TIME - What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan

Mmarsh, you are very welcome to belive what you read in the papers..Since you have no other understanding of the conflict we are discussing.

Typical response of someone who realizes he has failed to deliver his weak message and so compensates by blaming the other party for not being "enlightened" enough to agree with their opinion. Hilarious you'd make such a arrogant remark after just being completely schooled speechless on very basic Afghan history. So I think Ill follow your advice and stick with the papers rather than trust your "expertise".

The point still remains that we have attempted over the past 9 years to create a stable government, ANY sort of stable government, and we have failed miserably. It was worth it to try, but the time has come to admit we failed and leave it up to the Afghans...keeping a watchful eye on what happens. Its pretty obvious that these people do not to be governed by either us or *any* government in Kabul. You could put Mohammed in person in Kabul and the Afghans wouldn't follow him. The Afghans are not Arabs, its simply not their nature to be ruled like a peasant is by a king. I absolutely guarantee you that we stay an extra 10-20 years we will be exactly where we are now except that the costs in money, material, and lives will have been even higher. Ask the Russians on this one if you don't believe me, it took them 10 years for the message to sink in.

Senojekips and I are along the same line of thought. The Taliban can be beaten in theory, but it would require steps and actions no western politician in their right mind would ever do. And because we refuse to escalate (and I am not suggesting we should) the conflict to a level necessary for us to have a shot at winning, its better to step aside. Better to lose now then lose big later.
 
Last edited:
Typical response of someone who realizes he has failed to deliver his weak message and so compensates by blaming the other party for not being "enlightened" enough to agree with their opinion. Hilarious you'd make such a arrogant remark after just being completely schooled speechless on very basic Afghan history. So I think Ill follow your advice and stick with the papers rather than trust your "expertise".

As I said, you are very welcome to.
You schooled nobody posting a colored map, even if you find shiny things very impressive..
Fact is the Taleban in effect had control of the nation before the northern alliance got the backing they needed to eject them from several large areas of the country.
We messed up that success when we shifted focus.
The alliance thought about it for five seconds and decided that if we didn´t think it was more important they could go home and relax.
What you don´t get, and what most papers don´t get is that if we don´t place something in the Talebans shoes they will about five seconds after we leave step right back into them.
In a way Iraq was a good thing while it was on as the naysayers had another place to focus on.

The point still remains that we have attempted over the past 9 years to create a stable government, ANY sort of stable government, and we have failed miserably. It was worth it to try, but the time has come to admit we failed and leave it up to the Afghans...keeping a watchful eye on what happens.

How do you envision keeping a watchful eye on the development if you decide to run?
And what would your response be if you saw something you didn´t like?
An angry letter Obama/Iran style?
That´d really make the Afgh shiver, well the ones that can read at any rate.

Its pretty obvious that these people do not to be governed by either us or *any* government in Kabul.

They were ruled by the Taleban weather you want to admit it or not.
Can we get every single village onboard, hardly.
Could we get the bulk with the banding tactic, you bet we could.

You could put Mohammed in person in Kabul and the Afghans wouldn't follow him. The Afghans are not Arabs, its simply not their nature to be ruled like a peasant is by a king. I absolutely guarantee you that we stay an extra 10-20 years we will be exactly where we are now except that the costs in money, material, and lives will have been even higher. Ask the Russians on this one if you don't believe me, it took them 10 years for the message to sink in.

I agree the Russians didn´t do it the right way.
I have been saying that all along.
Wars cost money.
That should have been thought through before we committed.

Senojekips and I are along the same line of thought. The Taliban can be beaten in theory, but it would require steps and actions no western politician in their right mind would ever do. And because we refuse to escalate (and I am not suggesting we should) the conflict to a level necessary for us to have a shot at winning, its better to step aside. Better to lose now then lose big later.

I am telling you that going brutal isn´t the way to go.
Rather the opposite actually.
We haven´t been doing this for nine years.
Our TTP,s and strategic aims have already shifted about as many times as the commanders has been changed out.
I am still waiting for a leader who has fought and won an insurgency war to come along.
You know that has been done right?
And not just once or twice.


Embedded..
 
