well said...first take care of pakistan then all problems will be solved...the talibs, Lashkar a taeba (Let),Jais e Mohammad all are creation of pakis and are ably supported by large influential section in pakistan i.e ISI.It was the Pak govt that supported taliban in overthrowing the then Afghan govt in 1996, it is Pak where you found OBL,it is where haqqani network operates.It is where L-e-t,jais like groups operate and kill innocents in Kashmir.
How would you handle this Green Blue issue?
well said...first take care of pakistan then all problems will be solved...the talibs, Lashkar a taeba (Let),Jais e Mohammad all are creation of pakis and are ably supported by large influential section in pakistan i.e ISI.It was the Pak govt that supported taliban in overthrowing the then Afghan govt in 1996, it is Pak where you found OBL,it is where haqqani network operates.It is where L-e-t,jais like groups operate and kill innocents in Kashmir.
senojekips
Active member
Is India going to do it?
For a start, read the Bin Laden files or here.
remeber my post about the power of a nuclear weapon without firing one? That's why they (India, US, Nato) don't act on Pakistan.
Remember, those guys go even nuts from a cartoon or movie they don't like.
Any one knows the difference between Taliban and Al-qida? , i bet 99% don't know.
India can't do it .
India can't do it .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
It rather happened in the West a long time ago. These clans, tribes, and extended families are related to each other by blood or by marriage. In the US and Canada, religious groups can settle together. These clans and tribes are more like the aboriginal tribes in the US and Canada. I don't know if there are different tribes and clans in the aboriginal societies in Australia and New Zealand.
senojekips
Active member
I say again, Bin laden was NOT the leader of the Taliban, and has never been recognised as such by anyone, below is a list of the acknowledged past and present Taliban leaders both dead and alive. Bin Ladin is not mentioned.
You should try to teach your Grandmother to suck eggs, I wasn't asking you,.... I wanted Zhaldev to elaborate.
Last edited:
Read the files! I never said that Bin laden was the head of the Taliban. What I did was disprove your picture that the Taliban was a collection of loosely knit 'tribals' with a common goal. They were not!
senojekips
Active member
You really can't see the forest for the trees can you?
In a country where family and tribal affiliations control absolutely every aspect of life, from day to day interpersonal relationships right through to the sitting Government, you expect us to believe that the Taliban fighters, who are for the most part illiterate and superstitious tribals from the poorest and most backward rural areas are a tightly knit and highly integrated organisation? They have fought among themselves for centuries, only coming together where there is a greater common interest, and the instant that problem is dealt with, they will move to the next problem and form new alliances as are necessary to deal with it, eventually they will revert to inter family and inter tribal feuding again.
Motivation, not integration is their binding force.
Last edited:
When are you going to do some research yourself instead of looking for confirmations of your own mind?
Read this.
But I'll quote some : "The Taliban, in contrast, were extremely well organized, well-financed and exhibited strong discipline.·"
And everything you told above is subordinate to Taliban rule. They have done that before , you know.
Peter Dow
Active member
Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. My solution
Split up the Afghan green force into two distinct forces -
The Afghan National Army, the "green" force is rotten, if not to its core then to much of the periphery. Some of the green is more like gangrene (gan-green, get it! :wink: )
The problem I see is in the disconnect between the political control (Karzai) and the funding (mostly from the USA but anyway internationally funded).
Karzai as the "duly" (ahem) elected president of Afghanistan is perfectly entitled to run an Afghan national army but Afghans should pay for that themselves.
Afghanistan is a poor nation and could not afford that much of an army but if they paid for it themselves, at least the Afghan national army would likely be honest, accountable to Afghans and take on limited tasks - secure the presidential palace, military headquarters and might be up to defending the capital Kabul and surrounding land, maybe.
Now the issue is this - to secure all of Afghanistan, even to secure our supply routes, we need lots of troops and it makes sense to have some kind of Afghan force to help us - but we need a bigger and better green force than the Afghans can afford to pay for. (Also why would a national Afghan force want to prioritise defending our supply routes? They wouldn't want to.)
So the West, NATO needs to pay for some green Afghan forces - that's a good idea, if, if, if, if and only if, those green forces we are paying for are auxiliary to NATO-ISAF - run by NATO-ISAF - under the control of a NATO general, maybe an American general if you could find a good one to do it.
That way we would only recruit capable Afghans into the green force we pay for and interact with daily. We'd be sure our green troops were loyal - wouldn't shoot our blue troops.
No way would we have any incentive to spend our own money on disloyal incapable Afghans in green uniform so we would not do it, if we had political and military control over our green forces, which we would have if they were called "The NATO-ISAF Afghan auxiliary force" - with no pretence of them being an Afghan national force under Karzai.
