Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:44 pm  

Cronus wrote:

You can buy the loyalty of the average civilian, but not a load of religious nutjobs intent on enforcing some mentalist version of Sharia and executing/torturing everyone in sight, such as females getting an education. Or anyone listening to music. Or flying kites.

I forget the exact details, but in 2001 the CIA was having trouble convincing a warlord he should side with them. After a few days it came to light the Taliban had bribed him not to cooperate with the US. The CIA simply outbid them, being careful not to offend. "We'd be grateful if you would take this of this wad of cash into your safekeeping for us." That sort of thing happened several times.

Experience should have taught everyone involved that the only thing the warlords are interested in is the dosh.

After the three previous campaigns we fought and the experience of the Soviets in their foray into the country, I frankly astounded that the NATO allies thought there might be some other way of exercising influence

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:47 pm  

rover49 wrote:

I have thought this a good idea for ages, buy it all off them, burn it, they get a good income and we control the stuff.

Why burn it when you can give it away to registered addicts?

There's not a criminal organisation on the planet that can compete with "free" and our record on "the war on drugs" is far worse than the "war on terror"

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:07 pm  

Cronus wrote:

We're not. Rest easy.

Fair enough. Here's to ten more years. Cheers.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:49 pm  

Cronus wrote:

You can buy the loyalty of the average civilian, but not a load of religious nutjobs intent on enforcing some mentalist version of Sharia and executing/torturing everyone in sight, such as females getting an education. Or anyone listening to music. Or flying kites.

I forget the exact details, but in 2001 the CIA was having trouble convincing a warlord he should side with them. After a few days it came to light the Taliban had bribed him not to cooperate with the US. The CIA simply outbid them, being careful not to offend. "We'd be grateful if you would take this of this wad of cash into your safekeeping for us." That sort of thing happened several times.

Cool.

Err, what are we achieving, exactly.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:32 pm  

Cronus wrote:

I think you're forgetting a rather major player in Afghanistan? The Taliban?

I think I've already mentioned the people of Afghanistan.

AQ as a ground fighting force have been insignificant for years despite their roots, and is been little more than a loosely linked network of 'cells' and other groups in various countries linked by a common ideology. Until 2001 Afghanistan their ground capability was stronger with the country acting as the central hub for training and recruitment bases, a financing operation, the figureheads in residence and the support of the Taliban and the ISI.

The fight at the moment is to prevent a Taliban resurgence and keep them out of power.

No. The President of the United States is ONLY authorised by Congress to intervene in Afghanistan for the purposes of bringing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those that harbour them to justice. Keeping the Taliban out of power is NOT part of his remit.

Even if Obama had such authorisation there is little to no supporting evidence to back up this claim. In a classified report which was leaked to the New York Times, Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis (a 17 year army veteran with 4 tours under his belt), who was assigned by the Pentagon to evaluate operational effectiveness throughout the country, states US forces are currently no further on than the Russians were six months prior to pulling out.

Almost all US forces are effectively immobile within their bases - too afraid of roadside IEDs to leave - and most of the country is now beyond their influence. Worse still, attempts to train local police forces who are supposed to take over when (if) the US leave have failed. Davis states that so far the US has poured over $11.6 billion into training and most of it has been wasted. There are pervasive drug problems. Morale is at an all-time low and Taliban infiltration is total.

Whatever the US is doing in Afghanistan it is NOT preventing the Taliban from assuming control. They ALREADY control the country.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:40 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

I think I've already mentioned the people of Afghanistan.

You're saying the Taliban are the people of Afghanistan? No. They are a group mostly made up of men froma couple of ethnic groups, and being bolstered by recruits from Pakistan. They never had control of many provinces in the north of the country and have never found real support there. In 2001 the two factions making up the Northern Alliance controlled or partially controlled up to 13 provinces and around 30% of the population.

The people of Afghanistan are not attacking NATO forces. A militant religious and political group is.

Mugwump wrote:

No. The President of the United States is ONLY authorised by Congress to intervene in Afghanistan for the purposes of bringing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those that harbour them to justice. Keeping the Taliban out of power is NOT part of his remit.

