Afghanistan

[Jayand]

Here we are nearly nine years after the "Liberation" of Afghanistan and what exactly have we achieved? opium production is higher than ever (no pun) home grown terror is greater than at any other time and the taliban seem just as strong.
When we eventually leave under the banner of success, hailing the job complete and handing over to a "credible" Afghan security force will we really be able to say all the lives lost were worth it?
It's going to take a lot more than a few million from Tony's book to put this one right!

[Jabba_TG12]

.....and who benefits from it? Follow the money trail. Imagine how many "jobs" are sustained by the war on drugs, the war on terror, imagine how many people/vested interests have got phenomenally rich over the last decade...

I'm not one for the tinfoil hat brigade, but... theres so much more to this than the governments involved will ever want the likes of you and I to find out about. :mad:

[walter kennedy]

The Taliban had stopped opium production for enough time to cause a heroin drought felt worldwide and achieved more than any western government initiative in terms of driving users to weaning off treatments like methadone – now it's more than ever as they have not developed their oil and gas resources for their own development and the central govt does little for the rural population – so factor that social cost into the cost of the war.
Also the Taliban had almost eliminated rape in the areas they controlled, a shocking statistic now as before the Taliban – OK the women couldn't dress like tarts and play the field but factor that social cost into the cost of the war.
Particularly Iraq but also Afghanistan: defeating a standing army/force and replacing central government (very quick in case of Iraq and Sergio di Mello, the UN good guy, wanted the US to withdraw then, before he was killed in his office in an area secured by the Americans) would not have had the effect of grinding the infrastructure and will of the people into the dirt as has happened with this extended occupation – nor would it have allowed the opportunity of liquidating potential leaders that has undoubtedly been going on – nor would it have sickened the populace from tolerating any further sabre rattling against any external foe. Thus the long operation has been totally successful at neutralising two potential enemies of any pro western country in the region – there is one – hope it appreciates our efforts and sacrifice.:suspect:

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

The whole thing has been one sorry mess from @rsehole to breakfast time.
When we leave, which we soon will, (again) the place will soon be back to the way it was before we started.

A complete and utter waste of time, money, lives and credibility.

[larssnowpharter]

A complete and utter waste of time, money, lives and credibility.

My view exactly.

Hats off to the guys and gals out there trying to do a very difficult job.

However, you have to ask yourself the very simple question:

'If we were not there, what would be the difference?'

[soddim]

We have achieved but it is a negative. We are now even more hated by the radical Muslims and consequently a more likely target for terrorism - exactly the opposite of the governments publicised reason for our involvement.

[Saintsman]

Here we are nearly nine years after the "Liberation" of Afghanistan and what exactly have we achieved?

Our streets are safe from terrorists.

Apparently.

[minigundiplomat]

On the plus side, the defence industry has made a mint from UOR's.

[vecvechookattack]

I suppose that since July 2005 we have only had 2 terrorist in the UK (Glasgow and Exeter) both of which were classified as minor. So you could argue that our streets are pretty safe from International Terrorism

[Two's in]

I suppose that since July 2005 we have only had 2 terrorist in the UK (Glasgow and Exeter) both of which were classified as minor. So you could argue that our streets are pretty safe from International Terrorism

But here's a thought. Is that because instead of going to all the trouble of buying airline tickets, learning how to blend with Westerners and buy bomb making material in a foreign country, now all they have to do is pop outside the village hut, plant an IED or set up a sniper ambush, suppress the forces of imperialist aggression until they get bored, and be home in time for tea and heroin? No travel required, no risk of getting caught in a dreadful place like Glasgow Airport, we just line the targets up right on the door step for them.

We all scoffed at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the years of getting picked off by the Mujahadeen, the mutual tit-for-tat atrocities and the final humiliating withdrawal. In 20 years time I would love to see how a description of our latest foray into Afghanistan looks any different to that of the Soviets, especially in terms of achieving any kind of Military Objectives.

The only thing we will be able to gain any kind of satisfaction from will be looking back at the sheer professionalism and dedication of the young (and not so young) Service men and women who selflessly and without question serve their country, with many of them paying the ultimate price or becoming severely injured.

[Jayand]

The mercifully few terrorist attacks we have suffered in the last few years are little if anything to do with our military endeavours in Afghanistan!
Homeland security (american term I now) and heightened awarness from public are the reason we have foiled and prevented there being many more attacks.
Our presence in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq along with our general foreign policy has made us more, not less of a target.
2012 olympics, guaranteed biggest target for terrorism in a very long time.

[Load Toad]

I suppose that since July 2005 we have only had 2 terrorist in the UK (Glasgow and Exeter) both of which were classified as minor. So you could argue that our streets are pretty safe from International Terrorism

Well we had a few years of the IRA doing their thing and that was more or less put to bed by the peace initiatives. How many extremist-Muslim terrorist attacks did the UK have before we got involved in the wars in the Middle East?

