Afghanistan- why are we still at it ?

[T.C.P]

Asuuming there is the political will for such a course of action, who will fund the operation and who will contribute the troops? And for how long will ''UN and military border guards'' be expected to ''prevent the states from going to war'' and under what mandate?



On the contrary, I'm very aware, though not familiar, with the Pashtun code of Pashtunwali :.



I think you're mistaken, it's not the ''common hatred against American troops'' as you put it, but rather the dislike, in common with most people, of having foreign troops on one's soil. To say that 'hatred' of American troops unites the Afghans is too simplistic.

To create several new states based on enthnicity would create a very dangerous precedent, apart from being in this day and age morally wrong. This would lead to the Pashtuns in the North West Frontier, the Baluchis in Baluchistan, the Tajiks in Smarkand and Bakhara, etc, the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Syria, the Turkmons in Iraq etc, to seek independent states.

The same no. of troops that are in Afghanistan now will do. When I said hatred gainst American troops I meant that they hate American soldiers on their soil as they see them as invaders( same goes for all foreign troops in Afghanistan).

As for other ethnicities demanding their own state, I am pretty sure the Turks and Iraqis are more than capable of keeping them in check, they have done so for quite some time.

Heavy military presence at the borders will be needed for some time 7-10 years after that the UN peace corps can take over. Sure this might seem a long time but in my view its the best option. A somalia like situation in a country that is so strategically located and so near to key US allies, like Afghanistan is not viable.

You are right though having so many different states will be problematic, a more realistic approach would be create 3-4 states for 3-4 of the biggest tribes there.

Lastly do you really believe that the quagmire the US is stuck in will ever end if Afghanistan is to remain whole?

 

[STURM]

Lastly do you really believe that the quagmire the US is stuck in will ever end if Afghanistan is to remain whole?

I really have no idea. Sitting in a comfortable chair, in an A/C room behind a PC, it's very easy for me to make conclusions but IMO the solution to Afghanistan would be a mainly with a combined social/political/economic approach, off course backed by the use of force, rather than an over reliance of firepower and technology. I very much doubt if firepower can be a substitute or can lead to a decisive victory to what is largely an ideological, political and economical problem.

 

[T.C.P]

I really have no idea. Sitting in a comfortable chair, in an A/C room behind a PC, it's very easy for me to make conclusions but IMO the solution to Afghanistan would be a mainly with a combined social/political/economic approach, off course backed by the use of force, rather than an over reliance of firepower and technology. I very much doubt if firepower can be a substitute or can lead to a decisive victory to what is largely an ideological, political and economical problem.

You make a fair point

 

[My2Cents]

During the monarchy and the time of the Taliban the Hazaras were treated like animals for being Shias, the Pashtuns consider all other tribes to be unclean immigrants polluting their Afghanistan. If you keep Afghanistan as one country after the US leaves you are looking at a situation that will make Somalia look like the most stable country in the planet. The Pashtuns will start ethnic cleansing of all Hazaras and Tajiks, the Hazaras will fight back probably with support from Iran.

Without the US supplying them with weapons all the fighting tribes will grow opium to fund their war.

The Afghani tribes are not near as bad as the Somalis. Probably because of the lower population density limits opportunities for mass warfare. The ascendancy of the Pashtun came after the war with the Soviets with the formation of the Taliban (which is a Pashtun war band)aided by Pakistan, which wanted a more stable and friendly nation on its border.

Unless prevented, opium production will always agglomerate in the areas with the best export route, which is the Pashtun areas on the Pakistan border.

In my view there are only 2 options

1. Keep Afghanistan whole but seal off all the borders(including land) to prevent the heel on earth from spreading.
or
2. Separate them into different countries where each tribe has its own nationality, but deploy UN and military border guards to prevent the states from going to war.

If you only want to patrol the borders between tribes, it might be possible. To seal the external borders is impractical. Take a good look at a satellite image site like Google Earth, much of the terrain is very rough, the flat portions are crisscrossed with a grid like pattern of dirt roads, and at all the major crossings there are sister cities on both sides of the border within a couple hundred yards of each other. Sealing the borders would require a huge number of isolated outposts. And Afghanistan is totally landlocked, there are no non-land borders.

