This is a discussion on What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan? within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Feanor
Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was ...
Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was called migratory genocide. The only reason the Mujahadeen existed as long as they did, is because of enormous US aid, and Pakistani complicity in providing the resistance with bases and a safe haven. In the end, had the USSR not had too many internal problems to deal with, it could have put an end to the insurgency.
The situation is even more favorable for the US today. In fact the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stabilize Afghanistan is if the political will is absent to commit the necessary resources.
I wanted to laugh, what were the cause of internal problems a long term war have inflicted disaster to the USSR's econmoy, and I think currently US is even in much bad condition then USSR was in, the war is more expensive to them then it was for the USSR.
The insurgents are much more trained then they were before and backed by CHINA RUSSIA and IRAN.
You cannot fight them they have the perfect gorilla warfare, I can bet you $1 M dollar US cannot beat them if US could they would have done it in last 8-9 years.
Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was called migratory genocide. The only reason the Mujahadeen existed as long as they did, is because of enormous US aid, and Pakistani complicity in providing the resistance with bases and a safe haven. In the end, had the USSR not had too many internal problems to deal with, it could have put an end to the insurgency.
The situation is even more favorable for the US today. In fact the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stabilize Afghanistan is if the political will is absent to commit the necessary resources.
I wanted to laugh, what were the cause of internal problems a long term war have inflicted disaster to the USSR's econmoy, and I think currently US is even in much bad condition then USSR was in, the war is more expensive to them then it was for the USSR.
The insurgents are much more trained then they were before and backed by CHINA RUSSIA and IRAN.
You cannot fight them they have the perfect gorilla warfare environment, I can bet you $1 M dollar US cannot beat them if US could they would have done it in last 8-9 years.
Silly. Afghanistan got demolished by the Soviets. The damage to Afghan was so bad, it was called migratory genocide. The only reason the Mujahadeen existed as long as they did, is because of enormous US aid, and Pakistani complicity in providing the resistance with bases and a safe haven. In the end, had the USSR not had too many internal problems to deal with, it could have put an end to the insurgency.
The situation is even more favorable for the US today. In fact the only reason the US wouldn't be able to stabilize Afghanistan is if the political will is absent to commit the necessary resources.
and FYI - the us aided the mujahideens till 88 the talibs emerged in early nighties there are many other countries financing them till now, dont get the impression the US can defeat them but will get defeated, they lost 9 years and can even do that if they lose 90 more years.
Well I think the US and the coalition have to talk with them eventually so why they do it sooner then later, talk to them US cannot make an army with non-pashtuns, and have them defeat Taliban. Eventually US have to leave.
Lets see what happens.
For the US to talk to the Taliban right now would give the world the appearance that the US is losing the will to fight and is willing to make concessions to the Taliban. It would void all our rhetoric up to this point, strengthen the Taliban's will to fights, and make the loyal Afghans feel like we're going to throw them to the wolves.
If the US is going to negotiate with the Taliban, especially its more radical elements, then it has to be from a position of overhwelming strength. Quite honestly, the US and NATO aren't in that position right now.
Now, if the Afghans wan to try and make reconciliations with the more moderate Taliban, that's fine, but even then, they need to move forward with caution. (By the way, there was a big tribal conference a while back in which some Afghan leaders did just that, or at least proposed doing it.)
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by umair655
I wanted to laugh, what were the cause of internal problems a long term war have inflicted disaster to the USSR's econmoy, and I think currently US is even in much bad condition then USSR was in, the war is more expensive to them then it was for the USSR.
The insurgents are much more trained then they were before and backed by CHINA RUSSIA and IRAN.
You cannot fight them they have the perfect gorilla warfare, I can bet you $1 M dollar US cannot beat them if US could they would have done it in last 8-9 years.
You do have evidence I suppose, for the alleged support. Especially Russian and Chinese. Right? Please post it here.
For the US to talk to the Taliban right now would give the world the appearance that the US is losing the will to fight and is willing to make concessions to the Taliban. It would void all our rhetoric up to this point, strengthen the Taliban's will to fights, and make the loyal Afghans feel like we're going to throw them to the wolves.
If the US is going to negotiate with the Taliban, especially its more radical elements, then it has to be from a position of overhwelming strength. Quite honestly, the US and NATO aren't in that position right now.
Now, if the Afghans wan to try and make reconciliations with the more moderate Taliban, that's fine, but even then, they need to move forward with caution. (By the way, there was a big tribal conference a while back in which some Afghan leaders did just that, or at least proposed doing it.)
