Since this is not the thread to discuss the Israeli/U.S. relationship, I do not see how they would pertain to how, when or why we get out of Afghanistan. I will only say that the above comments about the Israeli/U.S. relationship of which many people in both in the US and Israel are not comfortable are simplistic and incorrect.
Afghanistan- why are we still at it ?
- Thread starter Commander Cody
- Start date
- Status
Well, you are free to express, like all of us, your own opinion on what is ''simplistic'' and ''incorrect''.
The only reason I brought up the subject in the first place was because the Israeli/Palestinian problem was mentioned in some lenght, when it shouldn't have been in, this thread.
surpreme
Member
Im give credit where credit is due. The US/NATO is doing some nice operation against the insurgents. Military unit are dressin up in civilian clothes like the locals and also have beards. Every since they went inside Afghan in 2001 US went with SF and that what help them out to where they are today. Now its going into the summer and the insurgents haven't launch a ground offensive. What a difference the war turn into. It still not over yet. The next 6 months is going to tell what really going on with the insurgents. My hats goes off for 101st Airborne Division
apd1004
New Member
Yes, that's affirmative.
surpreme
Member
The Taliban has been defeated it so called spring offensive didnt show anything on the ground. All they did was alot of bombings but no ground offensive. It about time for U.S./NATO to withdraw some units and focus on the ANA. The Taliban know they are hurting right now love to tell everyone that they are okay but really are not. My conclusion is this will last a long time cause the hardcore insurgents are laying low. After 10 years of suffering high loses they are feeling the effects.
If I was the Taliban I would lay low and lick my wounds. Create an impression we are no longer a viable fighting force and thus hopefully speed up NATO's withdrawl.
The current Afghan government is rotten to the core and doesn't have the means or will to operate and maintain all the kit the West has provided. Once the West leave the ANA will fight well in the short term, but unless they are well motivated (money, housing, land etc.) they will lose the will to fight and fragment along tribal/ethnic lines. Corruption will continue to hemorrhage money to offshore bank accounts away from education and reconstruction programs, the population will get fed-up and opt to support those who guarantee security regardless of how extreme the ideology - whether Northern Alliance or hard-line Taliban.
The Taliban leadership knows full well the West won't return to Afghanistan once they have up'd sticks, the argument being for the West that Bin Laden is dead and we haven't witnessed another event comparable with 9/11, so let's call it a draw. Plus the last thing the US economy needs right now is another conflict requiring billions of dollars in investment. The Taliban will not be defeated in the field, just contained in the short-term until the next generation of fruit-loops are ready to take up the cause. Everybody knows NATO is looking for a way to get out and save face, plus there are much bigger fish to fry on the horizon - growing isolation of Israel (less than friendly Turkey and Egypt), a nuclear Iran followed by a nuclear Saudi.
Any void left by the pullout of NATO will probably be filled by India, which has already been competing with Pakistan for influence, as well as by Russia which is still concerned about a spillover to Central Asia if things were to worsen in Afghanistan. Then there is also China.
Whether or not the ANA are competant to operate the gear provided and ensure that security levels do not worsen is secondary. What is of prime importance is whether the Taliban will have the strenght or the support in toppling the Kabul government which is doubtful. Another question we should also be looking at is whether Pakistan will again to start meddle in the affairs of Afghanistan to secure its national interests and to outplay India. The insurgeny in Kashmir will also have an effect on what happens in Afghanistan as both are related.
Israel's ''isolation'' as you put, is a result of it being caught unprepared for the Arab Spring and the political changes that came with it, as well the still unresolved Palestinian issue and does not lead to any danger to Isreal's survival or sovereignty. In time will reajust itself to the new political and strategic enviroment in the neighbourhood and realise that things have changed. Hopefully the Palestinian issue will be addressed once and for all, which in turn will solve a lot of problems we are currently facing and will give less cause for various groups wordwide to wage 'jihad'. All Arabs states have made it perfectly clear on many occasions that recognition and full ties with Israel will come after either Israel heeds UN Resolution 342 or signs a lasting peace deal that will lead to a Palestinian state. No one is under any illusions or is even asking for Israel to return to pre-1976 borders or to accept the 'right of return' for all Palestinians that were displaced. Even Hamas, which Israel cultivated years ago as an alternative to the corrupt and ineffective Fatah, and which is currently a 'friend' of the West], has maintained that it is more than willing to recognise Israel if certain conditions are met.