...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

He can use all necessary force to against those responsible and those that harbour them to prevent future acts of terrorism against the US. The Taliban harboured Al Qaeda, and could do again. Al Qaeda members (Mullah Omar included) are still in the area - either in the border regions or in Pakistan - and are simply waiting for an opening to return.

Regardless. What the authorisation says or doesn't say is irrelevant in the face of what is actually happening on the ground. Degrees of success can be argued but the fact of the matter is NATO and the Taliban are the groups engaged in firefights on a daily basis, and NATO operations have been aimed at the Taliban for a long time now.

Mugwump wrote:

Even if Obama had such authorisation there is little to no supporting evidence to back up this claim. In a classified report which was leaked to the New York Times, Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis (a 17 year army veteran with 4 tours under his belt), who was assigned by the Pentagon to evaluate operational effectiveness throughout the country, states US forces are currently no further on than the Russians were six months prior to pulling out.

Almost all US forces are effectively immobile within their bases - too afraid of roadside IEDs to leave - and most of the country is now beyond their influence. Worse still, attempts to train local police forces who are supposed to take over when (if) the US leave have failed. Davis states that so far the US has poured over $11.6 billion into training and most of it has been wasted. There are pervasive drug problems. Morale is at an all-time low and Taliban infiltration is total.

I don't believe I argued NATO were being particularly successful. We all know IEDs are crippling NATO movements and Taliban influence and threat of retribution outweighs any promises NATO can deliver where the average Afghan civilian is concerned.

As I mentioned earlier, I have no confidence in local security forces to maintain law and order in the face of a NATO withdrawal. Things will go back to the usual mixing pot. But then that's been Afghanistan for much of its history. A history of war, civil war, inter-tribe, sub-tribe and ethnic divisions. And seemingly short memories. Many Afghans initially welcomed the Taliban for the stability they brought though that soon changed following the ruthless enforcement of their prohibitions and massacres such at Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998. Let's not forget the Taliban rule only through their willingness to be astoundingly violent and through a culture of fear.

Mugwump wrote:

Whatever the US is doing in Afghanistan it is NOT preventing the Taliban from assuming control. They ALREADY control the country.

Debatable. They don't control the cities, they don't control the north (and never have). What they do have is considerable influence in their home provinces.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:43 am  

The reaction of the Taliban far out ways the action of the mentally unstable usa solider.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:22 am  

The Russians must be absolutely laughing their cocks off at the incredible folly of yet more Westren muppet leaders actually being so deluded, and so ignorant of or oblivious to history, as to convince themselves they could ever achieve a single thing in Afghanistan.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:28 pm  

Cronus wrote:

You're saying the Taliban are the people of Afghanistan? No. They are a group mostly made up of men froma couple of ethnic groups, and being bolstered by recruits from Pakistan. They never had control of many provinces in the north of the country and have never found real support there. In 2001 the two factions making up the Northern Alliance controlled or partially controlled up to 13 provinces and around 30% of the population.

The majority of the Taliban is made up of people indigenous to Afghanistan. Many fled from the Soviet invasion and ended up in the huge number of squalid refugee camps on the Pakistan border where starved and brutalised they fell into the arms of various ideological entities who have used them as tools ever since.

Some are Taliban by virtue, others by design. Most have no wider political aspirations than self-determination. Let me quote Jason Burke, arguably the most informed Western journalist on the subject of Afghanistan:

” [The Taliban are] a local movement with limited knowledge of the outside world, Islamic or otherwise, and profoundly parochial ambitions”

So, yes. Whilst they do not represent the entire population they are still – for the most part – the people of Afghanistan. How else do you describe people born and/or raised in Afghanistan? Ideological outlook doesn't obliterate one's nationality. No one suggests British born Catholics are Catholics and not British.

The people of Afghanistan are not attacking NATO forces. A militant religious and political group is.

Give over. You make it sound like it is some kind of monolithic Foreign Legion theocracy run on a top-down basis like a corporation. Let’s look at the facts – not state-invented propaganda. The Taliban is an amorphous and disparate group of ethnic identities, vacillating loyalties and political ambitions which often results in ironic and bizarre outcomes. This makes it possible to strike a deal with one group whilst warring with another. Both General McChrystol and Petreaus have admitted such on numerous occasions in the past.