I certainly agree that there is no need for the US to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban. There is no doubt however that behind the door negotiations are going on in Saudi Arabia between the Taliban and Afghan Government /Coalition negotiators.
Contrary to some people on this Forum I have NO doubt the the US/Nato? Allies are winning this war against the Taliban.
We just have to look at the situation that the Taliban are in, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan they are coping a hiding.
In Pakistan the US/CIA 'drones' have cause major losses of experienced senior Taliban leaders, the Taliban are going to have major problems replacing them.
The Pakistan Armed Forces are winning their fight against the Taliban/ Insurgents in the FATA,
The Taliban has lost basically all their support from the Pakistani people because of their brutal attacks that have killed innocent Pakistani civilians.
The ISI, the progenitors of the early 'Taliban' have seen the writing on the wall that states ,the Taliban are losing this war, we better get on side with the winners, they have been instrumantal in providing intelligence for strikes against Taliban leaders, and have help in the capture of top Taliban leaders.
In Afghanistan, the 30,000+ surge has given the Allies the surge they need, they are hitting the Taliban hard, and the Taliban is not only losing the war badly, they have no means to come back in a position of military strength to beat back the Afghan/Allies forces.
General McChrystals tactics to minimise civilian deaths, although it puts our troops at greater risk, is succeding, Afghan troops are out in the front lines earning the trust of Afghan civilians, and as areas are cleared of insurgents and IED's, the troops will be replaced with the Afghan Police force and local civilian Government.
As long as the needed infrastructure is delivered to these areas, and they are protected against the Taliban criminals, the locals will be quite happy to live in peace and harmony.
As the opium fields are eradicated a majors source of money for the local Taliban/criminals will be removed.
The destruction of the Taliban's logistical network will be a major problem for the Taliban, they certainly don't have the means to quickly replace their losses, and this will mean mounting major attacks on the Afghan/Allies will be problamatic.
I have no respect for Obama, but his stated deadline of 2011 is definitely a pretty acurate assessment, I have no doubt that within 12 months the US/Nato/Allies?Afghan forces will have basically abolished the Taliban, although Afghanistan will take up to 4 - 5 years to be stabilised and the endemic corruption controled.
But at the end of the day the Taliban are already beaten, and they know it.
The Pakistan Armed Forces are winning their fight against the Taliban/ Insurgents in the FATA, The Taliban has lost basically all their support from the Pakistani people because of their brutal attacks that have killed innocent Pakistani civilians.
The move against the Taliban in FATA by the Pakistan army at the behest of the U.S. was deeply unpopular by a large segment of the Pakistani army [many of whom have Taliban sympathies] and by the Pakistani population who feel their government has sold itself to Uncle Sam and turned the Pakistani army into an army for hire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
As the opium fields are eradicated a major source of money for the local Taliban/criminals will be removed.
As the opium fields are eradicated, it is the locals who will face a loss of revenue and the means to feed themselves, long before the ''Taliban/criminals''.
Some of the opium fields are also controlled by warlords who are opposed to the Taliban and who are supported by the U.S. On paper these warlords swear allegeince to Karzai but in reality iut's a bit different. The good news is the warlords are not so dependent on opium as the Taliban are as the warlords get revenue from supplying materials/services to the coalition and smuggling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker,191705
But at the end of the day the Taliban are already beaten, and they know it.
I think it's a bit early days to form that conclusion.
Given the present situation, I thinks it's very ironic that when the Taliban first came to power, many countries including the U.S., saw the Taliban as a movement that could finally bring law and order to Afghanistan. As part of the lobbying efforts by a U.S. oil company who wanted to lay an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, a Taliban delegation even visited the U.S. and was met by junior State Department people.
Another country who provided cash and political support to the Taliban over the years, was Uncle Sam's ''close friend'' in the Midle East, Saudi Arabia. On the hand, Iran the ''bad boy'' of the Middle East was and remains very anti-Taliban and with India and Russia, provided support to the Northern Alliance.
umair655...... China, Russia and India do not support the Taliban.
Last edited by STURM; March 3rd, 2010 at 04:15 AM.
I'm not American and I've not been to Afghanistan. Hence I'm not going to talk with authority on this topic, unlike umair655, who is so sure he is right and who is also actively misrepresenting coalition efforts there. However, I do make an attempt to read up every now and then on the developments there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
I certainly agree that there is no need for the US to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban.
