That why the US should leave 2012 The damage already been done . I dont see Karazi going like you said if he make peace with talibanOK, fellow concerned citizen.
Nothing was "taking care of". Hamid Katzai was talking to Talibani's. What is that to you? This is simply meaning that Talibani, as a "true Islam followers, students" are in huge popularity over there in Southern Afghan. It always wil be. Why? Bc they explaining to people what will happen to them if the "liberators" will begin opium trades on their land.
Would u like to get some references about level of opium consumption by locals? How and why it sky-rocket in recent years?
By jerking around with "combat" laptops and poking here and there with SOG to take of "leaders" means NOTHING, bc tomorrow there will be 3-5 other leaders in tribute to fallen ones. People will raise their children with HATE towards occupants.
Obviously, the history of Vietnam War did not teach you and a lot of armed personnel in the Coalition.
There was once some tv show about Canadian military unit that built some ambulance and other utilities in one little town. Locals were just began to comfort with their presence, first contacts has been made. And guess what happened? Canadians were all of a sudden ordered to leave. And what happened to some local people who showed fraction of loyalty to those Canadians? They were GONE in a very short time to meet their Creator.
So drop this mantra about "high precision weaponry". Simple microwave deflectors will disarm someone's "high-tech operation".
The Spirit and mindset winning the wars.
Foreign soldiers will never "win" occupational war. Yes, as long as they around some pocket Governments may survive. Remember Babrak Karmal and Soviet support?
The same crap is right now with Karzai. As soon as NATO withdrew - he is history.
:smilie
Afghanistan- why are we still at it ?
- Thread starter Commander Cody
- Start date
- Status
That why the US should leave 2012 The damage already been done . I dont see Karazi going like you said if he make peace with taliban
First of all you ask why I think that all the tribes are at each others throat?
Just look back at the Taliban and Pre Taliban era in Afghanistan. Before the Taliban came the different tribes under their war lord leaders started on campaigns to destroy each other. Do you not remember the Civil war Afghanistan was in, The Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras were engrossed in unending wars. Then the Taliban took over and started 'cleansing' the land of all things non Pashtun. Have you forgotten the Hazara massacres?
Even now Sunni extremist groups target and bomb Shia and Sufi and Ahmadiya mosques and the Shia militants bomb Sunni ones. How much more proof do you need to see that the diferrent tribes will not live together peacefully. Every day the no. of tribal fighters are increasing why? because people are getting sucked into a never ending war of revenge a war of attrition.
You ask what if the Afghans dont agree to be divided? do we force it on them?
Well the US has forced itself on the Afghan population for 10 years now totally without their consant so why start to think about their fellings now. The damage has been done, its time to find a way to stop further damage from being done so repairs can start. Each large tribe has its own niche in Afghanistan, its own region, why not turn them into seperate states.
The main group that will be protesting this will be Pashtuns, but then again the only way the Pashtuns will ever be happy would be if all other tribes were kicked out and Afghanistan was made an all Pashtun land, but that is not possible.
And lastly, I am not the supreme commander of the US armed forces or the ISAAF so it is not upto me to decide when the US will leave, I have said 2015 because thats when they plan to leave. If it was upto me then I would have sent the ISAAF packing home by 2012.
The fact that the UN peace corps wont go around conducting ant terrorist dives inside the territory of those states should show that they aren't invaders.I was referring to getting the possibility of getting the UN to approve a mandate that “would allow the peace keepers to do their jobs right.” They have not done that since the Korean War.
And how would operating under the UN flag make the ISAF forces be seen any less as invaders?
Plus those baby blue helmets stand out and make you a great target. :sniper
History contradicts that assumption.
History also shows that that ROE will also not allow the troops to perform either peacemaking or effective peacekeeping, only function as observers and clay pigeons as whatever peace system / agreement / settlement you envision self-destructs. It can only work if all sides are men of good will and want it to work. But, of course, if that were the case you would not need the UN troops and we would never have had to go there in the first place.
Similar things worked well in the Baltics and in Serbia. Granted the situation in Afghanistan is not like hose situations, some adaptions will be needed, but it won't be impossible.