I could understand wanting to go into Afghanistan and looking at security options in Pakistan...to find the Taliban and Osama and his cronies but I can't see what benefit we are having now whilst we stay there that will last 5 minutes once we've left (which we will though more of our forces will die & money will be spent before that happens).

Iraq was a terrible mistake based on war mongering and lies. I think there were other ways and means to marginalise and remove Madass Insane.

[Thelma Viaduct]

"The whole thing has been one sorry mess from @rsehole to breakfast time.
When we leave, which we soon will, (again) the place will soon be back to the way it was before we started.

A complete and utter waste of time, money, lives and credibility."

This

Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together could see the consequences a mile off.

Those responsible should be locked up, or hung by the neck until dead in the case of blair, straw etc and that rat of a 'sin doctor' campbell he employed.

[Thelma Viaduct]

"The mercifully few terrorist attacks we have suffered in the last few years are little if anything to do with our military endeavours in Afghanistan!
Homeland security (american term I now) and heightened awarness from public are the reason we have foiled and prevented there being many more attacks.
Our presence in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq along with our general foreign policy has made us more, not less of a target.
2012 olympics, guaranteed biggest target for terrorism in a very long time."



Totally agree 100%, this is the truth of the situation, not what corrupt politicians tell us.

[Compressorstall]

It's good to see the fundamental misunderstandings about the Afghanistan Campaign which have dogged and inhibited the military response. It started with Rumsfeld who wanted to showboat the fact that he felt small, light forces could do so much if backed by airpower. It is only recently that we have come to terms with the fact that dictating force levels through available budget screws us over. That was the case in 2006 when the British deployed to Helmand where manpower caps meant that a muddled mission was never going to be enacted, and instead we had some of our finest troops fighting for their lives on a daily basis. Only slowly did our Government come to terms with the fact that if you want to take and hold ground, you need enough troops who are suiatbly equipped and supported for the task. War costs a lot of money and it is oone thing for PMs to feel a surge in their trousers when they send us on our way to war, but it is another thing entirely for them to come to terms with the cost of it. The Americans cottoned on quicker while we still made out Budget Managers more powerful than the combatant commanders.
To out it simply, if you're going to do war, do it properly. As a nation we have become so used to cuffing it and doing things on the cheap it's amazing that our troops aren't patrolling in second-hand pimped up Corsas.
It's all too easy to say that we could see the writing on the wall, but instead we are victims of having accountants instead of leaders.

[Thelma Viaduct]

"It's all too easy to say that we could see the writing on the wall"

No not really, to say it even 12 months ago on here often brought the wrath of those serving and others, even though it's blindingly obvious their efforts are for nothing but a waste of young lives and ruining the lives of their friends & families

So to cap, it's too easy for people to say "it's too easy to say 20/20 hindsight isn't on etc" or any other apologist crap.

People need to be made accountable and punished to reduce the chances of it happening again, 20/20 hindsight doesn't even come in to it. You could see the sh1t storm before the event, not just after.

Help for Heroes is another insult people don't seem to be able to see through either. British troops shouldn't need a tabloid scum sponsored charity to help them out, the cnuts who sent them to fight wars based on lies should provide for their needs & more.

[soddim]

You write much sense Pious Pilot but, unfortunately, our system does not recognise failure or make corrections to prevent recurrence. Instead, the lead players write their memoirs and make a packet to add to the salary they were given by the taxpayer whilst screwing up.

I wonder if the military chiefs are also partly to blame for not advising the politicians in no uncertain terms prior to the committment to war. It might be the case that our senior officers see the prospect of furthering their individual service claim on the budget by getting to do something useful.

There is surely a case for an independent consideration of the proposed action before we commit our forces to future conflict.

[Compressorstall]

Pious and Soddim - you both speak much sense. Budgeteers are not leaders, Nor are those who say what the politicos want to hear. If we had been given a clear mission in 2006 and if someone had said that it would be a long hard war that required many thousands of combat forces, we would be in a much better position to deliver. However, much has been squandered, but that isn't to say that dignity cannot be regained.

[minigundiplomat]

I love how the ANC forces smoke hashish during the battle and then shoot their ammo at absolutely nothing.


What are the African National Congress doing out there? Unless the ANA/ANP have changed their name?

They could have - rebranding is what we normally do with failing organisations. 'New Labour', possibly about to become 'I can't believe it's not Labour', as an example.

[Jayand]

Compressor stall it's not about how much money we have spent or how many troops we committed, the whole bloody thing is/always has been unachievable and unwinnable, the yanks the russians before that and ourselves before that have all shown that this is a country and people that you can not tame/beat, in fact it isn't really even a country but simply a land mass with borders defined only on a map by others.

