What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mysterious

New Member
Currently, India is doing just that in Kashmir and with far less technology than the ISAF or having the advantage that the US has wherein, the US can at will extend the operations beyond the Durand Line and take on the Taliban on Pakistani soil. Also the US will not have the disadvantage that India has wherein owing to political reasons, India does not use the Airforce (except transporter), missiles, Combat UAVs, artillery or armour etc to take on the terrorists in Kashmir

While terrorism in Kashmir continues, yet it has been to a great extent brought under control.

India has forces on border manning posts that are tactically sited running all the way from the Chamb in the South and northward to Punch, on the Pir Panjal mountains to Uri and onto Tangdhar and then easterly to Gurez and thereafter to Kargil, Leh and Siachen. To do this, has four Divisions and a Brigade. The rural areas are manned by Army Rashtriya Rifles and paramilitary (BSF). Towns are guarded by police forces.

I am sure the US and ISAF with better technology, weapons, surveillance means, air, helicopters, gunship, artillery, armour, Special Ops troops and so on, can control terrorism. However, the moot point is that troops unless in abundance will find it difficult and that is what is the real chink in the armour.

The US has controlled terrorism in Iraq, and even though remnants of terrorism are making things difficult at time, the situation is better and the Iraqi government functioning.
Ray, please spare us your 'analysis' with tongue-in-cheek comments on Kashmir. Half the Indians are ignorant about what really is happening in Kashmir. If you want to draw parallels, Kashmir has more in common with Gaza & West-Bank than with Pak-Afghan border.

Uncle Sam doesn't like to see & cannot politically handle more body bags coming home wrapped up in the American flag, thats why the Durand Line is respected & treated as a red line as far as boots on the ground are concerned. Ofcourse Indians cannot be expected to understand such sensitivities considering their actions in Kashmir.

And lets leave the definition of terrorism to the academia.
 

mysterious

New Member
I have always mantained that Pakistan is a part of the problem and most of my posts in this thread would give support that.
And that is where you are flat wrong. Pakistan is part of the solution. Short-sighted Western policies and antics have been the problem, which is why the Afghan war has dragged on for this long. What the Americans realize today, had they done it 5yrs ago, things would've been much different.
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
I have always mantained that Pakistan is a part of the problem and most of my posts in this thread would give support that.
With over 80,000 troops deployed, thousands of people died of terrorist attacks INSIDE Pakistan in 2009 and continue to die on daily basis (just two more today in Lahore), yet some lie to the world that Pakistan is part of the problem? Which other country has 80,000 troops on the ground fighting these scumbags? Not even NATO, considering size of the alliance, can muster up that many troops when US is desperate for more troops!

WITH Pakistan's help, we have caught hundreds, it not thousands, of Taliban and Al-Qaeda LEADERSHIP. Many lower rank goons were killed as well. Pakistan has launched over 3 operations INSIDE its territory against TTP and other entities that are responsible for suicide attacks and bombings on civilians. Yet, we have some who lie to the world that Pakistan is the problem. It boggles my mind, sorry.

Guys, lets stick to the facts here and support our theories or "facts" with some form of media coverage, preferably, something respected and known.

Thank you.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Yet, we have some who lie to the world that Pakistan is the problem. It boggles my mind, sorry.

Guys, lets stick to the facts here and support our theories or "facts" with some form of media coverage, preferably, something respected and known.

Thank you.
No one, is disputing the fact that Pakistan is suffering from the effects of terrorism or that Pakistani is playing a huge and positive role in the 'War onTerror''. Everyone here is aware that the Pakistani military is heavily engaged in eradicating the threat and as a result civillians are paying the ultimate price.

You mentioned about sticking to the facts.... Well the fact is that Pakistani support for theTaliban prior to 9//11 played a major role in the Taliban becoming a dominant force in Afghanistan. And according to some respected and known writers/journalists, elements in the Pakistani government and the military continued to provide support to the Taliban way after 9//11.

