PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan, wasted effort or squandered opportunities?


John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 04:25
Hands up all those who do not expect the Taleban to be back in Kabul in about a years time?

dubbleyew eight
19th Jan 2014, 04:33
I'd give it 6 months

the guys waving farewell to the last departing aircraft will all be taliban.

just like the vietnamese they will declare that they won the war with russia (french in vietnam's case) and then the war with america.

Seldomfitforpurpose
19th Jan 2014, 04:35
Sadly I doubt very much the newly elected lady Police official in Kabul is long for this world :(

Andu
19th Jan 2014, 05:06
It is tacitly acknowledged by Western Governments that the Taliban will be in power within months of the western troop withdrawal. Why else are they granting visas to the families of Afghans who have worked for Western forces as interpreters etc over the last ten+ years?

They don't want to see another 'last helicopter lifting off from the US embassy roof' a la Saigon 1975 - but it's going to happen anyway, and if the Taliban stick to form (as the Afghans did with the British when they agreed to allow them to retreat unmolested to the Indian border and reneged, leaving only one man alive so the tale could be told), we WILL see that last helicopter lifting off from the embassy compound, and unless we have overwhelming firepower on hand to support that "last helicopter(s)", it/they will almost certainly be shot down by a salvo of MANPADs. MANPADs that in all likiehood, the West quite likely supplied to the Taliban.

John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 05:08
the guys waving farewell to the last departing aircraft will all be taliban.

just like the vietnamese they will declare that they won the war with russia (french in vietnam's case) and then the war with america.

The Taleban can hardly claim to have won any war against Russia when the organisation was not formed by Mullah Mohammed Omar until around about 1992, the Soviets left A'stan in 1988.

John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 05:13
leaving only one man alive so the tale could be told

Dr Watson I presume?

Mac the Knife
19th Jan 2014, 05:38
"Dr Watson I presume?"

Assistant Surgeon William Brydon actually...

Mac

:8

And yes, fairly predictably it's all going to end the same way

Don't politicians and soldiers read history anymore?

:confused:

Seldomfitforpurpose
19th Jan 2014, 06:35
[

Don't politicians and soldiers read history anymore?

:confused:

Soldiers most certainly do read history however they get very little say in what the politicians decide!

John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 06:36
I dont think he was the only survivor as I understand a platoon of Indian soldiers had the good sense to go over the tops instead of through the gorge.

Fliegenmong
19th Jan 2014, 10:22
Sadly all so predictable 10+ years ago.......all those dead US boys., Aussie & Brits....I remember being shouted down as a lefty democrat clown.....and now...:(....well now I despair for all those families with sons & daughters needlessly taken from them........because of valuable resources re-directed to Iraq, which was minding it's own business, directed away from a true Islamic evil...one which we now think prudent to negotiate with......FFS!!!.....:ugh::ugh:

Afghanistan was 'doable'...we could have had the place nailed, years ago too!...but no.....forces had to be directed toward Iraq.....and (IRAQ) had NOTHING to do with 9/11.....and look at where we are...negotiating with the Taliban....:{

'Effing' pathetic outcome! :ugh::ugh:

Everyone one knew Saddam & Osama hated each other!!!......

Ahh well...back off to the pool to sip cocktails and ponder what might have been....

Peter-RB
19th Jan 2014, 10:48
As has been said by many:-

A huge waste of Treasure and Blood, all those youg Soldiers of the entire collection of armies involved in that hostile place..

Next time wherever trouble starts,, arm the Politians and send them in first....Give Blair a Megaphone, with Brown carrying the script and the Jock who stated that no shots would be fired could carry their cash bags, possibly then we would only loose three lives, but as they say...someone has to make a sacrifice and do the right thing!!.

But on reflection the ruling Labour elite of that day did not care!

I have three friends who now dont have sons because of this debacle caused by uncaring politians, I hope people remember these sort of things when next asked to put a cross in a box.

Peter R-B
Lancashire

ORAC
19th Jan 2014, 11:03
I doubt the Taleban will take charge.

Remember the Taleban regime was fighting a war for many years against the Northern Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance); and it was the Northern Alliance, with the support of American air power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Air_campaigns), which toppled them.

The Alliance has reformed, and is part of the present government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance#Reformation_.282011.29). I would imagine that the Alliance will be supported in arms, intelligence and arms support in future, long after the last infantryman has left the region.

I would forecast an uneasy federal alliance with possible periods of civil war and a weak central government at best.

onetrack
19th Jan 2014, 11:44
The country will break up into various tribal groups, who each control a swathe of territory, that they will claim is historically theirs - just like Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, etc etc, ad infinitum ... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Kabul will be infiltrated by the Taliban on a large scale, and Karzai will be assassinated as an agent of the West and a treasonous figure. There will be widespread indiscriminate bombings of every type and style.
Foreigners especially, will be targeted - any kind of Western civilians and particularly women, will be targeted, to gain maximum pyschological effect.

