British military giving up victory hopes for Afghanistan
 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4882597.ece

Trapped in the Afghan maze.

Hardly able to manage our home finances here in the UK so what makes us think we can manage any other countries :p

Wasn't reducing the Taliban to a manageable level always the goal so that we can leave? Same for Iraq? How is this news? This may be news for some if they have been sleeping for the last 5 years.

Yawn.

-S

I'd rather say "Trapped in the XXI century human rights logic"

In the XIX or XVIII century they'd just made a little genocide, emptying the land from any living form capable of holding a gun or sword, and that would have been it all.

Before starting military campaigns, some politicians should be reminded that the rules have changed a lot from some centuries ago, and that you no longer have the "easy solutions" at hand.

IMHO anyone who thought military action was going to be the sole soluton to Afghanistan was labouring under a very grave misunderstanding of the situation.

The military can only go so far; at some point we are going to have to sit down and talk to some of these people and try to find an acceptable political solution.

I think Afghanistan could be a success but not at the current rate or strategy all were doing is becoming sucked into a stalemate situation of unending anti-insurgency warfare; something which the Russians can tell us all about, if the UK has forgotten its 19th Century colonial experiences there.

We would be doing better if our military tactics weren't being shackled by PCness:x . We need to smash this scum with everything we have and not let up. If they store troops/weapons in a mosque, it's not a church anymore, it should be a @#$%#%ing target!:x

Hahahaha! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: That's the funniest damn idea I've seen out of you yet! Sit down an negotiate with the same people who sent 4 aircraft and thousands of lives to their deaths. Sharia law is all that will appease them politically! Are you ready to accept that? Ready to bow down to their religion and pay tax if you don't? Do you ever think anything through? Just a question.

-S

Newsflash: the people that hijacked those 4 aircraft died on the aircraft... :roll:

I think you're also confusing Al Quaeda, Taliban and anti-government tribal groups. They're not all the same thing.

There needs to be more pragmatism than this, that's for sure. You can lump everyone into black-and-white categories, and that way just make enemies of everyone. Which I don't think even the US can afford.

Negotiating with religious extremists who want Pakistan on their trophylist as well as southern ex-soviet republics, and later all world, is not really tempting. You can only negotiate the timetable for them getting their will. That is because they are religious fanatics.

Continuing with this strange carricature of a determined war is not an option, and will lead nowhere.

A determined, uncompromised war in afghanistan and pakistan, also hurts precious western feeling, and is no realistic to be expected to ever become a reality.

And pulling out also nobody wants.

:lol: That's the perfect deadlock. Well done! :up:

Al Queida is not allowed to move without Taliban approval at the time. So don't give me that nonsense. And just who do you think the anti-gov tribals are?

-S

I think it's a more complex situation than that. What can be construed as a unified movement from the outside is actually a very fractalized tribal structure. You can't negotiate with Taliban or Al Quaeda leaders, that's true. But given the structure of the society there, you're not going to win if you fail to engage the tribal politics there. As I say, it'll simply turn pretty much everyone against you.

Exactly. We (any modern western nation, really) can't fight and win these wars anymore. The only reason we're trying is because they brought their viking raider tactics to our turf, and something "had to be done". I think we look like fools for staying there so long.

PD

He thinks that because he is completely worthless and has no understanding of warfare besides what he was taught by some idiot that has never been to war. Typical officer.:roll: Only a complete idiot would say “We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency.”
As if insurgency was in some kind of immediately finite supply:damn:

The U.S. military believes that counter-insurgency operations involve having enough troops to prevent illegal activity via a constant military presence and a "show of force", and it does work, for a short time.

That's all well and good in the short term, which is what most officers look at. All they have to consider is whether or not their command is seen as effective by Washington bean-counters.

But in the long-term that policy doesn't work. Insurgents just go underground until the military presence eventually abates. Then they make their move.

Time and time again, the U.S. military has made the mistake of underestimating the insurgents. And yes, they (the insurgents) generally ARE stupid. Their marksmanship is terrible, and they frequently bypass real tactical opportunities in favor of making suicidal attacks. But they aren't so stupid that they can't do some damage.


Proper policy would be utilizing pro-coalition Arabs and Iraqi or Afghan Americans as a sort of "neo-KGB". They could use the insurgents' advantages against them; Blending in with the populace, striking when the enemy does not expect them, a total understanding of Islamic culture, the willingness to fight for their country. Terror would be their weapon against terror.


Now, the General does have a point if you apply what he says to worldwide terrorism, specifically in the realm of Islamic extremism. The War on Terror will fail because it does not address the problem, it only addresses the sypmtoms. IMO, the best thing the U.S. could do at this point is to simply get out altogether and return to an isolationist policy that focuses on domestic issues and limited government. Split Iraq into 3 countries. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis and one for the Shiites. Iraq never should have been a country in the first place. The Brits created it out of thin air after WW1. It's like Czechoslovakia. Who in their right mind would put the Czechs and the Slovaks together in the same country? Whatever. Mistakes were made, the Brits are our friends, the Iraqis are not. Once Iraq is divided into three nations, they will be so busy fighting for their own survival (against each other and neighboring nations) they won't have the time or the wherewithall to conduct any insurgent activities.


As far as Afghanistan goes, I don't really know. I have no experience in that theatre. I'm pretty sure that we could somehow take advantage of the tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or maybe Pakistan and India, but I don't know how, specifically.

The important thing is that the U.S. should pursue an isolationist policy devoid of foreign intervention and foreign aid. It should pursue a domestic policy of economic and personal freedom. The resultant worldwide economic dominance would give us a lot of power and make us nigh untouchable, since our economic welfare would be so integral to the economies of other nations.
In this fashion, we would at least have the money to pursue a limited policy of domestic welfare and foreign aid to nations that we like, should we want that.


