Afghanistan War News & Discussions

[andrei]

nobody, ever, was able to conquer afghanistan.
this is a statement from a russian film about the war in afghanistan.
The talibans - afghans - are just using a different rythim and tactic. they will never try to attack in force a group of western troops. they will just retreat and wait.
a quick reaction force , western style, with helicopters, and heavy equipment and firepower, will always be meet by retreat. but on the other hand how long can the western power fight ? and stay ? one year ? five ? ten ? some pashtouns revenge journeys are based on 100 years feud. does any one realistically see western troops still in agfhanistan in 20 years ? with 70,000 troops on the ground now, the west is unable to win because 2/3 of these soldiers have strict orders to stay on their basis and only defend themselves. the war cannot be won because 20,000 western troops actively fighting the talibans cannot win. and 100,000 soviet troops with no regards for civilian casualties were not enough . french public, canadian public, and all western public opinion are fed up with this war. in 5 years they will be gone

 

[kato]

Trabelsi planned to attack a military base; legitimate target, not terrorism. The "poor man's cruise missile" and all that.

The rest was a pretty standard judicial treatment of an exposed underground cell.

 

[kato]

does any one realistically see western troops still in agfhanistan in 20 years ?

The German government is planning with that kind of timeframe (15-20 years), yes.

 

[andrei]

i don t see many germans troops willing to fight in afghanistan. i m no german but i believe that the german public will not accept heavy casualties resulting from active fighting. the reason why the french paratroopers were killed this week was that they went on patrol in villages, trying to enforce a western presence. before them the italians and the americans would nt do it, they would just stay in their basis and send some tanks on the road and planes above. well as long as the west is planning all humanitary aid and training for ANA the talibans will continue to gain ground. in the last 2 years in afghanistan the russians /soviet army was mostly confined to their basis and the result was that there were lower general casualties number and more attacks and more specific deadly fights when these occurred.

 

[Chrom]

But NATO doesn't have to worry at all about informants in the ANP or ANA since they are usually anti-Taliban (the ANA much more so than the ANP).

The problems with the ANP aren't Taliban-sympathizing related. They lack in numbers, training and equipment (mainly numbers and training, though)

Taliban is not they only problem. Various local warlords also. As i said, Afghanistan government is basically just another warlord tribe, somewhat more "civilized" due to official status and NATO influence. But this is not real independent power.

I thought Afghan heroine mainly go to Iran and Pakistan.

Lol! You really think Iran or Pakistan population have nearly enough money to buy that? No, nearly 90% of narcotics flow in EU and Russia. Thats why some wild conspiracy accusations about US involvement are so popular.

Anyways, even when the Taliban was the official power, it couldn't care less what happened to its people. The Taliban's tribal traditions encourage backwardness and isolationism. So, any outside pressure like sanctions and isolation are actually good for the Taliban.

Hard to tell. Usually such views turned to be out just propaganda, based on some exaggerated properties. Either way, Taliban still unofficiale rule pretty hefty chunk of land in Afghanistan.

And to the Taliban, their fighters are neither terrorists or soldiers. They are the guys that keep the Taliban's leaders and tribes protected and in a position of power. The Taliban isn't a "people's movement" because it favors some tribes and ethnic groups over others.

Just as any national power. Like f.e. Albanians in Kososvo, like Serbs in Serbia, even like Poland... Yes, it is not fully comparable examples. But US friendly Saudi Arabia and Arabic Emirates are already almost the same as Taliban.

 

[kato]

i m no german but i believe that the german public will not accept heavy casualties resulting from active fighting.

Germany isn't really that low there. Compare not so much to USA/UK/CA, but the other various battlegroups in the south - especially Netherlands and Denmark.

Killed due to hostile action, more than ten:

USA - 361 (out of 507)
UK - 86 (out of 116)
Canada - 81 (out of 92)
France - 19 (out of 22)
Germany - 14 (out of 26)
Denmark - 14 (out of 17)
Netherlands - 11 (out of 16)

 

[radiosilence]

They host these bases now as well - may be not so openly, but they have more members crying for revenge instead.