Any future plans by Saudi to develop a nuke capability will depend on the Iranians [whom they still view with great mistrust and as heretics] and their own nuke programme. Contrary to what many mainstream media reports will have us believe, the Iranian nuke programme is largely intended for regime survival -against possible Western interference and against the Sunni Gulf states who have armed themselves to the teeth with petrol dollars and who during the 1980's poured billions into ensuring victory for Saddam - and not to threaten anyone or send a missile to Europe. After seeing what happened to Gadaffi, and Saddam, the Iranians will be more convinced than ever that only nukes will guarantee regime survival, something the ''Dear Leader'' has learnt a long time ago.
Last edited:
You are correct that an Iranian nuclear capability is for regime survival, in the short term, but how do you think that nukes are used to do that?
Iran needs to project a credible threat to a target of concern for the potential attacker, which is NOT any of the surrounding Islamic states or Israel. The attackers that Iran worries about are the “crusader countries” (i.e. non-Muslim) US, Russia, and Europe, so they are developing a nuclear missile program. They are (not yet) planning an OFFENSIVE strike against Europe, but they are planning for the possibility of a defensive strike in Europe if the US or Europe threatens to mount something similar to Desert Storm to counter their actions in the Persian Gulf. There is no other explanation for the development of the Shahab-5 and Shahab-6 missiles.
Would any country contemplate actual military ops on Iranian soil or a regime change if Iran was known to be in possession of a nuke weapons capability?Gadaffi and Saddam would still be in power if they had such a capability and had actually conducted a real test in the desert that was succesful. What do you think is the main reason that the 'Great Leader' is still in power and that Uncle Sam and it's allies have not offered North Korea a dose of what Iraq and Libya received - I'm convinced its because the North Koreans do have some sort of actusal capability.
The irony is that Saddam actually abandoned his WMD programme in the hope that this would keep him in power by preventing an invasion aimed at toppling him!After being welcomed as a 'friend' and 'a partner' by the West for giving up his WMD programme, Gaddafi was banking on the fact that pure ecomomic benefits for all parties and realpolitik would keep him in power and in the west's good graces and like his fellow dictators he never dreamed anything like the Arab Spring would occur.
Not quite, Iran is very worried about the Sunni Gulf States led by Saudi which is the richest Arab state and the most influential in the region. Iran views these states as hyprocritical and as having sold their souls to Uncle Sam and the West to guarantee regime survival and prosperity. We tend to hear often about Iranian meddling in Aghanistan and Iraq, and recently Saudi and Bahrain accused Iran of supporting the Shiite demonstrations. We rarely however hear about the support given to anti-Iran dissidents by the Sunni States and about other subversive activities aimed at destabilising Iran and encouraging a regime change. I would argue that Iran is much more concerned about the Sunni Gulf States rather than Israel which is just a conveniant bogeyman. Bear in mind that Iran before the revolution had extremely good ties with Israel and the nuke programme was actually strated by the Shah with Uncle Sam's blessing to make Iran the dominant power in the region after Israel, as part of moves to limit and counter Soviet influence in the region and with various socialist Arab states. After the Iranian Revolution, the Ayatollah was determined to totally scrap the nuke programme but faced with the Iraqi threat, reluctantly revived it. But yes I do agree with your opinion that it ballistic missiles are meant to deter attacks and publicise a capability to hit Europe in retaliation.
The term 'crusaders' which you mentioned is mainly heard from Sunni non-state groups like AQ and not from Iran. It is in reference to the western military presence in various Middle Eastern or Muslim countries, which is not very popular even amongst segments of the population that are not terrorist affliated or supporters of Jihad against the West, and is one of the main rallying cries for groups like AQ to justify their actions and get recruits.
Last edited:
You are ignoring the fact that to be effective the nuclear threat has to be directed targeted on the states you are defending yourself from, not your own lands and people. Tactical nuclear warfare has long been abandoned except by the theorists that ignore the difficulties in getting timely targeting information and weapon release in a fluid battlefield environment.