It also depends on who you define to be the Afghan Taliban.
There are Afghan tribes who have supplied fighters and there are documented instances where US forces do negotiate and assist tribal elders from these tribes to marginalize the influence of the more hardcore in these tribes. Where the US is successful in winning over tribal elders and able to strengthen the bargaining power of those Afghans who are willing to work with the US, the result is a dramatic reduction in violence and attacks against US troops. For more info, see this latest pdf article by Maj. Nathan Springer - well worth the effort to have a read.
The carrot is developmental work - the problem is credibility, time and reach to the rural areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
There is no doubt however that behind the door negotiations are going on in Saudi Arabia between the Taliban and Afghan Government /Coalition negotiators.
Do you have a source on this? I'm quite interested in any news/reports on a Saudi role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
Contrary to some people on this Forum I have NO doubt the the US/Nato? Allies are winning this war against the Taliban.
If the coalition is able to find the enemy, the local Taliban are always defeated in force on force battles. The problem is identifying and finding those that need to be killed via kinetic activities. Maj. Nathan Springer's article quoted above talks about that in more detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
We just have to look at the situation that the Taliban are in, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan they are coping a hiding.
Yes. From what I read, that is often the case. According to the LWJ, since 2004, the US has conducted covert air strikes in Pakistan. The LWJ have charted the numbers here, if you are interested. In 2008, 36 strikes were conducted by the US and in 2009, 53 US strikes were conducted, which shows the escalation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
In Pakistan the US/CIA 'drones' have cause major losses of experienced senior Taliban leaders, the Taliban are going to have major problems replacing them.
The Pakistan Armed Forces are winning their fight against the Taliban/ Insurgents in the FATA... The Taliban has lost basically all their support from the Pakistani people because of their brutal attacks that have killed innocent Pakistani civilians.
The ISI, the progenitors of the early 'Taliban' have seen the writing on the wall that states ,the Taliban are losing this war, we better get on side with the winners, they have been instrumental in providing intelligence for strikes against Taliban leaders, and have help in the capture of top Taliban leaders.
We'll need to see how things develop but it looks promising, thus far.
There are number of surveys being conducted over time - and the Taliban only enjoy single digit support from the Afghans responding to the surveys - I don't have the link handy (I'll post the link if I can find it again) but it's something like 6-8%. From what I understand, the 'Taliban' have a brutal ideology and are keen to take the Afghanistan back into the stone age. The fact that the 'Taliban' kill more Afghans than the coalition via their IEDs and their human shield tactics means that they are even more unpopular than the coalition forces or the ANA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
In Afghanistan, the 30,000+ surge has given the Allies the surge they need, they are hitting the Taliban hard, and the Taliban is not only losing the war badly, they have no means to come back in a position of military strength to beat back the Afghan/Allies forces. General McChrystals tactics to minimise civilian deaths, although it puts our troops at greater risk, is succeeding, Afghan troops are out in the front lines earning the trust of Afghan civilians, and as areas are cleared of insurgents and IED's, the troops will be replaced with the Afghan Police force and local civilian Government.
There is a plan in place and the coalition are in the execute phase of the plan. I'm not sure about 'no means' but I believe that the Taliban have more constrains than commonly spoken of. So I would not say no chance, rather, the chance of the Taliban coming back to power is very slim indeed.
My concern is that poverty and ignorance and wonderful conditions to enable the recruitment of fresh cannon fodder. Afghanistan has a young population so, there is a big potential pool of Taliban recruits and the coalition plan has not been to kill their way out of the insurgency (the way the Sri Lankan government has done with the Tamil Tigers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoker
As the opium fields are eradicated a majors source of money for the local Taliban/criminals will be removed. The destruction of the Taliban's logistical network will be a major problem for the Taliban, they certainly don't have the means to quickly replace their losses, and this will mean mounting major attacks on the Afghan/Allies will be problematic.
Attacking sources of Taliban funding will help decrease their capability and influence.
Cheers.
Last edited by OPSSG; March 8th, 2010 at 02:24 AM.
Reason: included links
Do you have a source on this? I'm quite interested in any news/reports on a Saudi role.
It was mentioned in the Ahmad Rashid interview, in the link I provided.