KJ

1. Your mistaken, the shiny maps was for *YOUR* benefit not mine. You see, using shiny evidence (my case) is far more convincing than people who use no evidence whatsoever (your case). Mocking my evidence and providing none of your own is very telling.

Between the solid colored areas (under NA control) and the shaded ones (under a guerilla attack) thats roughly about 30-40% of the country. Let me spell this out: 30-40% (roughly) that the Taliban was under attack from.

Here is another one: (The Dostums were a tribe allied with Massoud)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1996afghan.png

I'd say thats about 40% That the Taliban DIDN'T control. So yes you got schooled, get over it.

Ill agree that the Taliban controlled the majority of the country including the urban areas, but they did not control the entire country just like NATO doesn't.

2. How do you keep tabs on the Taliban? The same way we are doing it now. Spies, informants, satellites, intelligence gathering services like the CIA and MI6. The taliban has plenty of enemies, if NATO leaves that doesn't mean the Afghans are going to let them back in again scott free. The easiest way to deal with the taliban from doing something bad is to arm the tribes. The reason the taliban ruled as long as it did in the 1990s was because nobody wanted to arm the opposition. That was a mistake. All we have to do is make sure the taliban's enemies are better armed, trained and supplied then they are.

The second way to deal with the Taliban is to attached Obama's angry letter to a cruise missile or a SF team and have the missile deliver the message personally. I have no problem taking out targets ourselves if opportunities present themselves. What are the taliban going to do about it? IEDs dont shoot-down aircraft or tomahawks. The fact they have to keep their heads down will hamper their movements.

3. I really don't think the Taliban are going to get as easy a ride as they did in the 1990s. Their cruelity was unknown in the 1990s, its no longer a secret.
The Afghans hate em. The taliban will attempt to crack the whip and the afghans will resist IF they are given the means to (Again our big mistake in the 1990s). Its human nature, they are so cruel its only a matter of time before someone resists them. If we arm and train the tribes in secret like we did during the soviet invasion they will fight them for us and have a far better chance of beating them than we do on the ground Then again, If the Taliban come out into the open I have no problem launching ship or an airstrike on them. I seriously doubt that even if NATO does leave the Taliban will be able to roam free again. If we are stupid enough to allow that then we deserve another 9-11.

4. Actually there is one example of a insurgency failing, The Greek Civil War. After WWII the Greek Army was able to destroy a communist insurgent army, though I will agree that the odds of this working again here are practically nil. I agree that brutality is NOT the way to go (though it could work if we were worse than the taliban). As i said the best way to deal with the Taliban is let the Afghans deal with them, BUT this time make sure make sure the Afghans are given everything they need.

The worst thing we can do..is what we are doing now which is "nation building", something that has historically never worked. If Afghanistan wants to be a single nation that is up to them. We can nudge them along from the sidelines but we cannot be seen as a occupation force building their country for them, which unfortunately is the way Obama seems to want to do it. He wont be anymore successful than Bush was, I promise you that. And I voted for him. As a "leftist" I will be totally frank and say Obama's Afghanistan policy is doomed to fail.
 
Last edited:
KJ

1. Your mistaken, the shiny maps was for *YOUR* benefit not mine. You see, using shiny evidence (my case) is far more convincing than people who use no evidence whatsoever (your case). Mocking my evidence and providing none of your own is very telling.

Between the solid colored areas (under NA control) and the shaded ones (under a guerilla attack) thats roughly about 30-40% of the country. Let me spell this out: 30-40% (roughly) that the Taliban was under attack from.

Here is another one: (The Dostums were a tribe allied with Massoud)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1996afghan.png

I'd say thats about 40% That the Taliban DIDN'T control. So yes you got schooled, get over it.

Ill agree that the Taliban controlled the majority of the controlled including the urban areas but they did not control the entire country just like NATO doesn't.

2. How do you keep tabs on the Taliban? The same way we are doing it now. Spies, informants, satellites, intelligence gathering services like the CIA and MI6. The taliban has plenty of enemies, if NATO leaves that doesn't mean the Afghans are going to let them back in again scott free. The easiest way to deal with the taliban from doing something bad is to arm the tribes. The reason the taliban ruled as long as it did in the 1990s was because nobody wanted to arm the opposition. That was a mistake. All we have to do is make sure the taliban's enemies are better armed, trained and supplied then they are.