It is questionable that the ‘Great Leader’ has an operational nuke, much less one that has been ‘weaponized’ to mount on a ballistic missile. The reason he is still in power is that no one is convinced that he is enough of a threat to expend the money and lives in a conventional war to remove him. North Korea is going to collapse anyway in a couple of years, even the Chinese can see it, so save the money for picking up the pieces later.
Iran’s nuclear program under the Shah was for power plants only. It did not include the ability to refine uranium.
Country Population Military
Saudi Arabia 27.1M 200,000
Kuwait 3.6M militia
Iraq 34.3M ?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iran 75.3M 545,000
Somehow I don't see Saudi Arabia looking very threatening without Iraq or US as a committed ally. And Iraq will be very reluctant because of its memories of the Iran-Iraq War.
And maybe you're ignoring or discounting the fact that countries or regimes that are threatened will, in the absence of anything else, resort to tactical nukes on their own soil
. In actual real and desperate conditions, who knows what countries will do if threatened? Yes it is but who wants to find out for sure? The Japanese and South Koreans don't want to live in a neighbourhood that has been turned into a wasteland, neither do the Chinese. The South Koreans are into no rush for reunifacation after seeing how many billions of DMs it cost West Germany to integrate East Germany. China doesn't want a U.S. ally on its borders and the U.S. certainly doesn't need a war in Asia - and all are very aware of the possibility that North Korea has tactical nukes and will be willing to use them.
They've been saying that since the 1990's and it is not in China's interest to see North Korea collapse. Just last week, North Korea signed a major energy deal with Russia, which also has an interest in what happens next.
Irans nuclear programme was indeed initiallly only intended for power plants but there were also plans to evetually develop a nuke weapons capability, due to fears of the Soviet Union [especially after the Afghanistan invasion] and as part of the Shah's long term plans to transform Iran into a modern day version of the Persian Empire, as well as the centuries of mistrust the Iranians/Persians have had for the Arabs.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAL4SaGA0s"]The Full Story of Iran's Nuclear Program - Robert Fisk - YouTube[/nomedia]
Saudia Arabia isn't threatening to anyone without being under a U.S. security umbrella and being a U.S. strategic ally, which also ensures the King and the many Princes remain in power. And as long as the House of Al Saud remains in power with U.S. and Western backing and the petrol dollas continue to flow, Saudi Arabia will still be the most influential country in the region and as always it's main concern or threat as it perceives it, will remain the 'heretic' Iranians. To me, it will be interesting to see if the Saudis step up aid and perhaps exports the teachings of Wahhabism to Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal.
Last edited:
surpreme
Member
@Sturm this is where things get weird the northern alliance were shite's or shia muslims. The Taliban are sunni and was using the Saudi system more than other countries . The Saudi recognize the taliban in the beginning. The problem is how will they help them when US/NATO leave. The Afghan are changing due to America help and how they operate the country. One thing you must understand once the Afghan start getting to think more about money what next?
As soon as someone gets a nuke he is a strategic threat no matter if he has the ballistic missiles to deliver a warhead or not.
Nobody can be sure that a device is not smuggled into the harbours of New York or LA or Brest or whereever. This is a threat which is highly difficult to counter.
And would for example the US risk a ground invasion even if there is only a remote chance that a nuclear warhead is used against it's population centers? I doubt it.
Nobody can be sure that a device is not smuggled into the harbours of New York or LA or Brest or whereever. This is a threat which is highly difficult to counter.
And would for example the US risk a ground invasion even if there is only a remote chance that a nuclear warhead is used against it's population centers? I doubt it.
Long before 9/11, the Saudis with Pakistan's help, and with the full knowledge of the U.S., were ''exporting'' the teachings of Wahabism to Afghanistan. Money from Saudi, the Gulf States and rich donors was what kept the Taliban and the madrassas in Pakistan going. When the Taliban started their offensive against the Northern Alliance and other warlords such as Hetmatyer and Haqqani [who were Pakistan and U.S. favourite during the Soviet occupation but are now dangerous ''terrorists'' and ''extremists''] using 4x4s, who do you think funded these 4x4s? The only reason the Northern Alliance did not collapse was due to aid from Russia, India and Iran, and by its gem and drug sales.
