Victory over Taliban impossible?

[perseus]

It seems incredible to me that technologically superior states in the world cannot 'win' over tribal / guerrilla type forces in a terrain such as Afghanistan which is mainly neither forested or urban. How did the British manage to defeat the rebels in Kenya and Malaya if that's what they really did? If they cannot win here, can they win anywhere? surely a state like Iran won't be deterred. Is this just a sign that if a people are seriously determined enough to fight for an ideology, they will always win over those with superior weapons?

The UK's commander in Helmand has said Britain should not expect a "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan.
Brig Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.
He said this could involve discussing security with the Taleban.
When international troops eventually leave Afghanistan, there may still be a "low but steady" level of rural insurgency, he conceded.
He said it was unrealistic to expect that multinational forces would be able to wipe out armed bands of insurgents in the country.
The BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul says Brig Carleton-Smith's comments echo a view commonly-held, if rarely aired, by British military and diplomatic officials in Afghanistan. Many believe certain legitimate elements of the Taleban represent the positions of the Afghan people and so should be a part of the country's future

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7653116.stm

 

[A Can of Man]

The level of violence required to win is not legal. Therefore total victory is not possible.

 

[MontyB]

That is hardly accurate, nations throughout history have gone into Afghanistan and lost even though they were prepared to carry out whole scale slaughter of the inhabitants.

The simple reality is that the west has still not learned that nation building and assimilation does not work unless the inhabitants want it, we still persist in believing that the world wants our form of civilisation over their own just take a look at the Middle East, Africa to see the wreckage of colonialism.

 

[A Can of Man]

Back then they were prepared to but didn't quite have the means to do so.
Now we do have the means but not the will.

 

[MontyB]

Back then they were prepared to but didn't quite have the means to do so.
Now we do have the means but not the will.

We do not realistically have the means to do it either.

Saddam, Hitler, Pol Pot had the means and the will and all failed dismally, hell the Soviet Union went sailing into Afghanistan and running back home again and surely no one would say that they didn't have the means or will to turn the place into a glass parking lot.

The reality of all this comes back to one point, you can not impose your standards on another culture until the majority of them want those standards.

If we have to get involved in the Middle East then it has to be on their terms (and vice versa) any action there should be swift, get in get out and let them go back to doing what they were doing because you are not going to change 1500 years of accumulated beliefs by throwing money and lives at it.

 

[A Can of Man]

The question is, why do we even want to change them?
Can you if you were determined enough? Yes. Is it worth the trouble? No.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

Afghanistan has always been a hell hole for invaders, their terrain is inhospitable, long porous borders, very hostile nationalistic/religious people, heavy mountainous areas and thousands of caves. No nation has succeeded in taming Afghanistan it has beaten back the British and Soviets amongst others who were superpowers of their time and now it looks like Afghanistan will send another superpower home in defeat.

Monty, you have made a very logical point and I agree with you, what the West needs to realize is that they cannot change those who don't want to change. In Afghanistan they have their own culture, religion and way of life that is very different than the West, and their people are very traditional and warrior mentality. And when western values are imposed on people like that, the outcome is very bad. You can't force people to change through the gun and invasion, the only successful change that has occurred in countries that have been outside the West are changes that come internally.

No one takes it kindly when outsiders invade their country, impose their rules:read:, change the people:whip:, and install a government :cowb:that came in the backs of foreign tanks. People are patriotic, nationalistic or however you want to put it, we must also realize that yes their is Al Qaeda and Taliban the Americans need to defeat over their but what about the millions of other Afghans that are neither Al Qaeda nor Taliban but are simply nationalistic fighters who oppose the occuppation of their country. In the West many fail to comprehend that its not only Al Qaeda and Taliban that are fighting the West over their but many nationalistic independent groups who just want foreign occuppation out of their country:salute2:.

 

[A Can of Man]

You also fail to comprehend the other motivation: the place is good business for the guys who run their businesses there. The anarchy, the lack of a working government, the remoteness... it's the perfect place to do their things.
Actually Al Qaeda were a foreign force that managed to control most of Afghanistan, so if this is a "is it possible?" question, the answer is in fact, yes. It is possible.
And yes it is possible to change it with violence, it's just that that sort of act is not tolerated within our societies. You can force them to either 1) change or 2) be annihilated. Eventually every group gets tired of seeing their kids getting turned into bowls of soup. No matter what the cause.

 

[MontyB]

I think your argument lacks a sizable understanding of reality.