The second way to deal with the Taliban is to attached Obama's angry letter to a cruise missile or a SF team and have the missile deliver the message personally. I have no problem taking out targets ourselves if opportunities present themselves. What are the taliban going to do about it? IEDs dont shoot-down aircraft or tomahawks. The fact they have to keep their heads down will hamper their movements.

3. I really don't think the Taliban are going to get as easy a ride as they did in the 1990s. Their cruelity was unknown in the 1990s, its no longer a secret.
The Afghans hate em. The taliban will attempt to crack the whip and the afghans will resist IF they are given the means to (Again our big mistake in the 1990s). Its human nature, they are so cruel its only a matter of time before someone resists them. If we arm and train the tribes in secret like we did during the soviet invasion they will fight them for us and have a far better chance of beating them than we do on the ground Then again, If the Taliban come out into the open I have no problem launching ship or an airstrike on them.

4. Actually there is one example of a insurgency failing, The Greek Civil War. After WWII the Greek Army was able to destroy a communist insurgent army, though I will agree that the odds of this working again here are practically nil. I agree that brutality is NOT the way to go (though it could work if we were worse than the taliban). As i said the best way to deal with the Taliban is let the Afghans deal with them, BUT this time make sure make sure the Afghans are given everything they need.

There is a reason he can't post the "evidence" you seem to require. Last time you were in Afgh could you post...........wait........what?
 
There is a reason he can't post the "evidence" you seem to require. Last time you were in Afgh could you post...........wait........what?

We are talking about something that happened in the early 1990s not the present day Afghanistan conflict. And the fact I already posted sources twice on the subject seems to run against your suggestion of being OPSEC.

And what does my lack of military service have to do with ancient 20 year old Afghan history exactly? Were you working with the Taliban back then or something? Now I am curious, Please share.

Or are you just trying to deliberately bait me? Wait a minute, You wouldn't be trying to deliberately provoke an argument with a member using personal attacks? Its not like you have never done that in the past right? Ummm...no...of course not!

Let me explain something to you. I suffer a condition called "liberal-intellectual-elitism" which unfortunately has the secondary effect of making me immune to your pathetic attempts to anger me. I am very sorry, but you'll just have to go pester someone else.

Now unless you have some other really obnoxious personal remark to make (which I will also dismiss as puerile), please hurry up and do so because I'm frankly getting really bored. Then maybe we can all get back to the topic which is on Afghanistan and not about me (which is a dull subject anyway).
 
Last edited:
Ill agree that the Taliban controlled the majority of the country including the urban areas, but they did not control the entire country just like NATO doesn't.

That was what I said dumbass.

2. How do you keep tabs on the Taliban? The same way we are doing it now. Spies, informants, satellites, intelligence gathering services like the CIA and MI6.

Informants won´t work with western powers that cut and run at first sight of trouble.
Satelites can be fooled if you know how to do it.
CIA and MI6 have been doing a smash up job thus far..

The taliban has plenty of enemies, if NATO leaves that doesn't mean the Afghans are going to let them back in again scott free. The easiest way to deal with the taliban from doing something bad is to arm the tribes. The reason the taliban ruled as long as it did in the 1990s was because nobody wanted to arm the opposition. That was a mistake. All we have to do is make sure the taliban's enemies are better armed, trained and supplied then they are.

Taleban would take control in a heartbeat if we leave now before the job is done.
What I have been claiming all along.
You think you are original with that thought, or that it´s even yours?

The second way to deal with the Taliban is to attached Obama's angry letter to a cruise missile or a SF team and have the missile deliver the message personally. I have no problem taking out targets ourselves if opportunities present themselves. What are the taliban going to do about it? IEDs dont shoot-down aircraft or tomahawks. The fact they have to keep their heads down will hamper their movements.

Targeted assassinations are illeagal if you didn´t know that..
Can´t send in SF without support.
It is easier to get the support where it needs to be if the support are already in place.
Nothing prevents us from using cruise missiles right now... Well nothing exept collateral damages and the cost.
Wich is one of your favorit subjects.
We are using SF teams, but that might have escaped your witty military mind as well.