Yes I do remember the 'civil war'. I make no claims at being an expert or even being very knowledgeable on Afghanistan but I have been following events there since the 80's. The Hazara massacres were conducted by the Taliban simply because they [the Hazaras] were considered 'heretics', being shiite. TheTaliban did the same when they reached Mazar Sharif and Herat, they cleansed everyone and everything they considered 'unislamic' [the Taliban version], and yes enthicity played a part but it was not the driving factor. Simply put the Taliban would have and did exterminate eyeryone and anything that was not 'Taliban' enough, including Pashtuns. To say that Afghans will start butchering each other solely due to ethnic reasons is in my opinion errorneous.
So like imperial powers before, we create artificial borders for our conveniance, to suit our interests, never mind that some parts of the population might not oblige us by being cooperative. But so what is the locals dont play along right? We can resort to offering them treats, then if that fails we resort to forced resettlement and maybe food denial....... I find it striking that when I mentioned the disasterous consequences and precedents that such a move will set off, the political factors involved and the almost impossibility of 'guarding' the borders of these new countries you choose not to respond or comment [apart from insisting that the UN can and will do the job], instead you make further attempts to try to convince me of the rationale behind dividing up the country into several new states
. Have you given any thought to how such a drastic and unworkable step would effect Afghanistan's neighbours - Turkministan, Unbekistan, Iran, etc ?Anyway, maybe we can agree to diasgree. The whole point on being here on Defence Talk is to share opinons, debate and leard, so if everyone ended up agreeing totally with one another it would be very dull and pointless.
Theres no problem with you disagreeing with me, I am not an extremist I won't threaten to blow you upYes I do remember the 'civil war'. I make no claims at being an expert or even being very knowledgeable on Afghanistan but I have been following events there since the 80's. The Hazara massacres were conducted by the Taliban simply because they [the Hazaras] were considered 'heretics', being shiite. TheTaliban did the same when they reached Mazar Sharif and Herat, they cleansed everyone and everything they considered 'unislamic' [the Taliban version], and yes enthicity played a part but it was not the driving factor. Simply put the Taliban would have and did exterminate eyeryone and anything that was not 'Taliban' enough, including Pashtuns. To say that Afghans will start butchering each other solely due to ethnic reasons is in my opinion errorneous.
So like imperial powers before, we create artificial borders for our conveniance, to suit our interests, never mind that some parts of the population might not oblige us by being cooperative. But so what is the locals dont play along right? We can resort to offering them treats, then if that fails we resort to forced resettlement and maybe food denial....... I find it striking that when I mentioned the disasterous consequences and precedents that such a move will set off, the political factors involved and the almost impossibility of 'guarding' the borders of these new countries you choose not to respond or comment, instead you make further attempts to try to convince me of the rationale behind dividing up the country into several new states
Anyway, maybe we can agree to diasgree.
. I respect your opinion.Now all I am giving is a very rough suggestion, there are numerous problems with my idea as their are with any others. If such a big decision like breaking up Afghanistan is taken, then it wont be properly addressed by some guy typing ideas on his PC. It will be discussed with local authorities and all neighboring countries and will take years of planning to properly bring up a plan.
You say that after the US leaves, the the population will not go back to grabbing each others throats, may be they will , may be they won't, I am not a prophet I can't predict the future, but recent history suggests that a similar thing can take place. A tribal war will start up in the name of religion, ethnicity, etc. but then like all wars it will become a war of power and cash, where war lords will fight to get the biggest slice of the cake. The ANA in its current state is not capable of keeping Afghanistan in check and I doubt it will be ready by 2015. The ANA are amde up of Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks. They are all humans they all have the same fore fathers who lived and fought in the tribal wars, many of them probably lost family members to these wars, who is to say that they won't join the tribal wars themselves. As far as I know the ANA hugely lacks unity, they don't really have that much respect for faith in Hamid Karzai.
One can question how to control the independant states if Afghanistan is divided, clearly a very strong govt will be needed in all of them, preferably a strong dictator who rules with an iron hand and can keep things in their states in check.
As I understand it, the Afghanis have never been easy to rule even when they have not had outside interference or ideas imposed on them. They have always violently rested a strong hand by anyone even when that hand was one of their own.Theres no problem with you disagreeing with me, I am not an extremist I won't threaten to blow you up
Now all I am giving is a very rough suggestion, there are numerous problems with my idea as their are with any others. If such a big decision like breaking up Afghanistan is taken, then it wont be properly addressed by some guy typing ideas on his PC. It will be discussed with local authorities and all neighboring countries and will take years of planning to properly bring up a plan.
You say that after the US leaves, the the population will not go back to grabbing each others throats, may be they will , may be they won't, I am not a prophet I can't predict the future, but recent history suggests that a similar thing can take place. A tribal war will start up in the name of religion, ethnicity, etc. but then like all wars it will become a war of power and cash, where war lords will fight to get the biggest slice of the cake. The ANA in its current state is not capable of keeping Afghanistan in check and I doubt it will be ready by 2015. The ANA are amde up of Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks. They are all humans they all have the same fore fathers who lived and fought in the tribal wars, many of them probably lost family members to these wars, who is to say that they won't join the tribal wars themselves. As far as I know the ANA hugely lacks unity, they don't really have that much respect for faith in Hamid Karzai.
One can question how to control the independant states if Afghanistan is divided, clearly a very strong govt will be needed in all of them, preferably a strong dictator who rules with an iron hand and can keep things in their states in check.
Afghanistan's greatest curse is it's geography. Whether it was during the Great Game, during the Cold War or at present, if it wasn't for the fact that it is placed in such a strategic and vital position, most outsiders would have preferred to avoid it totally. The independent nature of the Afghans, similiar in many ways to Chechians, Cossacks, etc, has a lot to do with their history and the harsh enviroment they live in.
When was the peacekeeping mission to the Baltics, I cannot find it? Could you mean the one to Georgia at the end of the Abkhazian War?
As for Serbia, except for the various observation missions after NATO intervention forced a peace agreement (and the threat of future intervention to keep it) the UN performance was so poor that it could be described at times as an enabler of atrocities, rather than a peacekeeper.
UN peacekeeping / observation missions only works when both sides are willing to make it peace work, and only really need someone to keep an eye out for hot-heads. Otherwise you end up with another disaster like Rwanda. The UN does not engage in peacemaking, and cannot / will not prevent attacks.
T.C.P. da Devil, there was no UN peacekeeping mission to the Baltics. the only 'peacekeeping' troops sent there were from the the Russian army, including the VDV, and from the MVD to cope with civil unrest there, when the Baltic states were still part of the Soviet Union.
I understand the point you're trying to make but describing the UN in the ex-Yugoslavia as an ''enabler of atrocities'' is pushing it too far. UNPROFOR troops were tied down by conflicting orders received by their various governments, the inability of contributing countries and those on the Security Council to have a common stand and agree on policy, as well the mandate provided by the Security Council - this also applied in Rwanda, Somalia, etc. Most if not all of us would also agree that had it not been for the UN and the UNPROFOR presence, the cost in lives would have higher. A major problem with troop contributions for UN duty is that certain countries tend not to send their best trained troops for UN duties, or due to poor funding sends them poorly equipped - in Willy Scully's 'Once A Pilgrim' he mentions being with a Nigerian army RPG instructor in Seirra Leone who couldn't perform under fire. In 'Balkan Odessy' by Lord Owen, he mentions the first batch of Bangladeshi troops arriving in Bosnia without blankets.
Conflicting orders and strict rules of engagements are also a problem as shown in 1994 in Rwanda when Belgian para-commando's witnessed 10 other Belgians being hacked to death without intervening or when Dutch troops in 1995 were unable to prevent the Bosnian Serbs from entering Sebrenica and later exterminating a large portion of the town's inhabitants. The current structure of the UN and they way it goes about things is certainly not perfect but it is all we have and success very much depends on political decisions made by the various member nations, especially the 'big powers'. The only reason all sides were able to come to a common agreement at Dayton was due to the diplomatics efforts of the U.S. To me, a success story was UNTAC in Cambodia whose job was made much esier by the willingness of all factions to come to an agreement.
Last edited:
The problems of so called UN peace enforcers are so numerous and so pervasive that they only have a chance of working, where they are not really needed. The failure of the Dutch troops in 1995 to prevent the Bosnian Serbs from entering Sebrenica and later exterminating a large portion of the town's inhabitants was for me, the point where I gave up on the concept of trusting any UN peace keeping efforts or anything like it.
