AFGHANISTAN - Do We Never Take In The Lessons From History?
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No examination of the Afghanistan situation is complete without touching on the subject of oil.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/oilwar1.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/oilwar1.html
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chennai
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
Can someone explain something to me regarding persistant reports that Pakistani security forces' support the Taliban. So how are the NATO forces supposed to fight the enemy supported by their main "ally" in the region. The enemy forces attack NATO forces but run back into pakistan when chased and cannot be engaged within pakistan. I read somewhere that US has occasionally fires missiles from UAVs at the Taliban within pakistan. But this draws protest from pakistan. This situation cannot be helpful for NATO. So in my opinion this mission in Afganistan is doomed to fail as all previous foreign intervensions in that country.
Can someone explain something to me regarding persistant reports that Pakistani security forces' support the Taliban. So how are the NATO forces supposed to fight the enemy supported by their main "ally" in the region. The enemy forces attack NATO forces but run back into pakistan when chased and cannot be engaged within pakistan. I read somewhere that US has occasionally fires missiles from UAVs at the Taliban within pakistan. But this draws protest from pakistan. This situation cannot be helpful for NATO. So in my opinion this mission in Afganistan is doomed to fail as all previous foreign intervensions in that country.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaguar001, your first question is very pertinent. It is usually something glossed over by US and UK media and governments. The loyalty of the Pakistanis in general in the so-called 'war on terror' is highly uncertain and fluid. Sure, Pervez and high levels in the government do pay lip service to the anti-terrorist cause and occasionally serve up apparently wanted terrorists on a plate to mollify the West.
However, it's been an open secret that middle ranking officers in the Pakistani army, the intelligence agency and in civil law enforcement, especially in the provincial cities and closer to the Afghan border, supported the Taleban when they were in power and tend to support them now. Partly it is due to tribal and ethnic similarities, partly it is a matter of financial and political convenience to do so. The Pakistani government has been fairly successful at marrying these two competing demands. I am given to understand that Pakistani civil society and social stability does depend to some degree on not alienating the Muslim "street" which is very supportive of Islamism, the Taleban, al-Qaeda and OBL, especially in cities such as Lahore or Quetta.
None of this is really a secret, but one does wonder how much this was all mulled over at the higher levels of government in London and Washington.
Remember, Pakistan is a highly unstable county and potentially dangerous to Western interests. Oh, and they also have nukes.
However, it's been an open secret that middle ranking officers in the Pakistani army, the intelligence agency and in civil law enforcement, especially in the provincial cities and closer to the Afghan border, supported the Taleban when they were in power and tend to support them now. Partly it is due to tribal and ethnic similarities, partly it is a matter of financial and political convenience to do so. The Pakistani government has been fairly successful at marrying these two competing demands. I am given to understand that Pakistani civil society and social stability does depend to some degree on not alienating the Muslim "street" which is very supportive of Islamism, the Taleban, al-Qaeda and OBL, especially in cities such as Lahore or Quetta.
None of this is really a secret, but one does wonder how much this was all mulled over at the higher levels of government in London and Washington.
Remember, Pakistan is a highly unstable county and potentially dangerous to Western interests. Oh, and they also have nukes.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question to the british. Do you anticipate any change in foreign policy and military intervention overseas with a change in government, say a new Tory government?
Now Cameron is in the seat Blair is under threat, but the problem with Cameron is while he's from a different pod to Howard, if you took Cameron out of the picture the same old Tory faces are lurking not far away. The reason I'm giving you a politician's answer is to say that right now I would risk gambling on Cameron - quite simply to stop Labour - but that's not to say the majority would.
If Cameron gets in he'll be wanting British Forces to get out of their current battles, but he's not reckless and recognises the need to at least appear to help rebuild from the chaos we've left behind. Hopefully by then the Americans will, for the most part, have Iraq to themselves, while we've agreed to have Afghanistan. Cameron's already said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, but I think even the most arrogant of politicians has to admit the aftermath has been appalling. Iraq is far worse off after the invasion and Cameron will be glad to be out.
As for Afghanistan, I think the UK will go heavy on diplomacy once we realise we're not going to convince the locals to replace heroin with coffee. If we try and destroy the people's income - no matter how good our motives - we're going to have the entire population against us. As has been mentioned before, the soultion may be for us to look into buying the heroin crop and destroying the bulk, with a long-term aim of weening farmers off producing drugs. Nobody seems to have given that serious thought yet, but control will cost far less than destruction - in both money and lives.