There will be tribal fighting between various Afghan ethnic groups who have always hated each other .. and there will be fighting between various Islamic factions who hate each others interpretation of Mohammeds words, even more.

In short, they will go back to doing exactly what they were doing, before any Western troops arrived.
There never was any opportunity that was squandered.
The Aghfanistan region has been the same for hundreds of years, and any attempt by Westerners to infiltrate and change them meets with the same style of resistance every time - that no-one in the West knows even remotely how to deal with.
No comfort can be gained by those who have lost sons and daughters in this hellhole, by thinking that many Taliban have lost sons and daughters, too. They merely treat those losses as true martyrs in the "cause" of true Islam, and in the (once again) successful repelling of the "Crusaders". They hate our guts, totally, in the way that only true Islamists can.

Mac the Knife
19th Jan 2014, 12:19
"Afghanistan was 'doable'...we could have had the place nailed, years ago too!"

Afghanistan never was and never will be "doable" - the terrain and the people make it no more "doable" than Vietnam was.

The British Empire realised this even after the First Anglo-Afghan War and eventually formalised this with the Treaty of Rawalpindi of 1919.

To maintain otherwise is frankly delusional.

Mac

:cool:

AtomKraft
19th Jan 2014, 12:44
If Afghan' is 'Doable', why has no one ever 'Done it'?

goudie
19th Jan 2014, 13:21
What is this fascination with Afghanistan, in recent times? I know it had some strategic importance in the days of Empire, but as has been stated it's become just another Vietnam and lessons, much to our cost in lives and money, haven't been learnt it would seem.
Where, I wonder, will politicians decide the next Western Crusade should take place?

pigboat
19th Jan 2014, 13:40
Dolly Birds Of The Hindu Kush. (http://www.steynonline.com/6020/dolly-birds-of-the-hindu-kush)

America and its allies have the best tanks, planes, and guns ...but no will and no strategy. And so the tanks, planes and guns count for naught. Our enemies have nothing but will. The consequences of this distinction extend well beyond Afghanistan.

The pull-out from Afghanistan should have been accomplished 11 years ago. At that time the Taleban were on the run and Western powers would have been dealing from a position of strength. Now the situation has been reversed.

John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 17:26
There never was any opportunity that was squandered.
Start with botched handling of extradition of Osama Bin Laden.


The Aghfanistan region has been the same for hundreds of years, and any attempt by Westerners to infiltrate and change them meets with the same style of resistance every time - that no-one in the West knows even remotely how to deal with.
Are you really sure about that?
Remembering 1960s Afghanistan, the photographs of Bill Podlich (http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/01/28/podlich-afghanistan-1960s-photos/5846/)

No comfort can be gained by those who have lost sons and daughters in this hellhole, by thinking that many Taliban have lost sons and daughters, too. They merely treat those losses as true martyrs in the "cause" of true Islam, and in the (once again) successful repelling of the "Crusaders". They hate our guts, totally, in the way that only true Islamists can.
Well they do now but why is that when the Taleban had a New York office until 2001 as part of their efforts to gain international recognition for their regime that controlled 90%+ of the country under a set of laws almost identical to those of America's close friend Saudi Arabia.

Low Flier
19th Jan 2014, 18:21
Rory Stewart quite certainly knows more about Afghanistan than any other British or American politician and probably knows more than all of 'em combined.

Here's a 20 minute talk he gave a couple of years ago.

Rory Stewart: Time to end the war in Afghanistan - YouTube

rjtjrt
19th Jan 2014, 19:34
Onetrack wrote:The country will break up into various tribal groups, who each control a swathe of territory, that they will claim is historically theirs - just like Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, etc etc, ad infinitum ...

Kabul will be infiltrated by the Taliban on a large scale, and Karzai will be assassinated as an agent of the West and a treasonous figure. There will be widespread indiscriminate bombings of every type and style.
Foreigners especially, will be targeted - any kind of Western civilians and particularly women, will be targeted, to gain maximum pyschological effect.

There will be tribal fighting between various Afghan ethnic groups who have always hated each other .. and there will be fighting between various Islamic factions who hate each others interpretation of Mohammeds words, even more.
I sort of agree, except Karzai will be in Switzerland near his bank account, and the rest of the previously called warlords (now known as Provincial Governor/Police Chief/etc) will have so much cash to invest in new drug production facilities for the decadent west.
So much money has been pumped into Afghanistan, and it has all gone somewhere!

fitliker
19th Jan 2014, 21:36
On a positive note: Opium production is up, and the world will have no shortage of heroin this year.


NATO was fighting under strict rules of engagement, the insurgents are using the NO RULES fighting techniques used against empires to get them to leave.


Change the rule of engagement and the insurgents will collapse in months.


China will be in Afghanistan to fill the void just like Indo-China after the Europeans left their colonies.
With any luck the Chinese might extend their excellent new railcars all the way down the silk road and open the whole area to tourism.

