|
I think the so called war on terror in Afghanistan ended a long time ago. When we first began the effectiveness of combat operations was highly praised. Because we were able to rout the enemy with superior technology, airstrikes and an amazingly minimal number of troop on the ground. I think the subsequent build up of troops had little to do with fears of suddenly losing the war, quagmire or another British death march. The additional influx troops was I think fueled mostly by the need to now start building a friendly Afghan government, army, police, and infrastructure. As things began to settle and a sense of normalcy returned we began reducing the numbers.
Chances are that on September 11th the U.S. and NATO will be moving the remaining 'declared' combat troops out. But, we are I think privatizing this operation now as the government is still signing deals with private contractors in Afghanistan. Quote:
|
^Still, the time of official support and peace plan and infratsructure rebuilding and social reformation and cultural reeducation and nation building - will be ended. From then on its just terror policing like in many other countries, and protecting own economic assets/interests, also like in many other places.
Also, the European contingents will be gone. Germany plans to have left by mid-August. Its a different situation. |
Quote:
I got this sneaking suspicion even after withdrawing declared troops. Europe will be similarly involved in Afghanistan. I could be wrong, but I bet Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit will still be there. Heck, maybe British G4S Global will even provide for its security. Nobody, not even Europe or Germany is going to just roll over and give up gained ground. Its not how the military industrial complex works. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Biden = Good guy Former President = Very bad guy Markus |
Quote:
No, cannot see the GIZ staying all alone there. They are not bulletproof. And just 40+ people from Germany. And I take it for certain that the Taleban will take over the country sooner or later. And then the calender gets moved back by some centuries again. If NGO stay there without mandate by the government, its their show then. And the Germans, when they were there, could not even evacuuate their wounded without American medivac, and had no air miblity, and needed Russian and Ukrainian support and other former sovjet repoublics support to get their supplies and troops shuttled in and out. What the heck has such a depending army to do there...?? After 20 years, I still have not gotten it. Thats as if I wanna go spear-fishing, but cannot swim, have no spear, no mask, the doc told me not to go deeper than 1 m, and I am afraid of water. |
Quote:
That's really terrible invader advice there Markus. :) All one would be doing with that strategy is making enemies both out of potential friends and neutrals. Ask the Germans how that works. Their universal brutality when they invaded the USSR forced the subjugated peoples of the satellite nations to side with the Reds who they detested with a passion, and with good reason. That took real effort! But it illustrates why the "kill them all and let God sort them out" method you suggest might not be a good strategy to adopt if one wants to win. :up: |
Quote:
Don't be coy just come right out and say it! Now I might be wrong but..... Ain't that the tack the Nazi's took way back? Just build ovens to deal with the un-wanted. I have no respect for anyone that would exterminate without prejudice. |
Originally Posted by mapuc https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif
When you invade a country the entire population is your enemy and should be treated as such. Quote:
|
My friends this is WHY I hate war..almost knowing what one must do to take control over an another country isn't exactly something I would prefer.
You have been so nice to quote some of my comments. You forgot the most important "Fourth Most important of all have a reason to why you want to invade a country." So had USA and its allied a reason to invade ? Had USA and its allied a reason to stay that long without having full or almost full control over the country ? Markus |
Quote:
With war on terror in Afghanistan somewhat over. Our goal now I think is to establish a western friendly government and to have influence in Afghanistan trade and politics. So maybe instead of a cou try filled with backasswards religious zeolots and terrorists we might be able to peacably bring them further into the 21st century. Though I do expect combat troops to be withdrawn by September 11th. I do think we will be fully privatising our 'occupation'. To hopefully bring in business and stability. Reminds me of Rammstein's Amerika song. its wunderbar. lol And as one article suggested we will also continue the work of dismembering China. |
Quote:
However, there will be graveyard peace and drug business and brutally enforced stability indeed - the Taliban's. Lets be clear and stop still having those illusions about Afghanistan that have kept everybody in for 20 years, and before that the Sovjets, and before that the British. The nation building mission is lost, it had no realistic chance from all beginning on. Live with it. |
Quote:
We'll see, I still say we'll be operating in Afghanistan but with private contractors. If Russia thought it safe enough to set up shop open cultural centers and build in Afghanistan again. Why wouldnt we stay to protect and further develope relations?. It makes absolutley no sense to just disappear from Afghanistan |
Oh, if your nation thinks it stll has interests in afghanbiostanb, I am sure it will seek to guard them one way or the other. What I am saying is that all this idea of nation buildiung and reofmrign trival culture and boosting dmeocracy was and is an illusiuon that has - once again - shown to get shattered in Afghanistan. But if twenty years of your own war and the years of the Sovjets fightign with much less scruples and greater determination, and the British before them still do not teach the lesson - okay then, believe on.
Meanwhile, the rest of the planet will move on. Without Afghanistan, I have no doubt. |
Quote:
I used the example I did because there was a lot of built up resentment against the Soviets in the satellite nations like Ukraine and the Baltics, that the Germans could have used to their advantage had they played their cards better. Instead they treated everyone they met as an enemy to be annihilated (now know as the Mapuc Strategy :)) so instead of getting willing cannon fodder up at the front they had a bunch of pissed off partisans in their rear areas. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.