In the mean time, while we're buying/burning heroin - and by 'we' I mean all first world countries - Afghanistan as a nation will either develop some form of tribal assembly or fragment in the same way the Stans broke away from the USSR. In real terms I think we're already closer to the latter than anyone will admit.
The US is unlikely to cut and run in Iraq while there's any danger of Iran annexing Iraq and forming an islamic superstate, so the US is stuck for the foreseeable future. The British are also committed to Afghanistan for the immediate future, but with Afghanistan already fragmented and uncontrollable by anyone - let alone Iran - I would expect a couple more years of overt effort to control drugs/Taleban before we accept we're not going to achieve our already foggy objective(s). This will be delivered in true Labour spin fashion with a few parades in Kabul, a couple of PR shots of the Afghan Army taking over British positions, equipped with new shiny kit and a graph of how heroin production dropped by 36% during the British operation.
Last edited by dallas; 8th Jul 2006 at 14:41.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chennai
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf Charlie Charlie, I agree with your assessment of Pakistani involvement. It must be tricky for Pervez to keep the muslim "street" at bay and at the same time be seen to be doing something against the terrorist groups to appease the west.
One can't help but get that sinking feeling that this mission is going to be one long and protracted drama.
Hope it does not end like it did for the Soviets.
One can't help but get that sinking feeling that this mission is going to be one long and protracted drama.
Hope it does not end like it did for the Soviets.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jag
fair point. My concern is that if the might and massive amount of resources that the Soviet Union put in place did not work, then for us to put 3000 to 5000 troops in theatre with woefully inadequate air support is folly. I dont see how we have a chance, its not good enough that our troops are quality, they just have not got the resources for the environment.
fair point. My concern is that if the might and massive amount of resources that the Soviet Union put in place did not work, then for us to put 3000 to 5000 troops in theatre with woefully inadequate air support is folly. I dont see how we have a chance, its not good enough that our troops are quality, they just have not got the resources for the environment.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs
The only difference I can see is the Russians didn't have smart weapons or stuff like NVG, so we have a technological advantage - provided we deploy enough of the right kit!
You can also argue the opposition can buy off-the-shelf technology relatively simply too though...
Air would seem to be the only sustainable advantage.
The only difference I can see is the Russians didn't have smart weapons or stuff like NVG, so we have a technological advantage - provided we deploy enough of the right kit!
You can also argue the opposition can buy off-the-shelf technology relatively simply too though...
Air would seem to be the only sustainable advantage.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dallas
good point. You know i didnt really give consideration to the technology advantage, but as you say a lot of the new kit (and definitly night optical devices) can be bought by the right people with enough money. I am not aware of to many poor drugs lords, so they definilty have the cash.
good point. You know i didnt really give consideration to the technology advantage, but as you say a lot of the new kit (and definitly night optical devices) can be bought by the right people with enough money. I am not aware of to many poor drugs lords, so they definilty have the cash.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technology is the whole basis - or perhaps gamble - of British defence policy over the past few years. I think it was Hoon who said we'll need less troops on the ground because spending will be focused on equipment, making troops so much better equipped; although I'm not sure he completed the sentence by saying "...than the enemy."
The cuts have certainly taken place, so I'm sure the spending on equipment is just around the corner...
The cuts have certainly taken place, so I'm sure the spending on equipment is just around the corner...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chennai
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dallas
Even though I said "Hope it does not end like it did for the Soviets". I know the situation is different now. The rebels are not supported by a rival superpower. They also lack the sophisticated equipment that the NATO forces have. But I agree with Tigs2 that NATO troop levels are too low.
I also agree about the need to help the poor farmers who grow the poppy drops for the durg lords and introduce them to other cash crops.
I however feel pessimistic about the future of Afganistan because it seems the poeple in that country are too entrenched in a life that has adapted to a war way of life. There are too many warlords with personal agendas to see that the current status quo is maintained.
I may be wrong but did the Taleban not actually destroy the poppy production, and some of these durg warlords actually assist the american invasion just after 9/11. So now they are back to their old ways.
I also read that the Afgan national army are poorly equiped and are out matched by the Taleban forces. Maybe NATO should provide the Afgan national army modern arms. I saw on tv they carry russian arms.
Even though I said "Hope it does not end like it did for the Soviets". I know the situation is different now. The rebels are not supported by a rival superpower. They also lack the sophisticated equipment that the NATO forces have. But I agree with Tigs2 that NATO troop levels are too low.