John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 21:58
On a positive note: Opium production is up, and the world will have no shortage of heroin this year. The opium warlords are 'our' friends so good news indeed!


NATO was fighting under strict rules of engagement, the insurgents are using the NO RULES fighting techniques used against empires to get them to leave.


Change the rule of engagement and the insurgents will collapse in months.

I dont agree. This is just a poor excuse for the failure of the military to do what they were sent to do, possibly because there never was a military solution to the situation.


China will be in Afghanistan to fill the void just like Indo-China after the Europeans left their colonies.

With any luck the Chinese might extend their excellent new railcars all the way down the silk road and open the whole area to tourism.

The Chinese were set to start a copper mining venture at the world's second biggest copper deposit about five years ago but all has not gone well on that venture..

Afghanistan's plan to jumpstart economy with Chinese mining investment under threat | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1313161/afghanistans-plan-jumpstart-economy-chinese-mining-investment-under-threat)

awblain
19th Jan 2014, 21:59
All of the above.

Russia no doubt likes that someone else has taken the "head against the wall" award for attempting to capture and hold Afghanistan, just as France was delighted to be forgotten as the colonial power in Vietnam.

Perhaps if the bribery had been conducted at a lower level things might have been different.

Someone suggested above that Karzai will be killed as a stooge of the West. At least some good will come of the whole enterprise then.

Perhaps the place would have been quite pleasant still if no-one had funded and supported the Gulf-based crackpot association to visit in the 1980s and fight the USSR.

John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 22:15
The big problem in A'stan as in so many other countries of the world is the division between rich and poor. Land reform is sorely needed but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Fubaar
19th Jan 2014, 22:17
The parents who lost sons and the wives who lost husbands can at least take one tiny (and I mean tiny) piece of comfort in knowing that their loved ones' sacrifice brought us 10 years. The all out war for survival of the liberal Western nations against fundamental Islam won't be upon us quite as early as it would have been without the delay their sacrifice bought us.

The John Hills among us will pour scorn on that comment, but that doesn't make it any less true. Nor does it change the fact that no thinking man can ignore - that unless there is a huge change in attitude in the West, we are surely going to lose that war when - not if - we find ourselves fighting it.

We can only hope there will be many more Syrias in the near future where they're so busy killing each other, something will change in the meantime to allow us to survive and them to fail in their (in their minds) Allah-inspired aims.

John Hill
19th Jan 2014, 22:20
Consider buckets of scorn being poured.

awblain
19th Jan 2014, 22:27
Fubaar,

I reckon we'll all survive fine in the West -
other than those sent on a snipe hunt to the 'stans who didn't.

The West would do much better not messing about with invasions when a bit of (possibly vindictive and brutal) police work was needed. How many Russians were kidnapped in Lebanon in the 1980s? I understand it was two. Their government's response? Rather more effective than shelling the hills behind Beirut.

There's well over a billion muslims in the world, with maybe a few tens of thousands of jihadi crackpot misfits amongst them. Don't get things out of proportion.

onetrack
19th Jan 2014, 22:37
Afghanistan and North Pakistan are still the sites of many Madrassas that teach the hardest-line Islamic teachings the world has ever seen.
No education for women, total repression of women, the death sentence for petty offences (including insulting Mohammed), and Sharia Law rules.

The problem is simple. Sharia Law is religion, culture, government, and justice system all rolled up into one. Unelected Imams rule, democracy is total anathema to them - and Judaeo-Christian culture is their lifelong enemy.

Until these hardline Islamics move forward from the 5th century, nothing will change, Afghanistan will still be rooted in the 5th century - and I use the word "rooted" specifically as a double entendre in the finest Aussie/Kiwi slang style.

We in the West have fought our civil wars, established democratic precedents, and separated and refined our churches, states, and justice systems, into separate and independent parts of our cultures, over 15 or more centuries.
We have thrived and expanded, economically, technologically, and culturally, from the early 1800's, because of that. Our language is the ruling language of technology, science, education, engineering and construction.

Afghanistan and the Islamics will never thrive nor produce anything more than drugs and guns, because their backward mentality holds them back - forever.
Until they can eliminate their 5th century educational system, their 5th century modes of thinking, their 5th century style of population control, and move forward with progressive modern ideas that are more aligned to Western culture, they will remain the worlds backwater and a fetid swamp that continuously breeds and exports hatred and repression.

pigboat
19th Jan 2014, 22:44
The parents who lost sons and the wives who lost husbands can at least take one tiny (and I mean tiny) piece of comfort in knowing that their loved ones' sacrifice brought us 10 years. The all out war for survival of the liberal Western nations against fundamental Islam won't be upon us quite as early as it would have been without the delay their sacrifice bought us.

The problem is simple. Sharia Law is religion, culture, government, and justice system all rolled up into one. Unelected Imams rule, democracy is total anathema to them - and Judaeo-Christian culture is their lifelong enemy.

Defend Christendom. (http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367783/defend-christendom-conrad-black)

rjtjrt
19th Jan 2014, 22:50
If we are going to broaden this discussion, then what the hell is the west doing intervening to stop muslims fighting each other? The Iran Iraq war was a great preoccupation for them till west got involved (not with troops that time) to stop it.
Saddam Hussain in 2003 was a great enemy of fundamentalist Islam/Al Qaeda and Osama, and removing him was a great victory for Osama.

RatherBeFlying
19th Jan 2014, 23:09
Perhaps the best that can be realistically hoped for in Afghanistan is that local populations have the means to defend themselves and that no faction has disproportionate access to heavy weapons that would enable it to gain sway over others.

I really do not see how Canada, any more than any other Afghan invader, has access to a magical pixie dust that will bring peace and good government to this land.

Some call this the Fifth Afghan War that Canada has stepped into, but it depends on where you start the numbering.

If we started from Alexander, the modern numbering that began in Queen Victoria's time might be off by multiples, even if only counting external invasions.

Between external invasions the local warlords and tribes have a centuries long tradition of keeping the pot bubbling except for rare intervals where a strong leader has been able to lay down the law.

Even more rare, if at all, was a successor able to continue a peaceful reign.

As with the other Afghan Wars since Queen Victoria's time, it is much easier to seize Kabul than to remain in control. Canada is now in line to receive the same bloody nose that has been dealt to the British and the Russians.

Just as in Queen Victoria's time, an Afghan adventure is trumpeted as a civilising mission -- is good training for the troops and gives some officers a chance to advance their careers.

But don't look for any lasting benefit for the Afghans.

Afghanistan is the remedial classroom for history dunces.

Andu
20th Jan 2014, 01:51
Consider buckets of scorn being poured.You'd better put aside a bucket to pour on me as well, John. This battle that I too believe we'll soon face won't be army against army; it will be a slow, (or maybe not so slow), insidious white-anting of our electoral process as the immigrants from Islamic countries outbreed (by an alarming rate) the native-born citizens of the Western countries they've come to to "escape" the "horrors" of their homelands.

If current trends continue - both in population growth and in the resistance of many Islamic immigrants to assimilate and adopt a Western lifestyle (with the notable exception of living off the State on benefits), they will soon have a large enough bloc of votes to influence marginal governments to do their bidding to gain their votes. Here in Australia, the Greens have already shown us how effective that can be with a relatively small number of voters if they can find a government (as Labor was) willing to make really unpalatable compromises to remain in power.

Pour scorn upon me if you will, John, but I think we're in for interesting times, and a term invented during the Spanish Civil War will become a very familiar one to many in the West.

That term is 'Fifth Column'.

John Hill
20th Jan 2014, 02:13
If current trends continue ............. they will soon have a large enough bloc of votes to influence marginal governments to do their bidding to gain their votes.

I think that is called democracy.

MG23
20th Jan 2014, 02:33
I think that is called democracy.

I think it's called colonization.

500N
20th Jan 2014, 02:36
And by then others will rise up and decrease the numbers a bit.

John Hill
20th Jan 2014, 03:11
I think it's called colonization.

The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the way they are because of colonisation.

rh200
20th Jan 2014, 03:12
I think that is called democracy.

So you would be happy then John for Sharia law, sitting next do to some one who commits honor killing.

And by then others will rise up and decrease the numbers a bit.

If we get to that point it will be too late and we will loose, theres a reason it has spread so well.

I dont agree. This is just a poor excuse for the failure of the military to do what they were sent to do, possibly because there never was a military solution to the situation.

The military are capable of doing what we want, if we allow them too. For example they didn't loose Vietnam, we did, in effect it became a war of attrition and our society's didn't have the will. I'm not putting a right or wrong moral spin on that..

As for "there is no military solution", there always is a military solution, it's just if you have the will to do what it takes. Another words how many of your values are prepared to sacrifise.

Society's have been taking over and changing values of others for thousands of years by force of arms, its not rocket science. Sometimes they stuff up, other times they succeed.

500N
20th Jan 2014, 03:19
"The military are capable of doing what we want, if we allow them too. For example they didn't loose Vietnam, we did, in effect it became a war of attrition and our society's didn't have the will. I'm not putting a right or wrong moral spin on that..

As for "there is no military solution", there always is a military solution, it's just if you have the will to do what it takes. Another words how many of your values are prepared to sacrifise."

Agree.

Pollies don't have the will to sacrifice values even if those on the front line will. Take pollies out of the equation and see the difference.


"The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the way they are because of colonisation."

The difference is we have two polarised sides, the huggy fluffies like John Hill who will sit back, let it happen, let Sharia law take over and girls get mutilated, women put to the bottom of the pile and then those who are prepared to stop being taken over by a group they don't want to control.

