Victory over Taliban impossible?

"There is no middle ground with these groups as they have shown. It's their way or no way."

Well that line of thought is similar to the American government's mentality. Remember that statement Bush once said? "If you are not with us, your against us." Isn't that statement extremism in its own right? To me it leaves no middle ground, either you are an ally or an enemy no neutrality. Every society has its extremists, the current American regime lead by Dick Cheney is also an extremist in its own way. They push for the torture of prisoners, the indefinite detention of prisoners without them being charged or know what they are being held with, the invasion of sovereign countries and the stealing of their resources etc.
 
Spin it any way you like. The fact is you can't refute that extermist's of any stripe (like I said before ) are not prone to making deals when it comes to their agendas.

Since AQ and the Taliban were being discussed (before your spin attempt) they and other members of radical Islam have been very clear in their concepts and their agendas. Pretty much " Convert or Die." & "When Islam rules the world........................"
 
Last edited:
With us or against us was a speech that wasn't really enforced. As it should not be. However, "obey or die" is simply life as usual in areas controlled by these groups.
In America you can be against the war or any war and you will still wake up the next morning and your family will be safe. In areas controlled by the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other groups of that nature, if found, you will certainly die. Your family may also be in danger.
In the US you can believe in what you want or not believe in anything... as long as you're not planning on taking out the President or committing mass murder, generally you'll be okay. You can't say the same about these folks.
A lot of people who are anti-violence or are anti-whatever fail to realize that it is in fact the government and the laws which actually protect their existence. Try that sh*t with Al Qaeda. Amish? Hippie Atheist? Well, you're going to have lots of fun trying to exist where fundamentalist Islam thrives.
 
Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me. AQ, the Taliban, etc. are extremist not just fundamentalist.

To them you are an infidel. To them you have two courses of action.

1. Convert to Islam and abide by their interpretation of Islam and Sharia law.

2. Don't convert and they will kill you.

There is no middle ground with these groups as they have shown. It's their way or no way.
excuse me 03USMC, but you are actually mistaking. I remember an official visit in the US by a Taliban leader/diplomat before 9/11...
Of course, I agree with you, there will be no religious freedom in Afghanistan. I cant imagine a multireligious country there with Jews, Christians and Talibans eating at the same table and shaking hands afterward... of course not.
but if you think that they attacked the US to convert people, I think that you are making a mistake.
they are not clever, but I'm sure they are not that dumb...

Let's discuss a new version of Islam that you (an Infidel) want to introduce to them. Once again you are an infidel for you to suggest that put's you number one on some extermist's "guys to behead when Islam rules the world" list.
Yeah sure, I wont be able to offer them a beer to talk some sense into them...
but what about other Muslims? We have plenty of friendly Muslim countries...

and the_13th_redneck, I understand what you say... but I just see that the military "solution" gives poor results.
for me, the military are here to defend us.

and they have done a good job in this domain. If I told you tomorrow that 10.000 Talibans jumped on a boat and are heading toward usto destroy our country, you will be laughing for 2hours...
they cant do anything against us. they are very dangerous in their country... but they cant do anything against a modern country... and not just European countries... they wont be able to invade Kuweit... or Sudan with its rusty army...

why send the elite of the elite of the elite of the elite fighting forces against tribesmen who cant do anything against us?

we can fight them with diplomacy, with religion, with education and with economic growth.

just think for one second: why the Taliban is so dangerous? because he have nothing to lose.
give him tons of peanut butter... make him fat. send some perfume to his wife... give him a school so he can put aside his AK for two minutes to read a book...

and then you got a fatso who prefers to stay in bed with his wife reading poety rather than a skinny poorly educated maniac who needs an AK in his hand to brush his teeth or he will loose balance.
 
