Afghanistan: "We're not going to win this war"

[bigfootedfred]

In seven stark words, Brigadier Mark Carleton Smith - a man known for bold statements - summed up Britain's military campaign in Afghanistan.
"We're not going to win this war"

Perhaps what's so surprising about these remarks is that they have been so long in coming.
They may have been blunt and uncompromising - but reflect what many diplomats and military officials have being saying privately in the Afghan capital Kabul.
By almost all accounts, the fight against the Taleban and other anti-government forces, such as al-Qaeda, is not going well.

The number of insurgent attacks is increasing and the fighting is spreading across Afghanistan, particularly in the south and the east of the country.

US President George W Bush has said he will commit more troops to tackle the deteriorating security situation. In the face of this bleak outlook, however, Brigadier Carleton-Smith says that the international community must, essentially, downgrade what it hopes to achieve in Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7653367.stm

While the US and nato countrys are reeling from a financial crisis.
its enemys will grow bolder and bolder. Attacks in iraq are up again.

Thee 800 billion bailout which will rise far higher than that, is nothing more than desperate attempt. by desperate people to hold it all together.

and it will fail

[Erik]

America,2008 = USSR,1988

[Sven788]

America,2008 = USSR,1988

[the_mango55]

America,2008 = USSR,1988

America isn't an artificially imposed union that will fall apart at the first sign of trouble.

America will recover far easier than Russia.

[Ryan Industries]

America isn't an artificially imposed union that will fall apart at the first sign of trouble.

America will recover far easier than Russia.

Hell Look at post civil war America

[Heinz Guderian]

Hell Look at post civil war America

Where evil triumphed over good and imposed its will over the true patriots.

*sucks back on a Mountain Dew.

[Ryan Industries]

Where evil triumphed over good and imposed its will over the true patriots.

*sucks back on a Mountain Dew.

I was talking about how fast America Recovered... dont take my post out of context.
of course, the southereners obiously were the true patriots... more so then the Northerners... duh

And they seceded from the USA, The north said no you don't and destroyed them. If you remember it was the south that attacked first... I dont know how this makes the northerners evil. now the seamantics about that can be argued in a SEPERATE THREAD... so lets not derail this and get back to topic.

[Strattios]

Nope, it'll be fine. And as for the bailout, are you talking about the $700 billion American one? If so, that has little connection as the economy is still growing. It is mainly the banks and lenders.

The biggest problem is that we weren't hard enough on the insurgents from the beginning.

[imb39]

The biggest problem is that we weren't hard enough on the insurgents from the beginning.

No. The problem is that someone took their eye off the ball and wanted to finish Daddy's war.

[Erik]

Nope, it'll be fine. And as for the bailout, are you talking about the $700 billion American one? If so, that has little connection as the economy is still growing. It is mainly the banks and lenders.

The problem isn't banks.
The problem is America, as a whole, lives off borrowed money and can only pay its debts by creating new debts. (where do you think that $700 billion will come from?)
Exactly like the USSR in the 1980's.
It's not sustainable.

The biggest problem is that we weren't hard enough on the insurgents from the beginning.

No, the biggest problem is Afghanistan isn't a country you can easily conquer with traditional war strategies or by throwing money at it.
If Americans knew anything about history, they would never have tried to conquer it in the first place - the war was lost from day one.

If they had a president with an IQ above 90, they would have gone after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, instead of the Taliban.

[Gumpfendorfer]

No, the biggest problem is Afghanistan isn't a country you can easily conquer with traditional war strategies or by throwing money at it.
If Americans knew anything about history, they would never have tried to conquer it in the first place - the war was lost from day one.

If they had a president with an IQ above 90, they would have gone after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, instead of the Taliban.

Quite the contrary is true: the war could have been won by going after OSB and the Taliban at the same time. The US went after Osama only, believing that the Taliban were gone and by letting Pakistan of the hook they simply regrouped and re-armed with help of their beneficiaries. Iraq was the final drop.

The war cannot be lost, but given the mess and lack of required resources cannot be won either. It's a stalemate. Although the mood is swinging towards large scale rebellion in many parts of the country. Quite worrisome.

