the war in Afghanistan today with joint agreements between the US , Afghanistan and the Taliban today ending American and NATOs involvement.
All US and NATO troops to withdraw completely in the next 14 months.
The deal agrees the complete withdrawal of US and Nato troops within 14 months and the US undertakes to refrain from the use of force against Afghanistan or intervening in domestic affairs.

Seems it was win /win for the Taliban and all loss for Afghanistan and it's people


https://news.sky.com/story/us-and-taliban-sign-historic-peace-agreement-hailed-as-momentous-day-11946209

We do not negotiate with terrorist.


The US lost to many lives and money and have no interest in ring there. Also an election coming up.

kildare lad

jmreire wrote: »

The biggest strategic mistake that the US ever made, was exactly that.... supplying stinger ( and other) missiles to the then Mujahideen, which enabled them to get the Russians out of Afghanistan.

The yanks seen it as payback at the time as the Russians helped the north Vietnamese during the Vietnam war

tuxy

Some of the US contractors and arms dealers much have made big money on this at some point.
So it's not a total loss or waste of time for everyone.

FTA69

Invade Afghanistan to depose the Taliban.

Fight for 20 odd years, tens of thousands of deaths.

Withdraw and do a deal leaving the Taliban in charge.

What a massive waste of life all around. The Americans really are something else.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

Invade Afghanistan to depose the Taliban.

Fight for 20 odd years, tens of thousands of deaths.

Withdraw and do a deal leaving the Taliban in charge.

What a massive waste of life all around. The Americans really are something else.

To be fair, it's democracy... successive administrations need to manage the choices of previous administrations, whether it's to continue them, or stop them completely. All the while, the various lobbyists and corporations who wanted it to happen are still pushing in the background. Besides, it was more than just the Americans, since coalition forces were present with their own zones of control.

As for leaving with the Taliban in charge... conventional warfare/insurrection warfare cannot be effective unless you're willing to drop the niceties and engage in total war. You cannot stop the Taliban or any guerrilla based force without decimating the local population, and completely cutting the country from external aid. Complete suspension of human rights, and a ride towards barbarity. Which is something no western government can do.

Hopefully, we'll see the end of these doomed attempts by western governments. We simply don't have the will/determination, the laws, and the nastiness to effect such a win. Instead, it comes down to attrition, which western countries are always going to lose against.

Glad to see them leaving. My hope is that all western investments in the M.East/Africa end, and we leave it to them to sort themselves out.

conorhal

FTA69 wrote: »

Invade Afghanistan to depose the Taliban.

Fight for 20 odd years, tens of thousands of deaths.

Withdraw and do a deal leaving the Taliban in charge.

What a massive waste of life all around. The Americans really are something else.

Because the American's just showed up on a whim and the Afghan's possess no agency or hold any culpability for what went down at all?

It's not as if, in the wake of the worst terrorist atrocity in history, the Taliban government offered the worlds most dangerous terrorist group sanctuary within their borders and even made Bin Ladin an honorary government official just to piss off the yanks.

The Afghans decided it would be a good idea in the wake of 9-11 to perform the international diplomacy equivalent of standing drunk and shirtless in the street and hollering 'come at me bro!'.


The rest was pretty predictable.

pure.conya

Montage of Feck wrote: »

What an absolute waste for it to come to this with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan! To think it only took some intelligence and a single seal team to eventually get Ben Laden in Pakistan.

it was all about the military industrial complex profits, mercinary armies, Afghani heroin supply 95% of the worlds demand

pure.conya

Muahahaha wrote: »

So whats the deal? Sounds like the Taliban get to continue on supplying the global heroin trade and the Americans get to avoid more dead soldiers. Pretty much sums it up, its been a complete foreign policy misadventure by the Americans from the offing.

the Taliban has all but eradicated heroin production before the americans went in due to saudis flying planes into the twin towers

pure.conya

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well what a complete waste of time, money and lives that was.

it made a few people an obscene amount of money though

biko

It was wrong to enter Afghanistan.
It is now wrong to leave Afghanistan.


