Five Facts About Afghanistan - AnabolicMinds.com

Five Facts About Afghanistan

  1. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Five Facts About Afghanistan


    Five Facts About Afghanistan by Ivan Eland -- Antiwar.com


    The corridors of power in the nation’s capital are abuzz with the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan. If only we send 40,000 more troops, say the military brass, the U.S. could have some hope of turning the situation around and preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorists yet again. Vice President Joe Biden has apparently suggested keeping the number of forces the same but shifting the U.S. mission more toward training the Afghan security forces and conducting Special Forces raids and drone attacks against al-Qaeda.

    Instead, a few simple facts on the ground in Afghanistan point to a third alternative.

    First, al-Qaeda already has a haven – Pakistan – and could have one in any country that has instability – for example, Yemen, Somalia, or Sudan. The U.S. does need to focus more on the untamed areas of northwest Pakistan and encourage the Pakistani government to go after militants there.

    Second, the U.S.-led nation-building occupation in Afghanistan is fueling the Taliban resurgence. If you follow the timelines, increases in Western forces have brought about the Taliban renaissance. Opponents of a U.S. surge believe that 40,000 more American troops could make the Afghan people regard the U.S. superpower as a foreign occupier. Incredible news: they already do, and have for eight years.

    Third, there is a misperception among U.S. policy elites that a troop surge increased stability in Iraq, whereas it was mainly paying off Sunni opponents to quit fighting American forces that brought what probably will be only a temporary respite from the violence. It ain’t over till it’s over.

    Fourth, ultimately, in a republic, escalating an unpopular war is political suicide. If the public and Congress are balking at sending a measly 40,000 additional troops, they will not ever be willing to send the number of troops needed to win.

    Fifth, historical cases abound where a great power, by not committing enough forces early, lost to a lesser foe or won only with great difficulty. The power needs to bring sufficient strength early on to dominate the war or give up and get out. For example, in the late 1700s, the British lost the American Revolution by having insufficient forces in a rather large territory. In the early 1800s, Napoleon lost against the British and Spanish guerrillas because he failed to commit the effort needed to win. During roughly the same period, the Ottoman Empire and their surrogate, Egyptian Muhammad Ali, finally marshaled enough troops to defeat the fierce Wahhabi guerrillas in Arabia. The British – in the Anglo-Sudan War in the late 1800s and the Boer War around the turn of the 20th century – didn’t initially send enough forces to win but then later sent more and won “ugly.”

    In Vietnam, the United States gradually escalated to more than a half million troops, but this was not enough to beat a North Vietnamese/Viet Cong force of only 100,000.

    The bad news is that Vietnam was a much smaller country in population and area than is Afghanistan. Even the Army’s new field manual on guerrilla warfare says that 20 to 25 occupation forces are needed per one thousand inhabitants. Frank Rich of the New York Times puts the Afghan population at 32 million. This would necessitate an occupation force of 640,000 to 800,000 to have a good chance of winning.

    The U.S. will have 68,000 troops there, and the Europeans provide just over 30,000 mostly ineffectual forces; with an added 40,000, this amounts to only a paltry 140,000. The motto for counterinsurgency war should be either commit enough forces to win early or get out.

    After eight long years of a lackadaisical effort, another 40,000 committed this late won’t even lift the Obama administration out of the halfhearted category.

    The U.S. should cut its losses, withdraw from Afghanistan, and concentrate on pressuring al-Qaeda in Pakistan with a smaller military footprint – so as not to stir up more anti-U.S. Islamists than we are neutralizing.

  2. Banned
    jakellpet's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  213 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,533
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    luther - appreciate the thought-provoking articles you post here mate.

    . . I guess the question is, the US Military hierachy must know the facts as presented above . . . what is their real agenda?
  3. Advanced Member
    wontstop985's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Age
    29
    Posts
    579
    Rep Power
    507

    Reputation

    good post
    •   
       

  4. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Pakistan IS attacking in militantland this very minute.

    By Scott Stewart

    Pakistan has been a busy place over the past few weeks. The Pakistani armed forces have been conducting raids and airstrikes against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other foreign Islamist fighters in Bajaur Agency, a district inside Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), while wrapping up their preparations for a major military offensive into South Waziristan. The United States has conducted several successful missile attacks targeting militants hiding in areas along the Afghan-Pakistani border using unmanned aerial vehicles.

    Threatened by these developments — especially the actions of the Pakistani military — the TTP and its allies have struck back. They have used larger, vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) in attacks close to their bases in the Pakistani badlands to conduct mass-casualty attacks against soft targets in Peshawar and the Swat Valley. They have also used small arms and small suicide devices farther from their bases to attack targets in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, the respective seats of Pakistan’s military and civilian power.