9/11 showed that they can do something against us. Perhaps not the tribesmen themselves, but they can shield and hide those who are capable of doing bad things to us.
However, I think the better approach would have been to inflict maximum damage at the shortest possible time and then leave with pretty obvious collateral damage such as salting their growing fields etc. That way they'll get the message and friendly casualties will be kept to a minimum.
Then the next time an Al Qaeda type shows up to try to use their territory as a staging area against any of our friendly countries, the tribesmen will know that the survival of their tribe will depend on them fighting off Al Qaeda (or a similar organization).
Screw free elections and democracy. Geez, they can't even be held together by a dictatorship.
Actually the Taliban and such do have something to lose. We just pour in a lot of money and resources and risk to make sure he never loses those he cares about.
Let me put it in this way.
IF (Hosting Al Qaeda or other terrorists) = (endless carpet bombing, salting of growing fields, destruction and mayhem of biblical proportions) THEN (Potential hosts won't be so accomodating towards Al Qaeda and the like)
 
Let me put it in this way.
IF (Hosting Al Qaeda or other terrorists) = (endless carpet bombing, salting of growing fields, destruction and mayhem of biblical proportions) THEN (Potential hosts won't be so accomodating towards Al Qaeda and the like)

In 146 BC Rome and Carthage fought the third Punic war, Rome won and decided to make an example of Carthage by burning the place to the ground and sowing the fields with salt so that the world would see the might of Rome and think twice about attacking it.

Where is the Roman Empire today?
Did it prevent or even deter uprisings?

I am sorry but your plan works about as well as Pacifism does, instead of being walked over for refusing to fight you will get picked off piece by piece as you try and enforce your will on others and eventually you will fall.
I strongly suggest looking at Rome as a prime example of a civilised nation trying to enforce its influence and will on the known world through military aggression, it may work for a while but in the end it collapses horribly.
 
MontyB, by definition, men dont learn from their own mistakes. smart men learn from their mistakes. wonderful men learn from the mistakes made by other men.

I think that your post is a violation of human rights... we have the right to make the same mistakes again and again...
 
MontyB, Rome changed after that... actually much later than that incident. During those times you talk about Rome was a great power and didn't seem like it was going to end any time soon. The correlation is actually misleading.
If we look back at history, we always think of a period of a hundred or two hundred years as being insignificant but you have to realize that is actually a long period of time. The heavy handed stuff worked until Rome started getting soft, started to think poorly of the military as a profession, relying on mercenaries (in fact barbarians who were being paid by Rome) etc.
The fall of Rome has very little to do with what they did with Carthage and much more to do with the decadence of their society and the quality and the level of violence their enemies brought against them.
And as I said, you don't need to enforce your will onto others. The message is clear: make sure no one launches an attack against us from your soil or you will be sorry.
Perhaps later on it was Rome's unwillingness to do these things that may have helped with its downfall. No one feared them anymore.
 
You are right Carthage was only one step on the way to Romes greatness, there was Britain, Gaul, Germania, Datia and Judea all of which were "assimilated into the Roman Empire and all of which revolted on multiple occasions even after having their cities and crops raised and people sold into slavery by the Romans and their allies to teach them a lesson.

The really nifty thing is that when it all finally went south for Rome (As it ALWAYS does) how many of their allies stood beside them, how many of those tribes and peoples that were so thoughtfully dispossessed still feared Rome enough to not get involved hell not even the provinces of Italy stood beside them in the end.

The moral of the story is very much along the lines of what Publilius Syrus once said... Ab alio expectes alteri quod feceris... or "Expect to receive such treatment as you have given."
 
Last edited:
Not always true.
Ever been in a leadership position? Being nice to people is the surefire way of getting your butt canned by people you outrank. It happens every single time. Reward those who are good, punish those who have other ideas and the punishment must be severe. the worst thing you can do is dish out half assed punishment which they will simply laugh about.
Obviously there's much more to it, but in terms of a simple reward-punishment view this sums it up in a nutshell.
Cooperating with you must be rewarding.
For those who aren't very useful, other means are alright.
For those who actively seek to destroy you, you better make them wish they were never born. And then let the world know about it.
No matter how you look at it, countries like the United States do hold a leadership position in the world. Just look at the financial crisis even. And the election. You said it yourself, the election in the US matters to everyone. That's because they are in the position of leadership.
 
the_13th_redneck, where is the respect in all the things you say?

you cant treat people like you would treat dogs... even dogs dont deserve this kind of treatment.

killing everyone is not a solution. Destroying lands is a crime too... come on! there must be an intelligent solution to all this mess...

We want democracy, we want equality, justice and all these values...
Leadership doesnt mean absolute power.
 
You theory is over simplified to the point of being dangerous.

