Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
And since we didn't nuke Berlin out of existence, you probably owe us one.
Afghanistan...what ARE we doing there?
- Thread starter 1ManRevolution
- Start date
And since we didn't nuke Berlin out of existence, you probably owe us one.
Your "changes" are dangerous and thankfully will never be implemented.
We haven't lost anyone. All the NATO members are with us one way or another and even some non aligned country's have offered troops for non combat roles in Afghanistan. France has just declared war on AQ and is going after them in North Africa and Afghanistan.
Who are we making rich? I have stock in Lockheed Martin and Raytheon but I'm not some cartoonish guy in a three piece suit, smoking a Churchill cigar twirling the ends of my moustache. I'm just a regular Joe. I don't drive a Bentley GT from the stock I hold or nor do I have a McMansion.
Yet you claim we're their to make "a few people rich."
What hippy source are you getting these ideas?
Facetious
Moderated
Re: Afghanistan...what ARE we doing there?
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, we, our American Armed Forces, should have entered Afghanistan unilaterally and wiped out any form of armed resistance, no questions, no politics, no cameras, no coalition, no back stabbing subversives, just pure unadulterated American force! :nanner:
Get in, do your thing :ak47: and get the hell out! . . .
but noooo, there's a profit to be made!
/
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, we, our American Armed Forces, should have entered Afghanistan unilaterally and wiped out any form of armed resistance, no questions, no politics, no cameras, no coalition, no back stabbing subversives, just pure unadulterated American force! :nanner:
Get in, do your thing :ak47: and get the hell out! . . .
but noooo, there's a profit to be made!
/True. But then again the leftists would've cried foul saying we used "excessive force".
Nixon made North Vietnam cry "Uncle" during Linebacker I and II in 1972. Essentially he did what Johnson should've done in '65.
We should've taken a cue from this and balls to the wall against the Tali, AQ and the ISI.
ForumModeregulator
Believer In GregCentauro
Once upon a time, we went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government and eliminate a training ground for our friends from Al Qaeda. Mission accomplished.
Then we decided to stay around to "fix" the Afghan regime so it would be more "democratic" and to help stimulate the economy, so that Al Qaeda (and the Taliban) would never come back. Mission incomplete, in part because we took our eye off the ball and went to war in Iraq, instead, pulling Special Forces and civil affairs units out of Afghanistan in the process.
Then Iraq became the "bad" war, for the new administration, and Afghanistan became the "good" war. And, in the meantime, a lot of very enthusiastic military folks spiffed up our military doctrine, turning it into real counterinsurgency money (AKA COIN), and began to implement the doctrine, with equal enthusiasm, in Afghanistan.
Sad things had happened, meanwhile. The Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai, could not make himself into a national president. The $27 billion we spent training Afghani soldiers and police did not produce a force that could bring security to the country. Opium production soared, fueling the Taliban, and filling the coffers of local poo-bahs and warlords.
In other words, we began a new strategy in a country without a central government, rampant corruption, a breakdown of order, and an almost non-existent economy and hoped we could tie it all together, bring governance, order, discipline, and development.
Why were we doing this? Not to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda; we did that. Not to create a democracy or a healthy economy; we couldn't do that. So why are we there?
The only compelling reason being offered is that there would be a power vacuum if we left, one that would be instantly filled by the Taliban (and, perhaps, a return of Al Qaeda). But we are failing at preventing that power vacuum today. In fact, one might argue, the vacuum exists around us, and we are doing little and can do little to prevent it from emerging. And there is precious little sign of Al Qaeda being present in Afghanistan today.
The bottom line is that the solution to power relations in Afghanistan lies with the Afghanis. And since it is not a democracy, that means it lies with the Taliban, the warlords and their ******ies, and Karzai, to the degree anybody listens to Karzai. And it lies with the surrounding countries, notably Pakistan (who are the only government that can deal with the unruly forces and Al Qaeda in their northwestern regions).