However, some idiot has come up with the idea of paying Afghans to have an army funded by us but controlled by Karzai so there is no accountability. The people in charge, deciding who to recruit, can recruit bad soldiers because they get paid more by the US for soldiers, whether they be bad soldiers or not.
Why wouldn't Karzai and this guy
Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karim, Commander of the Afghan National Army
recruit junkies, thieves, murderers and agents for the Taliban into the Afghan National Army?
Why wouldn't they recruit anybody they can find into the Afghan national army if, for every soldier they can name, they get paid more US dollars?
Where's the incentive for Karzai and Karim to recruit only good soldiers? There isn't any incentive at all.
Again the US ends up funding corruption.
If a green soldier kills a blue then who gets held responsible in the chain of command?
Nobody gets held responsible.
Who should get held responsible? The US and NATO should. We should blame ourselves for paying anything for an army which we do not have any political control over.
What on earth does Panetta (and what did Gates before him) think he is (was) doing trusting this guy Karzai and his general Karim with billions of US tax-payer dollars to pay for a green army?
Why are NATO defence ministers happy with the poor leadership from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis? Shouldn't the NATO leaders have spotted this fatal flaw in green troop organisation and tried to re-organise green forces as I suggest here, if they know what they are doing (which they don't)?
The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces -
So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally.
Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans.
So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission.
Split up the Afghan green force into two distinct forces -
- a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. (“dark green”)
- a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans and others, funded by the US and other NATO countries and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. (“light green”)
The Afghan National Army, the "green" force is rotten, if not to its core then to much of the periphery. Some of the green is more like gangrene (gan-green, get it! :wink: )
The problem I see is in the disconnect between the political control (Karzai) and the funding (mostly from the USA but anyway internationally funded).
Karzai as the "duly" (ahem) elected president of Afghanistan is perfectly entitled to run an Afghan national army but Afghans should pay for that themselves.
Afghanistan is a poor nation and could not afford that much of an army but if they paid for it themselves, at least the Afghan national army would likely be honest, accountable to Afghans and take on limited tasks - secure the presidential palace, military headquarters and might be up to defending the capital Kabul and surrounding land, maybe.
Now the issue is this - to secure all of Afghanistan, even to secure our supply routes, we need lots of troops and it makes sense to have some kind of Afghan force to help us - but we need a bigger and better green force than the Afghans can afford to pay for. (Also why would a national Afghan force want to prioritise defending our supply routes? They wouldn't want to.)
So the West, NATO needs to pay for some green Afghan forces - that's a good idea, if, if, if, if and only if, those green forces we are paying for are auxiliary to NATO-ISAF - run by NATO-ISAF - under the control of a NATO general, maybe an American general if you could find a good one to do it.
That way we would only recruit capable Afghans into the green force we pay for and interact with daily. We'd be sure our green troops were loyal - wouldn't shoot our blue troops.
No way would we have any incentive to spend our own money on disloyal incapable Afghans in green uniform so we would not do it, if we had political and military control over our green forces, which we would have if they were called "The NATO-ISAF Afghan auxiliary force" - with no pretence of them being an Afghan national force under Karzai.
However, some idiot has come up with the idea of paying Afghans to have an army funded by us but controlled by Karzai so there is no accountability. The people in charge, deciding who to recruit, can recruit bad soldiers because they get paid more by the US for soldiers, whether they be bad soldiers or not.
Why wouldn't Karzai and this guy
Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karim, Commander of the Afghan National Army
recruit junkies, thieves, murderers and agents for the Taliban into the Afghan National Army?
Why wouldn't they recruit anybody they can find into the Afghan national army if, for every soldier they can name, they get paid more US dollars?
Where's the incentive for Karzai and Karim to recruit only good soldiers? There isn't any incentive at all.
Again the US ends up funding corruption.
If a green soldier kills a blue then who gets held responsible in the chain of command?
Nobody gets held responsible.
Who should get held responsible? The US and NATO should. We should blame ourselves for paying anything for an army which we do not have any political control over.
What on earth does Panetta (and what did Gates before him) think he is (was) doing trusting this guy Karzai and his general Karim with billions of US tax-payer dollars to pay for a green army?
Why are NATO defence ministers happy with the poor leadership from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis? Shouldn't the NATO leaders have spotted this fatal flaw in green troop organisation and tried to re-organise green forces as I suggest here, if they know what they are doing (which they don't)?
The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces -
- a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. (dark green)
- a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans, funded by the US and other NATO counties and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. (light green)
So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally.
Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans.
So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission.
Hi sorry for late reply...internet broke down,still to patch up...yes India is going to do it sooner or later but without instigating any direct conflict or probably by supporting separatist in Baluchistan or northwest front region.However direct conflict is out of question as for obvious reasons.
senojekips
Active member
I can't disagree with that:smile:
