Since the Taliban have no qualms about killing Moslems, this suggestion is utterly pointless.
Also, NATO does have a pact with the government of Afghanistan.
NATO in Afghanistan
- Thread starter evilbrit
- Start date
Also, NATO does have a pact with the government of Afghanistan.
The UK was involved in two, not three previous incursions (1st and 2nd Afghan War), both driven by the need to keep Russia from interfering with the Jewel in the Crown - India. Britain never intended occupying the country over extended periods, just to position a favourable leader who would act as a buffer to Russian influence - sound familiar (take out Russia insert Taliban). The British Empire was built on trade, Afghanistan offered zero trade or natural resources hence it was treated as a side show.
We talk about torture as a means to an end. On the Northwestern Frontier to extract information the Empire soldiers (British, Hindu, and Gurkha) would take captured enemy tribesmen and stitch them alive inside the carcass of a pig until they talked - an early form of waterboarding - left no physical marks. This method was adapted from the Ancient Persians who used to 'tub' people - stitch them inside the carcass of an animal with the head exposed. They would then cover the carcass with honey and leave it to rot in the sun. The flies, wasps, maggots et-al would consume both dead and live flesh, consequently the poor condemned soul would be slowly eaten alive (could take up to 14-days).
We talk about torture as a means to an end. On the Northwestern Frontier to extract information the Empire soldiers (British, Hindu, and Gurkha) would take captured enemy tribesmen and stitch them alive inside the carcass of a pig until they talked - an early form of waterboarding - left no physical marks. This method was adapted from the Ancient Persians who used to 'tub' people - stitch them inside the carcass of an animal with the head exposed. They would then cover the carcass with honey and leave it to rot in the sun. The flies, wasps, maggots et-al would consume both dead and live flesh, consequently the poor condemned soul would be slowly eaten alive (could take up to 14-days).
Last edited:
Well,the Taliban are killing Moslems and we are not using it against them.NATO have a pact with Afghanistan.What is it used for?Nothing.The suggestion is pointless to you because you do not know anything about Islam.You do not know that the Quran says that killing Muslims leads to hell,suicide leads to hell,not paradise.You do not know about dhimmies,who can not be killed.People who kill dhimmies are enemies of Prophet Muhammad and Allah
wrong idea
Local troops are Muslims,killing Muslims is not permitted in true Islam.Why are the Afghan people not protecting their own?Lack of knowledge!
You have the wrong idea:every one knows that the Taliban are engaged in narcotics but have Military Intelligence revealed that Islam says that "intoxicants are a thing of Satan's undoing" and people who use them are "Permanent soldiers of Satan"?NO.This could have reduced the supplies,recruits and funding by questioning their claims to be fighting a jihad.
Local troops are Muslims,killing Muslims is not permitted in true Islam.Why are the Afghan people not protecting their own?Lack of knowledge!
Lack of knowledge?
Rather a "who cares" attitude...
You think that Muslims kill Muslims just because they don't know that normally they are not allowed to do this?
They are doing it since ages just like christians kill christians or members of any other religion kill each other since centuries.
They do it because they think they have something to gain from it.
And you think the people in Afghanistan don't know that theoretically Islam doesn't allow drugs? They are no idiots. Sure they know it but they think they have more to gain from not following these rules.
The same applies to the killing. If people think that for them it is more important to attack fellow muslims than to follow their religion they are going to do it. Just like people everywhere else on this world.
Your ideas are wishfull thinking.
Rather a "who cares" attitude...
You think that Muslims kill Muslims just because they don't know that normally they are not allowed to do this?
They are doing it since ages just like christians kill christians or members of any other religion kill each other since centuries.
They do it because they think they have something to gain from it.
And you think the people in Afghanistan don't know that theoretically Islam doesn't allow drugs? They are no idiots. Sure they know it but they think they have more to gain from not following these rules.
The same applies to the killing. If people think that for them it is more important to attack fellow muslims than to follow their religion they are going to do it. Just like people everywhere else on this world.
Your ideas are wishfull thinking.
BTW, after here and in another thread people referred to articles about germans being too fat to fight I couldn't resist to post this link.
I hope our british members take this as humorous as they took the story about us Germans...
Troops 'too fat' to fight in Afghanistan - Home News, UK - The Independent
I hope our british members take this as humorous as they took the story about us Germans...
Troops 'too fat' to fight in Afghanistan - Home News, UK - The Independent
Can I correct the term "acceptable loss", no troop loss is acceptable, they might be sustainable but never acceptable.The USA with all its manpower puts money to save blood, Israel also will not accept the loss of a member of its forces. The old eastern block looked at its manpower in a different light. UK land forces train within the limits of terms of reference to keep its forces safe. I cant bring the MOD within the spectrum I think they are batting for the enemy.
Military operations are undertaken on the understanding that some troops will die. If those losses were not considered acceptable, the operations would not be undertaken. Acceptable means they can be accepted. Not liked, just accepted as unavoidable. Action is taken to minimise losses, to prevent them as far as possible, but knowing that prevention will not be completely successful.
When no military operation is carried out until those ordering it believe they will lose no troops, then one can say that no losses are acceptable. That is not the current reality.
German soldiers dying in Afghanistan are considered "acceptable losses" here. Nothing more, nothing less. Both in the government and in public opinion by my impression.
As long as stays within acceptable levels, no one in Germany will raise a stink about it - it's not some tragedy, most soldiers dying aren't some sort of hero, it's pretty much an unavoidable occupational risk, everyone going "down there" is a volunteer soldier anyway (they knew what the risk is, and they knew they'd be deployed) and ... there simply isn't a single party in Germany mentioning losses with regard to changing the ISAF mandate.
Germany actually has different "acceptable loss" levels based on whether the troops belong to Intervention Forces or Stabilization Forces btw (in the description - sort of like whether "moderate losses" are acceptables vs "minimal losses").
As a "new" idea sorta - the old impression in the Bundeswehr was "Don't talk about losses. If war starts, you have an average time of survival of 18 minutes. Every single one of you". And that was considered acceptable back then too btw.
As long as stays within acceptable levels, no one in Germany will raise a stink about it - it's not some tragedy, most soldiers dying aren't some sort of hero, it's pretty much an unavoidable occupational risk, everyone going "down there" is a volunteer soldier anyway (they knew what the risk is, and they knew they'd be deployed) and ... there simply isn't a single party in Germany mentioning losses with regard to changing the ISAF mandate.
Germany actually has different "acceptable loss" levels based on whether the troops belong to Intervention Forces or Stabilization Forces btw (in the description - sort of like whether "moderate losses" are acceptables vs "minimal losses").
As a "new" idea sorta - the old impression in the Bundeswehr was "Don't talk about losses. If war starts, you have an average time of survival of 18 minutes. Every single one of you". And that was considered acceptable back then too btw.
On the basis of acceptable levels of attrition what then becomes unacceptable and please define the outcomes in military and political terms.
Militarily losses are acceptable as far as the armed forces are still able to perform their mission and are not rendered ineffective by attrition.
In political terms the border where losses become unacceptable is not clear and constantly in motion.
In the end the borderline marks the point where the government, be it out of their own opinion or because it is hunder pressure by the public, is no longer willing to commit additional men and resources to an effort.
IMO from an outside view the first one is not close to being reached, for that the Afghanistan theater is just to small a "war".
And the second one is also not reached but the political borderline is defenitely lower than the military one.
In political terms the border where losses become unacceptable is not clear and constantly in motion.
In the end the borderline marks the point where the government, be it out of their own opinion or because it is hunder pressure by the public, is no longer willing to commit additional men and resources to an effort.
IMO from an outside view the first one is not close to being reached, for that the Afghanistan theater is just to small a "war".
And the second one is also not reached but the political borderline is defenitely lower than the military one.
Hearts and minds
I have said this before but I will say it again:
The hearts and minds approch is the very reason of failure.
90% of the population don't give a rat's @ss about who they like or agree with, they are only interested in two things: security and a meassure of law and order, that will allow them to feed their famillies and see their kids grow up.
They will surport the side they think are most likely to give them this - today - OR perhaps rather, they will surport the side who will return loyalty with "less" violence.
Let's remember that while the sun shines and the ISAF soldiers play soccer with the local kids, things are not scary, but when the night falls the ISAF guys leaves with their football, and Talliban comes, and they don't play football. Then it's probably quite scary for those stupid enough to surport the ISAF guys....
The 10% who do care about hearts and minds are dead set against us and will give their life to see us fail - good luck handing out candy bars or playing soccer with them.
The basic excuse for a state is to deliver security, law and order. This is simply one of those basic things that a state needs to do, to stay legitimate to it's people. If a state can't even do that, nobody needs that state.