We cannot "fix" Afghanistan. We will spend significant blood and treasure trying, but we are neither competent, nor welcome, to fix it. It is time to step back, look hard at the benefit of staying there, and rethink our presence. And that will mean deal-cutting, with strange bed-fellows, to leave behind some kind of security, based on indigenous militia and security forces, leaving the Afghans to "work it out." It may, now, be the best outcome we can expect; we are not preventing it by staying.
Then we decided to stay around to "fix" the Afghan regime so it would be more "democratic" and to help stimulate the economy, so that Al Qaeda (and the Taliban) would never come back. Mission incomplete, in part because we took our eye off the ball and went to war in Iraq, instead, pulling Special Forces and civil affairs units out of Afghanistan in the process.
Then Iraq became the "bad" war, for the new administration, and Afghanistan became the "good" war. And, in the meantime, a lot of very enthusiastic military folks spiffed up our military doctrine, turning it into real counterinsurgency money (AKA COIN), and began to implement the doctrine, with equal enthusiasm, in Afghanistan.
Sad things had happened, meanwhile. The Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai, could not make himself into a national president. The $27 billion we spent training Afghani soldiers and police did not produce a force that could bring security to the country. Opium production soared, fueling the Taliban, and filling the coffers of local poo-bahs and warlords.
In other words, we began a new strategy in a country without a central government, rampant corruption, a breakdown of order, and an almost non-existent economy and hoped we could tie it all together, bring governance, order, discipline, and development.
Why were we doing this? Not to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda; we did that. Not to create a democracy or a healthy economy; we couldn't do that. So why are we there?
The only compelling reason being offered is that there would be a power vacuum if we left, one that would be instantly filled by the Taliban (and, perhaps, a return of Al Qaeda). But we are failing at preventing that power vacuum today. In fact, one might argue, the vacuum exists around us, and we are doing little and can do little to prevent it from emerging. And there is precious little sign of Al Qaeda being present in Afghanistan today.
The bottom line is that the solution to power relations in Afghanistan lies with the Afghanis. And since it is not a democracy, that means it lies with the Taliban, the warlords and their ******ies, and Karzai, to the degree anybody listens to Karzai. And it lies with the surrounding countries, notably Pakistan (who are the only government that can deal with the unruly forces and Al Qaeda in their northwestern regions).
We cannot "fix" Afghanistan. We will spend significant blood and treasure trying, but we are neither competent, nor welcome, to fix it. It is time to step back, look hard at the benefit of staying there, and rethink our presence. And that will mean deal-cutting, with strange bed-fellows, to leave behind some kind of security, based on indigenous militia and security forces, leaving the Afghans to "work it out." It may, now, be the best outcome we can expect; we are not preventing it by staying.
...supporting the military-industrial complex, particularly the pmc and private contractor side of things
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Sometimes the insurgents engage with small arms. But mostly IEDs are the best form of attack for them.
Oh wow.
Ignorant on the big picture yet again Ulysses.
The Pakistani ISI received the arms in the '80s and they chose who to arm and not arm during the war in Afghanistan. The CIA had no say in the matter.
The ISI did everything.
For those wondering the ISI was set up by a British officer in 1948 not the CIA.
The ISI and part of the Pakistani General Staff are THE problem. They want a pro Pakistani gov't in power in Afghanistan which is not what we wish for.
The ISI wants a friendly Afghanistan to counter India's influence in that region.
You can't blame the British. Especially not when it is well known that america poured great amounts of money into afghanistan to stop the Soviets.
Or maybe I'm wrong, please tell again how the Pakistani ISI developed stinger MANPADS to use against Soviet aircraft. I think they did do it, then sold the stingers to the us! After all, they're clearly duplicitous, cunning and evil, because how DARE those damn Pakistani general staff and ISI bastards want to have a pro Pakistani government in power in Afghanistan! WHO are they to make their own decision for their own countries when it's not what WE the americans want! DAMN THEM!