Pious would you care to elaborate on your "Absolute bo11ocks"
How has our blood, sweat and money in the sand and dust made us any safer?

[minigundiplomat]

Afghanistan was always winnable.

We made it unwinnable by attempting to fight it with one hand tied behind our back. Our adherence to international law (all for it), coupled with the enemies disregard for any laws other than Allah's mean we will always be at a disdvantage.

It is well documented that as the Apaches turn up during a TIC, the EF will drop their AK into the ground and pick up a shovel, safe in the knowledge that the ROE is on their side.

I agree with international law, but if it negates any significant military progress, it begs the question of what we hope to achieve.

Added to this, we sent far too few bayonets to Helmand in 2006 and allowed them to be pinned down by Karzai and the regional governors, in compounds with little chance of resupply.

We then compounded this by not explaining to the British public what the aims of the mission were. Was it nation building? counter-terrorism? anti-narcotics? hearts and minds? It was all too confused for the public to understand.

When the enemy changed tactics, we had to change too, and the required equipment was too slow in entering service, and in some cases, unfit for purpose.

Our only successes have come from sheer bravery, courage and all too often, the 'can do' attitude. The mission may well end up downscaled and watered down with vague successes declared and the troops withdrawn - but the British Forces can be bloody proud of what they acheved despite the odds stacked against them.

We won't have lost. We will have failed to win.

[NURSE]

To few boots on the ground equipped with the wrong kit and without the necessary support. Remember what the Prat of a defence Secretary said about not needing to fire a single round!
the total lack of understanding by Ministers, Civil servants and senior officers of situation/location.

[Load Toad]

We made it unwinnable by attempting to fight it with one hand tied behind our back. Our adherence to international law (all for it), coupled with the enemies disregard for any laws other than Allah's mean we will always be at a disdvantage.

This is nonsense.
Did the Russians win when they didn't have one hand tied behind their back?
The enemies are not using 'Allah's law' any more than Protestants burning Catholics and vice-versa were using Gods Law. Their lack of humanity, of consideration, empathy and sympathy are things we need to consider how to address to remove the cause of their diseased awfulness. shooting them doesn't seem to be solving this.

I read in a book about UK forces in Afghanistan recently - an injured member of the Taliban was being treated, the medics working hard to keep him alive, apparently a journalist present asked a Marine, fresh from the battle.. 'Why are you bothering?'

'Because this is what makes us different from them.'



Being as bad as the other guy does not give us the progress we need.

[Jayand]

No ammount of troops or kit would make any difference, within weeks of leaving it will be exactly as we found it 9 years ago!
It's like stamping on ants, pointless and ultimately futile.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Minigunchap needs to get a grip on reality

The Russians were a superpower, had no rules of engagement to follow and still lost 15,000 men, the Mujahideen 500,000, and still they couldn't crack the nut.

The spams and Uk etc had no chance from the off.

All that crap about it's for improving afghan etc, what a load of bo11ocks too.
They politician scum don't even care about our own country, let alone a place that time forgot.

1 solitary UK soldier's life is not worth Iraq & Afghanistan combined, let alone for a lie.

The terrorist threat from the hornets nest is worse now than it ever was, this is as a direct result of actions taken in said sh1tholes. Leave them to it, wait til it directly affects us, then take action, not before and make the situation 10 x worse than it already was. Screw the spams, the 'special' relationship is 1 way and always has been.

My best mate is off out there again next week for '4 & 1/2 months', I just hope he doesn't become another statistic with a sycophantic obituary written by someone who couldn't get a real job.


Jayand, please accept my apologies, I misread your post and invaded the wrong country ;-)

[minigundiplomat]

Being as bad as the other guy does not give us the progress we need.


Fully agree. But if we are going to fight IAW International law, and the enemy isn't, we have to recognise any progress will be limited.


The enemies are not using 'Allah's law' any more than Protestants burning Catholics and vice-versa were using Gods Law. Their lack of humanity, of consideration, empathy and sympathy are things we need to consider how to address to remove the cause of their diseased awfulness. shooting them doesn't seem to be solving this.



The Catholics always chose warfare as a means to achieving a political end. They knew setting off bombs in London/Belfast was wrong, but justified it as the end justifying the means. For the Taliban, the Madrassa's teach a distorted version of Jihad, where pretty much anything is acceptable to eradicate Westerners.
Attempting to fit Afghanistan into a N Ireland shaped pigeon hole is another failing - How many IRA strapped suicide vests to themselves?


The Russians were a superpower, had no rules of engagement to follow and still lost 15,000 men, the Mujahideen 500,000, and still they couldn't crack the nut.


Agreed. But the Russians were attempting to colonise the entire country and enforce a belief, totally contrary to the locals. ISAF are there to put the wheels back on, and then bugger off. There is a subtle, but huge difference. Many of the locals appreciate the difference.
One thing the end of the cold war unearthed was confirmation that although huge, the Red Army was spread thin and less well trained and equipped. Why do you think the first setting after slipping off the safety catch on an AK47 is automatic?

The Russians also followed some insane strategies, with an Army completely unprepared for the task. The use of conscripts and heavy use of road convoys with predictable TTP's played into the hands of the Muhajadeen for years. Huge monetary and technological support from the CIA/Saudi's played a large part too.

Apples and Oranges. Your book probably didn't tell you that.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of your sentiments. I am not telling you what is right about the war, I've merely highlighted some of the things we got wrong.

[Compressorstall]

MGD does have a grip on reality and speaks a lot of truths (in this case!). Accountants like force-on-force wars where they can quantify how many troops/tanks/aircraft etc we need to defeat a visible and easily quantifiable enemy. Afghanistan is an environment where we can make a difference, but it takes funding, kit, adequate troop numbers, a clearly identifiable task and political resolve. What we haven't needed are those who believed we could more with less. Networks and high tech kit are really seductive and look good at trade fairs, but warfare is much more than that. Unfortunately, it has boiled down to vanity in many cases and an unwillingness to hear the truth from those who know. It is the age old story of give us the tools and we will do the job.

[Jayand]

You refer to tools and boots on the ground and it simply isn't about that!
This ain't about that at all, Nobody wants us there, they just want to be left alone especially by the West.
Remember how quickly the Saudi's turned against us and the Yanks after GW2? Westerners will never be tolerated in that part of the world.
We don't understand or appreciate their customs or beliefs, their complete lack of coherent administration from one district to another, the vast differences in beliefs and needs from area to area.
You can't simply put an invading force with superior numbers and equipment in there try and blanket change the whole country as one, it isn't one and really isn't as I have already said even really a country as we know it.
No matter how much blood is spilt, how much money is spent or kit is used weeks if not days after we leave will see the whole place return to the way it was before! pointless.

And here is the big question why did we ever go in the first bloody place?
Sept 11th galvanised the US into starting this mess and we just jumped in line, Sept 11th has nothing to do with the country of Afghanistan but simply a few individuals who sometimes frequented there, why didn't we invade Pakistan or the Yemen? for that matter why didn't we invade the USA when pockets of Republicans hid, trained and supported and financed the IRA? is there really a difference?

[Party Animal]

And here is the big question why did we ever go in the first bloody place?

Jayand,

We went because one of the basic tennents of NATO is that an attack on one was to be considered an attack on all. 9/11 was clearly an attack by an enemy whose centre of gravity - leadership, training, logistics etc happened to be based in AFG. Therefore, a coalition force was quickly put together with the aim of destroying AQ (the enemy) with a view to preventing any similar terrorist atrocities on the scale of 9/11.

Whatever anyones view of our US cousins - the bottom line is that they baled us out during 2 world wars and probably dented the expansion of communism in Europe from 1945 until 1989. Regardless of UK political weaknesses and where we currently stand, as someone who has been there and got the tee-shirt, I am glad to say that we stood by our American colleagues when it came to stand up and be counted.

[The Nip]

During my recent tour as part of the TF arena, a RM WO with years of experiance in these environments made a simplistic statement;
How come a force of over 100,000 with billions of £'s of technology, weaponry, more money than the entire country could put together, fails to beat a force of 12,000 or so of men in pyjamas with old AK47's?

[Uncle Wiggily]

We don't understand or appreciate their customs or beliefs

Ya your right, I don't understand training people to fly into buildings, stoning young women to death for looking at a man or having acid thrown in your face because your a girl wanting to learn what 2+2 equals.

I guess I just need to learn more how to accept these differences in "culture."

[Compressorstall]

Jayand

If you read the whole post rather than focus on the comments about tools, perhaps you might understand. From the benefit of your position, you may be able to see what it wrong, but that is your perception. Many of us here have served in Afghanistan and some of the other places round the globe too. We can all see what is wrong, but when you are there, you focus on the job in hand. We went there for a reason in 2001 - a very valid reason - but whilst sometimes the military solutions are clear, it relies on the political machine to have the clarity of vision and courage to make the decisions that need to be made. Perhaps if we had got it right earlier, we wouldn't be there now. However, we accept there is a job to be done and we are a volunteer force, so we don't have to be there, but we do our jobs.
So, we can all say what is wrong, but we just try and make right what we can.

[Jayand]

Uncle wiggily is that the reasons we went in for then? Al q (can't remember spelling!) are an entirely different group from the Taliban, who themselves are not an organisation but rather a miss mash of tribes and groups fighting for their own gains in different regions but with a common hatred of all westerners.
On your basis of human rights abuses and other attrocities when are we invading China, or Saudi Arabia etc etc ?
Party animal, use of article 5 of the Nato Treaty is a very weak argument, the United states weren't attacked by a country or even attacked by a state backed group but rather an extremist terrorist group some of whom happened to be in Afghanistan in the knee jerk aftermath of Sept 11th.
Did America use article 5 after the Lockerbie bombing (sponsored and authorsed by Libya) or the attack on the USS Cole? what about the attacks of the US embassy in the Yemen? No of course not because you can't use it as a smoke screen for fighting terrorism or at least we shouldn't!
When the IRA were bombing London and trying to blow up the Government did we invoke article 5? hell we didn't even use it when a major South American Country invaded our sovereign terrority in 1982, do you see where I am coming from?

[Jayand]

Compressor from your post perhaps you believe that I have not seen first hand the job that is going on in both recent Middle Eastern theatres, that however is sadly not the case and yes I do as I am told as you say we all volunteered, however I have a critical and questioning brain inside my head and like to use it.
I also like to believe in the cause that I am being directed to do especially when it's my pink and soft body that may suffer.
All the conflicts during my period on this planet have been IMO justifiable up until GW 2 when we went down a path that has led us into the sorry state we are in now.

[Compressorstall]

So - if all the conflicts have been justifable up to GW2, then Afghanistan was justifiable??

Don't assume that the rest of us volunteers don't think in depth about what we do and have reservations like the rest. I value my pink body too, but I also accept what I do brings risks. I don't sit there believing that I have some key role in furthering fractured foreign policy, I simply do it because of the people I work with.

[Jayand]

I understand risks I just want to believe the risks I am taking on others behalfs are for a good reason, in this case and GW2 I don't/didn't, however it didn't stop me getting on with my job.
This is however a forum where thoughts, opinions and discussions are aired and these are simply mine.

[Co-Captain]

The politicians often bear the brunt of the criticism about why we've ended up in messes such as Iraq and Afghanistan - and rightly so as they are the ones with the final say.

Consider this, however: Not long ago the Telegraph ran a week long special on Afghanistan and the reasons for us being there. Our brothers in the Army did not come out too well from those reports/articles, with lots of finger pointing in the direction of their senior staff at the time. The general consensus, it is reported, was that certain senior officers were keen to go back to 'good old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground', warfighting and hence advised the politicians, who knew no better, that this would be a reasonable venture. This, despite smaller SF units already in place, urging that there was no threat from southern Afgh, and it would likely remain so unless we arrived an masse...

Our elected chinless wonders took the bait, hook, line and sinker, (even trying to persuade the public that this would be a campaign were no shots were fired) and sent out a drastically under resourced and ill-planned military and we've been playing catch up ever since.

Off to fight a fire without so much as a bucket of water... Another fine mess :rolleyes:

[Mike7777777]

There will be no end to conflict in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future. If the West withdraws then the Russians will probably go back in at some stage, they have unfinished business there. They will probably succeed if their economy can support the financial cost, unless the West arms the "other side" .... again.

Anyone who believes that the "other side" will not follow the withdrawing Western forces to exact revenge has little understanding of Afghanistan. It should be viewed as a killing field which keeps the conflict at a manageable distance.

I am convinced that if the "other side" attacks the US again at a similar level to the World Trade Centre then the host country of the attackers will be carpet bombed back the Stone Age by the US irrespective of world opinion. Probably conventionally, probably depends how many B52s are still available for the Big Belly conversion.

Primary objective in 2001? Eliminate Al Qaeda from Afghanistan following the attack on the Twin Towers,
Primary objective in 2010? I have no idea. Defining objectives is step 1.

I must declare an interest, I have a direct ancestor who did a bit in Afghanistan in 1839, perhaps he should have done a bit more ...

[Jayand]

Whats with the "other side" and "host nation" code ?
I am very sceptical on your theory of the Russians going back in, they were at their strongest before and didn't manage so why would they do it all again?
And I also think you are wrong about the US carpet bombing any terrorist yeilding countries, I think even they maybe coming round to the fact that invading or bombing the **** out of 3rd world islamic countries whilst trying to round up some cave dwelling goat hearders is A. very expensive both in lives and cash B. very counter productive in terms of acting as a recruitment and motivational aid and C. crucially, lacks public support.
Nothing stops a politician in his tracks quicker than a huge slump in his/her popularity rating.

[Mike7777777]

What code? I've yet to see an accurate description of the opposition in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Host country = country (countries) where Al Qaeda and others are apparantly based. Russians/Soviets have been involved in Afghanistan since at least the 1880s, they're not going to stop now, but it won't be this year or next. The Red Army had the upper hand in the 1980s until Stingers appeared, the collapse of Communism merely accelerated the retreat. If the West withdraws then who is going to fill the resultant power vacumn? It will need a large standing army, "hearts and minds" would be irrelevant, Pakistan?

Carpet bombing and the use of drones would not lead to high US military casualities; if the US suffers another attack as per WTC I doubt if there would be any consideration of world opinion, I was surprised at the restrained approach in Afghanistan.

[Jayand]

Power vacuum? there won't be one, once we leave the warlords (district leaders/taliban) will take back over exactly as they did before 2001, the puppet Karzai government will run a few markets in Kabul and line their pockets from corruption and drug peddaling.
Al q which is nothing to do with the taliban will move around anyway, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi etc etc so the whole lot will have been for nothing.
The potential next "big" terrorist threat is equally likely to come from home grown terrorists (motivated by foreign poilcy) leaving america to carpet bomb who exactly?

[Mike7777777]

Power vacuum? there won't be one, once we leave the warlords (district leaders/taliban) will take back over exactly as they did before 2001, the puppet Karzai government will run a few markets in Kabul and line their pockets from corruption and drug peddaling.?? This is exactly situation which led to the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s, and I doubt if anyone wants that, except for the Taliban/Al Qaeda/similar of course

Al q which is nothing to do with the taliban will move around anyway, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi etc etc so the whole lot will have been for nothing?? The US/NATO justification for invading Afghanistan was precisely because Al Qaeda was associated with the Taliban. The US can claim that there have been no further attacks of the same magnitude as the WTC since the invasion of Afghanistan

The potential next "big" terrorist threat is equally likely to come from home grown terrorists (motivated by foreign poilcy) leaving america to carpet bomb who exactly?You clearly have access to information that I do not.

Allow me to be blunt, if the US suffers another attack similar to the WTC, and if the US believes that the attack orginated or was supported by country X, and if country X fails to eliminate or hand over all suspects to the US then I doubt if the US will favour sending in the troops as the 1st option, which leaves selective strikes or something bigger. International opinion will be worthless as will any number of fine words from the UN, although I suppose economic sanctions might be an alternative, that always works ...

[Al R]

Perhaps we share more experiences than we think.

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / Afghanistan - Fraud fears lead to run on Kabul Bank (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5db1d3a-b68b-11df-86ca-00144feabdc0.html)

Whoops.

<<A full-scale run on the bank, which is partly owned by Mr Karzai’s brother, could have wide-ranging political repercussions, as it handles the salaries of Afghan civil servants, including teachers and soldiers.>>

[EGGP]

"What code? I've yet to see an accurate description of the opposition in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Host country = country (countries) where Al Qaeda and others are apparantly based. Russians/Soviets have been involved in Afghanistan since at least the 1880s, they're not going to stop now, but it won't be this year or next. The Red Army had the upper hand in the 1980s until Stingers appeared, the collapse of Communism merely accelerated the retreat. If the West withdraws then who is going to fill the resultant power vacumn? It will need a large standing army, "hearts and minds" would be irrelevant, Pakistan?"


Iran is the obvious beneficiary, and we know they are supplying explosives know how and munitions to the Taliban. IMHO They are looking to broaden their influence in the region as well as upset the Great Satan at the same time and get a two for one Brucie bonus.

[Lonewolf_50]

Should the US get another attack like 9-11, the Buffs won't be needed for anything like carpet bombing. Oddly enough, the B-2 carries a nice little payload of delightful GPS guided bombs. Most hosts to terrorists can't handle the B-2 problem. A leisurely programme of laying lovely steel eggs for a number of weeks (recall, we bombed Serbia for 71 days for less provocation than a 9-11) on such targets as are deemed suitable is one possible response to that new attack scenario.

There are others.

Buffs carry quite a bit as well, so too Bones, but I am not sure if they are as good at that mission as the B-2. There aren't many of them, but the B-2 is a good platform for a variety of missions.

Carpet bombing isn't going to come back. It's not a useful method. Once again, kids, it is not WW II anymore, it isn't Viet Nam any more, it is the year 2011. References to carpet bombing show the ignorance of the speaker. This being a forum filled with pilots, many ex mil pilots, I'd hope for a bit more precision ... (see what I did there?) ;)

Hell, a single C-130 with a BLU-82 in an urban area suffices to send a signal along the lines of "you really screwed up, pal." But we haven't done that lately. (Pity .... )

But as the BLU-82 has been retired, I suspect a MOAB in an urban area would send a similar message: and in a more painful manner.

There are maybe 15 nations that could prevent one of those from getting to target area, given the USAF's ability to command the air in a given place and time at need.