Currently Syria is in the throes of this type of event.

John Hill
20th Jan 2014, 03:29
"Everything looks like a nail to those whose tool box contains only a hammer."

Hardly surprising then that gun fondlers would put their faith in a military solution to every situation.

rh200
20th Jan 2014, 03:42
Hardly surprising then that gun fondlers would put their faith in a military solution to every situation.

Hardly, the tool box is full of all sorts of tools, as they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. In reference to the above, its a multi pronged approach.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs, any approach to Afghanistan would require stabalization and holding the line for a century or so. The fact is the people we are fighting mainly come from majority Pushtin's, this makes it a extremely hard ask.

Compare that to Iraqi, where our allies are the Kurds and Shite's, making up the vast majority. A bit over simplified, but roughly about it.

500N
20th Jan 2014, 03:49
I often wondered if AFGHANISTAN was split up a bit and certain areas pissed off and then concentrate on the rest.

Piss of the border regions and let them do what they want with provisos that shyte would rain down if they caused trouble on this side of the border.

MG23
20th Jan 2014, 05:39
The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the way they are because of colonisation.

Exactly.

Ask the natives whether their ancestors made a mistake letting the white man move in and take over.

I don't remember anyone ever asking the British people if they wanted to be replaced by Muslims.

Andu
20th Jan 2014, 05:52
Afghanistan might possibly be winnable for an outside force if the political leadership of that outside force had the will to deal with Pakistan with (to borrow a rather tired old phrase) "extreme prejudice".

Short of the US suffering a "Pearl Harbour moment" and that still somewhat potent nation reacting to that "moment" with the vigor, total commitment and national will it did to the Japanese attack on the US naval base in 1941, it's never going to happen.

Just as it was felt that the political price would be too great to deal properly with the safe sanctuaries the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong enjoyed in Laos and Cambodia - (note I said 'properly' - the bombing and eventual major land forces incursion into Cambodia by the US military in 1970 was far too little far too late) - so too do today's Western political leaders look upon Pakistan. With its nuclear weapons and with members of its government and military, particularly the ISI, almost openly supporting the forces opposed to the West and the present Afghan government, it presents in my opinion, a far more major threat in the long run than a Taliban-led Afghanistan.

I'm sure the Americans have a detailed plan on their books for what they'll do if the Pakistani nuclear arsenal ever looks like coming under the control of what I'll call - and thereby obviously offend John Hill - "the crazies".

Whatever that plan is, it will outrage the likes of John Hill, even it doesn't leave a large swathe of the north western part of the Indian sub-continent largely covered in glass.

John Hill
20th Jan 2014, 06:07
MG23, why would you expect anything to be different if it were the British people on the receiving end of colonisation?

John Hill
20th Jan 2014, 06:13
" the likes of John Hill"
So what am I, the gold standard for something?

http://mlpforums.com/uploads/post_images/img-2172957-1-conan-rofl.gif

rh200
20th Jan 2014, 08:22
colonisation?

Perfectly natural thing to do, dosen't make it right, but hay thats only a definition.

Bet the Maroi's are still wondering if all those neglected white women they inherited into their homeland was actually worth the rest of the baggage.:p

John Hill
20th Jan 2014, 18:10
Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan..

President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that the U.S. must halt military operations and air strikes in Afghanistan as a precondition to a security deal keeping U.S. troops in the war-torn nation after 2014.

The demand comes shortly after an investigation into a joint Afghan-U.S. military operation north of Kabul that resulted in 12 civilian casualties, the Associated Press reports. Karzai attributed the deaths to U.S. air strikes, though the U.S. pointed the finger back at Afghanistan.

Karzai Demands End to U.S. Military Operations, Air Strikes | TIME.com (http://world.time.com/2014/01/19/karzai-demands-end-to-u-s-military-operations-airstrikes/)

con-pilot
20th Jan 2014, 18:44
President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that the U.S. must halt military operations and air strikes in Afghanistan as a precondition to a security deal keeping U.S. troops in the war-torn nation after 2014.

I've no problem with that, bring them home.

MTOW
20th Jan 2014, 19:32
12 months from now, Karsi ( older readers will appreciate the apt ness in my misspelling his name) if he survives, will be in his squillion dollar apartment in New York.

Low Flier
20th Jan 2014, 19:40
I often wondered if AFGHANISTAN was split up a bit and certain areas pissed off and then concentrate on the rest.

Conquer; Divide; Rule.

It's the mantra of fascism and is firmly based, like the rest of the American Empire, on the model of the Roman Empire. That's the root of American fascism.

The problem in Afghanistan is not that it is too coherent a country. The problem is the opposite. It is fractured, mostly along ethnic and tribal lines. That is its weakness, not its strength.

I can't remember whether it was Rumsfeld or Cheney who said of Afghanistan: "We don't 'do' nation building". More's the pity because that is exactly what is needed in Afghanistan. Nation building.