    Initially, we considered devoting this week’s Security and Intelligence Report to discussing the tactical details of the Oct. 10 attack against the Pakistani army headquarters. But after taking a closer look at that attack, and the bigger mosaic it occurred within, we decided to focus instead on something that has not received much attention in the media — namely, how the coming Pakistani offensive in South Waziristan is going to have a heavy impact on the militants currently living and training there. In fact, we can expect the Pakistani offensive to cause a large displacement of militants. Of course, many of the militants who are forced to flee from South Waziristan, the epicenter of Pakistan’s insurgency, will likely land in areas not too far away — like Balochistan — but at least some of the militants who will be flushed out of South Waziristan will land in places far from Pakistan’s FATA and North-West Frontier Province.
    The Coming Offensive

    The Pakistani military has been preparing for the coming offensive into South Waziristan for months. They have positioned two divisions with some 28,000 troops for the attack, and this force will be augmented by paramilitary forces and local tribal militias loyal to Islamabad. As seen by the Pakistani offensives in Swat and Bajaur earlier this year, the TTP and its foreign allies are no match for the Pakistani military when it turns its full resources to address the problem.

    The Pakistanis previously attempted a halfhearted offensive in South Waziristan in March of 2004 that only lasted 12 days before they fell back and reached a “negotiated peace settlement” with the militant leaders in the area. A negotiated peace settlement is a diplomatic way of saying that the Pakistanis attempted to pay off Pakistani Taliban leaders like Nek Mohammed to hand over the foreign militants in South Waziristan and stop behaving badly. The large cash settlements given to the militants did little to ensure peace and instead allowed the Taliban leaders to buy more weapons, pay their troops and essentially solidify their control in their areas of operation. The Taliban resumed their militant activities shortly after receiving their payments (though the most prominent leader, Nek Mohammed, was killed in a U.S. missile strike in June 2004).

    This time, the South Waziristan offensive will be far different than it was in 2004. Not only do the Pakistanis have more than four times as many army troops committed to it, but the Pakistani military has learned that if it uses its huge airpower advantage and massed artillery, it can quickly rout any serious TTP resistance. In Bajaur, the Pakistanis used airstrikes and artillery to literally level positions (and even some towns) where the Taliban had tried to dig in and make a stand. Additionally, in January 2008, the Pakistani army conducted a successful offensive in South Waziristan called “Operation Zal Zala” (Earthquake) that made excellent progress and resulted in the loss of only eight soldiers in four days of intense fighting. This offensive was stopped only because Baitullah Mehsud and his confederates sued for peace — a truce that they quickly violated.

    The lessons of past military operations and broken truces in South Waziristan, when combined with the recent TTP strikes against targets like the army headquarters, have served to steel the will of the government (and particularly the military). Pakistani government sources tell STRATFOR that they have the intent and the ability to “close the case for good.” This means that there should be no negotiated settlement with the TTP this time.

    Of course, we are not the only people who can anticipate this happening. The TTP and others like the al Qaeda core leadership know all too well what happened in Bajaur and Swat. They have also been watching the Pakistani military prepare for the South Waziristan offensive for months now. The TTP leadership realizes that if they attempt to stand and fight the Pakistani military toe-to-toe they will be cut to shreds. Because of this, we believe that the TTP will adopt a strategy similar to that used by the Taliban in the face of overwhelming U.S. airpower following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, or that of the Iraqi military following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Rather than fight in set-piece conventional battles to the bitter end and be destroyed, after some initial resistance the TTP’s fighters will seek to melt away into the population and then conduct insurgent and terrorist strikes against the Pakistani military, both in the tribal regions and in Pakistan’s core regions. This is also the approach the TTP leadership took to the Pakistani offensive in Swat and Bajaur. They made noises about standing and fighting in places like Mingora. In the end, however, they melted away in the face of the military’s offensive and most of the militants escaped.
    Afghan/Pakistani Border

    Contrary to popular perception, the area along the Afghan-Pakistani border is fairly heavily populated. The terrain is extremely rugged, but there are millions of Pakistanis living in the FATA, and many of them are extremely conservative and hostile toward the Pakistani government. This hostile human terrain poses perhaps a more significant obstacle to the Pakistani military’s operations to root out jihadists than the physical terrain. Accurate and current population numbers are hard to obtain, but the government of Pakistan estimated the population of South Waziristan to be nearly 500,000 in 1998, although it is believed to be much larger than that today. There are also an estimated 1.7 million Afghan refugees living on the Pakistani side of the border. This human terrain should enable many of the TTP’s Pashtun fighters to melt into the landscape and live to fight another day. Indeed, the militants are already heavily embedded in the population of South Waziristan, and the TTP and its *****s have controlled much of the area for several years now.