What do you want Afghanistan to look like before the US can leave?

skooterblue2

pure.conya wrote: »

it made a few people an obscene amount of money though

Carlisle Group, Haliburton, Black Water, Sackler family other private contractors all did well. I want to mention Executive Outcomes/ Sandline but have they reformed as something else?

Rufeo

Will the Taliban will be back in control?

skooterblue2

Rufeo wrote: »

Will the Taliban will be back in control?

As soon as the Americans are gone the Chinese will be in with friendly chinese social investments and suit cases of money. It begins again. Sackler family get opium and the game begins again.
The chinese will do all what they promise with social investments (hospitals, schools, administration and open mines) then they will try to impose their law (sound familiar) and the Afghans will revolt and back to the old games again.
The chinese will respond in kind after they survay the whole region. Stablisation force will arrive and investment protection plans (cleansing groups) will do their jobs and then China will be stuck in the same quagmire Alexander the Great, British, Russians and Americans found themselves in. (America/India/Russia/British will send support in the form of special weapons and advisor). Too much invested in to get out. The war will break the chinese state will get dragged down like Alexander the Great, British, Russians and Americans.

Just watch it play out. Some people never learn from history.

Gatling

skooterblue2 wrote: »

As soon as the Americans are gone the Chinese will be in with friendly chinese social investments and suit cases of money. It begins again. Sackler family get opium and the game begins again.
The chinese will do all what they promise with social investments (hospitals, schools, administration and open mines) then they will try to impose their law (sound familiar) and the Afghans will revolt and back to the old games again.
The chinese will respond in kind after they survay the whole region. Stablisation force will arrive and investment protection plans (cleansing groups) will do their jobs and then China will be stuck in the same quagmire Alexander the Great, British, Russians and Americans found themselves in. (America/India/Russia/British will send support in the form of special weapons and advisor). Too much invested in to get out. The war will break the chinese state will get dragged down like Alexander the Great, British, Russians and Americans.

Just watch it play out. Some people never learn from history.

Half expect a tibet situation ,

Chinese arrive build schools , hospitals (America/NATO did that did that to) and new cities to be populated with Chinese citizens to work on the Chinese interests only the Chinese will have control over their own citizens and the Taliban or other group won't find any support ,

skooterblue2

Gatling wrote: »

Half expect a tibet situation ,

Chinese arrive build schools , hospitals (America/NATO did that did that to) and new cities to be populated with Chinese citizens to work on the Chinese interests only the Chinese will have control over their own citizens and the Taliban or other group won't find any support ,

Afghanistan is different to Tibet. What you can do to Tibetan monks you will not do to Afghan Moghuls. They have never taken invaders lying down and when Chinese arrive to settle that is when the heat will really turn up. Afghanistan is a place best left alone.

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, it's democracy... successive administrations need to manage the choices of previous administrations, whether it's to continue them, or stop them completely. All the while, the various lobbyists and corporations who wanted it to happen are still pushing in the background. Besides, it was more than just the Americans, since coalition forces were present with their own zones of control.

As for leaving with the Taliban in charge... conventional warfare/insurrection warfare cannot be effective unless you're willing to drop the niceties and engage in total war. You cannot stop the Taliban or any guerrilla based force without decimating the local population, and completely cutting the country from external aid. Complete suspension of human rights, and a ride towards barbarity. Which is something no western government can do.

Hopefully, we'll see the end of these doomed attempts by western governments. We simply don't have the will/determination, the laws, and the nastiness to effect such a win. Instead, it comes down to attrition, which western countries are always going to lose against.

Glad to see them leaving. My hope is that all western investments in the M.East/Africa end, and we leave it to them to sort themselves out.