The Afghans only come together and act coherently when they are invaded by a foreign aggressor. It matters not a jot whether the aggressors are Russian or British or American. It is the very fact that the aggressors have the temerity to bomb, invade and occupy their country which pisses the Afghans off.

There was a very good documentary and thinkpiece shown on British television a few years ago. It describes the history very lucidly and looks intelligently at the present there too.

It's in two parts. I could only find part one on YouTube:
Afghanistan The Great Game - A Personal View by Rory Stewart.1of2 - YouTube

Edited to add:

I've found part 2.
Afghanistan The Great Game Ep 2 HD - Video Dailymotion (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvd0pt_afghanistan-the-great-game-ep-2-hd_shortfilms)
It's interspersed with a few 30 second commercials, but the quality is good if you click on the "Quality" icon at the top right and crank up the resolution to 720HD.

Saltie
20th Jan 2014, 23:17
From Post # 32:I think we're in for interesting times, and a term invented during the Spanish Civil War will become a very familiar one to many in the West.

That term is 'Fifth Column'.Concur.

rh200
20th Jan 2014, 23:34
Conquer; Divide; Rule.

It's the mantra of fascism and is firmly based, like the rest of the American Empire, on the model of the Roman Empire. That's the root of American fascism.

Philosophically just like every one else though history who has had means to. I believe its the basics of evolution.

Lonewolf_50
21st Jan 2014, 13:08
Hardly surprising then that gun fondlers would put their faith in a military solution to every situation.
Except when they don't, which is most of the time. What you did there is an exercise of ignorance, called by some "counting the hits and ignoring the misses."

You really could to better, if you bothered.

Afghanistan: it will return to its natural state, disorder, and various outside actors will make less overt moves to influence things towards their own intersts. Do some research, John, and take a look at India's play in Afghanistan.

Think out of the box, if you can.

John Hill
21st Jan 2014, 17:36
India has long had an involvement in Afghanistan for which they are frequently praised or reviled depending on the phase of the moon. I recall when they 'gave' a fleet of knackered Airbuses to Ariana who were certainly not amused comparing them to their own treasured B727s.

My thinking is clear and uncomplicated. I was in Afghanistan in 2000 and I am still disgusted at how things have been handled since America attacked Afghanistan.

Lonewolf_50
21st Jan 2014, 17:56
You opinion is noted.

The criticism of those who try to social engineer a place like Afghanistan may be well placed. You'll get mixed success, at best.

If you go back a few decades, and the involvement of one Mr Wilson in getting support to the Muj vis a vis the Russians, as soon as the "big game" event was over, there was little to no interest in the social engineering game.

That lack of interest sustained for quite a while, up to the point in about 1998 when President Clinton and his team went after Osama Bin Laden's camps with Tomahawks.

Afghanistan's ruling clique had put itself on the map by choosing to be a safe haven for him. They may have been better off staying under the radar.

John Hill
21st Jan 2014, 18:25
Afghanistan's ruling clique had put itself on the map by choosing to be a safe haven for him. They may have been better off staying under the radar.

Remember that we were told by "The Leader of the Free World" that OBL was not the issue.

Harbouring a criminal or terrorist is not usually a trigger for attacking and military invasion of a country. If it were why does America not attack Russia(Snowden), UK( Assange), New Zealand( Kim Dotcomm)? Why is America not being attacked by Cuba(Posada) or New Zealand( Louis-Pierre Dillais) and doubtless a dozen or so others? The civilised thing that countries do in such circumstances is to either enter into extradition proceedings or suck it up.

Lonewolf_50
21st Jan 2014, 19:37
You don't write the rules, John.
You aren't in charge.

You need to remember that before your next rant.

One of the more bizarre things that came to light was that after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, there were apparently some offers made in the region to hand that turd over, offers not taken up by Clinton and company for ... well, the reasons offered vary.

rh200
21st Jan 2014, 23:27
it will return to its natural state, disorder, and various outside actors will make less overt moves to influence things towards their own intersts.

A bit harsh and an easy conclusion. But I was under the impression not so long ago that the place was the in place to visit. Bit of a hippy trek if you will. lots of rights and one of the first place to start giving women rights?

My understanding is when the old King was out over in Italy having surgery there was coup, the old outside forces bit. Then the Russki's got involved, and well, the rest is history.

My take on it was the society was trying to "progress" to quickly scenario. When you do that you start to p!ss off to many people and open yourself up to such things as coup's.

A more extreme example of our own societys, where we move along the lefty route to fast with out stabilizing, and looking at the effects of said change before moving on.

500N
21st Jan 2014, 23:32
"The civilised thing that countries do in such circumstances is to either enter into extradition proceedings or suck it up."

Or invade the country like Panama and grab the person (Noriega) !
(Not that I see a problem with it).