So I suggest, that's what we do. Deliver security, law and order - what ever it takes.
I have said this before but I will say it again:
The hearts and minds approch is the very reason of failure.
90% of the population don't give a rat's @ss about who they like or agree with, they are only interested in two things: security and a meassure of law and order, that will allow them to feed their famillies and see their kids grow up.
They will surport the side they think are most likely to give them this - today - OR perhaps rather, they will surport the side who will return loyalty with "less" violence.
Let's remember that while the sun shines and the ISAF soldiers play soccer with the local kids, things are not scary, but when the night falls the ISAF guys leaves with their football, and Talliban comes, and they don't play football. Then it's probably quite scary for those stupid enough to surport the ISAF guys....
The 10% who do care about hearts and minds are dead set against us and will give their life to see us fail - good luck handing out candy bars or playing soccer with them.
The basic excuse for a state is to deliver security, law and order. This is simply one of those basic things that a state needs to do, to stay legitimate to it's people. If a state can't even do that, nobody needs that state.
So I suggest, that's what we do. Deliver security, law and order - what ever it takes.
How to defeat the talliban using a Laptop
Let's imagine the following:
Every unit is equiped with a or more laptop(s) and a or more interrogator(s). Further more they are equiped with a or more finger print scanner(s).
When the unit enter a village as the first millitary presence , they do the following: Set up interrogations shops in which people can be questioned in complete privacy. All adoult inhabittants are then privately interrogated. This interrogation is friendly and abides to local customs of good behavior.
During the interrogation people will answer questions like name, occupation, adress, place of birth, age etc. Also they will name their familly or a number thereof and they will name their 10 best non-familly friends.
(And ofcourse, if somebody got some interesting information to share, this information is made use of instantly.).
Also the unit will note some general data about the village, like name of major, name of mullah etc.
All this Data is placed in a central database.
When the unit is done they move on to the next village.
Now, when this or another unit returns to the village after sometime, they have some advantages. F.ex. they know who is supposed to be there. If somebody is not supposed to be there, he is a suspect and interrogated as such.
The familly and friendship relations will, by the use of standard mathematical algoritmns, automatically give the unit a good overview of the social structure of the village. Consider f.ex. the friendship relations. If two persons mark each other as friends, we say that they are "friends", if a person have marked another person as friend, but this relation is not returned we say that he is an "admirer" of that person.
Now you can draw a simple schema of the friendship relations in the village. (simply spread out their names on a paper and draw arrows representing the friendship relations, the computer can do this nicely for you). Persons who has a lot of admirers and are friends with other persons who has a lot of admires, are socially dominant. Persons with no or few admires or friends are socially isolated.
Dominant persons are of interest to us as well as isolated persons.
Dominant persons are the ones we have to be friends with (we can f.ex. do services for them or other stuff they appreciate, money has always been a good fundation of friendship!) isolated persons can be the enemy (that no ones want's to be associated with, when confronted by soldiers) or they can be social outcasts (prostitutes, criminals, drug addicts etc), most likely poor, who can be turned to our cause as informants - for a few dollars and some bread.
You can also look for anomalities in the diagram, if a person's choise of friends looks random, maybe he is lying. F.ex. if you have a closed group of friends who are all admires of one person, who do not return the friendships but instead mentions friends that doesn't admire him - then he's lying.
Let's assume that we have identified an enemy in the village, his admires and particularely his friends are also of interest to us, and should be examined closely.
Let's assume that we have stopped a car with four young males out on the road block in the dessert.
The unit tries to identify the persons in the car, using the Database - this can be done via finger prints. If they are in the database the unit can cross check the information the persons provides. And they can make educated quesses on whether or not their story is plausible (f.ex. based on their occupation, which they have provided prior) F.ex. If an unemployed is suddenly heading to market to sell his farm products, it's not so plausible. But if a farmer is heading to market, it's plausible.
If the persons are not in the database, they are added to the database. Here the unit can cross check the info and make some relevant questions; F.ex. what's the name of the major of the village? If a person claims to be from a village, but no one has mentioned him as a friend in that village, he is a suspect. Maybe he states he is a friend of a known enemy, and then he is also a suspect etc.
Our goal is not to kill the enemy on the battlefield, very few of our enemies will be on the battlefield at all, and those who are will likely be of little importance, they are most likely cannonfodder.
Our goal is to identify the enemy in the socity and then remove him from circulation or turn him to our purposes.
