Afghan Minister Urges NATO To Counter Taliban's Foreign Influx

D

Dan Levin

Active member
http://defense-archive.teldan.com/A...nter-Talibans-Foreign-Influx.aspx?&sID=450671

Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak asserted on Oct 10, 2009, that the Taliban campaign in the strife-torn central Asian nation is now being supported by as many as 4,000 foreigners. In remarks to legislators in Kabul, the minister said that Chechens, Arabs and North Africans in particular were assisting the insurgents, who have in recent months intensified their attacks on NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops.
 
Nice if Nato countries upped the manpower numbers to give a bigger footprint in country. Take some pressure of the US and UK.
 
Well on what grounds should they put more boots on the ground?
According to the US president the operation to uproot the Taliban leadership has been cancelled/declared accomplished and the fight is now more geared towards tieing down terrorist as to prevent future attacks on GB and American soil.

NATO forces can not be used for preemptive strikes.
Neutral nations that have contributed to the UN mandated part of the mission are finding it increasingly hard to maintain their troop strength in country after that statement.
It has basically gone from a retalitory strike against a criminal leadership to a classic invasion/garrison war.

The rethoric used around the mission may or may not be important in the US, but it IS VERY important in the nations that have not been hit on their own turf yet.

My 5 cents.
Take it for what it´s worth.

//KJ.
 
More bods on the ground to provide security for the rebuild phase. Without adequate hospitals, schools and infrastructure it will make a Taliban comeback easy again.
 
When you talk about bringing the Taliban into the peace process, take out the targeting of terrorist forces as the main mission and then bandy withdrawl by dates you've changed the face of the war. Some countries will not see a reason to continue to expose their troops,especially given anti-war fervor at home.

There is no way NATO can stop the influx of out side fighters unless they are allowed to hit inside Pakistan and that ain't happening.
 
So yet another bug bear comes to bite us in the arse, we set "em up, change the regime and then hope that they'll like us - at least we western powers are consistent in that - just had to get that off my chest, as I'm really tired of people forgetting the history and genesis of these problems, because that is where we can find the solutions.

One thing keeps coming around in my mind is why are the Taliban & Al Qaeda referred to in the same breath - has there been a corporate merger that no one is talking about, or is this an alliance that shares skills and technology (like the big 3).

From what I understand the Taliban wants the West out of Afghanistan. wheras Al Qaeda wants to topple the West, wherre they both agree is that Islam will be the dominant religion in the world, so they have a commonality in overall purpose but slightly different short term objectives.

So how do we solve this problem? It is obvious that we aren't progressing in Afghanistan and would need prohibitive number so boots on the ground to give "western" countries a warm and fuzzy feeling - we need to involve them in the political process so that they are invested in the future. Will this mean peace - no, but at least we could achieve some sense of where the country is going and how to treat with them.
 
Picturing Al Quaeda or Taliban gaining their wishes is a terrifying image altogether. They don't need to be given a voice since they already have websites and use videos to send their horrid messages out. Maybe when they show some civility rather than cave man tactics, show some genuine care and concern of their people-maybe they can earn a audience. For now, I say, help those who want a better nation for themselves. I would gladly help watch our military's back if called upon. Silly, yeah, :lol:
 
Warwick said:
More bods on the ground to provide security for the rebuild phase. Without adequate hospitals, schools and infrastructure it will make a Taliban comeback easy again.
Click to expand...

True, Military presence by itself does make an efficient effect.
Combing it with vital civilian facilities will surely make the Taliban withdraw.
 
03USMC said:
When you talk about bringing the Taliban into the peace process, take out the targeting of terrorist forces as the main mission and then bandy withdrawl by dates you've changed the face of the war. Some countries will not see a reason to continue to expose their troops,especially given anti-war fervor at home.

There is no way NATO can stop the influx of out side fighters unless they are allowed to hit inside Pakistan and that ain't happening.
Click to expand...

Bingo MSG, when it was a UN backed selfprotection war there were no holds barred.
No problem deploying troops under that flag/mandate.

Now, when we ARE set to withdraw anyway..A bit trickier to explain to the home opinion why young men from our nation should, fight and if push comes to shove die for a war we in a worst case scenario don´t want to win and in a best case scenario allready have won.

Obviously the american president didn´t value our contribution to the fight as much as most commanders stomping sand has.
Nor does our own politicians have the stones to let us stay and finish.
We have continually reinforced our troops in country to keep our little corner safe.
I predict we are out of there all together in a few months if this continues.

I said it when this started, and I am thinking I am going to get proven right within the forseable future.
"People don´t have the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes to win a war in The Stan anymore."

//KJ.
 
Or any war where the enemy doesn't conveniently roll over and give up all will to fight by Christmas.
It all goes back to the part where the enemy was under-estimated and often as in this case, didn't know who the enemy was. I suppose chess is at fault for that. You don't have pawns, rooks, bishops etc., doing their own thing after you take out the King. Then one of their rooks is on your side, then he's not, then the rook you were fighting against yesterday is looking to make a deal with you today...
 
The **** is really starting to pile up on Pakistans doorstep. There may come a time when the West stops politely asking to enter thier country.
 
KJ said:
Bingo MSG, when it was a UN backed selfprotection war there were no holds barred.
No problem deploying troops under that flag/mandate.

Now, when we ARE set to withdraw anyway..A bit trickier to explain to the home opinion why young men from our nation should, fight and if push comes to shove die for a war we in a worst case scenario don´t want to win and in a best case scenario allready have won.

Obviously the american president didn´t value our contribution to the fight as much as most commanders stomping sand has.
Nor does our own politicians have the stones to let us stay and finish.
We have continually reinforced our troops in country to keep our little corner safe.
I predict we are out of there all together in a few months if this continues.

I said it when this started, and I am thinking I am going to get proven right within the forseable future.
"People don´t have the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes to win a war in The Stan anymore."

//KJ.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I wouldn't fault a single nation for pulling forces out given the new twist that has been put on the war.

If it's already been decided that withdrawl will start on x date or x year. To me thats as good as saying we will fight but hey were going home after a while so...get yer licks in now.
 
Dan Levin said:
True, Military presence by itself does make an efficient effect.
Combing it with vital civilian facilities will surely make the Taliban withdraw.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
All the current military precence are doing are exposing your soldiers to IED,s on a daily basis.
There are very few direct engagements with Taliban forces at this date in The Stan and the engagements that occur are more often then not with local bands of criminals.
When the Taliban comes out to play they make sure they have every advantage in the fight.
When coallition forces are denied their gamewinner (CAS) the odds are stacked even further in Taliban advantage.

Can´t get civilian facilities up without basic safety.
Can´t get basic safety up, without fighting a war.
Can´t fight a war with your hands tied to your nuts.

As for counterinsurgency into Paki. Not happening in any greater scale then it currently is.
No one, and I mean no one wants another pissed off nation in that region.
Especially not one with nukes blowing in the wind.


My 2 cents.
//KJ.
 
Civilian projects get built, then blown up. Australian Forces wrecked a bridge last year, built a new one, Taliban blew it up, built a new one, villagers burned it down on orders from Taliban. This is nothing new, the VC did it in Viet Nam.

We can't do much about Pakistan but that is no excuse. Beef up border operations and make it impossible for them to move men and weapons. I know the terrain there is **** house but if that is where your main problem is coming from then suck it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top