As for UN troops, remember how successful they were in Kosovo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Somalia.:lol3

 

[STURM]

The ascendancy of the Pashtun came after the war with the Soviets with the formation of the Taliban (which is a Pashtun war band)aided by Pakistan, which wanted a more stable and friendly nation on its border.

As the largest ethnic group the Pashtuns have always been the dominant group in the country, way before the Soviet invasion.

As for UN troops, remember how successful they were in Kosovo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Somalia.:lol3

UN troops are only as effective as their mandate's allow and can only operate within the guidelines that are set by their own governments.

 

[Spetsznaz]

As the largest ethnic group the Pashtuns have always been the dominant group in the country, way before the Soviet invasion.



UN troops are only as effective as their mandate's allow and can only operate within the guidelines that are set by their own governments.

Thats a pretty good point and I dont think that its fair to discredit the UN forces, remember according to the UN there is Peacekeeping and Peace enforcement

I actually have to move over on to what TCP said (and agree with him), that a division of Afghanistan into tribal "units" with UN Peace enforcement and then later if they behave the UN will provide Peace keeping.

Afghanistan being severely unstable and being that close to US resources is a significantly different situation (and) I don't think its a good idea to compare Afghanistan to UN activities in Somalia.:smash

 

[Feanor]

I'm not sure you can close the borders. The Tadjik-Afghan border is rather porous, especially now that Russia isn't on it. And the Pakistani one isn't possible to close down even in theory.

 

[Spetsznaz]

I'm not sure you can close the borders. The Tadjik-Afghan border is rather porous, especially now that Russia isn't on it. And the Pakistani one isn't possible to close down even in theory.

Its manageable to close down the tadjik-afghan border and split them up, but why is the Pakistani one impossible to close down? If the things go smoothly over in the UN some kind of a separation is possible, and considering how things are going down in Afghanistan I dont see why the UNSC would not like the idea of splitting up Afghanistan. (I THINK)

Stoping the ethnic conflict solution would be a pretty big step to Afghanistan settling down.

 

[justone]

To start this off, I don't intend for this to be offensive. I hold th highest respect for all service men and women in arms. But- why are we in Afghanistan ? Why aren't we defending our own borders from illegal aliens and border wars ? We defeated the insurgents years ago. We are only in Afghanistan to defend Afghanistan. If we got out of there, we could save millions of dollars. We can spread the military out on our own borders, killing two birds with one stone. ( what I mean is, we save money and cut down on illegal aliens. Again, I highly respect all in arms. I'm just trying to see what people think.
Cody

Yes the Taliban are weaken but not totally defeated. If you look from 2003 to now the Taliban lost alot of it senior leaders and members. The problem is when other groups or warlords decide to fight against the U.S. The insurgents know it a different military they are fighting now than the Soviets. The units over there now are better prepared for the insurgents than before. One thing about the U.S. they learn from there mistakes in the first four years. If anyone notice the insurgents do not perform effective operation no more so the tide has turn now. I feel what you saying Cody I'm coming to concusion its time to get out to release millions of dollars it cost for the war. I said this before sent in more members from Turkey or another muslim country to train the ANA. There going to be problems with European and Western trainers with the ANA. I don't want bring this up but a Afghan who see the U.S. as a foreigner and Christian you going have problems. I don't see Afghan going down the tude yet. The ANA that are with 101st Airborne are getting good training when the decision to deployed the 101st it was already prepared to go to Afghan they were giving prior training at Fort Campbell on the culture and what to expect so the ANA are looking better in 2011 still have work to do but it's improving. The U.S. technology over there is so good I would if I was the insurgent give up and that what alot are doing now giving up. I would come back and fight if I was giving some technology to fight with. The U.S. forces are winning that why conclusion is to go head and leave Afghanistan in 2012.

