Victory over Taliban impossible?

the_13th_redneck said:
I believe killing enough people was how wars were won and lost in the past anyway.
Click to expand...
There are several examples of wars without any or without relevant bloodshed in military history, though - examples where show of (vastly superior) force achieved a favorable peace - the Prussian war against Sweden in 18th century; they quickly overran Stralsund and annexed it. - the Kosovo war, where the KIA by bombs had (if any) only detrimental effect for NATO The counter-terrorist/counter-insurgency campaign of the British in Northern Ireland was coined by the acceptance to lose more soldiers and policemen than to kill IRA personnel. It was also ultimately successful. Killing (apparently) doesn't help nearly as much in Afghanistan as a reduction of recruitment would do. The mere presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan is a huge recruitment boost for the Taliban among Pashtuns. The Taliban's ability to base their propaganda about mischief caused by foreigners on real actions (which they then exaggerate, but few Pashtuns seem to double-check such claims) is another recruitment and morale boost. To kill more would likely only escalate, whereas changing to a smaller profile might actually help. We should ask Karsai to order us to reduce our presence, not enlarge it. We should lose face to boost his legitimacy - or give up the entire "central government" idea and simply allow Afghanistan to organize government on the local level - which would necessarily include the easily-used Sharia (a law code that's well-suited for a poorly developed and organized tribal area).
 
Sven Ortmann said:
There are several examples of wars without any or without relevant bloodshed in military history, though - examples where show of (vastly superior) force achieved a favorable peace - the Prussian war against Sweden in 18th century; they quickly overran Stralsund and annexed it. - the Kosovo war, where the KIA by bombs had (if any) only detrimental effect for NATO The counter-terrorist/counter-insurgency campaign of the British in Northern Ireland was coined by the acceptance to lose more soldiers and policemen than to kill IRA personnel. It was also ultimately successful. Killing (apparently) doesn't help nearly as much in Afghanistan as a reduction of recruitment would do. The mere presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan is a huge recruitment boost for the Taliban among Pashtuns. The Taliban's ability to base their propaganda about mischief caused by foreigners on real actions (which they then exaggerate, but few Pashtuns seem to double-check such claims) is another recruitment and morale boost. To kill more would likely only escalate, whereas changing to a smaller profile might actually help. We should ask Karsai to order us to reduce our presence, not enlarge it. We should lose face to boost his legitimacy - or give up the entire "central government" idea and simply allow Afghanistan to organize government on the local level - which would necessarily include the easily-used Sharia (a law code that's well-suited for a poorly developed and organized tribal area).
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure I agree with your argument for less troops in Afganistan. You mentioned earlier about countries having to sustain a political cost. The only political cost in my country for removing our troops is partisan, because such a large part of our population doesn't want our troops to fight anywhere, where they can lose their lives. At best this attitude is incredibly sentimental, and rather childish. A person does not join the military so he may sell vaccuum cleaners.
But lets get back to Afganistan. Every soldier I have spoken with has stated, the Afgan people want us there and they do not want a return to rule by the Taliban. The problem with our Nato coalition is no one is prepared to lose soldiers in this fight except the Americans,Canadians, British, Dutch and recently France. Without help from every member in the Nato community we should get out because then it will not work. But if all members grew some backbone the Taliban could be defeated. And like Al Quaeda it they run across the Pakistan border and hide in the hills, then we should go right after them and wipe them out. Do not believe these people are not beatable. All bullies are beatable. Also, to say Sharia law is well suited for this country is ridiculous if not criminal. Sharia law is not suited for any civilized human beings. That is also the opinion of many Muslims I know. If many Arab country's want to believe , foreign troops in Afganistan is just more western meddling and mischief, what do you call the sadistic, monstrous action caused by the Taliban on it's own people?
 
Last edited:
papasha40 said:
Every soldier I have spoken with has stated, the Afgan people want us there and they do not want a return to rule by the Taliban. The problem with our Nato coalition is no one is prepared to lose soldiers in this fight except the Americans,Canadians, British, Dutch and recently France. Without help from every member in the Nato community we should get out because then it will not work. But if all members grew some backbone the Taliban could be defeated. And like Al Quaeda it they run across the Pakistan border and hide in the hills, then we should go right after them and wipe them out. Do not believe these people are not beatable. All bullies are beatable. Also, to say Sharia law is well suited for this country is ridiculous if not criminal. Sharia law is not suited for any civilized human beings. That is also the opinion of many Muslims I know. If many Arab country's want to believe , foreign troops in Afganistan is just more western meddling and mischief, what do you call the sadistic, monstrous action caused by the Taliban on it's own people?
Click to expand...


1)
If they truly want no Taliban comeback (which obviously already happened in many rural areas), then they should fight the Taliban. It's not like this country isn't warlike enough. They're responsible for their own interests, our mission there should only be justified with our interests.
It's also questionable whether the Pashtuns show their true face - and non-Pashtuns dislike the Taliban because Taliban are Pashtuns.
The Taliban have apparently established a shadow government and shadow courts in many rural areas and exercise state-like authority in many places. That wouldn't happen if they encountered stiff popular resistance.
You don't go to a shadow court of a despised faction to settle a dispute if you can go to an official court.