The invincible Afghani's are a myth. The Russians would never have lost, or have left Afghanistan if the USA/Pakistan/Saudi's had not backed the mujahedeen on an unprecedented scale in history. It were US guns, missiles and training/tactics which enabled the Jihadi's to survive against the Russian onslaught. How detailed that was you can read in Charlie Wilson's War, which is greatest fun when you want to read something on that period, although it is quite over the top sometimes.

That type of support on that scale for the Taliban is lacking. It's the political process for the entire region which in the end needs to be addressed. So far no effort has been made.

[Erik]

Quite the contrary is true: the war could have been won by going after OSB and the Taliban at the same time. The US went after Osama only, believing that the Taliban were gone and by letting Pakistan of the hook they simply regrouped and re-armed with help of their beneficiaries. Iraq was the final drop.

Huh?
America went after the Taliban only.

Too bad Massoud died in 2001, he could have held Afghanistan together.

Too bad America supported the Taliban instead of Massoud in the early 90's.

[Gumpfendorfer]

America went after the Taliban only.

Nope they only bombed them, paid/helped the Northern Alliance to drive them to Pakistan and went after Osama with their special forces, instead of taking the Taliban and their leaders out. The aim of the entire operation was going after Osama, than pack their bags, according to Rumsfeld.

Too bad that even Massoud would not have held Afghanistan together.Only in the West he was a hero, in Afghanistan he far less popular. He is a Tajik, member of a minority. Pashtuns would never have accepted Massoud.

[Каие]

The US went after Osama only

Quite the opposite actually, as demonstrated in Tora Bora.

America did, but the UN didn't.

I think we need a little more elaboration...

[Erik]

I think we need a little more elaboration...

Technically, according to the UN the Northern Alliance was still the official leadership of Afghanistan.
Only a few countries have ever challenged this, preferring to give the Taliban this title instead.
Amongst those countries the USA was the most prominent.
America was also one of the few countries to ever invite the Taliban to diplomatic talks.

[Каие]

Totally agreed, Iraq ruined everything.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Totally agreed, Iraq ruined everything.

Here Here. Its going to take at least 80,000 on the ground to hunt down the Taliban down now.

Erik you and other american haters wish.

[Giorgos]

You either take the populace on your side or you are treated for ever as an invader.

[mrmouth]

No, Iraq really didn't ruin anything. It was stupid, but all in all it didn't change anything in regards to Afghanistan.

The real issue lies in Pakistan.

Until early August, Pakistan had yet to really take the fight to the foreign led insurgency spilling over into Afghanistan, but born and bred within its own borders. Pakistan has been fighting in perhaps the most important part of the NWFP since August 6th. They have finally taken the fight to the enemy with strong resolve to see it through. Most importantly, tribes continue to align themselves with the government to help remove the foreigners from their land. That is hugely important. The Taliban and AQ's base of support is drying up, and not just turning their backs, but fighting them alongside the government of Pakistan.

Ive said this time and time again. No amount of troops would have changed the fact that the problem is over the border in Pakistan. You cant seal that border, its impossible. Your talking about numerous areas where insurgents can cross, some as long as the New Mexico border with Mexico. Complete with tunnel systems that have existed for centuries. In mountainous terrain over 5000 meters. You cannot seal that border, nor defend that.

We haven't even really entered the anti insurgency phase in many areas yet. We are simply reactionary based on Taliban forces crossing the border and there movements once inside Afghanistan.

What you have now is groups of Taliban roaming around in groups of 10-60 men. They operate independently of one another, and use intimidation to survive.


Ultimately success means stopping the flow of fighters into Afghanistan, of which Pakistan is the main player. Continuing to build the Afghan Army. Keeping NATO focused and increasing their role. Eventually providing security to a point that building of an infrastructure is possible (from scratch) in major population centers. Continuing to push for political refinement.

It takes time. Decades.

The general is right though. When you fight these kinds of wars, there is no discernible end. That is all he was saying.

The rest of the article is opinion based journalism. I can tell you that the guys I know still in Afghanistan are far more knowledgeable than the BBC writer in question, and they are far more positive. They are also realistic, they know it simply takes time.

[Каие]

It's funny isn't it...how you are willing to use 180,000 men [500,000 in the invasion] in Iraq along with anywhere from 35,000 to 100,000 mercs.....but only 52,000 [whole NATO alliance] then something ridicu-****ing-less, and highly suspicious, is going one.



Not to mention Iraq has alienated the whole Islamic world...