They might have more members crying for revenge but its a lot harder to execute a terrorist attack now that they can't plan and train as freely as they did during the Taliban regime.

Btw, "terrorist" training bases are too biased words. For Taliban they just trained soldiers to protect they land

I wasn't refering to Taliban "soldiers" . Al Qaeda training bases.

 

[radiosilence]

Trabelsi planned to attack a military base; legitimate target, not terrorism. The "poor man's cruise missile" and all that.

The rest was a pretty standard judicial treatment of an exposed underground cell.

See Djamel Beghal network. Financed by Bin laden and plan to attack American interest across Europe.

Do think an unstable Afghanistan and Fata is a threat only to the US?

 

[kato]

Quite seriously? It was rather stable before NATO went into it. 90% under stable Taliban government, only the North, consisting largely of formerly Soviet-supported local warlords was mucking up a bit.

Al Quaeda only used Afghanistan as one of their principal bases. There's more than enough places in the world where they can hold their training, or base their staff out of.
Real terrorist groups have never really been restricted to a particular powerbase, and have, at least in the past 40 years, always been internationally networked.

The difference is that Europe actually has experience dealing with such networks, hence why maybe the "threat" is perceived as less dangerous.
The US hasn't really had to "deal" with such over the past 40 years, and has pretty much only been "on the map" as a sort of collateral damage due to bases and interests in countries where such networks were active (see e.g.: RAF, 17N, BR). Even the scale is nothing new to Europe really. Al Quaeda's cadre and support base in Europe is laughable compared to what the IRA, ETA or BR in their heighday had, and is more on a scale with "foreign dependancies" of groups such as PKK in Germany or FIS in France.

The networking and interaction between groups is nothing new really too. Back in the 70s the PLO was the big factor there, cooperating with national terrorist groups throughout Europe due to joint interests.

And the European experience - except, notably, for the UK - has been such that military might, or power, doesn't stop such networks. In none of the affected European countries, which have been pretty much all of them. All that leads to is losing your leads on them, through "next generations" springing up.

 

[Feanor]

The real problem is not enough troops on the ground. There is only one way to deal with it, to bring overwhelming amounts of troops, close all the borders and systematically wipe out all insurgent infrastructure and fighters. Does it border on genocide? Yes. Is it doable? Yes.

 

[eaf-f16]

The real problem is not enough troops on the ground. There is only one way to deal with it, to bring overwhelming amounts of troops, close all the borders and systematically wipe out all insurgent infrastructure and fighters. Does it border on genocide? Yes. Is it doable? Yes.

It isn't genocide to kill armed fighters and the actions you just described aren't at all doable.

It is a lot more complicated than what you just described and increasing the number of troops is perhaps one of the easier things to do for the US. "Closing all the borders" is something that is never ever going to happen in a country like Afghanistan. The USSR had alot more troops in Afghanistan and they never managed to even reliably monitor, let alone close, the area bordering the NWFP.

 

[Feanor]

The USSR didn't have enough troops in Afghan either. When I say bring more troops, I don't mean a brigade or two. I mean around 300 000 - 500 000 troops. An amount that can close the borders and control almost all population centers on the ground.

 

[Sampanviking]

It isn't genocide to kill armed fighters and the actions you just described aren't at all doable.

It is a lot more complicated than what you just described and increasing the number of troops is perhaps one of the easier things to do for the US. "Closing all the borders" is something that is never ever going to happen in a country like Afghanistan. The USSR had alot more troops in Afghanistan and they never managed to even reliably monitor, let alone close, the area bordering the NWFP.

As the armed fighers are mainly the local residents and the Infrastructure is mainly their families, then yes it would be genocide.

Maybe NATO is simply the wrong organisation to be able to deal effectively with the problem and that other; rmore local, Security Organisations would be better placed to pacify the country?

 

[swerve]

The networking and interaction between groups is nothing new really too. Back in the 70s the PLO was the big factor there, cooperating with national terrorist groups throughout Europe due to joint interests.

And the European experience - except, notably, for the UK - has been such that military might, or power, doesn't stop such networks. In none of the affected European countries, which have been pretty much all of them. All that leads to is losing your leads on them, through "next generations" springing up.