 

[STURM]

The U.S. technology over there is so good I would if I was the insurgent give up and that what alot are doing now giving up. I would come back and fight if I was giving some technology to fight with.

Yes but the problem is you are not an insurgent and despite the overwhelming superiority in firepower and technology employed by the U.S. and other countries, the insurgents are still resisting what they percieve to be a legitimate resistance against a foreign occupation. Like what I mentioned earlier on, experience in other conflicts has proven that an attrition strategy based on firepower and technology cannot be a substitute for what is essentialy a political/ideological and economical problem..... If success in an insurgency was due to superior firepower and technology, based on an attritional strategy - enemy KIA, there would be no more insurgency problem in Afghanistan. This is not to say that the U.S. and other countries with troops in Afghanistan have not learnt from their mistakes, they certainly have, but whether the results for them will ultimately be favourable is something we all have to wait and see.

 

[T.C.P]

The Afghani tribes are not near as bad as the Somalis. Probably because of the lower population density limits opportunities for mass warfare. The ascendancy of the Pashtun came after the war with the Soviets with the formation of the Taliban (which is a Pashtun war band)aided by Pakistan, which wanted a more stable and friendly nation on its border.

Unless prevented, opium production will always agglomerate in the areas with the best export route, which is the Pashtun areas on the Pakistan border.

If you only want to patrol the borders between tribes, it might be possible. To seal the external borders is impractical. Take a good look at a satellite image site like Google Earth, much of the terrain is very rough, the flat portions are crisscrossed with a grid like pattern of dirt roads, and at all the major crossings there are sister cities on both sides of the border within a couple hundred yards of each other. Sealing the borders would require a huge number of isolated outposts. And Afghanistan is totally landlocked, there are no non-land borders.

As for UN troops, remember how successful they were in Kosovo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Somalia.:lol3

Yes shutting down all the borders of Afghanistan is impractical, I have no idea how you can shut down the mountain borders.

Yes the UN troops can do a great job, @Sturm mentioned that the UN were restricted by its mandate, I am pretty sure that the UN would draw up a mandate which would allow the peace keepers to do their jobs right.

It would be better for the ISAAF forces to operate under the UN flag as peace keepers they have the best experience in this region and under the UN flags they will not be seen as invaders ( much).

Also the Pashtuns have always been dominant, all govt and military jobs were practically restricted to the Pashtuns during the monarchy and after, the Hazaras mainly served as servants to the rich Pashtuns.

 

[My2Cents]

Yes the UN troops can do a great job, @Sturm mentioned that the UN were restricted by its mandate, I am pretty sure that the UN would draw up a mandate which would allow the peace keepers to do their jobs right.

It would be better for the ISAAF forces to operate under the UN flag as peace keepers they have the best experience in this region and under the UN flags they will not be seen as invaders ( much).

I hope I am correct in assuming that this is sarcasm on your part.

 

[T.C.P]

I hope I am correct in assuming that this is sarcasm on your part.

Nope. Seriously. I really do support the idea of Afghanistan being divided and the borders patrolled by the UN peace corps.

 

[STURM]

Nope. Seriously. I really do support the idea of Afghanistan being divided and the borders patrolled by the UN peace corps.

Do you realise that a lot of the problems being faced today are a result of artificial borders being created in the past by outsiders for their own interests and conveniance against the wishes of the local population. It tends to work out for the outsiders as they eventually pack up and leave but it tends to be a bit more tricky and problematic for the people who actually have to live within these borders. In this day and age, it would be unnacceptable to carry out what you suggest, not only is it morally wrong, it creates dangerous precedents and is very impractical and expensive to carry out and enforce. Closer to home, are you also suggesting that your solution be applied to Myanmmar with the Karens, Chins, etc. And what about when the Rohingya's demand the same? What about the Muslims in Mindanao? Not to mention the various hill tribes in what was called Indochina, the Baluchis, the Kurds, the Basques, the Palastinians, etc, the list can go on and on.

I suggest we get back to discussing the current situation in Afghanistan rather than dwell on something that will never be implemented .