Please note that I'm not placing the blame solely on Pakistan for all the troubles effecting Afghanistan..
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
No one, is disputing the fact that Pakistan is suffering from the effects of terrorism or that Pakistani is playing a huge and positive role in the 'War onTerror''. Everyone here is aware that the Pakistani military is heavily engaged in eradicating the threat and as a result civillians are paying the ultimate price.

You mentioned about sticking to the facts.... Well the fact is that Pakistani support for theTaliban prior to 9//11 played a major role in the Taliban becoming a dominant force in Afghanistan. And according to some respected and known writers/journalists, elements in the Pakistani government and the military continued to provide support to the Taliban way after 9//11.

Please note that I'm not placing the blame solely on Pakistan for all the troubles effecting Afghanistan..
Pakistan isn't the issue but since we are at it, lets just get it over with.

What was Afghanistan like before Taliban and after Soviets left? What was Afghanistan and Afghan-Pakistan border like during Taliban rule? Before anything else, national security of Pakistan comes first so if I were responsible for that, I would make sure western border is as secure as possible because Pakistan's main threat is from the eastern border. What happens inside Afghanistan isn't my concern, as a person responsible for nations national security, I need to make sure it does not carry over across the border. Thats what the Pakistani intelligence did, they supported a group of people who brought peace within Afghanistan and in-turn, the region. Otherwise, we would have been fighting a different kind of war today. A war that would have resulted in thousands of Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras dead and millions of refugees in guess what? Pakistan.

If we can support dictators of middle east to ensure our national security (oil) and India for its national security can ally a communist country for over 40 years, why can't Pakistan ensure its national security by supporting a party that brought peace in Afghanistan, regardless of what they do within their borders.

Today you have drug problem in Afghanistan, there are warlords and war criminals who are ruling parts of Afghanistan who should be shot dead for their crimes against people of Afghanistan. There is a big difference between Pakistani Taliban and those inside Afghanistan. They have never collaborated, however, TTP has tried to associate themselves with Afghan Taliban but their barbaric tactics, their statements say otherwise. Have you ever noticed why NATO/ISAF/US are trying to TALK to the Afghan taliban while they continue drone attacks on TTP? That says alot about their differences and how ISAF sees them! Even the security forces recognize the difference while we have some who continue to shove theories and made up stories to the rest of the world.

Pakistan has done enough in war against terror and continues to do so, more than any other country. I think, we, here in the US should be grateful of that. We have cheerleaders who got on this anti-terrorism band wagon but have not done a thing to help with forces on the ground or through other means. When it comes to paying the ultimate price, we did and so are the Pakistanis - so other nations (cheerleaders) with 20 embassies and countless agents in Afghanistan acting like they are doing something should shut up and not hinder progress by supporting Takfiri groups inside Pakistan and use Afghanistan as launching pad for efforts against Pakistanis.

The strategy makers and those who understand the dynamics of the region as well as the situation need to keep sensitivities of Pakistan in mind, otherwise Afghanistan will never be stable.
 

Herodotus

New Member
The fact that the Emergency was only officially declared over in 1960 was I believe due to a number of factors and not due to mishandling during the start of the Emergency.Indeed it was mishandled from the start.
If it was not mishandled in 1948 the insurgency may not have lasted until 1960...check the data there was still violence into 1960. In fact, Chin Peng did not officially surrender until 1989.

But then again, most governments faced with an insurgency threat, tend to start off underestimating the nature of the threat and the counter measures needed. IMO the difference in Malaya was that the British were relatively fast in formulating their ''hearts and minds'' programmes by winning over the Chinese population and having a clear chain of command under civilian control with various intel bodies complemeting one another and operating in unison. A major advantage the Brits in Malaya had over the Coalition in Afghanistan was a much better understanding of the local culture, customs and mindset. In pre-independance Malaya, it was common even for junior level British district officers to speak the Malay language and also in many cases Chinese.
That and the fact that the majority population-Malaya-did not join the insurgency, and the British were not always soft in their COIN application-forced removals of the Chinese population.