[Load Toad]

in an urban area suffices to send a signal along the lines of "you really screwed up, pal." But we haven't done that lately. (Pity .... )

Hmmm, you see the reason that isn't a good idea - is that a) It wouldn't get the people that did it, planned it, funded it etc. b) It would upset the people that didn't do it but lived there innocently enough so that they'd support the people that did do it c) You'd look like the sort of moron that deserved what it got in the first place.

The bombining of civilians has never had the 'That'll learn 'em.' effect ever. And let's face it '9-11' had about how much effect in making Americans decide to give up being American and all that it stands for (& I may add in many ways I gratefully respect).

But you'd probably feel good about doing it which would be the real pity.

[MaroonMan4]

OK,

I am not normally drawn into this kind of political thread, but hopefully to add balance and attempt to possibly show the other side of the coin here are my thoughts on Afghanistan:

1. Maybe, just maybe, we need to look strategically (10-20 years) and although one could argue that both Iraq and Afghanistan were tactical failures, strategically the genuine nuclear powers with potentially extremist anti-west/anti-Christian regimes in the future have potentially been contained. Only 100 miles from their borders, Iran, Pakistan and India all now have large airbases that can fit C-5s/C-17s that can result on rapid build up of forces.

2. Remaining with the grand strategic, if China and Russia do re-appear as hostile, again NATO/US have forces now positioned in both Iraq and Afghan that could potentially open at a second/third front to the 'traditional' Iron curtain, Norwegian/Arctic and/or Amphib possibilities.

3. Although I agree with all of the arguments on 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' and 'how do you militarily defeat a nation that remains in the stone age' and 'how do you deal with an extremist that willingly dies for his/her beliefs'. But, Afghanistan just maybe the warning to AQ and more importantly the nations that harbour AQ. After 9/11 this was the clear message and Afghanistan did not stop or make any effort to detain or remove AQ from its country. The result was 'Enduring Freedom'. Lets assume AQ have now gone from Afghanistan and set up shop somewhere else (the media is reporting Yemen for example?). If the US believe that Yemen is the new main operating base for AQ the Yemeni govt will be given advice, guidance, assistance to remove AQ. If it doesn't the political will could be enforced by military means. Afghanistan has proven that the US (NATO/UN) will not tolerate countries harbouring AQ. Pre-Afghanistan this could be viewed as a hollow threat (as Afghanistan did in 2001), but now every nation in the world knows that if it is harbouring AQ and does not respond to calls to remove/detain, then it too will have US/NATO forces do their job for them and forcibly remove AQ. If they move from Yemen to another country, then the US/NATO/UN will follow until eventually nations will recognise that the slightest notion of AQ on their soil requires prompt and decisive action to remove/detain. Eventually AQ will have very few places to hide.

4. Bridging the strategic to the tactical, lets look at the quality and experience of the UK fighting forces - with the exception of the US, the Brits have the most battle hardened and combat proven military in the world (some thing that SDSR is certainly missing!). This credibility alone is a deterrent in comparison to some other nations that have 'all the gear ' no idea'. Look where we were in the eighties 'playing soldiers' in BAOR (less of course the relatively small NI campaign). Afghanistan has resulted in some superb equipment, highly refined and dynamic TTPs (in comparison to the legacy cumbersome doctrine) and a realistic and operationally effective PDT trg routine that gets more Joint as each HERRICK progresses.

5. Open press sources report that there is absolutely no doubt that drugs from Afghanistan are reaching gangs in London and the rest of the UK. We are not talking wet opium from 'poor farmer Ahmed' that cannot grow anything else, we are talking grade A processed heroin. The UK forces in Helmand are playing an active role in denying the couriers, money launderers, drug factories - the whole lot. To me, with kids that have got through their teens without being influenced by drugs, anything that can reduce the influx of drugs into this country is worth effort. I have friends that have 'lost' their once charming, loving children to drugs.

Please do not get me wrong, I struggle daily (after 6 tours) to reconcile the loss of (young) British (and Coalition/Civilian) lives in Afghanistan, but from a personal perspective on so many levels still believe in the 'fight' - if not for my generation (which seems to have pretty much screwed up everything from the world economy to world politics), but for the next generation where I believe that they will learn from our mistakes and take forward the small positive aspects of what is going on in the world today.

[Jayand]

There are lots of things we will never agree on and that is the way of the world, but answer me this honestly, when we leave in five or so years will we leave anything better behind than what we first found in 2001? will Tony Blair be able to look in the eyes of the parents who have lost their sons and daughters and be able to say it was worth it?
Have we really made a difference to the terrorist threat or have we just made ourselves a bigger target for attack?
Will we be leaving because the job has been done, or are we leaving because Obama won't win another term with the troops still dying in a dusty hell hole?
Mike 77777 I don't have any special information, it's common knowledge, obvious and already proving true.

