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

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]

If you dish it out, be prepared to get some back..

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

? ?

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

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 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 all to do with that twit from Florida.

[glad rag]

Not wasting any more time with you on this.

Good to hear.