A major advantage for the Brits was that the presence of British and Commonwealth troops in Malaya was not unwelcomed by the majority of the local population, who were in no hurry to see a speedy withdrawal of these troops. The timetable for British troop withdrawal from Malaya was dictated by results in the field against the MRLA and internal British politics, not by the need to sooth any fears amongst the Malayan population.
The Gurkhas were not considered colonialists though, and well you should know when the British actually set their policy. Its application was designed, at least in part, to prevent the Malayans from joining the insurgency.

Just so you know I'm not talking out of my butt, here are some references:

The Malayan emergency and Indonesian confrontation : the commonwealth’s wars 1948-1966 / Robert Jackson. Barnsley, England : Pen & Sword Aviation, 2008.

Hearts and minds in guerilla warfare : the Malayan emergency, 1948-1960 / Richard Stubbs. Singapore : Eastern Universities Press, 2004.

Dialogues with Chin Peng : new light on the Malayan Communist Party : dialogues and papers originating from a workshop with Chin Peng held at the Centre for the Study of the Chinese Southern Diaspora, Australian National University, Canberra, 22-23 February 1999. Singapore : National University of Singapore, [c2004]

The Malayan Emergency, 1948-60: the domino that stood / Donald Mackay: 1st English ed. London; Washington [D.C.] : Brassey’s, 1997.

Anthony Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948-1960 (New York: Crane, Russak, 1975).

Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency; the Lessons of Malaya and Vietnam, Studies in international security 10 (New York: F. A. Praeger, 1966).
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Continuing with my previous post:
-i see that borders between countries are very difficult to control, but borders for each town or city it is much simpler, two weak points, one the entry of people, we can use the airport scanners to inspect well, avoiding explosive belts etc, second the entry of vehicles, we can have official vehicles which take you out and in of the city, and you can have your car parked out the border, if you want to enter it in, to use it inside the city border you must wait for an inspection and keep parked inside the city if you want.
-other things are the routes for going out and entering to the cities or bases, we can monitore them with cameras, using as first vehicle of the row a drone for the mines, and with the frequency inhibitors..

The basis of the terrorism is the rencor, the rage from an unhappy people, with a maxima expression of the suicide, "i get rid of my life, but i kill some people" (the ones that do it voluntarily), so if we are in xxi century and we are very clever with technology and luxury for some but in terms of social system, economical system we are still inside the mess of the no-control economy. So maybe militar people could introduce a way of sustainable growth, based on self-town-city production of the basics, food, textiles, if there is poor people, very unhappy people, it will create more suicide bombings...if you are happy planting your fruits, and coming back at midday home and have a pleasurous afternoong and evening, this type of facts are stronger than any rage against "occidental" societies or jihad matters.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
If it was not mishandled in 1948 the insurgency may not have lasted until 1960...check the data there was still violence into 1960. In fact, Chin Peng did not officially surrender until 1989.
I fully agree, like most counter insurgencies, it was mishandled from the start. I was wrong, stating in an earlier post that it was never mishandled. Again I could be wrong here but I believe the Brits were relatively quick in formulating a sound response and strategy. Either way, success was bound to take time, it was never expected that the campaign to defeat the MRLA would be short. Part of the problem apart from the 600km border with Thailand is that Peninsular Malaysia is roughly the size of England and hunting down small groups of MRLA in the jungle was no easy task.

The original intent was to declare the Emergency over at least 2 years before 1960 but the Malayan government at the advice of the Brits waited till 1960. There was violence up to the 80's, but the key difference is the MRLA in the 70s and 80's never posed the level of threat they did in the 50's.

Just so you know I'm not talking out of my butt,
Herodotus, there's no need for references. I never thought for a minute that you were ''talking out of your butt'' :). As you mentioned previously, you used to work for a think-tank.
 
Last edited:

ccL1

New Member
just leave Afghanistan and there will be peace, this "so called" war on terror is not so well
If NATO left Afghanistan, there would eventually be peace as the Taliban would take over Afghanistan again by defeating all the other warlords and factions in the country.