2)
The relation between NATO article 5 and the current war in Afghanistan is extremely thin, in my opinion it doesn't exist in reality, just in politics.
No NATO member's territory was attacked by Taliban nor does article 5 enforce a military reaction - and it could very well be argued that to chase the Taliban from power was enough by all established standards. There's no requirement in any alliance treaty that an aggressor must not only be defeated, but chased from power and be kept from regaining power forever.
NATO is involved, but for no good reason - and the countries do already more in some cases than their populations want to.
There's a stable German majority against the whole Afghan War and I think it's the same in the UK. I'm not aware of a broad popular support in the Netherlands or France either.

3)
Sharia is well-suited for Afghanistan because it's a primitive system that requires no police, courts, prisons. Such requirements can only be met adequately by rather developed countries with good government incomes. Afghanistan has traditionally (for good reason) been governed on the local level - they need a law that can be executed by local authorities. The sharia is no nice code, but it works at least under the circumstances - and it has some legitimacy.
Whoever wants to prevent Sharia needs to devise a better, but locally executable law code.

4)
About your opening statement; the attitude towards war is different between people, and in democracies the majority has greater legitimacy to coin policy than a minority.
There are extremely good reasons in history, military history and not the least Afghan military history to consider warfare as a very poor method.
My personal opinion is that warfare is for self-preservation and to some degree for self-preservation in a collective national security treaty (defensive alliance).
War is no adequate method to influence which party rules in distant paces.

There's no really compelling reason why we need to fight there, the scenarios about what happens if we withdrew are based on a very questionable set of assumptions.
One such assumption is that there's any difference in AQ effectiveness for whether AQ icons sit safely in Pakistan's hills or may wander around in Afghanistan as well.
There are also extreme drawbacks of this war; we pushed extremists over the border into Pakistan and helped them to recruit more extremists and destabilize Pakistan.
This war simply doesn't help us to achieve any desired end-state.
We're wasting lives, health, funds, political capital - for what? What did we achieve since early 2003?


Imagine we'd "beat" the Taliban in Afghanistan. What would that mean?
They would focus on Pakistan.

Sure, we can devastate the Taliban and "beat" them. It just makes no sense.

It's OK if enlisted eprsonnel and NCOs switch to tunnel vision and only pursue victory (in fact, they more often switch to a tunnel vision towards keeping their comrades and themselves healthy or at least alive).
A politically interested citizen and at the very least senior officers need to think differently. They need to think about the mission, not just about its execution.
The Germans learned a powerful lesson about exactly this twice - it is the RIGHT THING to question a war at any time, but it's not patriotic to question those who prefer peace.
It's too bad that this lessons fades from the collective memory and even worse that most countries never got it in the first place.
 
victory against taliban is possible we just need to keep the fire burning:firedevi:


i think we should bomb every cave in Afghanistan and iraq..
 
There was a article about fighting religion with religion and how some jailed religious leaders were released, to go forth and advise against war. I agree with this since there's so much emphasis on *Islamic* rule but I did question the *educational quality* of these leaders :p I just think the religious leaders (especially Islamic) should be quite *educated* about the world before being considered a leader. :roll: I would not listen to any leader who didn't have the education or values that support my well being either and it is the women that have no rights or political protection. What would happen if we alowed a exodus for them only? I think it would be a interesting lesson for all.
 
Yes,.. we can certainly have a victory over the Taliban, but it will mean killing a great proportion of the Male population of many if not most Muslim countries.

Good Luck.
 
Last edited:
"No NATO Country was attacked by the Taliban." True from the view of a Lawyer, perhaps, but they gave shelter & protection to Al-Quida, therefore not innocent bystanders.
 
It's a very interesting article.

And I think that the main problem is a problem of image.

As long as there is people who see the USA as a country of corruption and criminals, there will be zealots ready to attack its interests to go to paradise and be rewarded.

We are not talking here about a satanist group who wants to destroy everything to be rewarded by an evil god.

It's not a religious problem, it's a politic problem.

We will have better results working on the image of the rich countries. We cant ask these people to make the right choice. They have no access to informations, they dont understand democracy, they dont trust foreigners... The list of obstacles is huge.

So I think that we would have better results dropping peanut butter on them... Bombs wont solve anything.
 
There are many folks whose sole source of power depends on demonizing the United States or the West in general.
They will do so at all costs.
 
Iraq legacy for Afghan campaign


As the debate continues about increasing troops in Afghanistan, questions are being posed over whether an alternative strategy should be pursued to sever local support of the Taliban...

The previous US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, acknowledged that even his famous troop surge only worked in parallel with the awakening movement of Sunni tribes who decided to turn against their former al-Qaeda allies and work alongside the Americans.....

Many senior officers have told me privately, and passionately, that military operations against insurgents are doomed unless they are matched by major civil projects to improve people's lives and give them work and hope...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8274993.stm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top