Victory over Taliban impossible?

LeMask, the question was: is it possible to defeat the Taliban. If the West truly was in a scenario where it was ultimately and undeniably us or them, I believe our side could destroy them. But we're not in that scenario. And you're right, many of these strategies and tactics are unacceptable to us. That was NOT what I was trying to answer.
But my evidence of using maximum violence in the shortest amount of time actually does hold water in an abstract point of view. It has worked pretty darn well when it has been used. I don't mean general oppression. I mean MAXIMUM violence in a short time. Both factors are key.
That was the question and that's what I answered. If we went into the whole what is acceptable and what is not, that's a whole different can of worms.
As for caring about avoiding civilian casualties, 03 is right. These darn terrorists are the ones who in fact take out their own people with seeming impunity. I'm sorry but that's simply true. Funny thing, it happened during the Korean War too. In some instances Americans fired back resulting in civilian casualties. There has been an outcry in recent times about how Americans murdered civilians, completely ignoring the fact that communists used these refugees as shields and held their lives in no regard.
America spends billions of dollars developing stuff to reduce collateral damage.
I don't know. This started with the whole thing about victory over the Taliban being possible or not. I say yes, we can do it if our survival depended on it and we were able to get the sort of determination required to do so. But we're not at that stage and the lengths we'd have to go to in order to ensure victory are too brutal for us to justify.
 
LeMask said:
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...
Click to expand...


No your logic is flawed. You using a western/european mindset. You can't project your own logic outside of your culture and expect to get the results your wishing to obtain.
 
Applying brute force never worked. Wiping out whole tribes of the face of the earth and killing thousands if not millions of civilians only serves to anger the whole population, only serves to alienate moderate Muslims, only serves to drive thousands of young men who would become angry at the wholesale slaughter of their people into the arms of extremists, and will only serves the loss of diplomatic ties to current Muslim countries that are allies, and will deprave you of any moral high ground you may have had over the extremist when it comes to humanitarianism and the protection of civilians.

Look at Vietnam when the Americans firebombed whole Vietnamese villages and towns with napalm and other weapons, it didn't stop the Vietnamese populations support of the Vietcong it served to galvanize the population into unity against their common enemy and to drive them from their country. When the Soviets leveled whole cities, killed millions of civilians, and carried out the destruction of any tribes that supported the Mujahideen, that did not stop the Afghans from aiding the Mujaheddin it only served to boil their anger even more and harden their resolve of kicking the Soviets out. When the Nazis occupied Europe and gave the population ultimatums that if anyone supports the undergound groups they will carry out wholesale reprisals and destructions, that didn't stop the locals from supporting the various underground groups. People are driven by nationalism and religion and no matter how much you kill them or destroy their lively hood you will only achieve to galvanize their resolve and unity.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here is a challenge for you:

Find one Japanese garrison that surrendered prior to the cessation of hostilities in 1945.

What you will discover is that few if any surrendered prefering to fight to the death or commit suicide, the of Japanese POWs throughout the war were captured because they were to incapacitated continue the fight (wounded, unconscious, mariners etc.) or were foreigners pressed into service.

I would also point out that despite the ferocity of the Pacific campaign the Allies did all they could to avoid civilian casualties and for the most part the Japanese occupations were themselves so brutal that they had very little civilian support themselves.

I have little doubt that the idea of "maximum violence in the shortest period of time" works in conventional wars where you have two armies in different uniforms and clearly defined lines of engagement it fails dismally in against insurgencies with local support and resistance environments, in fact it has shown time and again that it has the exact opposite effect.

Heres a nifty thought for you, the only people that can win this war are the people of Afghanistan themselves, only they can bring the Taliban to task and root out AQ and having the professional armies of the West there to do the donkey work would make it all the easier but in order for them to want to do this they have want to do it, and wiping out villages and families is not going to bring them to your cause.


Now back to Rome, I would suggest that you are overlooking half of what I wrote specifically the bits about Britain, Gaul, Judea, Datia and Germania as Rome occupied all of these regions right up until around 500AD, at around 450AD the Huns got sick of the Romans and kicked the snot out of them.

After that the Vandals cruised on through and merrily sacked Rome and the even more interesting thing is that at one time or another these people came under Roman influence.

Before that you had Germans and their regular revolts see how Varus went, how many times did the Romans sack and raise Jeuruselem two - three, and this was at the height of Roman power. The simple reality is that at no stage in history has your theory worked with an occupying power.
 
The problem is that we cannot find an instance of having maximum violence applied to a guerrilla army of any kind. The Japanese were prepared to conduct guerrilla warfare against an invading America but the war never quite got to that.
And you have to stop confusing general oppression to maximum violence in the shortest possible time. That's different. How to rule a populace is a different set of rules. It's tricky no doubt but it's very different. What we were discussing is just simply how to achieve some sort of victory. Occupying in fact makes the whole situation far more complicated.
 
You want to win in Afghanistan?

Pack up and go home, let them go back to killing each other and if you find AQ or any terrorist group anywhere in the world go get them and then get out.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not wrong but staying and rebuilding a country that simply hasn't managed and doesn't want to get out of the 7th century is pointless, costly and in the long run will fail, like it or not the Taliban has the support of a reasonably large proportion of the country therefore they are going to have to be made part of the process.

One day in the future some one somewhere in the country will decide that moving out of the 7th century will be beneficial and they will get on with it at which point offer them as much support as possible but until then leave them to it.
 