Israel just grabbed the people and legged it back to Israel or just killed them on the spot, another sensible solution which should be taken up by some others.

con-pilot
21st Jan 2014, 23:32
I am still disgusted at how things have been handled since America attacked Afghanistan.

Just how happy were you when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan?

I don't expect an answer from you by the way.

John Hill
22nd Jan 2014, 03:43
LW50 wrote
You don't write the rules, John.
You aren't in charge.
Perhaps if the game had been played by the rules a lot less Americans would have died.



One of the more bizarre things that came to light was that after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, there were apparently some offers made in the region to hand that turd over, offers not taken up by Clinton and company for ... well, the reasons offered vary.

Ha, ha, "It was not us, it was those other Americans"! ROFL.

John Hill
22nd Jan 2014, 03:55
Just how happy were you when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan?
They were fighting a Muslim insurgency and I would have been happy for the Soviets to have prevailed.

What about you? How do you feel when you realise America has been fighting to reinstate a disfunctional regime which destroyed much of Afghanistan and put the country back centuries?

Just bear in mind that the Taleban only got as far as they did because the squabbling warlord alternative was worse and those are the guys young soldiers have been laying down their lives to put back in charge.


I don't expect an answer from you by the way.
Sorry to disappoint you.

AtomKraft
22nd Jan 2014, 09:24
Isn't it true that the US, in the shape of the CIA, backed the mujahideen to the very end, but as soon as the victory was in the bag.....they abandoned them?

Come to think about it, that's how it often ends for friends of America.....

Lonewolf_50
22nd Jan 2014, 13:35
Perhaps if the game had been played by the rules a lot less Americans would have died.
What rules do you refer to?
Ha, ha, "It was not us, it was those other Americans"! ROFL.
Not what I said, what you said, and you are dead wrong, yet again, one something about which you know BFA. Your attempts at mind reading fail. Your dishonest attempt to put words into my mouth is exposed for the faleshood that it is.

@ AtomKraft:
Which Muj are you referring to? For example, up until he was killed by OBL's friends a few days before 9-11, Massoud had some contacts with Americans, though for sure he was not getting the level of support that he once did.

Your "isn't it true" seems to be you making an unsupported assertion in the form of a question. Your characterization comes off as a cartoon version of actual events.

Why am I not surprised?

AtomKraft
22nd Jan 2014, 14:48
Lonewolf

I was referring to the ones backed by the CIA and fighting the Russians....

ie, the ones given the 'hot potato' treatment when the Russkis went home.

John Hill
22nd Jan 2014, 17:05
Isn't it true that the US, in the shape of the CIA, backed the mujahideen to the very end, but as soon as the victory was in the bag.....they abandoned them?

I believe that is substantially true. But there was continuing contact with some factions and when the Northern Alliance was formed America appointed them the government of Afghanistan while isolating and sanctioning the Taleban which controlled most of the country. America's support of the mujahideen in the form of the Northern Alliance continued right up to the days before the invasion when the Northern Alliance covered by American air power drove the Taleban from Kabul (after performing a few massacres of prisoners along the way).


Come to think about it, that's how it often ends for friends of America..... ...and it will happen again to Afghanistan in just a few months from now.

Lonewolf_50
22nd Jan 2014, 22:25
I was referring to the ones backed by the CIA and fighting the Russians.
That included Massoud and his faction. But there were other factions as well.
ie, the ones given the 'hot potato' treatment when the Russkis went home.Multiple factions, which again makes what you are asserting overly simplistic. But, in your defense, there was certainly "as this Russian bit is over, our aims no longer align, we part company" going on for any number of the factions with whom, for a time, we made common cause.

See also the US USSR alliance against Germany. Once that event was over, we had much less use for one another.

The world isn't as simple as you are trying to paint it.

John: yes, more or less, in terms of the longer term relationships with some, not all, factions with whom there had been joint ventures while the Russian bit was still in play. There was some interesting goings on between those factions, 2001-2005 ish, to include the folks supporting Ismail Khan, who took advantage of one of their problems being dealt with, Taliban, to have some fun with each other. Some of our SoF folks helped prevent a tank battle during one such event.

I have read a few accounts of that, but I'd need to do some looking around to find the narrative, I don't seem to have an electronic copy any more.

Fascinating bit of peace making between local warlords, when all was said and done.

AtomKraft
23rd Jan 2014, 00:16
Lonewolf

What I was alluding to, in my own oblique way, is that most of the folk the US has found itself fighting in recent decades, are former friends.

Perhaps, if you stuck with your friends a bit more even when their usefulness was waning......

You might find yourselves involved in less wars?

Just have a wee think about recent 'enemies'.

John Hill
23rd Jan 2014, 01:06
The big unanswered question is still "What is America fighting for in Afghanistan?"