Of course, having the Taliban taking over the country isn't what NATO calls peace, and it's not something they are prepared to accept. Many countries already are or are mulling whether to leave Afghanistan or not. We will see what effect that has in the country.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me.
 

Kiwikid

New Member
If NATO left Afghanistan, there would eventually be peace as the Taliban would take over Afghanistan again by defeating all the other warlords and factions in the country.

Of course, having the Taliban taking over the country isn't what NATO calls peace, and it's not something they are prepared to accept. Many countries already are or are mulling whether to leave Afghanistan or not. We will see what effect that has in the country.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me.
just leave Afghanistan and there will be peace, this "so called" war on terror is not so well
Both Saif1 and ccL1 make valid points. The truth of it is that there is a turf war between Iran and Pakistan happening there and that is why NATO is involved.

My take on this is:


1. Take out Iran's nuclear threat with a proper war.

2. Invite Uzbekistan to annex the northern half of Afghanistan and creat a homogenus Uzbek nation.

3. In the south allow Pakistan to annex the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and dissolve the nation entirely
 

chrisdef

New Member
1/ Stop killing so many civlians. I know its a war and things happen but if you really want to get it finished alot more effort will be needed with troops on the ground and not just bombing from the air. Its much more risky for the soldiers but that is after all there job.

2/Work out a fix for the poppy situation. As others have said you cant just destroy them as you just ruin the farmers lives and give more converts to the Insurgents. Give them simple crops payed (by Nato/the US/The UN/whoever) regularly and at fair market prices which will stop alot of the Taliban's funding.

3/Alot more resources need to go to Pakistan and the border region. Defeating them In Afghanistan means nothing if they just hop over the border into Pakistan and continue making problems there and come back when you leave.

But basically i think your screwed. The only way to win 100% would be to invade Pakistan too and possibly Iran and that will never happen. Your having enough trouble with 2 countries let alone 2 more. And even if you did the fighters would still hop borders into other neighbouring countries possibly just creating more mayhem in the region then has already been caused thanks to failed planning.
 

Thinker

New Member
1/ Stop killing so many civlians. I know its a war and things happen but if you really want to get it finished alot more effort will be needed with troops on the ground and not just bombing from the air. Its much more risky for the soldiers but that is after all there job.

2/Work out a fix for the poppy situation. As others have said you cant just destroy them as you just ruin the farmers lives and give more converts to the Insurgents. Give them simple crops payed (by Nato/the US/The UN/whoever) regularly and at fair market prices which will stop alot of the Taliban's funding.

3/Alot more resources need to go to Pakistan and the border region. Defeating them In Afghanistan means nothing if they just hop over the border into Pakistan and continue making problems there and come back when you leave.

But basically i think your screwed. The only way to win 100% would be to invade Pakistan too and possibly Iran and that will never happen. Your having enough trouble with 2 countries let alone 2 more. And even if you did the fighters would still hop borders into other neighbouring countries possibly just creating more mayhem in the region then has already been caused thanks to failed planning.
Bomb them-it cant be that hard to find a base-you have the best technology on earth and considering the countermeasures on your planes-no casualtys(as lang as your using smartbombs) and its also a use for that fucking waste of taxpayer money you call The uss reagan.I would also like to use this space to tell you that the insurgents known as the 'taliban' are stockpiling.
 

Kiwikid

New Member
Bomb them-it cant be that hard to find a base-you have the best technology on earth and considering the countermeasures on your planes-no casualtys(as lang as your using smartbombs) and its also a use for that fucking waste of taxpayer money you call The uss reagan.I would also like to use this space to tell you that the insurgents known as the 'taliban' are stockpiling.
Hmm ... I'm old enough to remember that argument in Vietnam. Americahad the technology but a bunch of guys with ak-47's beat a rich and powerful nation who thought technology solved everything..
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hmm ... I'm old enough to remember that argument in Vietnam. Americahad the technology but a bunch of guys with ak-47's beat a rich and powerful nation who thought technology solved everything..
Yep. It was those guys with the AKs. The massive military aid from another super power had nothing to do with it.
 