MontyB, THAT is something I agree with.
Iraq in fact, has a higher chance of success in becoming a stable country than Afghanistan. Why? Iraq has actually been in that state for a long time whereas Afghanistan is not such a case.
Which is what I meant by maximum violence in the shortest period of time. GET OUT. Those guys for the most part don't have the strategic reach to hit the United States or Europe. Hit them hard and punish them for hosting Al Qaeda who did attack the West. Then get out. I'm sure the next time Al Qaeda shows up the Afghans will be less excited about hosting them.
One last thing would be to flatten just about everything they've got, salt and napalm their drug fields and then go home.
 
the problem of american government that she learns hestorical and even current events lately .
america should be learnt from vitnam war.did not she see soviet defeat in afghanistan in 1989?eventhough that soviet army used all of his enormous ability in that war.
 
The Afghan will attack every army entering their country... It's in their culture, they see an invader, they defeat him.

Their message is pretty clear "stay out of my country."

And if the invader has a bad reputation (old story, corrupt and godless)... The resistance will be pretty fierce.

And we have to admit that many countries in the world deserve a war... Just think what the Belgians did in Africa in their colonies and how they abandonned these people after screwing up their lives...

Iran deserves a war its attitude toward Israel, France for its action in Asia and Africa, the US for what they have done in Vietnam, In Palestine, in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq Etc Etc...

Nobody is innocent if we look carefully. But once again, if we start to solve every abuse done by a country by a war/terrorist attacks... The whole planet will be in blood and fire...

And the people who would pay for these crimes will be innocent civilians, it is very probable that the people who are actually directly responsible of these actions would get away with it.

We need a reform when it comes to international laws...
 
MontyB said:
You want to win in Afghanistan?

Pack up and go home, let them go back to killing each other and if you find AQ or any terrorist group anywhere in the world go get them and then get out.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not wrong but staying and rebuilding a country that simply hasn't managed and doesn't want to get out of the 7th century is pointless, costly and in the long run will fail, like it or not the Taliban has the support of a reasonably large proportion of the country therefore they are going to have to be made part of the process.

One day in the future some one somewhere in the country will decide that moving out of the 7th century will be beneficial and they will get on with it at which point offer them as much support as possible but until then leave them to it.
Click to expand...


That was how Genghis Khan handled it - did not hang around to occupy. Destroyed Afghanistan on his way through outwards and inwards. In fact, that was a lot to do with the Afghanistan we found in the 19th century.
 
A`HOY, its like the General said, (can’t recall his name right now sorry), We (meaning US) need to adjust to fighting limited engagements by minimal means for specific goals.

However IMO until the US warriors have this yoke of Christianity taken from their necks the US brand is doomed. We come across as just another coming of the same old Book Thumpers of another Faith.



The US brand would sale it’s self like a good drug and eliminated the sources of the problems before military would be needed.



Look at F.A.T.A. the tribe’s men are fighting Taliban to get their Music stores back for one thing. Proof that the book thumpers do not rule as much as media plays it. We need to get religion out of our own politics before we can sell democracy world wide.



IMO NOV. 4th is this nations chance to go back to 9-12-01 and start winning this GWOT. G-day!
 
Last edited:
The separation between church and politics is very important indeed.

But I think that this message is so old... I think that our revolution of our generation is the separation between the politics and finance... And even economy.

Sometimes, I think that the war in Afghanistan was encouraged by weapons sellers because they think that a war without an end is good for business.

All this technology to fight poor tribesmen with rusty AKs... There is no point killing them... The lost warriors will be replaced by the first kid coming to age.

"eh kids, you father died, here is his AK, you are the man of the family now." and there you have it... If you think that this kind of people will put their weapons...

Even without bombs and bullets... their lives are hellish since the beginning...
 
"Impossible n'est pas français" Napoléon Bonaparte.


It is not impossible...ISAF country just needed much more importance on this missions...for an example canada just sending :

- 6x CH-47D
- 6x lease Mi-8
- 8x CH-146 Griffon (as a "Gunship" for protected the Mi-8 and CH-47D)
- 250+ pilot/maintenence and air controler for a total of 2750 posted in Afghanistan

The CH-47D is for future operation in Afghanistan and reduice the number of convoy on the ground. The missions isn't impossible is only nation who don't give enought importance.
 
I disagree the Taliban will not be beaten because they have to great a level of populous support, sure they can be subdued on the battlefield but as soon as you turn your back they will return, groups like Al Qaeda can be beaten because they are a foreign entity they do not have local family/tribal support like the Taliban therefore it is possible to turn their Allies against them.
 
The Taleban lost the control of the area a long time ago...

Now, it's a civil war between two tribes... And guess what? We didnt choose our allies carefully, we are now at war with the biggest tribe on earth.

And the problem is that this war cant be won without a genocide, and I mean by that wasting every man in the Pashtoune tribe...

We call them Taleban because they are fighting us, since the Taleban ran away... We cant tell the difference.

And they dont lack warriors, because at the second you kill one of them, another man in his tribe takes the rifle and goes to war to avenge his death. It's how they think, it's how they feel.

At the second you stop caring about your tribe in such countries, you die. So the people who are still alive there are the ones who are ready to die for their tribe.

You can ask them to stop breathing, you will have as much success...
 
Another Northern Ireland?

A young soldier from 1 Royal Anglians fresh from a tour in Afghanistan stated, “Its going to turn into another Northern Ireland.”
 
LeEnfield said:
If you are ruthless enough then victory or at least a prolonged peace could be achieved
Click to expand...

That ignores - as too often done - the associated costs. The costs are not only KIA, WIA , MIA and $/€ - the costs of such an action would also be political. Political costs turns to some degree into economical costs. You cannot 'win' a war with barbary anymore - you create too many new foes. Afghanistan is way too irrelevant anyway - this war doesn't justify much cost, even not if 'victory' was ensured. The relevance of the Taliban for us is seriously hyped and the war already hurts other interests of ours, like stability in Pakistan's major cities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top