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 01:07
The simple fact that there are multiple "warlords" (such an apt name as was ever devised) in this country, is indicative that it can never be at peace.

onetrack
23rd Jan 2014, 01:21
"What is America fighting for in Afghanistan?"
John - I personally believe very few Americans really do know what they are truly fighting for, in any foreign country.
"Killin' commies or terrorists" comes across as a good answer for most of the troops on the ground - but the U.S. politicians and U.S. military leaders have a very poor record for defining their aims and objectives, and meeting them, in every war they have gotten into, since WW2.

In Vietnam, it was all about "numbers". Numbers of weekly kills were worshipped as the defining point of whether the war was being won or not. The numbers were fudged, adjusted and outright lied about to present what the commanders and politicians wanted to see.
The cultural clashes and the nuances of the reasons behind the war (Buddhists VS Catholics, endemic corruption in the South, ideological clashes, tribal divisions) were all ignored.

The single greatest problem in war actions is trying to get a cohesive effort from all, and a specific aim and goals established, and ensuring that politicians do not interfere with military aims once established.

However, since WW2, when the global domination threat of the Nazis united nearly everyone in the U.S., it seems that the rise of the nearly uncontrollable Defence Industries, and their control of politicians, has led to the weakening of U.S. leadership in ensuring that war was only commenced when all other options were expended.

Lonewolf_50
23rd Jan 2014, 14:14
Lonewolf

What I was alluding to, in my own oblique way, is that most of the folk the US has found itself fighting in recent decades, are former friends.

Maybe you'll understand better when I tell you that they weren't our friends to start with. (Likewise the Pakistanis, a nation and government full of :mad: :mad: if there ever was one. Not our friends, but a group with whom we had/have some limited shared interests. If they were "friends" Osama would have been apprehended by them in about 2006, from his vacation in Pakistan ... ).

Most of the various Muj were at best acquaintances with a mutual, albeit short term, shared goal. See again our alliance with the USSR vis a vis Nazi Germany. Objective met, back to mistrusting one another on a large scale.

John: why are the US still in Afghanistan?
Fair question.

I think the aim, or wish, is in the form of "to leave the place better off than we found it," whatever the hell that means.
Likelihood of that is small, although we seem to be leaving hundreds of MRAPs over there (too expensive to airlift them all back).
Someone will be better off.
The local drug dealers and local chieftans will have some neat new kit to cart things around in, though quite a few will probably be used as "spare parts bins" ...

In that respect, it's an ill wind as blows nobody any good. :ok:

I hear the poppy trade is booming again. Economic stimulus package, of a sort. :ok:

fitliker
8th Mar 2017, 00:33
Chinese Military Enters Afghanistan Fray with Pentagon?s Knowledge (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/03/07/chinese-military-enters-afghanistan-fray-pentagons-knowledge/)
Adam Stump, a Department of Defense (DoD) spokesman, confirmed to Breitbart News that the Pentagon is fully “aware” of the communist country’s military operations on Afghan soil, adding that the U.S. mission continues .



China’s autonomous region of Xinjiang, home to the country’s largest concentration of its Muslim Uighur minority, borders Afghanistan.
Uighurs fighting with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), which has established a presence in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, recently vowed (http://www.breitbart.com/news/bloody-islamic-state-video-puts-china-in-cross-hairs/) to return to China and “shed blood like rivers” in an ISIS propaganda video.


In recent months, news reports from the communist country’s regional rival India have repeatedly claimed (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/02/23/beijing-denies-chinese-military-presence-afghanistan/) that Beijing has carried out military patrols inside its neighbor Afghanistan.
Asked to comment on China conducting military patrols on Afghan soil, the DoD spokesman told Breitbart




A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step :)

SASless
8th Mar 2017, 02:30
One Track,

You are partially right about Vietnam.....Westmoreland was about Attrition.

Creighton Abrams was about logistics. Had he been the Commander from Day One....instead of Westmoreland we would have ended the thing successfully early on.

Read McMaster's Book "Dereliction of Duty" to understand the conduct of the Vietnam War. He explains it very clearly.

ISBN: 0060187956


We should never have gotten into that war as it was about a War of Re-unification of a divided Nation.

Afghanistan is exactly the same as Vietnam in one real way....we did not go into either "War" with the clear intent to "Win"....defined as totally destroying the enemy's ability and will to fight.

We started that notion with Korea and have lost every war since that we did not use that approach to fighting.

Until we finally learn our lesson....and stay out of anything but a full fledged "Win and survive....or lose and be destroyed" conflict then we will continue to lose these things.

RatherBeFlying
8th Mar 2017, 02:56
China's border is the tip of the Wakhan, Afghanistan's panhandle sandwiched between Tajikistan and Pakistan.

I believe it was once part of the Silk Road. Today it's about as far from anywhere as can be got.

Kewbick
8th Mar 2017, 03:54
Coalition casualties:

USA 2,271
UK 453
CAN 158
FR 88
GR 57
IT 53
POL 44
DEN 43
AUS 41
SP 35