3. I really don't think the Taliban are going to get as easy a ride as they did in the 1990s. Their cruelity was unknown in the 1990s, its no longer a secret.
The Afghans hate em. The taliban will attempt to crack the whip and the afghans will resist IF they are given the means to (Again our big mistake in the 1990s). Its human nature, they are so cruel its only a matter of time before someone resists them. If we arm and train the tribes in secret like we did during the soviet invasion they will fight them for us and have a far better chance of beating them than we do on the ground Then again, If the Taliban come out into the open I have no problem launching ship or an airstrike on them. I seriously doubt that even if NATO does leave the Taliban will be able to roam free again. If we are stupid enough to allow that then we deserve another 9-11.

Since you don´t have a clue what is going on in country as we speak, discussing this with you is like talking to a really thick wall.
Please tell me how many villages that have been trained, equipped and banded together in the northern defence alliance or shut up about stuff you have no clue about.
And you haven´t been discussing 20 year old stuff.
You have been saying we should pull out before we are ready to do so AND you have been claiming nothing have been done in nine years.
You have no clue.

4. Actually there is one example of a insurgency failing, The Greek Civil War. After WWII the Greek Army was able to destroy a communist insurgent army, though I will agree that the odds of this working again here are practically nil. I agree that brutality is NOT the way to go (though it could work if we were worse than the taliban). As i said the best way to deal with the Taliban is let the Afghans deal with them, BUT this time make sure make sure the Afghans are given everything they need.

There are SEVERAL examples of insurgency wars won, but again you have no clue.
You should read up abit on:
Malaysia.
Borneo.
Oman.
I have since it´s my job to know about military matters.
You and the papers haven´t since you are not interested.
You want to count dollars instead of lives.

The worst thing we can do..is what we are doing now which is "nation building", something that has historically never worked. If Afghanistan wants to be a single nation that is up to them. We can nudge them along from the sidelines but we cannot be seen as a occupation force building their country for them, which unfortunately is the way Obama seems to want to do it. He wont be anymore successful than Bush was, I promise you that. And I voted for him. As a "leftist" I will be totally frank and say Obama's Afghanistan policy is doomed to fail.

To quote myself:
"I am still waiting for a commander to come along that have actually fought and won an insurgency war."
The only thing in your post that sort of rings true is that the Obama administration have very little understanding of the situation in Afgh.
They have hogtied the military with their stupid arse exit date.
And they are costing the coalition allies every single day.

I am not saying the guy before were better, but I am saying that this isn´t working.
You can NOT fight an insurgency if you don´t have the stones to stay the course.
Again, feel free to read up on the incurgency wars won in the past.
They had no "exit dates", they stayed the course.

Embedded..
 
Last edited:
That was what I said dumbass.

1. No dumbass it wasnt: "Uhmm, the last group to rule Afgh was the Taleban.". Which is wrong, they controlled only part of it as I showed you. The last group to really rule Afghanistan were the Mongols.

2. Informants won´t work with western powers that cut and run at first sight of trouble.

The first sign of trouble? Where have you been? Try Nine years worth of it. And how do you know that? You got a crystal ball or something? We aren't even out yet and your already making a lot of presumptions on things that have not yet happened. And I happen to think your predictions are wrong, history has shown us that Afghans change loyalties quicker than most people bathe. The Afghan tribes are the ultimate opportunists and they will turn on the Taliban like they did in 2001. Its just a question of finding the right incentive for them.

3. Reading Comprehension = Fail.

Read what I wrote again- I said precisely the opposite. The taliban would have no GREAT difficult keeping control, UNLESS we took care to arm the tribal and other opposition groups fully which is what we DIDNT do until 2001. Our mistake was in the 1990s (under Bush Sr and Clinton). We let the Taliban take control without ever helping the opposition. Ahmed Shah Massoud repeated begged his contacts to send weapons to help him fight the taliban and we refused. That was a gigantic error and it allowed the taliban to take control without much opposition.

Imagine what would have happened if we armed the NA in 1991 when Massoud asked, as opposed to 2001 when Massoud was dead? There might have never been a 9-11, a taliban, or an al-qaeda. Yes arming the tribes will result in a very bloody civil war but the alternative (letting the Taliban back) is even worse. This is the lesser of two evils.