I also agree about the need to help the poor farmers who grow the poppy drops for the durg lords and introduce them to other cash crops.
I however feel pessimistic about the future of Afganistan because it seems the poeple in that country are too entrenched in a life that has adapted to a war way of life. There are too many warlords with personal agendas to see that the current status quo is maintained.
I may be wrong but did the Taleban not actually destroy the poppy production, and some of these durg warlords actually assist the american invasion just after 9/11. So now they are back to their old ways.
I also read that the Afgan national army are poorly equiped and are out matched by the Taleban forces. Maybe NATO should provide the Afgan national army modern arms. I saw on tv they carry russian arms.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jag001
I'd say on the ground the rebels are pretty evenly matched in terms of technology - portable TI/NVG/IR kit is all buyable from Russian arms dealers for the right price. What the rebels do lack is platforms to deliver the goods ie. air power, although if CAS is so stretched as to be half an hour away they would certainly hold a temporary advantage from a hillside.
As for the farmers, I can see them becoming beneficiaries of EU subsidies in a similar fashion to farmers in Europe who get paid not to produce less contentious crops! That would be an immediate solution to Afghanistan, but we'd have to accept the stuff would just be grown elsewhere to meet market demand. In the longer term we would have to find something sustainable or simply keep paying a subsidy. Apart from growing diamonds, nothing immediately springs to mind.
Ironically the US invasion of Iraq has put that country into a very similar state as Afghanistan - tribal feuds and warlords - so logic would follow that we need to exile Saddam to Afghanistan...and perhaps put him in power! In both countries simply marching in and announcing democracy was just never going to work; with Iraq you could argue it was worth a go, in the absence of knowing any different, but we should have known better in Afghanistan. But then we should also know better than to expect to be able to burn people's livelihoods without then getting a bit anti - but I haven't heard a definitive policy yet...
I don't know if the Taleban burned poppies - you would expect so, in line with the Islamic directives on intoxicants, but then drugs still came from there in large quantities during their regime. Perhaps they found it too difficult (even with far harsher prevention methods than us), or perhaps they got over their morals when they realised the proceeds could be used to fund pious enforcement! Let's not forget the Taleban's version of Islam was only their interpretation and, as such, is open to convenient revue!
Re-equipping the Afghan Army is undoubtedly required, but there's no point doing so now unless they have a good reason to fight. While the Taleban were universally hated, so are other invaders and a common enemy has tended to focus tribal attentions over the centuries. If I joined the Afghan Army tomorrow I might get a bit of action against the Taleban, but I'll probably also get to help burn my uncle's business. In terms of ideology the only thing the Afghans tend to get motivated and united for is to repel a foreign invader.
Currently that's us.
I'd say on the ground the rebels are pretty evenly matched in terms of technology - portable TI/NVG/IR kit is all buyable from Russian arms dealers for the right price. What the rebels do lack is platforms to deliver the goods ie. air power, although if CAS is so stretched as to be half an hour away they would certainly hold a temporary advantage from a hillside.
As for the farmers, I can see them becoming beneficiaries of EU subsidies in a similar fashion to farmers in Europe who get paid not to produce less contentious crops! That would be an immediate solution to Afghanistan, but we'd have to accept the stuff would just be grown elsewhere to meet market demand. In the longer term we would have to find something sustainable or simply keep paying a subsidy. Apart from growing diamonds, nothing immediately springs to mind.
Ironically the US invasion of Iraq has put that country into a very similar state as Afghanistan - tribal feuds and warlords - so logic would follow that we need to exile Saddam to Afghanistan...and perhaps put him in power! In both countries simply marching in and announcing democracy was just never going to work; with Iraq you could argue it was worth a go, in the absence of knowing any different, but we should have known better in Afghanistan. But then we should also know better than to expect to be able to burn people's livelihoods without then getting a bit anti - but I haven't heard a definitive policy yet...
I don't know if the Taleban burned poppies - you would expect so, in line with the Islamic directives on intoxicants, but then drugs still came from there in large quantities during their regime. Perhaps they found it too difficult (even with far harsher prevention methods than us), or perhaps they got over their morals when they realised the proceeds could be used to fund pious enforcement! Let's not forget the Taleban's version of Islam was only their interpretation and, as such, is open to convenient revue!