There's a very good argument to say the term "Taliban" is a hopelessly indefinite conceptual creation and arguments that state there is a pressing need to take the battle to such are at best meaningless and at worst disingenuous.

He can use all necessary force to against those responsible and those that harbour them to prevent future acts of terrorism against the US. The Taliban harboured Al Qaeda, and could do again. Al Qaeda members (Mullah Omar included) are still in the area - either in the border regions or in Pakistan - and are simply waiting for an opening to return.

Again, this is nonsensical. Whilst it is true to say the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda when the fled Somalia they were hardly busom buddies. Once more I'll quote Jason Burke:

“ After the arrival of Bin Laden in Afghanistan the Taliban became extremely uneasy. Despite being grateful for the assistance Bin Laden lent during the Soviet occupation they felt – particularly in the wake of the bombing of the USS Cole, he was bringing too much heat down on them from the international community (preventing them being recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan within the UN). Mullah Omar had little time for OBL's internationalist Jihad movement and instructed him to stay out of Afghanistan's affairs.

The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden dissolved to the point where they agreed to hand him, Ayman-al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atef and the rest of Al-Qaeda over to America via Saudi Arabia (verified).

The deal fell apart when Clinton decided to distract attention away from his extra-marital affairs by launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan & Pakistan. Following these strikes the Taliban walked away from the table. They refused to hand AQ over because they would have lost face with their Pakistani paymasters."

The 9/11 bombers are dead. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the bombings is in custody. Al Qaeda has been decimated in Afghanistan and the Taliban are more interested in self-determination than any expansive terrorist policy. There is simply no justification for the trillion dollar expenditure wrapped around the US (and UK) taxpayer’s necks.

Regardless. What the authorisation says or doesn't say is irrelevant in the face of what is actually happening on the ground.

Actually, legal justification for imperial international adventures is incredibly relevant. People have been sent to the gallows for lacking such.

Degrees of success can be argued but the fact of the matter is NATO and the Taliban are the groups engaged in firefights on a daily basis, and NATO operations have been aimed at the Taliban for a long time now.”[/i]

Given the sobering casualty rates quoted by various independent organisations for Afghanistan I’d say the US and its NATO allies are primarily in the business of killing civilians. I mean, on the one hand we are asked to believe modern “smart” munitions have never been so accurate. Yet the civilian casualty rates are astronomical.

I don't believe I argued NATO were being particularly successful. We all know IEDs are crippling NATO movements and Taliban influence and threat of retribution outweighs any promises NATO can deliver where the average Afghan civilian is concerned.

According to Daniel Davis (whose report you should read) we are in the same boat as the Russians. But this was ALWAYS going to be the outcome. I mean, we had plenty of accurate data from the eighties on the success rate (or lack thereof) of a modern, hi-tech military juggernaught. The war was unwinnable from the start. The surprising thing is people actually believe those in power who initiated this plan thought it was in the first place.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:07 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

The majority of the Taliban is made up of people indigenous to Afghanistan. Many fled from the Soviet invasion and ended up in the huge number of squalid refugee camps on the Pakistan border where starved and brutalised they fell into the arms of various ideological entities who have used them as tools ever since.

Some are Taliban by virtue, others by design. Most have no wider political aspirations than self-determination. Let me quote Jason Burke, arguably the most informed Western journalist on the subject of Afghanistan:

” [The Taliban are] a local movement with limited knowledge of the outside world, Islamic or otherwise, and profoundly parochial ambitions”

So, yes. Whilst they do not represent the entire population they are still – for the most part – the people of Afghanistan. How else do you describe people born and/or raised in Afghanistan? Ideological outlook doesn't obliterate one's nationality. No one suggests British born Catholics are Catholics and not British.

Cronus phrased his point badly. It seemed the question was really whether the people of Afghanistan represented The Taliban, rather than The Taliban represented the people of Afghanistan. Two quite different things. I'm sure you realised that though.