1) Al Qaeda never managed to control any of Afghanistan they certainly operated there and maintained themselves autonomously to the Taliban but in the end it was the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan.

2) No offence but you would have to be out of your mind if you think you can annihilate opposition, it hasn't worked anywhere in the last 3000 years and it wont work in Afghanistan.

At some point you need to realise as the British commander there clearly has that you can not win without the support of the locals and I am prepared to bet a sizable chunk of my pay packet that "seeing their kids being turned into bowls of soup" will not gather their support.

No one takes it kindly when outsiders invade their country, impose their rules:read:, change the people:whip:, and install a government :cowb:that came in the backs of foreign tanks. People are patriotic, nationalistic or however you want to put it, we must also realize that yes their is Al Qaeda and Taliban the Americans need to defeat over their but what about the millions of other Afghans that are neither Al Qaeda nor Taliban but are simply nationalistic fighters who oppose the occuppation of their country. In the West many fail to comprehend that its not only Al Qaeda and Taliban that are fighting the West over their but many nationalistic independent groups who just want foreign occuppation out of their country:salute2:.

There is a large glitch in this line of thinking as well, because for better or worse it appears that the Taliban also have a sizable level of popularity amongst the population which means that inevitably they will have to be dealt with on a political level, now there is no doubt they are a crazy bunch of SOBs but if they have the support of a reasonable percentage of the population then it is perhaps time to try and being them into a political fold (thus alienating Al Qaeda).

 

[UnitedSomalia]

Well, one thing you must realize is that the Soviets and British came with the mentality that anyone who disobeys will be annihilated and that obviously didn't work well either, because no matter how many of them that they killed each 1 got replaced by 10 more. The mentality in that country and many other countries such as Iraq and Somalia is that their is this traditional warrior mentality that is indoctrinated and cultured into the society, which basically means that their is no high honor for one then dying for their country or religion. Therefore, in this kind of society threats and force doesn't work well, matter of fact it back fires and leads to thousands of young men who would have normally not joined the fight to also take up arms for their honor.

Their is nothing that will force these societies to change; therefore, no matter what force or threat you use, their traditional warrior mentality kicks in and they are ready to fight and die in the process. Its kind of useless trying to use force on someone who is ready to die for their country and religion, to them deaths is an honorable thing. So in the end they will welcome the threats and force with ferocity and fight.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

Saudi hosts Afghan peace talks with Taliban reps

In a groundbreaking meeting, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently hosted talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban militant group, according to a source familiar with the talks.

King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia hosted meetings between the Afghan government and the Taliban, a source says.

The historic four-day meeting took place during the last week of September in the Saudi city of Mecca, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the negotiations.
King Abdullah broke fast during the Eid al-Fitr holiday with the 17-member Afghan delegation -- an act intended to show his commitment to ending the conflict.


Eid al-Fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.


Taliban leader Mullah Omar was not present, the source said.
It marks a significant departure by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting some delegates who have until recently been their enemies.
In the past, Saudi Arabia has generally dealt with Afghanistan through Pakistan.http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/05/afghan.saudi.talks/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1


The desert kingdom's current foray marks a significant shift and appears to recognize the political weakness of Pakistan and the need to stem the growth of al Qaeda.

Watch CNN's Nic Robertson report on the meeting »
The current round of talks is anticipated to be a first step in a long process. According to the source close to the talks, it has taken two years of behind-the-scenes meetings to get to this point.


The talks took place between September 24 and 27 and involved 11 Taliban delegates, two Afghan government officials, a representative of former mujahadeen commander and U.S. foe Gulbadin Hekmatyar, and three others.


It was the first such meeting aimed at bringing a negotiated settlement to the Afghan conflict and for the first time, all parties were able to discuss their positions and objectives openly and transparently, the source said.
Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban leadership during its rule over Afghanistan in the 1990s, but that relationship was severed over Mullah Omar's refusal to hand over al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.


While Mullah Omar was not present at the talks in Mecca, the source said the Taliban leader has made it clear he is no longer allied with al Qaeda -- a position that has never been publicly stated but emerged at the talks.
It confirms what another source with an intimate knowledge of the Taliban and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.


During the talks, all parties agreed that the only solution to Afghanistan's conflict is through dialogue, not fighting. The source described the Mecca talks as an ice-breaking meeting where expectations were kept necessarily low.


Further talks are expected in Saudi Arabia involving this core group and others.