But rather than continue this line I will simply ask you where the idea that you can just start brutalising your opposition until they give up and love you has ever worked.
I have given you the Roman Empire as an example of how it failed, now I will give you Hitlers Reich as another example of its failure, they took hostages, executed entire towns for disobedience and the more they clamped down on people the more they rose up against them, take a look at Russia, Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Holland all saw their resistance movement grow as the Germans became more brutal.
 
We want democracy, we want equality, justice and all these values...

Let's keep it in our territory only.
It's funny how this conversation has gone the way it has.
Actually according to the doctrine I talked about, our guys wouldn't be bogged down in Afghanistan or Iraq. They would have been back years ago. None of these are a sustained effort. If they do something bad to you, you go there, make your message clear and come back.
For those who are reasonable, there are other channels. For example, using force against France is a stupid idea because although there have been some severe disagreements, the French are not going to actively seek to destroy any of our countries. Or for that matter, Japan at this current state.
There are people you can talk with and there are simply those who refuse to talk.
In fact, it is this pursuit of some kind of kindness that has America bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. If it's control, the installation of a dictatorship would have done just fine. The whole point of making them a democracy is an attempt to make life better for the people over there. And ultimately it's the part that isn't working.
What I'm saying isn't a blind violence for all problems approach. It's a maximum violence when it needs to be applied approach. Obviously, no nukes, no NBC stuff. But within conventional means, maximum violence.
Truth is, when it comes to most situations going this far isn't even necessary. In the vast majority of cases, dialogue and bargaining are enough. As is preferred.

As for the Nazis and Holland, that is simply stupidity. Hollland at least in terms of percentage had the most volunteers for SS units than any other German occupied country during the second world war. The Germans really should have considered that first and in fact, this falls under another category: do not treat those who are doing rather well with you badly.

Reward properly, punish properly.

As for brutality, the Chinese and the Japanese have been anything but nice. But they're still very much around. As for not being the sort of power they once were, that happens to everyone.
Trying to kill one of our own is a bad thing. Any attempt should be met with severe consequences. And I don't mean reduced time with the playstation to thirty minutes a day and one hour on saturday and no time on sunday.

For the record: killing is bad. usually.
 
Last edited:
As for the Nazis and Holland, that is simply stupidity. Hollland at least in terms of percentage had the most volunteers for SS units than any other German occupied country during the second world war. The Germans really should have considered that first and in fact, this falls under another category: do not treat those who are doing rather well with you badly.

Indeed it did but it also had a strong resistance and did the most in terms of hiding Jews etc.

It is funny but Holland is an ideal example of where your argument falls over as they initially were ambivalent toward the German invasion but as the Germans implemented harsher and harsher laws and conditions deteriorated the Dutch resistance grew and became more organised.

If the Germans discovered people were involved in the resistance, they were often immediately sentenced to death, they rationed food, and withheld food stamps as a punishment, forced adult males between 18 and 45 to work in German factories or on public works projects and yet the resistance grew.

If your argument held water surely the opposite would have happened.

What history shows us and continues to show us is that occupying forces are rarely liked and the more brutal they are the less they are liked and in most cases spur the growth in resistance movements.

As for brutality, the Chinese and the Japanese have been anything but nice. But they're still very much around. As for not being the sort of power they once were, that happens to everyone.
Trying to kill one of our own is a bad thing. Any attempt should be met with severe consequences. And I don't mean reduced time with the playstation to thirty minutes a day and one hour on saturday and no time on sunday.

For the record: killing is bad. usually.
So hows that Japanese Empire going these days?
Oh yeah it got flattened and lost all of its overseas territories, still the Chinese have crushed all Tibetan protest well except for the riots and protests at the Olympics.

So any more examples?
 
Last edited:
Here's an example where my theory does hold water.