It would make sense as the Saudis way before 9/11 were closely linked to the Taliban and in league with the Pakistanis provided cash payouts to support Taliban efforts to defeat the Northern Alliance.. As both subscribe to wahhabism and donations from wealthy Saudis sustain the madrassahs in Pakistan, the Saudis probably still have influence with the Talibs. According to Steve Coll's book, at one point prior to 9/11, the Taliban even offered to hand OBL to the Saudis.
Last edited by STURM; March 3rd, 2010 at 04:21 AM.
It was mentioned in the Ahmad Rashid interview, in the link I provided.
It would make sense as the Saudis way before 9/11 were closely linked to the Taliban and in league with the Pakistanis provided cash payouts to support the Taliban efforts to defeat the Northern Alliance.. As both subscribe to wahhabism, the Saudis probably still have influence with the Talibs.
Sorry brain fart. Intended to ask for 'another source on the current Saudi role' on this rather than 'a source on the Saudi role', which was already kindly provided by you. It's just my natural curiosity on how the link or line of influence works and to see if there are more perspectives on the nature of that influence.
This angle on how the Saudis can contribute needs to be understood and if valuable, pursued.
Last edited by OPSSG; March 3rd, 2010 at 05:46 AM.
Sorry brain fart. Intended to ask for 'another source on the current Saudi role' on this rather than 'a source on the Saudi role', which was already kindly provided by you. It's just my natural curiosity on how the link or line of influence works and to see if there are more perspectives on the nature of that influence.
This angle on how the Saudis can contribute needs to be understood and if valuable, pursued.
No worries. I was only tying to be helpful and no way intended to contradict you Like you, I've never been to Afghanistan. The only sources I have are from books/magazines and from relatives in India who were originally from Afghanistan.
My sympthaties are for the Afghan civilians who are struggling to make ends meet and hopefully be able to live with their families in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. Most U.S./coalition soldiers who get killed at least are mentioned by name in the press but the not the Afghan farmer who gets blown up with his family as a result of a targeting error, bad intel or simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm am very annoyed however, about the role the Saudis have played in the past in stoking the flames of wahhabism and contributing to the current mess in Afghanistan.
Lets have a intelligent discussions here guys, keep your egos out of it and use logic and reason. I'll be posting more on this subject soon, bit busy with school right now. Here is a link for those who think the U.S shouldn't negotiate with them, this is why you should be informed before posting. They tried talking to them but it failed, some of the reasons were that AQ is mixed within, Taliban don't want the foreigners and the ISI wants to be included in the talks (hence: capture of Mullah Berader)
Fundamentally, Afghanistan relies quite a bit on external aid, which also happens to be given by richer countries, many who are contributing troops for the coalition. In 2007, a company from China won the bid for copper rights Afghanistan (with deposits worth US$88 billion) and their investment is contributing to the coffers of the Afghan government - and this Chinese investment alone provides 45% of state budget and will also provide many jobs. This in turn partially funds the ANA and ANP aiding the Afghan government's fight against Taliban forces. Therefore it is in China's interest to see the current Afghan government succeed, as this will protect China's investment there. This also aligns China's interest with coalition aims. IMO, I've provided a bit of evidence to show that it is wrong for umair655 to suggest that China supports the Taliban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM
My sympathies are for the Afghan civilians who are struggling to make ends meet and hopefully be able to live with their families in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan.
According to UNICEF statistics, the average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years and the adult literacy rate is on 28%. The country, if we can call it that, is ranked NUMBER 1 in for under-5 infant mortality rate. It would be fair to say that the suffering of the Afghan people is immense. The Taliban and their brutish ways are not the way forward. When the Taliban were in power, in the past, they attempted to take their people back to the stone age - killing all those who opposed them. IMO, the Taliban have in the past and are currently inflicting far more suffering and death on their own countrymen than the coalition forces.
Last edited by OPSSG; March 3rd, 2010 at 09:08 PM.
Fundamentally, Afghanistan relies quite a bit on external aid, which also happens to be given by richer countries, many who are contributing troops for the coalition. In 2007, a company from China won the bid for copper rights Afghanistan (with deposits worth US$88 billion) and their investment is contributing to the coffers of the Afghan government - and this Chinese investment alone provides 45% of state budget and will also provide many jobs. This in turn partially funds the ANA and ANP aiding the Afghan government's fight against Taliban forces. Therefore it is in China's interest to see the current Afghan government succeed, as this will protect China's investment there. This also aligns China's interest with coalition aims. IMO, I've provided a bit of evidence to show that it is wrong for umair655 to suggest that China supports the Taliban.