 

[T.C.P]

Do you realise that a lot of the problems being faced today are a result of artificial borders being created in the past by outsiders for their own interests and conveniance against the wishes of the local population. It tends to work out for the outsiders as they eventually pack up and leave but it tends to be a bit more tricky and problematic for the people who actually have to live within these borders. In this day and age, it would be unnacceptable to carry out what you suggest, not only is it morally wrong, it creates dangerous precedents and is very impractical and expensive to carry out and enforce. Closer to home, are you also suggesting that your solution be applied to Myanmmar with the Karens, Chins, etc. And what about when the Rohingya's demand the same? What about the Muslims in Mindanao? Not to mention the various hill tribes in what was called Indochina, the Baluchis, the Kurds, the Basques, the Palastinians, etc, the list can go on and on.

I suggest we get back to discussing the current situation in Afghanistan rather than dwell on something that will never be implemented .

This was addressed in the last two pages of this thread, take a look at them.

Afghanistan is made up of many tribes who despise each other and have no intention of living together peace fully, once the US leaves in 2015, the Karzai govt. will fall and you will be looking at another pre-Taliban period there.

The biggest most conflicting tribes like the Pashtuns, Hazaras and the Tajiks should each have their own state to prevent internal fighting.

Due you really expect the Karzai govt to last after the US get out?

 

[STURM]

This was addressed in the last two pages of this thread, take a look at them.

I'm aware that this has been discussed previously here. In addition to my personal opinions I have also also given historical examples to show that what you advocate, as a solution for Afghanistan, is a recipe for disaster. What happens if the locals don't buy the idea, are you suggesting we resort to forced resettlement? How many UN troops do you think will be sufficient to guard and seal the various new common borders - 200,000 or more? Where is the funding and political support to come from?

Afghanistan is made up of many tribes who despise each other and have no intention of living together peace fully,

What makes you think the Pashtun's, Turkmen's, Hazara's, Uzbek's and Tajik's are so eager to get at each other's throats? The reasons and existing conditions you have given to support your theory are also evident in other countries, are you suggesting that this could also be applied elsewhere?

Due you really expect the Karzai govt to last after the US get out?

Based on your logic and school of thought then all foreign troops should leave now, why wait till 2015 if we know in advance what the eventual outcome will be? Why prolong the inevitable?

 

[justone]

Yes but the problem is you are not an insurgent and despite the overwhelming superiority in firepower and technology employed by the U.S. and other countries, the insurgents are still resisting what they percieve to be a legitimate resistance against a foreign occupation. Like what I mentioned earlier on, experience in other conflicts has proven that an attrition strategy based on firepower and technology cannot be a substitute for what is essentialy a political/ideological and economical problem..... If success in an insurgency was due to superior firepower and technology, based on an attritional strategy - enemy KIA, there would be no more insurgency problem in Afghanistan. This is not to say that the U.S. and other countries with troops in Afghanistan have not learnt from their mistakes, they certainly have, but whether the results for them will ultimately be favourable is something we all have to wait and see.

STURM i wasn't talkin about firepower. Yes you are right about the political, ideological and economical problem. As we are writing now these things are being taken care of. The Vietnam War and other conflicts proved that firepower doesn't destroyed a insurgency. On the other hand technology has change since Operation Desert Storm. The equipment that Special Forces (SF) use now are better. You have CIA operative in Afghan and they have the best technology out there. They are team up with SF units what I'm talkin about is military intell like satelites and other devices that Im not going to mention. From a military point of view can the insurgents mount a big offensive over all Afghan no they can't so the insurgents are weaken. After being in Afghan for 10 years we have made big progress in that field. Right now any insurgent that try to organize a offensive is being destroyed before it can happen correction not all of them. When they do a operation it doesn't have a big effect it get destroyed at the gates. An example of that is when insurgent dressed in ANA uniforms they we killed before they enter the base. That why I came to conclusion it time to let the ANA handle what little insurgent that are left. Nothing gonna change if Afghan feel that U.S. is still there trying to tell them how to handle there own problems.