I know that the Dutch were put into an almost imposable situation by the UN command, their own government, and the Serbs. At some point in human events what is called for is a totally unreasonable hard nose S.O.B. that will pull the trigger and do so for no other reason than it is the right thing to do. For those of you out there on this board and beyond who are real Soldiers or strive to become Warriors while retaining your own soul, you know that at the root of things your finest calling is no matter what else you may do, is to protect the harmless weak from the cruel and merciless strong. Only thus, that men of violence, as some of us are born to be, may earn their right to enter heaven.
I share your skepticism with UN peace keeping missions as a whole but unfortunatly there is no other body able to take the place of the UN. For certain scenarios the EU and NATO will be able to step in but both organisations will at a later date also have to bring in the UN for non-military work. To change the way the UN does things [and I believe a change is needed] will require a total revamp of the whole UN system which will be almost impossible as each of the 'permanant 5', as well as major donors such as Japan, have their own interests to look out for and differences of opinion. It will be very political as each of the 'permanant 5' have their own foreign policy's and internal politics.
Does anyone here recall an incident when UN troops - either from Fiji or the Foreign Legion - were manning a roadblock in Lebonan in 1982 and refused to let an Israeli column, consisting of APC's, MBT's and soft skinned vehicles through? It seems they threatened to open fire if the Israelis went past the roadblock. I recall reading of this incident either in Times or Newsweek. cant find anything online.
Last edited:
Yes sorry my mistake.
Sorry, pal. You're mixing nationals with religious movement.
Taleban/Taliban was released from Pakistan refugee camps to suppress Northern Aliance, which btw, was in control of majority of Afghanistan ... (link removed)
Released by whom?
Don't u know this?
But by playing the Taleban/Taliban "card" The Kagal got screwed bc of fundamentalists took the country and drop them off in the Kabal's most outspoken plans - to set the country as New "Opium Triangle" after loss in Indo-China peninsula.
So Mullah Omar declared "fatwa", Southern people got scared and somewhat loyal and by gaining popularity based on religious roots the Taleban took the country.
Leader of the Northern Alliance, Shah Massoud gained popularity in Northern part of Afghanistan, with Uzbeks, Tajiks and such. Plus again, he refused to promote opium
Maybe in Badahshan, for some religious cults - but not as agricultural sector for the country.
So such leader unfortunately was putted in "cancellation".
Then the Kagal decided to stop tribal wars, which gained no stability and created 9/11 and released legend about Al-Quaeida and training camps in Afghan.
So this is how invasion began.
Te Taleban cleansing on religious platform, not on nationality. Another case when some mixed cultures being hurt but it always happened.
If u'd like to stay with one group - be loyal and do not MIX with anyone else. Primitive? Hell yes, but perfectly fit in History of mankind.
My humble opinion - NATO and whatever freaking name of theat occupational forces name is must go in 2002.
Every country has to have their own war and live through their own tragedy. Thats how nation do self-cleaning and reorganizing.
Do u know anything about Iraqi people life under Saddam?Check that region back to 1930's. Btw, John Perkins books may help to clarify. Why Saddam was executed? For that fabricated "gazification" of Kurds? U'r kidding me, pal.
Sorry, pal. You're mixing nationals with religious movement. Pushtu's are not religion but nationals. The Taleban/Taliban is fundamentalists of the Islam, not nationals.
Taleban/Taliban was released from Pakistan refugee camps to suppress Northern Aliance, which btw, was in control of majority of Afghanistan ... (link removed)
Released by whom?
Don't u know this?
But by playing the Taleban/Taliban "card" The Kagal got screwed bc of fundamentalists took the country and drop them off in the Kabal's most outspoken plans - to set the country as New "Opium Triangle" after loss in Indo-China peninsula.
So Mullah Omar declared "fatwa", Southern people got scared and somewhat loyal and by gaining popularity based on religious roots the Taleban took the country.
Leader of the Northern Alliance, Shah Massoud gained popularity in Northern part of Afghanistan, with Uzbeks, Tajiks and such. Plus again, he refused to promote opium
Maybe in Badahshan, for some religious cults - but not as agricultural sector for the country.