My opinion to the Afghan problem is the following. Withdraw all the ground-troops. BUT, When the Taliban attempt to seize total control, the US should arm and fully support those groups opposed to them and let them doing the fighting. It took the 9-11 attacks for us to finally help the Northern Alliance. We can supply recon and air support if necessary, but the ground fighting must be left to the tribes.

That is what I said. Next time: Read THEN Comment. If you don't understand then say so!

4. Remember this one yesterday: "I am still waiting for a leader who has fought and won an insurgency war to come along".

Today its: "There are SEVERAL examples of insurgency wars won",

Congrats...you just officially contradicted yourself. You tell me to read my military and you cant even remember your own posts. Priceless. you should consider a future in comedy.

5. Targeted assassinations are illegal.

Oh please, don't tell me your that naive, really, what world do you live in? If Bin Laden popped his head out of his cave how much would you be willing to bet he wouldn't have hellfire missile locked-on to his head within a micro-second? FYI, This is precisely how the terrorist al-Zawarai was killed in Iraq. Bill Clinton also did it in 1998 and he missed Bin Laden by 1 hour. Hopefully next time we will be more successful. The point is it would be criminal to miss taking out a extremely high-value target just because it violated your tender sensibilities and neither Bush nor Clinton minded using targeted assassinations.

As for SF, well I admit that is more your more your realm of expertise than mine. But the point is still the same: we can apply pressure where its needed on the Taliban without needing a huge occupation force which just gets our people killed.

6. And you haven´t been discussing 20 year old stuff.
You have been saying we should pull out before we are ready to do so AND you have been claiming nothing have been done in nine years.


Once again reading comprehension fail. You know at this rate I am going to start to try and speak Swedish because your English clearly sucks. I said we SHOULD start training and arming the tribes not that we already DID.

The question was: When did the Taliban take over Afghanistan? Answer: 1991-1996, = 14-19 years ago. Your math is even worse than your English.

And lastly: I NEVER SAID WE DID NOTHING. You are liar. If the best you can do is deliberately misquote me, it will just go to show how pathetic you are.

I specifically said "we tried our best but that it has failed". I think its pretty obvious but because your reading comprehension is so bad: it means "we did try and it didn't work".

And yes I think we should go specifically BECAUSE it costs lives and money. On top of losing a dozen guys every single month which is already bad enough, this military adventure is bankrupting us. The bill is $328 Billion which my country (not yours) will wind up paying most of it.

Maybe the reason I "only care about money" because you are very generous in spending it without thinking of the consequences. The American public is simply not going to let these ENDLESS wars bankrupt the country, that is simply not going to happen.

7. And finally, so what is your big solution for Afghanistan? You want us to stay? Fine. Then what? What do you suggest doing that we aren't already doing already? USE SPECIFICS. And keep in mind that whatever you suggest has probably been thought of and discarded as unworkable by people with far more military experience than your own.
 
Last edited:
I qouted you saying the Taleban controled the country, now you are trying to backpaddle?

"Ill agree that the Taliban controlled the majority of the country including the urban areas, but they did not control the entire country just like NATO doesn't."

Your qoute own up to it.

Where have I been?
Baghlan, Shebarnang, MeS and a few other places, you?
While you sit on your arse I live it daily.
Numbnuts, I said there have been several insurgency wars won in the past.
I am waiting for one of the commanders of THIS conflict to be one of them.
And once again you are back to dollars.
What in your mind is the pricetag on an Afgh life?
We ARE training the tribes, what is soo hard to understand?

I swear you are just baiting me, because NO ONE can be as stupid as you are and still be alive.
 
Last edited:
I qouted you saying the Taleban controled the country, now you are trying to backpaddle?

"Ill agree that the Taliban controlled the majority of the country including the urban areas, but they did not control the entire country just like NATO doesn't."

Your qoute own up to it.

Where have I been?
Baghlan, Shebarnang, MeS and a few other places, you?
While you sit on your arse I live it daily.
Numbnuts, I said there have been several insurgency wars won in the past.
I am waiting for one of the commanders of THIS conflict to be one of them.
And once again you are back to dollars.
What in your mind is the pricetag on an Afgh life?
We ARE training the tribes, what is soo hard to understand?