Oh and by the way, america is hemoeraging allies; american attempts to have AIM120D favoured over Meteor were rejected (after the Meteor partner nations took a slice of american money and tech... thanks for that
nice one) and The Brits insisted on (contractually agreed to) independant operation of F35 (which despite being contractually agreed to the americans tried to deny them) and are developing independant nuclear weapon targeting because it's felt that the americans simply can't be trusted. International co-operation with america is shrinking in more ways than you realise.Oh and by the way, you may find your shares in Lockheed Martin aren't doing great because f22 is so useless it simply can't see the great and feared Taliban air force (no, really, it exists). It's well known that 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth, disputing that is a losing battle.
People are right that PMCs are making a lot of money in Afghanistan. So are the chinese, selling the latest high-tech body armour to the taliban, and 20mm anti-armour rifles capable of picking off the crew of lightly armoured vehicles even through their armour. Yet strangely nobody mentions this...
We should never have gone there, but now we're there, if we don't completely erase the Taliban we run the considerable risk of them coming back stronger and having to do the whole thing again at even greater cost.
We really need to get the populace on our side by helping them be more prosperous than they were under the Taliban; satisfied people with a full belly tend to be rather less aggressive.
As for the people who advocate taking the gloves off and demolishing/nuking the country.
Are
you
nuts?
That would provoke the whole middle-east to rise against you (you may think it has already, but it hasn't), provoke embargoes from the world, damage your economy and reputation irreversibly.
You want to advocate the use of tanks against the Taliban? That's not too great either; the best weapon is guys in boots on the ground. A tank is a big target and is rather more prone to causing collateral damage, which causes the number of insurgents to rise rather than fall.
Just ask the Israeli's; they used to use their (rather impressive) Merkava, but found that when using a Merkava to raid a village for 5 "terrorists", the next time they came to the village there would be 20 "terrorists".
Tanks could be used successfully in Afghanistan, but certainly should not be part of an assault force unless it's an assault on an isolated bunker. Better road mine patrol, check point security, perimeter defense and support fire.
So what should we have done?
We should have assasinated Al-Quaeda and funded their rivals to eliminate them. But now that;s a lot harder.
So what should we do now?
We should finish the job, boots on the ground, eliminate unfriendlies and eliminate poverty and when there's no advantage to fighting, the people will stop fighting.
Oh, and yes, The heroin trade is much stronger since we went into Afghanistan, so we are making a mint off it
Supafly
Retired Mod
Why the USA is still in Afghanistan:
Read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
Quote:
It is rather obvious that this is NOT such a surprise to the governments who send their floor personnell to the place to ensure their straw puppet Karzai stays in power.
Read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
Quote:
It is rather obvious that this is NOT such a surprise to the governments who send their floor personnell to the place to ensure their straw puppet Karzai stays in power.
Kingfisher
Here Zombie, Zombie, Zombie...
We are reaffirming history by proving that, that useless piece of dirt is unconquerable.
Sometimes the insurgents engage with small arms. But mostly IEDs are the best form of attack for them.
You can't blame the British. Especially not when it is well known that america poured great amounts of money into afghanistan to stop the Soviets.
Or maybe I'm wrong, please tell again how the Pakistani ISI developed stinger MANPADS to use against Soviet aircraft. I think they did do it, then sold the stingers to the us! After all, they're clearly duplicitous, cunning and evil, because how DARE those damn Pakistani general staff and ISI bastards want to have a pro Pakistani government in power in Afghanistan! WHO are they to make their own decision for their own countries when it's not what WE the americans want! DAMN THEM!
Oh and by the way, america is hemoeraging allies; american attempts to have AIM120D favoured over Meteor were rejected (after the Meteor partner nations took a slice of american money and tech... thanks for that
Oh and by the way, you may find your shares in Lockheed Martin aren't doing great because f22 is so useless it simply can't see the great and feared Taliban air force (no, really, it exists). It's well known that 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth, disputing that is a losing battle.
People are right that PMCs are making a lot of money in Afghanistan. So are the chinese, selling the latest high-tech body armour to the taliban, and 20mm anti-armour rifles capable of picking off the crew of lightly armoured vehicles even through their armour. Yet strangely nobody mentions this...