 

[My2Cents]

Yes the UN troops can do a great job, @Sturm mentioned that the UN were restricted by its mandate, I am pretty sure that the UN would draw up a mandate which would allow the peace keepers to do their jobs right.

It would be better for the ISAAF forces to operate under the UN flag as peace keepers they have the best experience in this region and under the UN flags they will not be seen as invaders ( much)

I hope I am correct in assuming that this is sarcasm on your part.

Nope. Seriously. I really do support the idea of Afghanistan being divided and the borders patrolled by the UN peace corps.

I was referring to getting the possibility of getting the UN to approve a mandate that “would allow the peace keepers to do their jobs right.” They have not done that since the Korean War.

And how would operating under the UN flag make the ISAF forces be seen any less as invaders?
Plus those baby blue helmets stand out and make you a great target. :sniper

 

[Nikkolo]

And this is supposedly "defending" Afghanistan"???

To start this off, I don't intend for this to be offensive. ... We are only in Afghanistan to defend Afghanistan. If we got out of there, we could save millions of dollars. ...
Cody

Well, let me ask you first.
Where did you get an idea to go into Afghanistan in the first place?
Now, Why the Talibani clerks were called from Pakistan and gained so much popularity as "followers of true Islam"? Why Northern Alliance and their Army Commander Ahmad Shah Massoud were assassinated shortly before invasion in 2001?

Do you personally know the story of "Opium War" in China? What was a reason? Who were major players to forcefully engage public opium consumption in China back then?

And according to "opium.org" Talibani's clerks were successfully cleared opium harvesting in 2000-2001.
Now, what Bush's administration concluded that opium is "the only sustainable and viable source of income" for fellow Afghans, then US as the major player in war game refused to destroy opium plantations and protected these fields.
So When Ahmad Shah MAssoud refused to consider opium growth as part of "national economy" he "accidentally" burned to death. When Talibani clerks released "fatwa" and death penalty on opium harvest - they became terrorists?

Do you read me now?

And this is supposedly "defending" Afghanistan"???

 

[Nikkolo]

The Spirit and mindset winning the wars.

STURM i wasn't talkin about firepower. Yes you are right about the political, ideological and economical problem. As we are writing now these things are being taken care of. The Vietnam War and other conflicts proved that firepower doesn't destroyed a insurgency. ... From a military point of view can the insurgents mount a big offensive over all Afghan no they can't so the insurgents are weaken. After being in Afghan for 10 years we have made big progress in that field. Right now any insurgent that try to organize a offensive is being destroyed ... When they do a operation it doesn't have a big effect it get destroyed at the gates. .

OK, fellow concerned citizen.
Nothing was "taking care of". Hamid Katzai was talking to Talibani's. What is that to you? This is simply meaning that Talibani, as a "true Islam followers, students" are in huge popularity over there in Southern Afghan. It always wil be. Why? Bc they explaining to people what will happen to them if the "liberators" will begin opium trades on their land.
Would u like to get some references about level of opium consumption by locals? How and why it sky-rocket in recent years?

By jerking around with "combat" laptops and poking here and there with SOG to take of "leaders" means NOTHING, bc tomorrow there will be 3-5 other leaders in tribute to fallen ones. People will raise their children with HATE towards occupants.
Obviously, the history of Vietnam War did not teach you and a lot of armed personnel in the Coalition.

There was once some tv show about Canadian military unit that built some ambulance and other utilities in one little town. Locals were just began to comfort with their presence, first contacts has been made. And guess what happened? Canadians were all of a sudden ordered to leave. And what happened to some local people who showed fraction of loyalty to those Canadians? They were GONE in a very short time to meet their Creator.

So drop this mantra about "high precision weaponry". Simple microwave deflectors will disarm someone's "high-tech operation".

The Spirit and mindset winning the wars.
Foreign soldiers will never "win" occupational war. Yes, as long as they around some pocket Governments may survive. Remember Babrak Karmal and Soviet support?
The same crap is right now with Karzai. As soon as NATO withdrew - he is history.
:smilie