I swear you are just baiting me, because NO ONE can be as stupid as you are and still be alive.

1. It is my quote, thats the first thing you said right. Look, I cant make it any plainer, either you really don't understand, are deliberately trying to bait me, or you are just an idiot. Its really not hard to figure out. I said they controlled part (the majority-60% of the country) of Afghanistan not the whole country. Which I have already proven TWICE to you. Its what I had said from the very beginning, I haven't changed opinions. The only one who refuses to admit he was wrong is you. Maybe if you did alittle reading -...you know that thing you are constantly telling me not to do.

2. I didn't ask where you have been, and I really don't give a s*** either. I wonder if you are you living there now? Are are you living it daily...in Sweden. Even if you are there, you are not in contact with the people making the real decisions. Sweden had about 600 troops out of 130,000. Your a spoke on a wheel, not the driver of the train. Your name isn't Patraeus or Obama that much I do know.

3. Oh "THIS" war. The problem is thats *not* what you said earlier, and no I am not a mind-reader either. I am not responsible for your mistakes, it is up to you to write CONCISELY. Its painfully obvious now that you are one of these clay-footed gods here that can NEVER admit to making a mistake. I know your type, say anything they don't like and they go to pieces. It gets really old.

4. Of course its back to dollars. As I said its our money not yours. Tell you what, lets shift the entire $328+ Billion bill to Sweden and I promise not to say another word about money? If you aren't willing to pay the entire bill then STFU about money that isn't yours.

How much is a Afghan life? Why don't you ask the Afghans? You think you some kind of world savior? Well "Jesus" let me spell it out to you. Afghanistan is a country that has known very few moments of peace in its history. You are *not* going to change it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you want to go down that path do so alone. The American public agrees with me, not with you. They want us out. Or do you plan to fight a war without Public support? Read (yeah, I know educating yourself is hard) what happened in the USA when LBJ lost public support for the vietnam war but decided to continue anyway out of foolish pride.

5. Evading the question by arguing semantics will not when any argument. You don't need 130,000 troops for training, not even by half! The CIA did the same-thing during the Soviet invasion with far, far, less personal.

6. And Ill ask you the question again. You want us to stay? Fine. What do you suggest doing that we aren't already doing already? USE SPECIFICS. And keep in mind that whatever you suggest has probably been thought of and discarded as unworkable by people with far more military experience than your own. So I am curious to what you a single Swedish soldier, has come up with that the entire U.S DOD has not. This ought to be interesting...

To answer your question, yes I really am this stupid its because of the company I am presently with. I guess stupid people flock together don't they?
 
Last edited:
Mmarsh, I think you may need to just simplify what you're saying.
You're saying that the US should fight the Taliban but with a much smaller footprint on the ground are you not? That is, to use air power to give anti-Taliban forces the advantage and to use Special Forces etc. to train and coordinate the efforts of main ground effort which must be made up of locals.

I've been reading the other stuff but they seem to be more or less things going off on tangent anyway.
 
A disclaimer: The thread is for CIVIL conversation. You can disagree with me if you want, thats not a problem, but anyone who decides to make it personal or becomes unruly because their ego cannot respectfully disagree will be now reported immediately to the Mods. This is the only warning.

I have been asked to clerify a few points. Fair enough:

1. The war in Afghanistan as it is now is not going well. Its now up to 9 years old (thats almost as long as WWI+WWII combined) its costing us dearly in money and lives. Things are going equally as bad on the domestic front because of the war. People are weary of it, public opinion is now firmly against it, and in a already terrible economy a continuous war without end will simply bankrupt us. Basicially the war has to end and soon. Both the Democrats and the Republicans know this. The war is going to end one way or another.

2. The war in Afghanistan in its present form as a occupation force is unwinnable. Thats not to say we lost, but its essentially a stalemate. This is not a failure on the part of the troops but rather of the politics. Throughout the history of this country, the Afghans hate two things
1. An occupation from a invader,
2. A Central government in Kabul (democracy, aritstocracy, theocracy it doesnt matter), the tribes who are the real power wont stand for it.