1. The IRA briefly co-operated with FARC, in Colombia.

2. The UK only used the military in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain*, dealing with the IRA was done by the police & military intelligence working together.

*Plenty of IRA bombs here. I've been (unknowingly at the time, of course) within a few metres of at least two, here in Reading, & the local police were once given an unexploded one by a petty thief who stole a bag, & only found out when he got it home what it contained. His mother convinced him that the police wouldn't care about him having stolen the bag, & called them.

 

[Chrom]

They might have more members crying for revenge but its a lot harder to execute a terrorist attack now that they can't plan and train as freely as they did during the Taliban regime.


I wasn't refering to Taliban "soldiers" . Al Qaeda training bases.

Both work just as freely as before. 90% of Afghanistan territory is not controlled by NATO or Afghanistan government. Moreover, Al Qaeda is purely a creature of US propaganda. They was just marginal terrorist group among many others before 9/11, they (most likely) had little to do with 9/11 as well. Now, if course, with such PR Al Qaeda became one of largest terrorist groups worldwide.

 

[kato]

1. The IRA briefly co-operated with FARC, in Colombia.

As well as PLO and the Lybian secret service back in the days, and (suspected) also with ETA.

2. The UK only used the military in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain*, dealing with the IRA was done by the police & military intelligence working together.

True. Well, to express it another way - IRA was the only case (other than maybe FIS and PKK, but those are outside Europe) where a military approach confined to a defined mission area was remotely successful in any way.

One other group hunted with military means - and, notably, with members executed by firing squad as "military opponents" - was FRAP in Spain in the last years of Franco's dictature and the first years under his successor.

Moreover, Al Qaeda is purely a creature of US propaganda. They was just marginal terrorist group among many others before 9/11

Al-Quaeda essentially became big with the Taliban - the Taliban needed military advisors and training staff, and AQ was one of a number of groups that "joined up" essentially. Previous to that, sure, AQ performed some terrorist attacks nominally, but these were essentially performed by local groups affiliated in various ways with AQ.
These groups training Taliban in AFG essentially found together around '98, and jointly performed the first big strike (Kenya/Tanzania), followed by the first open warfare between these groups and the US with the cruise missile strikes on their camps.

 

[Feanor]

As the armed fighers are mainly the local residents and the Infrastructure is mainly their families, then yes it would be genocide.

Maybe NATO is simply the wrong organisation to be able to deal effectively with the problem and that other; rmore local, Security Organisations would be better placed to pacify the country?

Bingo. Nobody in the west has the stomach for winning this war. The price tag on that victory is seen as unacceptable. As a result the war is a compromise effort between those who want to fight and those who aren't willing to pay the cost for victory.

 

[Chrom]

Al-Quaeda essentially became big with the Taliban - the Taliban needed military advisors and training staff, and AQ was one of a number of groups that "joined up" essentially.
.

I'm somewhat skeptical about that. Taliban was trained by US / NATO - i think they still had enough expertise for that. I doubt Al-Quaeda could add much. Though i agree they used each other in mutual interests - AQ got some bases and requiting, Taliban some friendly (terrorist) group they could use abroad.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'm somewhat skeptical about that. Taliban was trained by US / NATO - i think they still had enough expertise for that. I doubt Al-Quaeda could add much. Though i agree they used each other in mutual interests - AQ got some bases and requiting, Taliban some friendly (terrorist) group they could use abroad.

While the Mujahedin and various warlords did recieve funding, weapons and training by CIA/ISI and KSA, the Talibs have never gotten anything from the West.

 

[kato]

And most warlords and mujahedeen quite naturally weren't on the Taliban's side, but only on their own. Quite often they switched sides as opportune at the time.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, about the only major warlord currently opposing the occupation, was actually fighting against the Taliban until his forces were ripped apart in the sweeping attacks, forcing him into exile in Iran.

Haqqani, the other warlord on the Taliban side at the moment, switched over to the Taliban in 1995, and is the one major player on the Taliban side who had fought as a US-supported mujahedeen against the Soviets.

The Taliban per se weren't really formed in the 80s yet. At that time they were a number of relatively disorganized Pashtun bands.