When the precense of the enemy in the socity has been decreased enough, the 90% of the population that just want to live their lives in peace will look to us as providers of security, law and order. Then they will surport us.
Let's imagine the following:
Every unit is equiped with a or more laptop(s) and a or more interrogator(s). Further more they are equiped with a or more finger print scanner(s).
When the unit enter a village as the first millitary presence , they do the following: Set up interrogations shops in which people can be questioned in complete privacy. All adoult inhabittants are then privately interrogated. This interrogation is friendly and abides to local customs of good behavior.
During the interrogation people will answer questions like name, occupation, adress, place of birth, age etc. Also they will name their familly or a number thereof and they will name their 10 best non-familly friends.
(And ofcourse, if somebody got some interesting information to share, this information is made use of instantly.).
Also the unit will note some general data about the village, like name of major, name of mullah etc.
All this Data is placed in a central database.
When the unit is done they move on to the next village.
Now, when this or another unit returns to the village after sometime, they have some advantages. F.ex. they know who is supposed to be there. If somebody is not supposed to be there, he is a suspect and interrogated as such.
The familly and friendship relations will, by the use of standard mathematical algoritmns, automatically give the unit a good overview of the social structure of the village. Consider f.ex. the friendship relations. If two persons mark each other as friends, we say that they are "friends", if a person have marked another person as friend, but this relation is not returned we say that he is an "admirer" of that person.
Now you can draw a simple schema of the friendship relations in the village. (simply spread out their names on a paper and draw arrows representing the friendship relations, the computer can do this nicely for you). Persons who has a lot of admirers and are friends with other persons who has a lot of admires, are socially dominant. Persons with no or few admires or friends are socially isolated.
Dominant persons are of interest to us as well as isolated persons.
Dominant persons are the ones we have to be friends with (we can f.ex. do services for them or other stuff they appreciate, money has always been a good fundation of friendship!) isolated persons can be the enemy (that no ones want's to be associated with, when confronted by soldiers) or they can be social outcasts (prostitutes, criminals, drug addicts etc), most likely poor, who can be turned to our cause as informants - for a few dollars and some bread.
You can also look for anomalities in the diagram, if a person's choise of friends looks random, maybe he is lying. F.ex. if you have a closed group of friends who are all admires of one person, who do not return the friendships but instead mentions friends that doesn't admire him - then he's lying.
Let's assume that we have identified an enemy in the village, his admires and particularely his friends are also of interest to us, and should be examined closely.
Let's assume that we have stopped a car with four young males out on the road block in the dessert.
The unit tries to identify the persons in the car, using the Database - this can be done via finger prints. If they are in the database the unit can cross check the information the persons provides. And they can make educated quesses on whether or not their story is plausible (f.ex. based on their occupation, which they have provided prior) F.ex. If an unemployed is suddenly heading to market to sell his farm products, it's not so plausible. But if a farmer is heading to market, it's plausible.
If the persons are not in the database, they are added to the database. Here the unit can cross check the info and make some relevant questions; F.ex. what's the name of the major of the village? If a person claims to be from a village, but no one has mentioned him as a friend in that village, he is a suspect. Maybe he states he is a friend of a known enemy, and then he is also a suspect etc.
Our goal is not to kill the enemy on the battlefield, very few of our enemies will be on the battlefield at all, and those who are will likely be of little importance, they are most likely cannonfodder.
Our goal is to identify the enemy in the socity and then remove him from circulation or turn him to our purposes.
When the precense of the enemy in the socity has been decreased enough, the 90% of the population that just want to live their lives in peace will look to us as providers of security, law and order. Then they will surport us.
Last edited:
But what happens when the action in your terms is unacceptable to the millitary and the political masters.
You state "a small war" in UK terms would you consider this is something they can or cannot afford. In the light of the financial crises, the increased expenditure for the Nepalese servicemen and of course recent high court action in the uk over soldiers compensation, smoking gun intelligence would indicate a financial burden which is acceptable not acceptable or non sustainable.
Millitary planning with council is subject a terms of ref which includes reasons for the proposed action, forces required, required support services medical etc and compensation for the injured, collateral damage not included. Final end game. Very broad brush strokes. Again smoking gun intelligence would indicate statements from UK senior staff officers (public domain) that this police action (no war has been declared on Afganistan just the Talliban) can last between 10/40 years again is this acceptable nonacceptable or sustainable.
