Author Topic: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?  (Read 1128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« on: February 27, 2010, 09:55:22 AM »
http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article4744

This article reinforces something I was thinking about at the start of the Marjah offensive - - 15 THOUSAND troops and months of preparation and planning to take over some mud-walled shit-hole in the middle of nowhere did not indicate to me an all- powerful military steam-roller in operation, rather that these guys were totally fucked and dedicated to the kind of howitzer-mosquito equation that will ultimately make this war unwinnable for them on purely economic grounds.  There are plenty of Marjahs in Afghanistan, too many for the forces they have dedicated to the effort.  It looks more and more like an endless game of Whack-a-Mole.  The moles are gonna win. 

Another article (can't find the link) made a good case that the Marjah offensive was primarily aimed at the invaders' home-fronts, who are growing increasingly tired of the whole bullshit charade.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11146
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2010, 10:34:36 AM »
2008
"The surge isn't going to work either tactically or strategically"
Senator Joe Biden to the Boston Globe


February 12, 2010
"I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration"
"You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government".
VP Joe Biden,
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2010, 02:45:42 PM »
http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article4744

This article reinforces something I was thinking about at the start of the Marjah offensive - - 15 THOUSAND troops and months of preparation and planning to take over some mud-walled shit-hole in the middle of nowhere did not indicate to me an all- powerful military steam-roller in operation, rather that these guys were totally fucked and dedicated to the kind of howitzer-mosquito equation that will ultimately make this war unwinnable for them on purely economic grounds.  There are plenty of Marjahs in Afghanistan, too many for the forces they have dedicated to the effort.  It looks more and more like an endless game of Whack-a-Mole.  The moles are gonna win. 

Another article (can't find the link) made a good case that the Marjah offensive was primarily aimed at the invaders' home-fronts, who are growing increasingly tired of the whole bullshit charade.

Harry Reid Surrenders

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2010, 05:47:50 PM »
http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article4744

 



Overheard in an Al Quieda hideout; "Good news guys ! Nato outnumbers us 50 - 1 in this area! "


Ok so they are winning all of the symbols so that even if they all get killed they win. I think I can live with that.



Every Al Queida success is a bloody mess, every bloody mess that the Nato forces is involved in is considered a failure, Al quieda goals can be met much easyer than Nato goals , that is true , but who indeed benefits from Al Queda successes?  It may be worthwile to spend the time , effort , treasure and blood required to to win in fact even if the Al Quieda can thereby brag about how expensive they are to defeat.

We have tried ignoreing Al Quieda , while they grew in the shadows of backwater regions, that strategy is a proven failure.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2010, 08:58:11 AM »
<<Overheard in an Al Quieda hideout; "Good news guys ! Nato outnumbers us 50 - 1 in this area! ">>

Well, apart from the fact that you're fighting the Taliban and not al Qaeda at this point, that IS good news for them - - you need a 50-to-one ratio of forces to gain one tiny mud-walled shit-hole of which there are thousands in the country, which means that you just can't afford to stick around long enough to do the job, especially considering that you are operating in their country, at the other end of an eight-thousand-mile supply line.


<<Ok so they are winning all of the symbols so that even if they all get killed they win. I think I can live with that.>>

I think you got that one totally bass-ackward.  The one winning the symbol (Marjah) is YOU.  They lose the symbol, most of them survive the loss to fight again, while you ratchet up unsustainable costs and losses for a short-term symbolic gain that will obviously lose its lustre as the war grinds on.  After the 5,000th Marjah, and the 5,000th promise that a turning point has finally been reached, even the moronic American sheeple will start to suspect that A-stan is a gigantic con job for the sole benefit of the military-industrial complex and whoever was hoping to run a natural gas pipeline through the place, and at that point - - trillions of dollars and thousands of dumb hillbilly lives and limbs down the drain later - - the decision will be made to pull out after declaring "victory" and leaving whatever lucky schmucks happen to be top puppets at that time in the saddle for as long as they can stay in it.



<<Every Al Queida success is a bloody mess, every bloody mess that the Nato forces is involved in is considered a failure, Al quieda goals can be met much easyer than Nato goals , that is true . . . >>

OF COURSE it's a failure if they've been there nine years and still haven't conquered the country. What the hell would YOU call it, a glorious victory?

<< . . . but who indeed benefits from Al Queda successes?  >>

Ummmm . . .  al Qaeda?

Again, al Qaeda can and does set up shop anywhere, and is more of an idea than a fighting force.  Millions of Muslims everywhere and anywhere are inspired by the idea of al Quaeda and as long as they see America as the Great Satan, will continue to seek martyrdom in self-directed attacks on the Great Satan as long as it continues its war on the Muslim world.  However, the enemy in Afghanistan is not al Qaeda but the Taliban.  They're in it for the long haul, and have stated repeatedly that they are not enemies of America and are fighting only to get America out of their country.

<<It may be worthwile to spend the time , effort , treasure and blood required to to win in fact even if the Al Quieda can thereby brag about how expensive they are to defeat.>>

LMFAO.  The US has never made the slightest effort to spend what it takes to defeat the Taliban.  IMHO a  force of 300,000 to 500,000 troops would be required and a post-pacification occupation of at least 30 years would be needed to prevent the whole thing from turning to shit again.  That is an effort that the country would never agree to, and hence the bullshit campaigns of the military to persuade the sheeple that they are winning.  It's Viet Nam all over again, same lies, same bullshit, same "Who ya gonna believe, us or your lyin' eyes?"  Nine fucking years of failure and they're "winning."  It's hilarious.