The reasons for Saudi Arabia's involvement are numerous, including having the trust of the United States and Europe to play a positive role at a time when the conflict appears to be worsening and the coalition's casualty toll is climbing.


Also, Saudi Arabia may fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.
Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul.
The Afghan sources wish to remain anonymous due to their political roles.






Coalition commanders regularly accuse Iran of arming the Taliban, and Western diplomats privately suggest that Iran is working against U.S. interests in Afghanistan, making it harder to bring peace.
Saudi sources say perceived Iranian expansionism is one of Saudi Arabia's biggest concerns.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/05/afghan.saudi.talks/?iref=mpstoryview

 

[A Can of Man]

1) Al Qaeda never managed to control any of Afghanistan they certainly operated there and maintained themselves autonomously to the Taliban but in the end it was the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan.

2) No offence but you would have to be out of your mind if you think you can annihilate opposition, it hasn't worked anywhere in the last 3000 years and it wont work in Afghanistan.
.

As for 1) But as a result they did control Afghanistan. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan and eventually Al Qaeda did call the shots with the Taliban as well.
2) We haven't had nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the past 3,000 years.
If you start killing off everyone that offends you, there will be a growing supply of people wondering if it's really worth fighting you. They resist because they feel there is hope and they're right. The fighters in Afghanistan know that all they have to do is keep this thing going long enough and they will win. Start gassing their villages and nuking areas of concentration and they will sing a different tune altogether.
Should we do that? Heck no. Is it physically possible? I bet it is.

 

[MontyB]

As for 1) But as a result they did control Afghanistan. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan and eventually Al Qaeda did call the shots with the Taliban as well.
2) We haven't had nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the past 3,000 years.
If you start killing off everyone that offends you, there will be a growing supply of people wondering if it's really worth fighting you. They resist because they feel there is hope and they're right. The fighters in Afghanistan know that all they have to do is keep this thing going long enough and they will win. Start gassing their villages and nuking areas of concentration and they will sing a different tune altogether.
Should we do that? Heck no. Is it physically possible? I bet it is.

Can I have a few grams of whatever it is you are smoking?

Where has this theory of killing off all your opposition ever worked?

The fighters in Afghanistan are fighting because that is what they know how to do, when the British rolled in they fought them until they left same with the Russians and the same with the US/NATO and guess what when they werent being invaded they filled in time fighting each other and I am sure Pakistan/China and Russia will be over the moon when you start letting off nukes all over the place chances are they will send you some of theirs via airmail to keep the stocks up.

But hey if your idea of quality of life and civilisation is some sort of feral society of people too scared to look at each other for fear of reprisal then you go for it.

 

[A Can of Man]

Like I said, I wouldn't go for it.

 

[Lunatik]

Should we do that? Heck no. Is it physically possible? I bet it is.

It is probably possible but it'd come with very severe consequences, as we're not the only nation with NBC weapons. 7 billion people, hell, there will probably always be differences among people, even those of the same society. But, globalization is hard at work and as the size of the globe continues to shrink and different cultures begin living closer and closer to each other, I think our differences will slowly but surely become less important and more tolerable. What nations think of one another today is very different from how it was only 50 years ago. The EU is a shining example of how common interests can help us set aside our differences and focus on our similarities -- and eventually, I'd think, doing so long enough will make us all one and the same.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

"It is probably possible but it'd come with very severe consequences, as we're not the only nation with NBC weapons. 7 billion people, hell, there will probably always be differences among people, even those of the same society. But, globalization is hard at work and as the size of the globe continues to shrink and different cultures begin living closer and closer to each other, I think our differences will slowly but surely become less important and more tolerable. What nations think of one another today is very different from how it was only 50 years ago. The EU is a shining example of how common interests can help us set aside our differences and focus on our similarities -- and eventually, I'd think, doing so long enough will make us all one and the same."-Lunatik

Very well said my friend.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually globalization is one of the reasons why we're fighting so much.
There's more people than ever before and the perceptive space is much smaller. Not everyone has a culture of being tolerant to one another and when push comes to shove and there is the need to control a resource, there will be a fight.

 

[major liability]

I have to agree with 13th on this one. Globalization is not necessarily a good thing at all...

 

[LeMask]

Very interesting topic.
First, I have some points I would like to speak about before getting into the subject...

I think that men only care about their own interest. If you think that somebody cares for you, it's because he/she needs you.