You have to ask the question is NATO up to the task asked of it ? The USA apparantly does not think so by the fact of using Xe as a force multiplier. I am not critisising Xe (blackwater) as without them the situation would be dire.
An airstrike on two stolen fuel trucks killed a dozens of people near Kunduz, Northern Afghanistan.
According to German Military the trucks were stolen at around 0150 LCT anddriven to a crossing roughly 6 km away from the next PRT, leading to Charreh Darreh. There they got stuck on the sandbanks and were attacked at around 0230 LCT from the air. According to them the next village is 2 km away.
Hopefully no civilians died. Every sources seems to tell something different in this and not only this regard. That all the maimed and killed seem to be men and mostly young is of course also no positive proof that everybody was an insurgent.
According to German Military the trucks were stolen at around 0150 LCT anddriven to a crossing roughly 6 km away from the next PRT, leading to Charreh Darreh. There they got stuck on the sandbanks and were attacked at around 0230 LCT from the air. According to them the next village is 2 km away.
Hopefully no civilians died. Every sources seems to tell something different in this and not only this regard. That all the maimed and killed seem to be men and mostly young is of course also no positive proof that everybody was an insurgent.
That's the problem it is extremely hard to get good IDs of killed person and wether they are Taliban or civilians.
Not only because one can't distinguish between insurgents and civilians if one takes away the weapons and ammo but also because the elders of the region tend to state that several civilians got killed because it means money for them.
Hopefully no civilians got hurt in this incident.
The Bundeswehr stated that they needed to call in the airstrike as two full fuel trucks are a high risk to the security and ISAF forces in the region.
Blowing one up next to a police station could have resulted in a fiasco.
BTW, the German forces trying to secure the two wrecks immediately got under fire from enemy fighters.
Indicates that this was a bigger operation by the insurgents.
It is worrying how the engagements get bigger and more regular.
Hopefully the situation doesn't escalates any further.
Not only because one can't distinguish between insurgents and civilians if one takes away the weapons and ammo but also because the elders of the region tend to state that several civilians got killed because it means money for them.
Hopefully no civilians got hurt in this incident.
The Bundeswehr stated that they needed to call in the airstrike as two full fuel trucks are a high risk to the security and ISAF forces in the region.
Blowing one up next to a police station could have resulted in a fiasco.
BTW, the German forces trying to secure the two wrecks immediately got under fire from enemy fighters.
Indicates that this was a bigger operation by the insurgents.
It is worrying how the engagements get bigger and more regular.
Hopefully the situation doesn't escalates any further.
The German magazine Spiegel reports the following.
According to the Bundeswehr the two trucks got stuck in a dry riverbed.
There they were localized by a German UAV (I assume a KZO drone) and a scout troop mounted on a Fennek was directed to the scene.
They confirmed that the crowd around the trucks was armed and organized.
After a second comfirmation a USAF F-15 dropped two GBU-38 onto the trucks.
56 insurgents got killed and 11 got away.
So far the Bundeswehr says that there were no civilians at the scene.
According to the Bundeswehr the two trucks got stuck in a dry riverbed.
There they were localized by a German UAV (I assume a KZO drone) and a scout troop mounted on a Fennek was directed to the scene.
They confirmed that the crowd around the trucks was armed and organized.
After a second comfirmation a USAF F-15 dropped two GBU-38 onto the trucks.
56 insurgents got killed and 11 got away.
So far the Bundeswehr says that there were no civilians at the scene.
Was a Luna by some sources (e.g. Tagesspiegel), even though Kunduz also has KZO.
NATO needs
what NATO needs is not more men but more adequate Military intelligence: evidence abounds that proves that al Qaeda are in violation of several Islamic tenets and rules of war.We can reverse the situation.As you noted,the operation is not wholly military but economic,political and psychological.Where you are wrong is when you said it takes years:it does not! When Muslims know that Satanists are impersonating them,there would be an implosion within Al Qaeda and a jihad against the terrorists.We can and must win
You idea is extremely valuable.A database would enable tracking.We can also introduce our screening committee using screened security operatives.This will check for foreigners.Relocating civilians from the borders and destroying farmland is another means to check Taliban movements.We must design a system of mobile housing and introduce a patrons as investors scheme in order to avert the problems the USSR faced when they tried the relocation.Terrorists violate Islamic tenets:cocaine is known as haram (forbidden thing) and is is associated with satan.When we indoctrinate the people that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism,we shall win!