<<We have tried ignoreing Al Quieda , while they grew in the shadows of backwater regions, that strategy is a proven failure.>>

The failure is your pursuit of al Qaeda, not your ignoring them.  You've already lost more American lives than were killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, not even counting the wounded, totally failed in your pursuit of bin Laden, lost $3 trillion in Iraq alone and are now getting sucked into Afghanistan too - - in the process recruiting millions more Muslims into the cause and proving to millions of Muslims that it is their own corrupt pro-American governments that are the true enemies of Muslims.  I would say that the al Qaeda strategy (provoking American attacks on Muslims) has worked brilliantly and has done more damage to America than any "terrorist" attack could ever have done.  You'd have to be totally crazy at this point to think that America has won and al Qaeda has lost.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2010, 09:07:22 AM »
OF COURSE it's a failure if they've been there nine years and still haven't conquered the country. What the hell would YOU call it, a glorious victory?

Do you think it was our goal to "conquer the country"?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2010, 10:36:38 AM »
<<Do you think it was our goal to "conquer the country"?>>

Not originally, no.  I think it was probably a kind of punitive expedition meant to punish the bastards for harbouring al Qaeda, and to bring back OBL's head on a platter.  I don't believe they ever really thought of any exit plan other than capturing or killing bin Laden and just leaving.  I'm really not sure what role the projected gas pipeline played in all of this, but I like to say that it was a major factor.  Who really knows?  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  You'd have to know a lot more about the natural gas business and energy markets in general to make the assessment.  I just don't have the background knowledge required.

It would be interesting to study, as "mission creep" or otherwise, how the objectives morphed over time but I think that whereas at one point they would have been happy to leave A-stan with no strong national government, just a bunch of competing warlords who all clearly understood never, never, never to allow anyone to plot such attacks against the U.S. again, they are now somehow committed to "cleaning up" the country, leaving some kind of functioning, stable, self-sustaining and popularly supported government behind, as long as it can be trusted to follow US foreign policy domestically and internationally.  A puppet state or client state.  Maybe not a conquest in the old-fashioned way of the conqueror, but "conquest" is good enough short-hand for what I meant to say.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2010, 11:49:27 AM »
You are fun to read MT.

About our troops being hillbillys that no one cares about , or a resorce so precious we canot afford to use them , which is it?

Taliban fighters seem quite cheap, but is this a great advantage?

Cheap is a very relitive term.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2010, 02:24:34 PM »
<<You are fun to read MT.>>

I try to be serious, plane.  Sometimes I succeed.

<<About our troops being hillbillys that no one cares about , or a resorce so precious we canot afford to use them , which is it?>>

That's easy.  In reality, they are dumb hillbillies exploited for their lack of other opportunities but no one can admit that, nor can the politicians admit the fact that they don't give a shit whether the dumb schmucks live or die. 

However, the militaristic propaganda that saturates your unfortunate country has to portray the dumb schmucks as the nation's finest, heroes, etc., so a high casualty rate is politically unacceptable.  You're basically all hostages to your own militarism and the propaganda put out by the military-industrial complex.

<<Taliban fighters seem quite cheap, but is this a great advantage?>>

Sure it is, ever heard of asymmetrical warfare?  You'll run out of money for this project before they do.  You won't really run out of money literally, but finally someone with more sense and no political capital invested in the war will finally channel the nation's skepticism about it into cut-backs and then cut-offs of funding.

<<Cheap is a very relitive term.>>

Any value judgment is relative to something else.  Cheap, costly, tall, short, whatever.  So what?

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11146
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2010, 06:11:00 PM »
The Taliban actually are not very popular in Afghanistan.

Of course Michael Tee assumes because they operate there the locals must support them....
but many of the locals hate the Taliban, but they also are fearful of the Taliban killing them
if they do not cooperate or agree with the nutty Taliban views of society.

Every Spring armed Taliban are out, attacking reconstruction projects,
intimidating women, killing police, burning down schools and killing teachers.
Most of the tribes support the schools, but if the Taliban can get one of their combat
teams (50-100 gunmen) into an area, the tribesmen back down and do what the Taliban want.
Again not because they like or prefer the Taliban. Afghans prefer sending their kids to school,
rebuilt roads, getting electricity, and generally getting on with their lives.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2010, 12:15:14 AM »
The Taliban are said by the Afghan government to be people who spray acid in the faces of schoolgirls for the "crime" of going to school.

However, the Taliban has denied responsibility for the acid attacks.
(Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451941,00.html)

How popular the Taliban really are and what the Afghan people really think of them are unknown quantities at this distance from the scene.  It is my understanding that the Taliban are popular in many areas of the country because they provide swift justice in Taliban Islamic courts and present a clear-cut alternative to the prevailing corruption, delay and inefficiency in the alternative judicial systems available to the public (such as warlords' courts, national courts, local or national policing.)

I am sure that the Taliban must have done some very bad things in this war, but equally sure that the Americans, their allies, the national government and the allied war lords have done equally bad things.  This is a very savage country, where torture is an everyday event and very few things are as cheap as human life.  To demonize the Taliban as the source of all evil in Afghanistan would be ludicrous.  They're actually seen by many Afghans as an ALTERNATIVE to the prevailing evil.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who's Really Winning in Afghanistan?
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2010, 03:11:56 PM »
Do you think it was our goal to "conquer the country"?
================================================
I really do not think that the US wants to conquer and rule Afghanistan as a colony. But the Taliban sees the Westernization of their culture, with modern media, music, nekkid women on TV and education of women as a disruption to their ideal way of life. Afghanistan has not had a decent educational system even by local standards, since the late 1970's, so Afghans in their 20's and 30's and even 40's are throwbacks to the early 1900's. They are the true illiterate hillbillies.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."