The Taliban are Sunnis and and they view the Shiites as heretics - the same way Saudi and the Gulf Sates view Iran today and why they and the Western word poured billiions into Saddams coffers and supplied him with what he needed - which is something the Iranians haven't forgotten but is something the mainstream Western press hardly mentions and many overlook. That is why when they entered Mazar, they killed several Iranian diplomats, who were also suspected of providing aid to the Shiite Hazaras.
Over the years, there has been a lot of talk of 'womens rights' in Afghanistan and the Talibans abuse of women. The pronlem is, the bhurka is a Pashtun tradition and whilsts I'm against forcing anyone to wrear a bhurka, if Pashtun women want to, it is their right to do so. Despite all the talk about bhurkas and 'womens rights' we forget that in Saudi Arabia, a friend and stategic partner of the West, women can't drive or get involved in politics yet in EVIL Iran which is out ''to threaten the interests of the Free World '', and to 'destroy Israel', women can work, drive and get involved in politics.
And the U.S. was at first encouraged by theTaliban, like others. The U.S. saw the Taliban as a possible stabilising force in the country as an alternative to the feuding warlords - Madieline Albright publicly said so. As part of a marketing plans to install a pipeline through Afghanistan, a U.S. oil company flew over a Taliban delegation to the U.S. and arranged a meeting with various Congressman.
My2Cents,
This is an excerpt taken from another forum regarding Iran's nuke programme and the writers thoughts on it. It is also my firm believe that Iran's nuke programme are intended mainly for regime survival, to ensure no foreign power or coalition, has any thoughts of a regime change, like in Iraq and is intended against its historical enemies, the Sunni Arab Gulf states, not Israel or the West, which Iran has more long term common strategic interests with. The writer also links Iran with Afghanistan, which is beyond the Iran meddling that we so often hear about but don't really pay attention to or to ask to why they are doing it. Another question many writers have not asked, which to to me is the most obvious - if Iran was not attacked by Israel or any one else, why would it target Israel or Europe, knowing that this would leadt to massive U.S. retaliation which would be national suicide for Iran?
''The Iranian nuclear WMD programme will proceed unabated, but it is not actually targetted against Israel as is popularly believed (although the Israelis would like to vehemently disagree with me for now). The Iranians, being the pioneers of Chess (Shatranj) and having a rich civilisational legacy, are most un likely to indulge in self-destructive policies or acts of any kind, and especially against Israel, as there are no bilateral conflicts of any kind between the states of Israel and Iran. The Iranian determination to acquire n-weapons is--according to those Iranian officials that I've met over the past 20 years--targetted primarily against the Saudi Arabia-led Sunni alliance of the six GCC states which went all out to support Iraq under Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s to pose a serious existentialist threat to Shia Iran. Though the world has not paid much heed to this angle, ironically, both Israel and Iran face serious existentialist threats, albeit from different enemies. Right now, the shatranj is being played out between the Sunni (led by the Saudis and Pakistanis) and Shia (led by Iran) forces in Afghanistan. In fact, contrary to what many would like to believe, right now it is Iran that is vying for strategic spaxe and influence within Afghanistan (and successfully too, given its successful alliances with the Central Asian Republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and even Uzbekistan), but whether or not it will be able to sustain this against the combined military and financial prowess of the Saudi-Pakistan-US alliance, remains to be seen. ''
This link has info on the Shiite influence in Iraq and Iraq's importance to Iran, which is understandble given that both are neighbours.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011914115920267606.html
Last edited:
Could you confusing the term ‘target’ with ‘launch’ or ’attack’?
The USA targeted its missiles on the USSR during the Cold War, and vis versa, but that did not lead to a massive retaliation by either side.
The reasoning behind targeting European cities is not to destroy them, but to discourage Europe and the USA from interfering with Iranian regime, like in they did in Libya, or their interests, like invading Saudi Arabia, as they did when Saddam invaded Kuwait. It is the MAD doctrine of the Cold War on a smaller scale, and, as then, it is all about regime survival.
No, I'm aware that there is a profound difference between the 2 words
.For the simple reason that neither side launched an attack to begin with.
