What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan?

[AMERICANMAN]

From an US point of view, the question is, what is more important. With basically two options.
a) To continue "fighting" the war like in the last time.
you dont have to admit that the strategy is/was "wrong"
you might lose/fight a never ending war

b) Change the strategy
you would implicitly admit that the strategy is/was "wrong"
you might not lose the war

What is more important, not losing the "war" or your pride?
For a new strategy you dont have to compromise with someone else, just with yourself.

The outcome of an enduring war is not so much determined by the doctrines/capabilities at the start of the war, but rather by the abilities to learn and adapt during the conflict.

Its not just the USA or even the west its the modern world and we will have to wait 300 years to see how it turns out. Usually the more advanced culture adaps the fastest..

 

[Marc 1]

Its not just the USA or even the west its the modern world and we will have to wait 300 years to see how it turns out. Usually the more advanced culture adaps the fastest..

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of how this type of insurgent war works do you Americanman.

Yes the UsA and its allies can bomb the Afghan people back to the stone age - but that will not work for two reasons. One, Afghanistan is back in the stone age already, and two, the battle is for the people's minds - win that trust and the Afghani people will do a far better job than all the Predator drones and USA tech ever will.

TThe answer isn't always to carry a big stick and use it regularly.

Oh, and BTW, by strutting around and making bold statements about wiping out islamic extremists is only likely to radicalize more young impressionable people. OWN goal, nice work tex.

 

[Locarnus]

Its not just the USA or even the west its the modern world and we will have to wait 300 years to see how it turns out. Usually the more advanced culture adaps the fastest..

I did not mean to discuss why there is a fight or what the intentions of the players truly are.

I just take this as a hypothetical scenario under real world contraints (case study) with given assumptions.
One of the assumptions is, that the main goal of the players (US/NATO, private corps, AStan Gov, Taliban, Warlords, Pakistan etc.) is to increase their power/influence/profit in AStan.

In another thread you said, that unexperienced US civilians would smash a hypothetical Japan WW2 invasion of US West Coast and even with unrestricted scorched earth policy the Japs would stand no chance.
Here you want to win with some limited scorched earth policy against civilians with quite a history in guerilla wars of attrition.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

I did not mean to discuss why there is a fight or what the intentions of the players truly are.

I just take this as a hypothetical scenario under real world contraints (case study) with given assumptions.
One of the assumptions is, that the main goal of the players (US/NATO, private corps, AStan Gov, Taliban, Warlords, Pakistan etc.) is to increase their power/influence/profit in AStan.

In another thread you said, that unexperienced US civilians would smash a hypothetical Japan WW2 invasion of US West Coast and even with unrestricted scorched earth policy the Japs would stand no chance.
Here you want to win with some limited scorched earth policy against civilians with quite a history in guerilla wars of attrition.

What choice is there? The USA cant allow 3000 americans to be murdered in cold blood and do nothing, nor can it allow countries to be safe haven for terrorist that attack american. The next attack might be with nuclear weapons and then God help us all.

 

[STURM]

I dont care what they get all I want to do is kill people that support terrorism, since I wont bow to terrorism I dont have any choice..

Who's a bona fide terrorist and who's an insurgent, where do we draw the line to make a distinction? What about the Afghan who doesn't share the ideology of Al-Qeda or the Taliban but is only fighting against what he perceives to be foreign invaders, is he a 'terrorist'?

What choice is there? The USA cant allow 3000 americans to be murdered in cold blood and do nothing, nor can it allow countries to be safe haven for terrorist that attack american. The next attack might be with nuclear weapons and then God help us all.

Yes, yes, nobody is questioning the need to have gone into Afghanistan in 2001. That's why military action against Aghanistan received far more support than the invasion of Iraq.
The vital questions in my view is what what direction the war is taking, will ISAF/NATO be able to achieve their objectives and at what long term cost to Afghanistan? And how many more Aghan civillians will have to pay the ultimate price for being inconsiderate enough to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Only war I can think of that might be debatable or not would be vietnam and looks like that was a battle with communism that we won in the end.

Tell that to the country that was once known as South Vietnam.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

Who's a bona fide terrorist and who's an insurgent, where do we draw the line to make a distinction? What about the Afghan who doesn't share the ideology of Al-Qeda or the Taliban but is only fighting against what he perceives to be foreign invaders, is he a 'terrorist'?




Yes, yes, nobody is questioning the need to have gone into Afghanistan in 2001. That's why military action against Aghanistan received far more support than the invasion of Iraq.
The vital questions in my view is what what direction the war is taking, will ISAF/NATO be able to achieve their objectives and at what long term cost to Afghanistan? And how many more Aghan civillians will have to pay the ultimate price for being inconsiderate enough to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.




Tell that to the country that was once known as South Vietnam.

Even today more Iraqis support the USA removing Saddan t then dont support the actions the USA took. But that does not matter does it.

More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated

ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Iraqis Report Better Postwar Life

"As many Iraqis say the war "humiliated" Iraq as say it "liberated" the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces, but say they are necessary for the time being." Thats what really bothers you..

Of course the fact that Saddam was a whole sale mass murder that tortured murdered and even use posion gas on women and children is not important compared to the humilation of arabs by saddam being so easly defeated.

There are those that will give in to terrorism,, I dont think the USA is one of them,,,, and we all suffer from the actions of the few or the many that take place in a country.... I am sure alll the people in Japan or Germany were not for war, but they suffered along with those that were responsible. I consider people terrorist that meet the definition of terrorist.

Definitions of terrorism

•the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

One more thing we went into Iraq and removed Saddam at tremendous cost and are in the process of leaving and will leave any time the Iraqi goverment tells us to leave. Would any other country has done as much?

One other thing it is hard to tell just how many countries may have resisted allowing terrorsm to thrive and to attack the USA after they seen what happened in Iraq and Afghanstan. Thats an unknowen.

 

[SABRE]

Locked. The thread is going in wrong directions and I see flames here and there.

AMERICANMAN lets be more pragmatic/realist and less hawkish. No one comes here to fight or argue. They are here for civilized discussion, so lets give them what they want.