So such leader unfortunately was putted in "cancellation".
Then the Kagal decided to stop tribal wars, which gained no stability and created 9/11 and released legend about Al-Quaeida and training camps in Afghan.
So this is how invasion began.
Te Taleban cleansing on religious platform, not on nationality. Another case when some mixed cultures being hurt but it always happened.
If u'd like to stay with one group - be loyal and do not MIX with anyone else. Primitive? Hell yes, but perfectly fit in History of mankind.
My humble opinion - NATO and whatever freaking name of theat occupational forces name is must go in 2002.
Every country has to have their own war and live through their own tragedy. Thats how nation do self-cleaning and reorganizing.
Do u know anything about Iraqi people life under Saddam?Check that region back to 1930's. Btw, John Perkins books may help to clarify. Why Saddam was executed? For that fabricated "gazification" of Kurds? U'r kidding me, pal.
Tito used to have an iron fist over Albanians and Muslims in Yugoslavia. When the Kagal decided to spread radicalism and deeper divide EU predominantly white nations they unleashed Muslims on Christians.
So freaking UN was watching "calmly". But NATO supported Muslims, so Srbiya had lost.They were hoping for Russians to come and support but by that time Russian Government rotten and corrupted, cancer-ed by the Kagal.
(If USSR will be in their full power, Yugoslavia will be one country.)
Their "march on Prishtina" was kinda incidental act of the last tryout to support brothers-slavs.Then generals of that VDV (airborne) operation being fired, airborne unit withdrew.
So white, Christian serbs were betrayed and cut loose for their own survival.
Now, look into major UN newspapers and track down narcotics and organized crime reports/issues. Where would u find these traces go to?To Muslims. Why? Bc the Continuous Reduction Plan.
The Kagal needs "never-ending" war, hate and instability to endorse so-called "PIECE-MAKING" resolutions.
Can you provide any published references to your claim? The Taliban was not 'unleashed' by anyone, they were already there just under different names -they had not become the Taliban yet! The ISI's main man during the Soviet occupation and in the years leading to the Taliban takeover was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of the Herzb islami. He actually spent more time conspiring and attacking the other ressistance groups than fighting Soviets. When he started losing influence and power, the Pakistani's then diverted their support to the Taliban. This was done because it has always been, for a number of reasons, Pakistan's strategy of ensuring a 'friendly' government or faction was in power in Afghanistan.
Massoud's Jamiat Islam, according to a number of published reports, also resorted to gems and opium smuggling to finance their war effort.
ALL sides bear reponsibility for the tragedy of the civil war and ALL sides conducted their share of massacres and abuses. To claim that there was a plot to 'unleashed Muslims on Christians' is not only misleading it is downright FALSE.There were many historical and social factors which led to the civil war in post-Yugoslavia. Whilst it is your perogative to take sides and to form your own opinions as to the reasons which led to the civil war or to suggest the existance of a 'plot', I would suggest you refrain from playing the religous and racial cards.
I recall reading reports of Arkan's 'Tigers' also being involved in organised crime.........
Last edited:
John Sansom
New Member
A somewhat more simplistic view of the situation shows us Iran on the 'Stan's western border. Iran has been "bad-boying" things for quite a while now, while China to the east has never been reluctant to engage in security-based expansion.
And then there's Pakistan.......
The folk in Islamabad may not like being viewed as somewhat on the "variable" side, but the truth is developing the concept of a stable future for Pakistan is getting more and more difficult with each passing day. There was a time, for instance, when western pundits could tell you just whose side the ISI could be found on. Now it seems to be an open question.
On top of all that, load up the sworn oaths of Taliban and al Qaeda leaders to assume control over Pakistan and its nuclear armamnents and some solid reasons to maintain a strong presence and influence in Afghanistan become evident.
Pity.
Firstly I am not mixing up anything with anything. Read the posts carefully.
The Taliban are mainly all radical Pashtuns, Pashtuns were their biggest supporters as they were cleansing the land of anything non Sunni which included he races that the Pashtuns despised and saw as dirt in their Afghanistan (Hazaras, Tajiks etc).
Secondly where the hell do you even get Saddam and his execution in all of this??
- Status