The Japanese up to the end of World War II believed that the best way to die was in the battle field. If for whatever reason victory was beyond reach and they felt that they had failed they preferred to kill themselves.
Island after Island they proved they would fight to the last man. They were unable to cope with American superiority but driving the Japanese out of those islands is one thing, taking the fight straight into the heart of their country is another.
So what got these apparently fearless guys to surrender? Maximum violence in the shortest amount of time. And the Japanese surrendered.
Also, another thing is all the examples you cited belong in the context that the oppressors tried to pacify the populace. The key difference is that I don't suggest occupation is the answer. The answer is maximum violence where and when it counts followed by a full withdrawal.
Back up only those who wish to be backed.
And find a damned replacement for oil.
Actually Holland isn't an example where my argument doesn't hold water. Holland was overall friendly towards Germany. Overall. Yet Germany implemented harsher means. Maybe you don't get it. Also, the seeming unavoidable fall of Nazi Germany as early as late 1941 helped out also.
If there's one thing you're really good at, it's twisting other people's words and then having the argument go in a weird direction.
The fact is, only the maximum violence in the shortest period of time forced Japanese surrender. After the Romans pretty much destroyed Carthage, they ceased to be a problem and the Roman Empire actually lasted up to (as many people argue) AD 476. That's about five or perhaps even SIX hundred years after Carthage. Yes I know the decline started earlier than that but the point is it's STILL about half of an entire millennium of technical existence.
When Saddam's army was rolled up in the 1991 Gulf War, that too at the time was maximum violence at the shortest possible time. Saddam barely had to even admit defeat.
It all goes wrong when you try to occupy, the objectives seem too obscure and things get very complicated.
 
the_13th_redneck, I get your point, but I still think it's not the right answer.

Japan had an emperor, it means that they had a centralized power. the Emperor could afford to lose soldiers... but Japan wasnt ready to lose its emperor.
the fear factor worked in that situation.

and second, using the bomb on civilians was a war-crime. like the bombings they did in Europe...
They were bombing women and children and god sake. We cant even think of it as a potential solution. We cant afford innocent blood on our hands.

there is a difference between collateral damage (mistakes) and targeting civilians openly...

I dont follow this fight terrorism with terrorism.
I'm aware that sending them candy wont fix the problem... but I'm totally against any form of attack against civilians... As long as they arent a direct threat... they have nothing to fear from us.

Attacking civilians will cause havoc in our societies. I'm talking about mass riots as the whole social structure will fall when the people will stop believing that we are the nice guys.
 
Wow must be wonderful to have all the answers.

The insurgents in Iraq and thae Taliban in A'Stan move and operate in the areas and neighborhoods that are populated by civilians. They don't dress in military uniforms. It is an insurgency. It is a guerillia war.

There are two ways to deal with this.

1. You try to weed out the Baddies from among the Goodies and get ran down every time a "civilian" gets caught in the line of fire.

2. You wipe out grid squares at a time and level every thing and everyone.

Best to come to grips with the fact that these types of people don't mind using civilians to shield their movements. They count on it. They count on the fact that if they pop off an RPG from behind a group of women and kids that PFC Schmuckatelli generally ain't gonna buzz saw the entire group with his 249 to get the RPG gunner.

These people don't mind detonating an IED in a market full of the people they are "trying to save from the infidel".

They don't mind strapping on a bomb vest and taking out a resturant full of civilians " to get their point across."


Your previous definition of Taliban as a student is flawed. Talib is one who is seeking in it's original form, it now is known to mean one who is seeking religious knowledge. Since the formation Talib Militia = Taliban the word and term have taken the meaning of zealot with a very strict interpretation of the Koran and Sharia law. Not everyone in A'Stan is taliban no matter how you choose to twist it's definition.

Send them Peanut butter and perfume? 'Kay. Really you need to study the way things are done in the tribal areas of A'stan and the culture. Taking away a Pushtan mans AK , you'll have better luck getting him to convert to Scientology. You are waxing poetic and perfect world about things that you haven't really studied out.
 
The only people that I know of who are actively engaging civilians as a matter of conduct of war are the insurgents. Who you seemingly think can be won over with peanut butter and perfume.
 
Yeah, and I'm keep my position on peanut butter and perfume to win battles...

An Arab philosopher said that the people who are successful in war were the less civilized...
at that time, the Muslim dynasties used tribes to conquer lands... they used them as mercenaries. And among Arabs these warrior tribes were seen as a nuisance... brigands and such...

They had no lands, nothing loose... but with military sucess, they found wealth, they had lands, and even titles... and they lost their ability to wage war.

It's a simple as this. Once you have a nice woman, a confortable home etc... you turn into a fat guy who doesnt want to fight...
My logic is very simple. People with nothing to loose are not interesting to fight.

Do you think that French worker is as productive as a Chinese worker who sleeps in the factory?
What is the difference? One have nothing, and the other have everything... The guy with nothing is ready to work whatever the conditions... while the other cares about his comfort.

So yes, your salvation is in Peanut butter and perfume...
 
Back
Top