Agreed, and IMO, which I could yet be proven wrong, unless North Korea really ups the ante or stages another incident with Sorth Korea, neither the U.S., Japan, South Korea and Russia would be keen to see a war full scale war with with North Korea - all for different reasons - but all aware that the North might have a tactical nuke.
If we were to take your argument logically.
One, since Iran has not up to this point been attacked then nuclear weapons was not what prevented it from being attacked.
Two, if it has not been attacked for the things that it has already done there is no reason to think that it will be attacked for continuing to do them, if it has nuclear weapon or not.
Three, logically if it thinks that it will be attacked in the future then it must be because of something it wants to do or it planes to do in the future that it has not done in the past.
Four, Logically what it may wish to do in the future that it has yet not already done must be very provocative if they thinks that only nuclear weapon would prevent an attack upon its self as a result of an action they plan to do.
Five, it is perfectly logical for other people to worry what that plan is and prevent it.
What compeling reason was there to attack Iran prior to its nuke programme being accelarated? Sure, Iran for years has been supporting its Shiite compatriots in Lebanon, and lately it has been active in Afghanistan, but it was felt that diplomatic efforts were enough to contain and isolate Iran. Now that Iran may have a nuke its changes everything. It goes against the American policy of unconditional support of Israel and its policy of ensuring that Israel and only Israel has a nuke capability. It also goes against American policy of ensuring that no regional country has the means to hurt Israel, either conventionally or with WMDs.
Not been attacked?? What about the 8 year war that Saddam started and which the West and the Sunni Arab states encouraged and banked rolled? What about the USN taking out 1/3 of Iran's feeble navy as part of Operation Praying Mantis? And the USS Vincennes which shot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian waters because of a miscalculation by its crew, an act for which they received medals for. What about external support for Iranian dissidents, who if they were on the other side would be classed as ''terrorists'' and ''extremists''?
Since 9/11, the whole strategic and geo-political landscape has changed dramaticly, countries are playing different games now as part of their long term policies. The problem is, we tend to only hear about reent events and about how Iran is being a 'bad boy' and a 'threat to the world', we don't hear about the other parts.
As far as Iran goes, it was attacked a long time ago.
Iran's main goal is regime survival and maintaining its interests and influence in a region that is dominated by its ancient enemies the Sunni Arabs who are backed by Western powers. Over the years it has and will continue to be active in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Lebanon and its actions there will come in direct conflict with other states, both regional and otherwise, who have conflicting interests. Both will be trying their best to outplay the other.
Israel as you know hit the Iraq reactor and has made it very clear that it can and will if needed, do the same with Iran, an action for which the Sunni Arabs leaders would welcome. The West since 2001 has invaded and occupied 2 Muslim countries, both Iran's neighbours and in its backyard. There is a strong Western military presence in the region, backed up a host of Sunni Gulf States who have armed themselves to the teeth and are flushed with petrol dollars. There is also an ongoing attempt to isolate Iran and limit the amount of influence it has, plus the ongoing Sunni and Shiite rivalry that has lasted for centuries. Who's to say that if Iran had not had a nuke programme up and running, that it would not have received some air strike or other forms of military action for its support of Hezbollah or the Shiites in Iraq? If Uncle Sam had not got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran might have been handled differently and might have got a small dose of what the Saddam government received, as a warning.
Would you not be a wee bit jittery if you were the Iranian leadership? And who defines what's 'provocative' and what are legitimate moves in support of ones long term interests as Iran and Uncle Sam and its Sunni Arab partners have conflicting interests?
Political leadership should always be jittery regardless of what country they lead or why and how they lead it. This should be normal and of no special concern.
We certainly have different views of recent history concerning Iran but reviewing those differences, will not resolve anything.
But more importantly is the issue that the only justified use of nuclear weapons and the only reason that they can be rationally used and thus justified is the same and not specific to Iran or any other country.
Because of the tremendous loss of human life involved in nuclear war to both combatants and non-combatants, both inside and outside of the countries, directly involved, the use of nuclear weapons can only be justified to insure the existence of your country when all other methods to preserve it have failed. To prevent a change of leadership, any leadership of any country is not one of them.
Hence what is the justification of having them?
- Status