In any case, conventional military presence is not the solution to an insurgency. In fact, it is one of the worst responses possible. It just gives them targets.

As far as the "tensions" between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the US; I highly recommend Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars". I'm only half way through it, but pretty f'in interesting. IMO. :)

PD

Subman, and could you explain what manageable levels are? You can't manage them, they'll come back, however with the type of warfare needed you will never ever subjugate them. Go and read up on every conflict in Afghanistan from the British Empire to the Soviet debacle.

If you want a military solution we will never ever leave. There comes a point when you have to negotiate. Once again you are seeing everything in your black and white world.

[quote=UnderseaLcpl]You talk about how and why the Taleban were called to life by the CIA and the ISI. ;). Dating back to the mid and late 70s, smartminds too thought they could control them. Et voilà.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afghanistan is much more complex and difficult.

As the old saying goes: it is easy to get into Afghanistan - but it is extremely difficult to get out again. The Brits lost one complete colonial army that was considered very modern and well-armed for the standards of it's time, it was completely wiped out, there were almost no survivors.

One could have known the problems in advance, the Russians offered to brief the americans on their experiences. But Rumsfeld, like always, knew anything so many times better. And even the US military was clever enough not to be enthusiastic about invading Afghanistan, and thus their limited starting engagement on the ground. But rum,sfeld wanted his party in Iraq, and so silenced every voice in the Pentagon to act with more determination and long-time perspective. The Russians, for their part, also were far from being happy when they say themselves more or less with no other chnace than to go into Afghanistan. what many do not know is that that was no premature hooray-assault with cheers and flying colours. they just did it with determination and stunned NATO with their efficiency and success in the fiorst 12-18 months. But when they had lost the freedom to move in the country at will, they hunkererd down in invincible garrisons and stayed there for the most, like I hear it being described from the Germans as well (I know two officers having to do with that). When they left these strongholds, they liived dangerously. In the Pandjir Valley, they suffered repeated defeats at very high losses in armour and infantry.

If there is one man in the US military knowing insurgencies, than it is Patreus - although being smiled about when he was in Levenworth, he effectively is the inventor and father of the new insurgency doctrine that he then implemented in Iraq, and which did not win the war, but brought down violence considerably. Once he has spend some time in Afghanistan and gives his assessment, people better listen very closely to what he has to say. no matter wether it fulfills political demands at home, or not.

Well, like I said, I don't really know about Afghanistan because I have no experience there, although I don't know that the situation would be quite the same as it was in the 70's. For one thing, I'm talking about counter-insurgents that would work hand-in-hand with the U.S. military. They identify insurgents and we drop the hammer on them. Or they could neutralize individual insurgents by themselves if the circumstances were favorable. All they would really need is a pistol.


I wish we had listened. Somehow, we always end up fighting the last war.

That's true, Petraeus is a good one, but I didn't really get to see the effects of his policies. Violence in Fallujah and the outlying areas remained high the whole time I was in-country. Our only real success was that there were no attacks made during the elections.

We'll see how this works out:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...eref=rss_world

Lance, my simple point is - that the Taleban once were seen as exactly that "counter-army" (against Soviet influence) like you now want a counter-insurgent-group being implemented. CIA and ISI thought and said the same that you say now - about the Taleban. The Taleban are what you want to form now. and back then the eggheads thought they could keep their self-created tool to fight the Soviets under control.

doesn't this raise concerns for you? what you want, has been tried already. and it created the enemy they now fight against. Frankenstein turned against his creator, so to speak.

Must we really repeat that?

during the Soviet occupation, there was a green league, foreign Muslims going into Afghanistan and fighting there, but they never were accepted by Afghans, and were driven away, even by force - only some minor social work projects remained from them. and concerning allies raised amongst Afghans, they have a saying there, and there is much historic truth in it: "you can lease an Afghan for some time, but you can't buy him forever". Alliances between local warlords during the Soviet war changed incredibly quickly at times. Some of the most influential leaders there today had switched sides repeatedly back then.

Your plan is reasonable, but it is reason made in the West. That place of theirs - does not work like that. It'S all old avice that already has been tried once. what was done back then, turned against us. So, no reason to do it again and make the same mistake twice. at least as long as you do not wish to trade with changing temporary partners on a day-to-day basis for many, many years to come, before you get sick and tired of it - and then leave it behind, just as many years later.

The alternative is to unleash the full, unlimited, brutal firepower of all the Western military might and shatter the place into a thousand pieces, then collect the remains and put them together to your liking - or throw them away with the rest of the garbage. But that is to destroy Afghanistan in order to "save" it, as a general during vietnam once said before he flattened a whole Vietnamese city. to do so may be acceptably if letting Afghanistan and Pakistan live is at our cost and causes them to export more terrorism to our countries. But how many people would be willing to sign in to such a brutal policy of displaying brute, lethal force with no restrictions? Not even me is sure wether that would be worth it, or not. And in my focus is not so much Afghanistan, but Pakistan and it'S nukes anyway. If Pakistan would be neutralised and it's nukes along with it, the Afghanistan issue probably would come to solve itself all by itself. delete Pakistan from the formula, and you stabilise a whole complete global region.

I still see some important differences between the situation with the Taliban and what I'm proposing, especially if we use Iraqi- or Afghan-Americans.

But, ok, I trust that you know more about than me. So since if we rule out eradicating Afghanistan again, that leaves us with neutralizing Pakistan. I didn't ever really consider that as an option, but how would you go about doing it without risking nuclear conflict?