The NATO occupation is seen as BOTH 1 and 2. The Talban are a barbaric people. If we had a fully reliable plan to eradicate them all, by all means do it. But the fact is they arent going to surrender, there is not going to be a V-A tickert tape parade day down 5th ave in NYC, Its time to forget the ridicous notions and focus on whats possible.

Many Afghanis now prefer the Taliban (until they are reminded how cruel they are to be sure) and even worse the Afghan War is become a breeding ground for every Jihadist in the entire world, from Africa to Indonisia.

3. The taliban and al-qaeda protray the war as a religious crusade. With 130,000 troops in Afghanistan made mostly of non-muslims, we are inadverantly proving them right. Many muslims are prone to superstition and suggestion, the fact the Taliban kill more Muslims that NATO does does not register with them. To most Muslims: Nato is th enemy. As long as the Taliban can tap into this anti-NATO base, they will gain support both recruits, weapons and financial support. IT IS A WAR WITHOUT END. A vicious cycle that cannot be broken (and we have tried over the past 9 years heroicly but in vain).

The time has come to try something else, we cannot continue down this path. My proposal:

4. Withdraw the occupation/frontline troops. Leave only very small numbers of troops incognito to continue arming and training the tribes who will almost certainly start to fight the Taliban as soon as the US leaves. The goal is to let the Afghans take control of their country, but not with a strongman in Kabul that will never work. And on that point, the present government in Kabul is as useless as the South Vietnamese Government was in 1968. Corrupt, stupid, as it is lazy. Its perfectly happy to let NATO fight the taliban while they reap the profits of the Herion trade which is booming. They get very rich, we get to fight the Taliban. Its a win-win scenario for them. A lose-lose for us. I fully suspect that once the US leaves, amny of them (if not most) will start to try and make deals in order to save their own skin...those not smart enough to leave the country.

5. In addition to equipment, shared intel and training. The US can provide air support to Afghan troops (like what was done in 2001) as well take out any targets of opportunity via whatever means necessary...regardless if its illegal or not. I doubt the Taliban rarely concern themselves about such things, neither should we. If Bin Laden sticks his head out of his cave...boom!

But what is important is that NATO not to be seen as fighting Muslims. Let the Afghans do the dirty work, yes it will be very bloody, lots of good people will die as we are infact encouraging a war to continue. Of course our training, weapons, and equipment is superior. The tribes we support will always be better prepared than the Taliban will be.

Our Biggest error was not in 2001 when the Afghan war started it was in the 1990s, prior to 9-11. Shiek Ahmad Shad Massoud after the fall of the Soviets reapetively asked for US help to destroy the Taliban as he saw the threat they were. We refused to get involoved. A terrible, terrible mistake. If we had helped Massoud back then what a better place the world would have been today.

The Afghans resisting the Taliban will be seen FAR more positively than the Jihad against the west version of the story the talibad are telling. The taliban have successfuly portrayed this war as Muslims vs Infidel and as long as we play their game we will lose. We start using "ringers" (sports term for illegal/ineligable players) namely the Afghan tribes to fight for us though never officially.

The tribes WILL turn against the taliban once the US leaves. Why? The tribes are paranoid and its in there nature to betray one another. Taliban will be seen as their next threat, and the Cruelity of the Taliban will make them enemies fast. Part II of the Afghan Civil War (Afghan vs taliban) starts the moment the US leaves. The other advantage is by keeping NATO out of the fight directly robs the Taliban of their propaganda war and that help they recieve from it from places like Pakistan and Iran. Both the Pakis and the Irans only helped the Taliban becuase they hate the west more, but espicially in Iran the Ayatollahs are very distrustful of the Taliban. They fear the Taliban might cross the border and try and usurp their power.

Some people will argue against deadlines. "Stay until and job is done" is a motto not a strategy. There are 58,000 names on a wall in DC who will testify to what happens when wars continue aimlessly without a goal. If Nixon hadnt finally pulled the cord on Vietnam in 1972 we might still be there today.
 
Very valid points I think.
- Reduce US footprint.
- Let the Afghans do the fighting.
- Have US/NATO troops in supplying and training locals.
- Do not make it look like a West vs Islam conflict.
 
Back
Top