Afghanistan War

Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Afghan update

U.S. to send “expeditionary advise and assist teams” to bolster Kabul’s troops in rural Afghanistan, Military Times reported Sunday. The overall U.S. force levels will not change, but special operations units will be sent to forward locations to help quell what turned out to be an awful year for Kabul’s troops and a headline-grabbing year for the Taliban.

The expeditionary A2 teams—often between six to 12 troops—are already chipping away in Helmand province, where the Taliban have made perhaps their biggest gains in recent months.

“They are not participating in combat,” said Brig. Gen. Wilson Shoffner, deputy chief of staff for communications for the American-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. “Coalition special ops forces are not on the objective. They may provide planning support. They may provide enabler support … ISR and that sort of thing. They may provide transport support. But if the Afghan special operations forces are conducting an operation, then the coalition advisers will detach and go to an overwatch position or will go to a command post while the operation is going on.” More here.
 
OPSSG

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
A gentle reminder to all posting in this thread. The posting of one-liners is a violation of Rule 2 of the Forum Rules. On occasion, the Mod Team may tolerate a post with one-line; but not all the time.

For new members or members with less than 50 posts, if you post a one-liner in this thread, it will be deleted. Thank you for your attention.
 
P

peterAustralia

Member
A serious question. We spent billions of dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan, and it could be argued that we lost both wars.

I think there was a great deal of military skill shown, but if that skill is used to support a government that is corrupt and does not have the support of the people, then chances of success are poor. I guess in a few years the Taliban will be in Kabul (maybe as a coalition partner), and then it will have to be official, the war is lost. I assume that in private most people accept this, in time something will happen, and allow it to be said publicly.

Iraq, vietnam, Aghanistan, Libya. All could be considered failures.

My question is that is there a growing realisation that to win a war, the government that the war is in support for has to be sound, and works for the people.

Richard Armitage (former deputy secrety of state and hardly a dove) said that a COIN movement only works if the government being supported is working for the people.

On the radio the other day,. there was a piece about AQAP (al queuda in yemen). The local tribal leaders hate Al Queda, but they talk to them because they are good listeners and provide support for fixing roads, fixing irrigation projects.

A generalisation is that when the west does aid projects, they sub contract that to western billion dollar corporations, that take most of the money. Versus paying the locals a small amount of money to do thousands of small projects. Possibly a better way of gaining support of the people.

So, I guess my question is, have western governments worked out that is important for the country being supported to work for the people.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
When these wars were started, I think it fair to say neither the Taliban or Saddam had much support. Once the replacement governments were up and running and showed themselves to be corrupt and next to useless I believe you are correct. The locals had zero confidence in them.

I still believe Afghanistan was a necessary intervention as it was safe haven for bin Laden. As bad as Saddam was, he was not an immediate threat to the West and served as a partial counter to Iran. It is possible that had all the effort been directed at Afghanistan, the outcome might have been more positive.

As for aid, it's a tough call, see local corruption ruin things or some greedy corporation.:confused:
 
T

Toblerone

Banned Member
USA made Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorism after enabling the mujahideen to get rid of the russians. Later they were forced to invade.

I believe that a power should intervene when it has a legitimate ally in the region. Then you can hope to reach a positive outcome. Like what Russia is doing in Syria for example.

Just toppling a regime through supporting rebels or invading yourself should be done only when a clear power transition can happen. Dismantling a government and the army and doing "nation/state building" is a tall order. Generally all this "partner building" malarkey is a recipe for disaster nowadays.

If you need to build or pay off allies in a region then it means you ... don't have any. Then again the scandalous and otherworldly fortunes spent by the US military have to be justified somehow.

I hope a pro-iranian PM gets in power in Iraq soon, it will be another good lesson.

Mod edit: Warning Issued & short-term ban. No inflammatory or trolling posts. One can have and express an opinion without being insulting, and/or going off into conspiracy theory-land. This applies to both the comment about the US 'making' Afghanistan into a terrorism safe haven, and the swipe at the US over the defense budget. Re-think your engagement style.
-Preceptor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexis35

Alexis35

New Member
It has been terrible to watch the whole thing go through. The current president has dealt with the issues irresponsibly. I really hope we can get out of this mess.

A friendly word of advice here. I realise that you've just started posting, but one of the rules in here is about one liner comments. There is an expectation that even though there are times where a one liner will suffice, there is an expectation that people add or contribute to the debate.