chrisdef

New Member
Bomb them-it cant be that hard to find a base-you have the best technology on earth and considering the countermeasures on your planes-no casualtys(as lang as your using smartbombs) and its also a use for that fucking waste of taxpayer money you call The uss reagan.I would also like to use this space to tell you that the insurgents known as the 'taliban' are stockpiling.
There "bases" maybe a town of 10's of thousand's of people (if you mean in Pakistan) so bombing them just kills many civilians and adds many more to the Insurgency.
And no all Insurgents arent the Taliban. There are plenty of different groups there from AQ and other terror groups to regular farmers just annoyed with the occupation and taking potshots at Coalition troops.
 

dragonfire

New Member
Both Saif1 and ccL1 make valid points. The truth of it is that there is a turf war between Iran and Pakistan happening there and that is why NATO is involved.

My take on this is:


1. Take out Iran's nuclear threat with a proper war.

2. Invite Uzbekistan to annex the northern half of Afghanistan and creat a homogenus Uzbek nation.

3. In the south allow Pakistan to annex the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and dissolve the nation entirely
I dont agree with any of your suggestions, the country of Afghanistan is not defined by national borders but by the people, the afghan people will not accept any 1 of these situations much less all three, any solution has to be incorporating the needs and wishes of the people there. A war with Iran is unnecessary and uncalled for and will not serve any purpose, Iran needs to be addressed by a wider community of International participants a War will only alienate the world into religious poles.

The small border that Uzbekistan shares with Afghanistan and the fact that the border districts of Afghanistan on the Afghan-Uzbek border have a majority of Turkmen, all counter your suggestion for an Uzbek invasion. Also the minority Uzbek people in Afghanistan have been living in the region for a long time and consider themselves more Afghan than Uzbek having been in the region for centuries. Also any such invasion could quickly escalate into displacement of ethnic groups and also worse situations like ethnic cleansing. Also the populace of the region were big time supporters of the anti-taliban Northern Alliance.

Pakistan has enough problems in its own tribal areas, problems with the Pakistani-Taliban and a lot of terrorist groups operating in its own territory and in border areas. They are working towards this problem now and dont need to engage their already stretched resources in other activities
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
1. Take out Iran's nuclear threat with a proper war.
Launch another Western led war against another country in the region, to add to the list?
At the risk of further destabilising the region?

Sure, Iran currently has a crack pot president and like many countries in the region who are good mates with Uncle Sam, has an undemocratic government. Iran has meddled in Iraq, supports Hezbollah and has very close relations with Syria [a legacy of the war with Iraq when Iraq was courted and supported by many]. Amidst all the calls for war with Iran and the beating of war drums, why is there no mention that Iran traditionaly has been an arch enemy of the Taliban? Did Iran not cooperate with Uncle Sam during the Iraq invasion by agreeing to turn a blind eye to any SAR flights conducted over its airspace? Wasn't Iran, together with Russia and India, one of the few countries to actively provide aid to the Northern Alliance prior to 9/11?

2. Invite Uzbekistan to annex the northern half of Afghanistan and creat a homogenus Uzbek nation.

3. In the south allow Pakistan to annex the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and dissolve the nation entirely
Yes, yes, yes. And the Tajiks can be part of Tajiskistan and the Turkmen area part of Turkemenistan. But where do the Hazaras go? Then the Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey will expect the same. Then maybe the Druze in Lebanon, followed by the shiities in Iraq! Don't forget the Baluchis in Pakistan!

As it is, there are enough problems effecting the world as a result of artificial borders created the post colonial era, forced upon locals by outsiders, so lets learn from history and not repeat it.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Uzbekistan wouldn't take the invitation. They're not interested in more unstable and dirt poor territory. They're currently a CSTO memberstate, and their best hope is to stick with it, and hope they will end up part of the European orbit rather then the Middle Eastern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top