Re-equipping the Afghan Army is undoubtedly required, but there's no point doing so now unless they have a good reason to fight. While the Taleban were universally hated, so are other invaders and a common enemy has tended to focus tribal attentions over the centuries. If I joined the Afghan Army tomorrow I might get a bit of action against the Taleban, but I'll probably also get to help burn my uncle's business. In terms of ideology the only thing the Afghans tend to get motivated and united for is to repel a foreign invader.
Currently that's us.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dallas
In terms of ideology the only thing the Afghans tend to get motivated and united for is to repel a foreign invader.
Currently that's us.
Currently that's us.
It's not that nothing can be done or should at least be attempted to help build a better society there. While some things are going well, eg. growth of small businesses and the service sector in Kabul, the bulk of the economy, and the country, remains dependent on opium, foreign aid and foreign remittances. With reductions in reconstruction funds pledged by the US, the international community seems to be on the verge of neglecting the need to promote concepts such as civil society, law and human rights, while the security situation is deteriorating rapidly due to unwillingness or inability to commit the right military assets (eg. air transport and helicopters), as recent events are painfully showing us.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not forget that the only reason Brittian got envolved with Afghanistan 150 ish years ago was to defend India. Once we fell out with Russians and their empire spread we got a bit woried about India. Afghansitan was always a buffer zone, and we rarely put a suitable amount of manpower towards defending it. The current situationn is completely different poltically etc, yet we are still not putting another manpower into defending it!!
We need to find a source of income for Afghanistan that is not drugs, if that ends up being oil it is a win, win situation for the Spams.
We need to find a source of income for Afghanistan that is not drugs, if that ends up being oil it is a win, win situation for the Spams.
Last edited by FormerFlake; 8th Jul 2006 at 19:28.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Golf Charlie Charlie
But no-one reads history any more in the internet age. I am absolutely amazed (and despondent) that the UK has got itself into this situation.
What are our processes when invasion/liberation is considered? Who do we ask for background and analysis? Surely our advisors on Iraq and Afghanistan are now looking elsewhere for work?
On 10 Sep 2001 you'd never have believed the state we now find ourselves in and our government needs to understand this isn't just another facet of governing that can be managed with spin, initiatives and sound bites. If they get this one wrong there'll be more than embarrassing headlines, waiting lists or wasted taxes; people will die and blame can only rest at the door of the British government for being so ill-prepared and ill-equipped.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dallas
If they get this one wrong there'll be more than embarrassing headlines, waiting lists or wasted taxes; people will die and blame can only rest at the door of the British government for being so ill-prepared and ill-equipped.
Not sure about that, see here: http://www.khyber.org/publications/0...onreport.shtml
What an horrendous account of misery
What an horrendous account of misery
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first of more sucked in...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5163900.stm
I'm sure the locals will appreciate the subtle difference. We're not destroying the family business, just helping other people do it. I'm sure that'll make them think twice before opening fire.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5163900.stm
[Des Browne said] They would not be acting as a drugs police, or destroying poppy fields, he said. Instead they hoped to provide the stability which could allow the Afghans to tackle it.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite. This additional reinforcement is formulated outside of harmony guidelines. What is the point of harmony guidelines if they are immediately brushed aside by the Chiefs of Staff and Defence Ministers at the first opportunity? Retention? May as well remove the word from the dictionary.
It was not all that long ago the British lost a similar number of troops in Iraq as in the Good Doctor's experience. More survived than the Afghan disaster but just as many perished if I remember my history correctly.
The situation today is much different than in the past. Technology gives Western forces a much greater advantage so long as the tactics employed capitalize on our strengths and the Taliban's weaknesses. When we try to fight them in the old ways....that is bound to be a bad way to go.
They are resourceful and brave fighters, you do have to respect that.
I do wish the Politicians and senior Military Commanders would settle upon a certain goal for our presence and tailor every effort towards accomplishing that.
Stopping the Poppy business is just plain Poppy Cock. Look to the Coca business in Central and South America....how many billions of dollars have we spent on that and still have no real progress in that "war".
The situation today is much different than in the past. Technology gives Western forces a much greater advantage so long as the tactics employed capitalize on our strengths and the Taliban's weaknesses. When we try to fight them in the old ways....that is bound to be a bad way to go.
They are resourceful and brave fighters, you do have to respect that.
I do wish the Politicians and senior Military Commanders would settle upon a certain goal for our presence and tailor every effort towards accomplishing that.
Stopping the Poppy business is just plain Poppy Cock. Look to the Coca business in Central and South America....how many billions of dollars have we spent on that and still have no real progress in that "war".