It would be worth your while to check out the forum rules before posting again
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Alexis35 said:
It has been terrible to watch the whole thing go through. The current president has dealt with the issues irresponsibly. I really hope we can get out of this mess.
Click to expand...
This is a defence forum not a political one and politics per se are against the rules. I would strongly advise you to take note of them and Preceptors warning above.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that the Taliban and IS, if not allies per say, tolerated each other's presence as they both shared some goals that were similar. In this video however IS people in Afghanistan make it clear that the oppose the Taliban as the Talibs are stooges of the Pakistani and oppose the formation of a Caliphate [which is true as unlike Al Qaeda, the Afghan Talibs had no intention of taking the fight outside of their country's borders]. Which makes me wonder, if the IS in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, what's stopping the more numerous Taliban from moving against IS? Especially given that IS has attacked the Taliban and has even hung Taliban commanders.

[Featured Documentary - ISIL and the Taliban]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYfBeeUzVME
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
Well it depends; if the Hellfires and Brimestones also end up killing civilians then IS gets more recruits. A possibility off course is working with the Taliban to target IS - benefits the West, the Kabul government and theTaliban. Sounds far fetch no doubt but there have been talks with the Taliban, in the realisation that the Taliban has not been defeated and is here to stay. This is a far cry from the days when we were told how there is no place for the Taliban in Afghanistan and that the Talibs would be defeated.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
STURM said:
Well it depends; if the Hellfires and Brimestones also end up killing civilians then IS gets more recruits. A possibility off course is working with the Taliban to target IS - benefits the West, the Kabul government and theTaliban. Sounds far fetch no doubt but there have been talks with the Taliban, in the realisation that the Taliban has not been defeated and is here to stay. This is a far cry from the days when we were told how there is no place for the Taliban in Afghanistan and that the Talibs would be defeated.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I guess it now boils down to the lesser of two evils for Afghanistan.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Toblerone said:
Taliban launches major assault on Kunduz, Afghanistan - CNN.com

What a failed state. Does anyone else think that the government there is barely being propped up and things could snowball very quickly out of control?

I believe USA will be forced to ramp up their military involvement with more boots on the ground. It will be another proof that their policies have failed and they have been trapped in another quagmire.
Click to expand...
I don't know if leaving behind 8500 troops would entail a quagmire, more of a stabilizing force to back up the Afghan Army They mainly are in a supporting role and enable CAS, Intel, etc. can also perform raids on high value targets as needed
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
Toblerone said:
I believe USA will be forced to ramp up their military involvement with more boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
''Boots on the ground'' will still not lead to the defeat of the Taliban. If it did, the Taliban would have been defeated years ago. The Talibs are here to stay and some form of political sharing agreement must be reached with them. Military means have clearly failed. The Talibs know that despite their widespread support [mostly in rural areas where the government has traditionally been weak] that they can never hope to gain control of the whole country. What the U.S. can do - what it should have done alongside coalition partners years ago - is to pressure the government in Kabul to undertake rural wide reforms intended to win more local support

Afghanistan: Taliban pushes into Uruzgan's Tarinkot - News from Al Jazeera

[Ahmed Rashid On Afghanistan's Challenges In 2016]
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/ahmed-rashid-on-afghanistans-challenges-in-2016/

[Afghanistan Taliban: Can Talks Succeed?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35663214
 
T

Toblerone

Banned Member
Hahaha, you didn't understand me. The defeat of the Taliban would not be the goal of more boots on the ground, but propping up the failed government.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a warlord who during the Soviet occupation spent more time fighting fellow Afghans and who was the favourite of IS when it came to receiving military aid provided courtesy of the U.S. and Saudi, is now one of the good chaps, having signed an agreement with the government of Afghanistan. Whilst serving as the Prime Minister of Afghanistan he shelled his own capital during operations conducted against Ahmad Shah Massud's Jamiat Islami and his Hezb-i-Islami fighters were just as radical as the Talibs; committing several well documented atrocities. I wonder how Afghans who lost family members or friends at the hands of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar feel about this agreement. No doubt it's intended to isolate the Taliban but will any good come out of it?

Afghanistan: Hezb-i-Islami armed group signs peace deal - News from Al Jazeera

The invasion of Afghanistan 15 years ago was an arrogant, wretched adventure that caused a migrant crisis | The Independent
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
Yes. Next we'll probably see the Taliban and Haqqani's people rushing to Kabul to sign peace agreements ......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top