Eh hold on, the Russians were plenty nasty and it didn't work out well for them either

Gatling

riffmongous wrote: »

Eh hold on, the Russians were plenty nasty and it didn't work out well for them either

Russia went with a scorched earth policies to chemical weapons and still couldn't achieve a final victory over Afghanistan which was a fairly happy place for all to live before russians decided it would be better as a Communist state

jmreire

Gatling wrote: »

Russia went with a scorched earth policies to chemical weapons and still couldn't achieve a final victory over Afghanistan which was a fairly happy place for all to live before russians decided it would be better as a Communist state

Had the US kept out of it, the Russians might have had a chance of " Keeping the Peace" with their puppet Government, but with Pakistan not exactly happy with their Russian neighbor living beside them, and the US itching to repay the Vietnam debt,,,they did not stand a chance. I spoke to a few former Russian soldiers, who had survived Afghanistan, and even 20 years later..the thought was enough to make them shudder, and go a white color. The terror of fighting the Afghan Mujaheddin still stayed with them even after all the years.Some of them had fought in Chechnya as well, and asked which was worse, they were unanimous in choosing Afghanistan.

beauf

Gatling wrote: »

Looks like we have officially seen the end of the war in Afghanistan today ....

If it was it would be the first time in hundreds of years.

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

Eh hold on, the Russians were plenty nasty and it didn't work out well for them either

They were also dealing with severe internal problems within Russian society, economic issues, corruption within the military, people dodging their military service, morale issues within the majority of their standard units, etc. A military powerhouse designed for large scale conventional warfare with no experience of dealing with small mobile units. Economic and political sanctions from western nations, and the worlds other superpower providing financial/logistical support to their enemies.

The world has learned from Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Application of military assets are very different now compared to the late 70s, along with the knowledge of how guerrilla forces operate.

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

They were also dealing with severe internal problems within Russian society, economic issues, corruption within the military, people dodging their military service, morale issues within the majority of their standard units, etc. A military powerhouse designed for large scale conventional warfare with no experience of dealing with small mobile units. Economic and political sanctions from western nations, and the worlds other superpower providing financial/logistical support to their enemies.

The world has learned from Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Application of military assets are very different now compared to the late 70s, along with the knowledge of how guerrilla forces operate.

Which has nothing to do with what you said earlier

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with what you said earlier

Because we were talking of the US, and I did say my piece in relation to western governments.

"As for leaving with the Taliban in charge... conventional warfare/insurrection warfare cannot be effective unless you're willing to drop the niceties and engage in total war. You cannot stop the Taliban or any guerrilla based force without decimating the local population, and completely cutting the country from external aid. Complete suspension of human rights, and a ride towards barbarity. Which is something no western government can do."

Sure, you're right about the Soviet Union. Just as the US wasn't able to do it in Vietnam. Time, experience and technology has moved on from then, though. It doesn't matter though, since the US (in it's present state as a democracy) couldn't pursue such an occupation successfully. Nor could any other western nation.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

The world has learned from Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Application of military assets are very different now compared to the late 70s, along with the knowledge of how guerrilla forces operate.

Not really because the same mistakes were being made in Vietnam were being made in Iraq/Somalia, following insurgents into the jungle/ down narrow streets where top cover/air support couldnt see who they were firing. Helicopters cannot fly safely into narrow canyons/valleys. The cost of fighting a war over a great distance wasnt taken into account.

Britian was really caught out by the Argentinians when they invaded the Falklands, they had sold off part of their aging fleet and were down sizing. The Argentians totally caught them off guard and the British were within two weeks of calling a ceasefire when they won. It was probably down to the leadership of a few men like Michael Rose that panicked the Argentinians ground troops.

Muahahaha

pure.conya wrote: »

the Taliban has all but eradicated heroin production before the americans went in due to saudis flying planes into the twin towers

Ive seen that claim before but would be very dubious about it. Someone was making heroin because there was never a shortage in the west and I dont think other countries had the capacity to suddenly replace 90% of the worlds heroin supply overnight. I dont think the Taliban ever had full control of the country before 9/11 anyway, lots of war lords controlled their own valleys where poppies could be grown and there was easy access to porous borders to export it.

tuxy wrote: »

Some of the US contractors and arms dealers much have made big money on this at some point.
So it's not a total loss or waste of time for everyone.

The military industrial complex really was the big winner in all this. All those missiles lying around for years not being used, using and replacing them results in huge transfers of wealth from the public taxpayer to the weapons manufacturers. The Afghan war also allowed them to develop and test drones on a live population. It was a giant leap forward in fighting a guerilla war by automation and by remote control.

Timberrrrrrrr

This is Trumps vietnam

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This is Trumps vietnam

You mean he might get assassinated for trying to pull the troops out?