We should never have gone there, but now we're there, if we don't completely erase the Taliban we run the considerable risk of them coming back stronger and having to do the whole thing again at even greater cost.
We really need to get the populace on our side by helping them be more prosperous than they were under the Taliban; satisfied people with a full belly tend to be rather less aggressive.
As for the people who advocate taking the gloves off and demolishing/nuking the country.
Are
you
nuts?
That would provoke the whole middle-east to rise against you (you may think it has already, but it hasn't), provoke embargoes from the world, damage your economy and reputation irreversibly.
You want to advocate the use of tanks against the Taliban? That's not too great either; the best weapon is guys in boots on the ground. A tank is a big target and is rather more prone to causing collateral damage, which causes the number of insurgents to rise rather than fall.
Just ask the Israeli's; they used to use their (rather impressive) Merkava, but found that when using a Merkava to raid a village for 5 "terrorists", the next time they came to the village there would be 20 "terrorists".
Tanks could be used successfully in Afghanistan, but certainly should not be part of an assault force unless it's an assault on an isolated bunker. Better road mine patrol, check point security, perimeter defense and support fire.
So what should we have done?
We should have assasinated Al-Quaeda and funded their rivals to eliminate them. But now that;s a lot harder.
So what should we do now?
We should finish the job, boots on the ground, eliminate unfriendlies and eliminate poverty and when there's no advantage to fighting, the people will stop fighting.
Oh, and yes, The heroin trade is much stronger since we went into Afghanistan, so we are making a mint off it
We have TF 373 out zapping AQ and Tali leaders. Your military knowledge is woefully inadequate. Nice try.
We gave Stingers to the ISI who then decided which party would receive them.
The Saudis also gave boatloads of cash and volunteers whether we liked it or not.
The muslim world did the same through charities. We had no say in that matter or who would get the Stingers.
Now please sell your revisionist tripe elsewhere.:thefinger
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
We have TF 373 out zapping AQ and Tali leaders. Your military knowledge is woefully inadequate. Nice try.
We gave Stingers to the ISI who then decided which party would receive them.
The Saudis also gave boatloads of cash and volunteers whether we liked it or not.
The muslim world did the same through charities. We had no say in that matter or who would get the Stingers.
Now please sell your revisionist tripe elsewhere.:thefinger
Yeah, you think M1 is a great tank and despite all the info I cited it's MY military knowledge which is lacking.
It might jus' be 'cos I'm tipsy, but I'm considering putting you on ignore; you seem to be immune to any form of reason.
According to the military channel, the Abrams is the best tank in the world.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
The most liberal Democrat gives the most conservative Republican time to speak 15 minutes of pure reason.
This is the one issue that I actually applaud Obama on. You go after the enemy wherever they are. We're taking the AQ and Tali leadership out with UAVs not ground troops (unless it's TF 373).
Hey I'm sorry about the civilians who are hurt or killed in these drone attacks, but we were attacked, they(AQ) declared war on us. If Pakistan wants to it can hand over every member of AQ and it's Tali sympathizers tomorrow, but they won't since that country's intelligence service the ISI won't allow it.
People have to stop thinking that this is a conflict that will end tomorrow. This war on islamic terror is a long time coming. It was born out from the extremist ideas dating to the Islamic Brotherhood in the 1920s, where it lay dormant until Sadat's assassination in 1981.
Hey I'm sorry about the civilians who are hurt or killed in these drone attacks, but we were attacked, they(AQ) declared war on us. If Pakistan wants to it can hand over every member of AQ and it's Tali sympathizers tomorrow, but they won't since that country's intelligence service the ISI won't allow it.
People have to stop thinking that this is a conflict that will end tomorrow. This war on islamic terror is a long time coming. It was born out from the extremist ideas dating to the Islamic Brotherhood in the 1920s, where it lay dormant until Sadat's assassination in 1981.
Similar threads