[minigundiplomat]

Jayand,

Maroon Man speaks from a strategic perspective, and crititiques a long and tragic failure well, obviously from first hand experience.

You on the other hand, seem tactical in nature, and quote the Daily Mail headlines to the point of contributing to the failure.

Hey ho.

[Mike7777777]

Mike 77777 I don't have any special information, it's common knowledge, obvious and already proving true.Really? I wasn't aware of further attacks on the West of the same magnitude as the WTC, particularly with regards to organisation and support. Although there certainly has been activities by nutters. But that doesn't mean that there is no further risk of major attacks.

If the West leaves Afghanistan (again) within the near future, and particularly if a departure date is set beforehand, there are only two possible outcomes:

i) The Taliban/similar achieve power, Al Qaeda/similar return to Afghanistan by default, the West returns to Afghanistan to eliminate Al Qaeda/similar by ... how? No regular troops, politically unacceptable following withdrawl. Possibly special forces, but they'll just get sucked into a maelstrom with insufficient support. Drones? Perhaps, but we're using those now. Selectively targetted airstrikes? Perhaps, but we're using that now. Which leaves .. what exactly?

ii) Unspecified country/coalition/alliance invades to fill the power vacumn and restore a version of order ; unless it's draconion (so no hearts and minds) with a recognition that losses will occur then the cycle will repeat itself. Unlikely that the US/UK will restrain from meddling if another power is involved, but that is Afghanistan.

The only strategy the West should consider is staying there until a viable alternative is developed.

[Jayand]

"Staying there until a viable alternative is developed" is not going to happen.
The politicians and their public are desperate to see us out of the place as soon as possible, and they will definately announce it before Obama sinks without a trace whilst trying to get re- elected for a second term.
Terrorist acts the size of September the 11th(I hate 9/11) don't need to be organised in Afhanistan, Afghanistan is a red herring and I honestly don't believe us being there is really preventing any more attacks.
All of our efforts fighting in the country are against insurgents hell bent on driving us the infidel foreign invader out of his holy land, these people aren't the people who are organising terrorist acts abroard, however some of them may well now feel like doing so!
Aghanistan never sponsored terrorism, like Iran or Libya but here we are.
The terrorists can and will continue their campaign against the west with or without us being in the country, they have simply melted away into the hills of Pakistan and the swat valley, Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and god knows where else.
The real war stopping like sized terrorist attacks is I expect happening away from Afghanistan in the the world of the secret services and homeland security, intelligence work etc, etc
The world and especially the US got a massive wake up call on Sept 11th and has stepped up it's efforts in this area massively since.

[Lonewolf_50]

Your penchant for personalizing the conversation is noted, Load Toad ...

[glad rag]

I suspect a MOAB in an urban area would send a similar message: and in a more painful manner. ? :bored: ?

Whatsup; feeling grumpy, the :ugh:Koran burning sesh :ugh: been stopped yet? :oh:

I wouldn't want to label you as one of those, however your grasp of cause and effect seems to have slipped a wee bit there.

[Load Toad]

Your penchant for personalizing the conversation is noted, Load Toad ...

Oh - that's worse than wanting to drop big bombs in the middle of towns is it?

Hell, a single C-130 with a BLU-82 in an urban area suffices to send a signal along the lines of "you really screwed up, pal." But we haven't done that lately. (Pity .... )

[Mike7777777]

"Staying there until a viable alternative is developed" is not going to happen.
Unfortunately, you may be correct. Short term political goals for short term politicos who subsequently bugg@r off leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others at a later date.

There is apparantly evidence that home grown UK nutters are travelling to Afghanistan to fight the West, I prefer this option to suicide bombers on the London Underground.

If the "other side" wants to fight the West then this conflict should occur at a geographical distance from the West eg Afghanistan.

[Lonewolf_50]

Oh - that's worse than wanting to drop big bombs in the middle of towns is it?
Non sequitur also noted, with further personalization added.

Posting on an internet forum has f:mad: all to do with decisions on where and when to drop a bomb. I note your emotional reaction to my discussions of options, of which using HE in urban areas is one -- an option, and if you go back to my entire post, to which you overreacted, that is what I was discussing, possible responses to a second attack in the vein of 9-11.

Force, specifically military force, is used to send a political message with some frequencey in the real world, whether you like that fact or not, so DEAL WITH IT, and please park your emotions at the door.

Not wasting any more time with you on this.

[Lonewolf_50]

I wouldn't want to label you

Then don't, as it would be foolish of you to do so.

I note how you feel free to make randomm associations based on my points on what bombs may do. You need to recall the harsh reality of the uses of force, which is that a given politician may choose an option that you don't much care for.

That has f:mad: all to do with that twit from Florida.

[glad rag]

Not wasting any more time with you on this.

Good to hear.