I use this same logic at bigger scales (countries). I dont think that all these Western countries are in Afghanistan to "help" anyone...
they are there to destroy Al-Quaeda. Install a puppet government... or something of this kind.

Now, Al-Quaeda is just a small bunch of people who want to reach paradise by killing themselves to gain the status of Martyr.

We live in a capitalist system with a high tolerance for social injustice. we will have very rich people living next to very poor people. we will have desperate people with nothing to loose until this system ends... and it wont end soon.

we live in democratic systems promoting individual freedom. we loose family value and structure with time. so "suicide" will be a very comon thing in the future. people who wont find their place will commit suicide.
and with all this individual freedom, we will see all kind of weird things forbidden by religion... homosexuality, incest, pornography, corruption... you name it...

we will have suicidal religious maniacs until the end of times... all over the world. it's our big war. they dont need to know each others... or to mass and build bases/governments/countries... to do such things...

a conventional military war against Al-Quaeda is just giving them more advertising... war will cause poverty + anger + frustration
and I strongly believe that to build an "Al-Quaeda fighter" you need these three.

that's why I'm for a more human approach. we first have to recognize that they are people like us. in a wrong path, with a harsh culture, with a crazy version of their religion etc... I think that they are people who suffer greatly. I'm talking here about religious extremists... the more we push them, the more dangerous they become.

It's up to the society to let them find a place inside the society, before they turn into followers of Ben Laden.

And we should stop talking about the "Taliban"... Afghanistan is a tribal land... They cant live without the protection of their tribe. and we are not fighting the Talibans right now... we are fighting the youth of the biggest tribe in the world.

Any young man in the Pachtoune (I think it's this tribe) tribe is a "Taliban"... a student in religion... are we going to kill all their young men?
If we can, we dont have the right to do that. it's called genocide.

we need a diplomatic solution + economic development.

and about their religion/culture.

Know that there is many versions of their religion. and that religion and culture fight each others...

So if we could introduce a new version of their religion... it can give nice results. We cant wash them of their religion, but we can introduce a version less hostile to democracy... maybe from north African countries... or from Turkey... I dont know...

 

[03USMC]

Very interesting topic.
First, I have some points I would like to speak about before getting into the subject...

I think that men only care about their own interest. If you think that somebody cares for you, it's because he/she needs you.

I use this same logic at bigger scales (countries). I dont think that all these Western countries are in Afghanistan to "help" anyone...
they are there to destroy Al-Quaeda. Install a puppet government... or something of this kind.

Now, Al-Quaeda is just a small bunch of people who want to reach paradise by killing themselves to gain the status of Martyr.

We live in a capitalist system with a high tolerance for social injustice. we will have very rich people living next to very poor people. we will have desperate people with nothing to loose until this system ends... and it wont end soon.

we live in democratic systems promoting individual freedom. we loose family value and structure with time. so "suicide" will be a very comon thing in the future. people who wont find their place will commit suicide.
and with all this individual freedom, we will see all kind of weird things forbidden by religion... homosexuality, incest, pornography, corruption... you name it...

we will have suicidal religious maniacs until the end of times... all over the world. it's our big war. they dont need to know each others... or to mass and build bases/governments/countries... to do such things...

a conventional military war against Al-Quaeda is just giving them more advertising... war will cause poverty + anger + frustration
and I strongly believe that to build an "Al-Quaeda fighter" you need these three.

that's why I'm for a more human approach. we first have to recognize that they are people like us. in a wrong path, with a harsh culture, with a crazy version of their religion etc... I think that they are people who suffer greatly. I'm talking here about religious extremists... the more we push them, the more dangerous they become.

It's up to the society to let them find a place inside the society, before they turn into followers of Ben Laden.

And we should stop talking about the "Taliban"... Afghanistan is a tribal land... They cant live without the protection of their tribe. and we are not fighting the Talibans right now... we are fighting the youth of the biggest tribe in the world.

Any young man in the Pachtoune (I think it's this tribe) tribe is a "Taliban"... a student in religion... are we going to kill all their young men?
If we can, we dont have the right to do that. it's called genocide.

we need a diplomatic solution + economic development.

and about their religion/culture.

Know that there is many versions of their religion. and that religion and culture fight each others...

So if we could introduce a new version of their religion... it can give nice results. We cant wash them of their religion, but we can introduce a version less hostile to democracy... maybe from north African countries... or from Turkey... I dont know...

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.

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.

It's all fine and dandy to opine lets just get along, but with extermist of any stripe it seldom works.