According to UNICEF statistics, the average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years and the adult literacy rate is on 28%. The country, if we can call it that, is ranked NUMBER 1 in for under-5 infant mortality rate. It would be fair to say that the suffering of the Afghan people is immense. The Taliban and their brutish ways are not the way forward. When the Taliban were in power, in the past, they attempted to take their people back to the stone age - killing all those who opposed them. IMO, the Taliban have in the past and are currently inflicting far more suffering and death on their own countrymen than the coalition forces.
The U.N. mission in Afghanistan said 2,412 civilians were killed in 2009 — a 14 percent increase over the 2,118 who died in 2008. Another 3,566 civilians were wounded.
Nearly 70 percent of the killings, or 1,630, were blamed on insurgents while 25 percent, or 596, were attributed to pro-government forces, the report said. The remaining 135 deaths could not be attributed to either side but were civilians caught in the crossfire or killed by unexploded ordnance.
The Taliban are very media savvy, and any US/Nato military caused Afghan civilian deaths are well exploited, however their own atrocities against Afghan civilians, and destruction of local infrastructure ( such as schools ) must engender much hatred against them.
The Taliban are basically Pushtan Afghans, they comprise of roughly 40% of the population, the President also is a Pushtan, and so were the last lot of the royal family, so basically not only are the Taliban 'on a misssion from Allah' they also believe they have a right to rule.
I imagine many of the other Afghan don't take kindly to this.
But at the end of the day the US/Nato/Afghan army can win all the fights, but, to win the War they will have to win the trust of the Afghan population.
They will have to provide security and safety, build local infrastructure and provide jobs for young afghans, and most important in rural areas good roads and water/ electricity supplies. AND eliminate/control government corruption. LOL
After that it will be a easy, peace will reign and we can all go home.
The U.N. mission in Afghanistan said 2,412 civilians were killed in 2009 — a 14 percent increase over the 2,118 who died in 2008. Another 3,566 civilians were wounded.
Nearly 70 percent of the killings, or 1,630, were blamed on insurgents while 25 percent, or 596, were attributed to pro-government forces, the report said. The remaining 135 deaths could not be attributed to either side but were civilians caught in the crossfire or killed by unexploded ordnance.
The Taliban are very media savvy, and any US/Nato military caused Afghan civilian deaths are well exploited, however their own atrocities against Afghan civilians, and destruction of local infrastructure ( such as schools ) must engender much hatred against them.
The Taliban are basically Pushtan Afghans, they comprise of roughly 40% of the population, the President also is a Pushtan, and so were the last lot of the royal family, so basically not only are the Taliban 'on a misssion from Allah' they also believe they have a right to rule.
I imagine many of the other Afghan don't take kindly to this.
But at the end of the day the US/Nato/Afghan army can win all the fights, but, to win the War they will have to win the trust of the Afghan population.
They will have to provide security and safety, build local infrastructure and provide jobs for young afghans, and most important in rural areas good roads and water/ electricity supplies. AND eliminate/control government corruption. LOL
After that it will be a easy, peace will reign and we can all go home.
I find it highly unlikely that peace will reign or "we can all go home" in Afghanistan, even if your mostly improbable scenarios come to fruition. Afghanistan is what Buzan, (within Regional Security Complex Theory) defines as an insulator. A state that is situated between different regional security complexes, but not specifically in any of them. It straddles the South Asia Regional Security Complex, the Middle East Complex, and the (former) Soviet Region, not to mention the East Asia Security Complex is nearby.
What that means is that Afghanistan sits at the nexus of Russia, (1), China, (2), India, (3), Iran (1a), Pakistan, (2b), -three Great Powers and two regional powers together with the United States, which has a vested interest in the region, (or at least forced its way into the region, thus entitling it to interests). This is why Afghanistan is important, not necessarily because terrorism has, and may in the future, spawn from there (terrorism is an asymmetrical threat that does not kill many people...historically), but because of its geography.
Thus even if the Taliban surrender tomorrow, and bin Laden comes out of his cave and surrenders and denounces jihad, and even if democracy springs up and the University of Kabul becomes the Asian equivalent of Harvard and opium farmers become landed gentry, there will probably always be a need to keep a presence in Afghanistan by at least one of these powers due to the convergence of interests there. And if there is one state with a "presence", there's bound to be others. So don't count on the US leaving anytime in the next few years or so.