    We have seen reports that up to 200,000 people have already fled areas of South Waziristan in anticipation of the coming military operation, and it is highly likely that some TTP fighters and foreign militants have used this flow of displaced people as camouflage to leave the region just as they did in Swat and Bajaur. Whether the coming offensive is as successful in destroying the TTP as our sources assure us it will be, the military action will undoubtedly force even more militants to leave South Waziristan.
    The Camps

    In the wake of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the many militant training camps run by al Qaeda and other organizations in Afghanistan were destroyed. Many of the foreign jihadists who were at these camps fled to Pakistan with the Taliban, though others fled to Iran, Iraq or elsewhere. This migration shifted the focus of jihadist training efforts to Pakistan, and South Waziristan in particular. Quite simply, there are thousands of foreign jihadists who have traveled to Pakistan to receive paramilitary training at these camps to fight in Afghanistan. A smaller number of the trainees have received advanced training in terrorist tradecraft, such as bombmaking, in the camps.

    Due to the presence of these transplanted training installations, South Waziristan is “jihadist central,” with jihadists of all stripes based in the area. This confluence will complicate Islamabad’s attempts to distinguish between “good” and “bad” Taliban elements. Both the good Taliban aligned with Islamabad that carry out their operations in Afghanistan and the bad Taliban fighting against Islamabad are based in South Waziristan, and telling the difference between the two factions on the battlefield will be difficult — though undoubtedly elements of Pakistani intelligence will attempt to help their Taliban friends (like the Haqqani network and Mullah Omar’s network) avoid being caught up in the coming confrontation.

    There are literally thousands of Arab, Uzbek, Uighur, Chechen, African and European militants currently located in the Pakistani badlands, and a good number of them are in South Waziristan. Many of these foreigners are either teaching at or enrolled in the jihadist training camps. These foreigners are going to find it far harder to hide from the Pakistani military by seeking refuge in Afghan refugee camps or small tribal villages than their Pashtun brethren.

    Some of these foreigners will attempt to find shelter in North Waziristan, or perhaps in more heavily — and more heterogeneously — populated areas like Quetta (Mullah Omar’s refuge) or Peshawar. Others may try to duck into the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan, but there is a good chance that many of these foreign militants will be forced to leave the Pakistan-Afghanistan area to return home or seek refuge elsewhere.

    This exodus will have mixed results. On one hand it will serve to weaken the international jihadist movement by retarding its ability to train new jihadists until replacement camps can be established elsewhere, perhaps by expanding existing facilities in Yemen or Africa. On the other hand, it will force hundreds of people trained in terrorist tradecraft to find a new place to live — and operate. In some ways, this migration could mirror what happened after the number of foreign jihadist began to be dramatically reduced in Iraq — except then, many of the foreigners could be redirected to Pakistan for training and Afghanistan to fight. There is no comparable second theater now to attract these foreign fighters. This means that many of them may end up returning home to join insurgent movements in smaller theaters, such as Chechnya, Somalia, Algeria and Central Asia.

    Those with the ability and means could travel to other countries where they can use their training to organize militant cells for terrorist attacks in much the same way the foreign fighters who fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s and left after the fall of the Soviet-backed government there went on to fight in places like Bosnia and Chechnya and formed the nucleus of al Qaeda and the current international jihadist movement.
    The Next Generation

    There is a big qualitative difference between the current crop of international fighters in South Waziristan and those who fought with the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. During the earlier conflict, the foreigners were tolerated, but in general they were not seen by their Afghan counterparts as being particularly valiant or effective (though the Afghans did appreciate the cash and logistical help they provided). In many engagements the foreigners were kept out of harm’s way and saw very little intense combat, while in some cases the foreign fighters were essentially used as cannon fodder.

    The perception of the foreigners began to change during the 1990s, and units of foreigners acquitted themselves well as they fought alongside Taliban units against the Northern Alliance. Also, following the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the foreign jihadists have proved themselves to be very effective at conducting terrorist attacks and operating in hostile territory.

    In fact, over the past several years, we have witnessed a marked change in the ways the Afghan Taliban fight. They have abandoned some of their traditional armed assault tactics and have begun to employ al Qaeda-influenced roadside IED attacks and suicide bombings — attacks the Afghan fighters had previously considered “unmanly.” It is no mere coincidence that the number of suicide attacks and roadside IED attacks in Afghanistan increased dramatically after al Qaeda began to withdraw its forces from Iraq. There is also a direct correlation between the IED technology developed and used in Iraq and that now being employed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    All this experience in designing and manufacturing IEDs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan means that the jihadist bombmakers of today are more highly skilled than ever, and they have been sharing their experience with foreign students at training camps in places like South Waziristan. Furthermore, the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has provided a great laboratory in which jihadists can perfect their terrorist tradecraft. A form of “tactical Darwinism” has occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan as coalition firepower has weeded out most of the inept jihadist operatives. Only the strong and cunning have survived, leaving a core of hardened, competent militants. These survivors have created new tactics and have learned to manufacture new types of highly effective IEDs — technology that has already shown up in places like Algeria and Somalia. They have been permitted to impart the knowledge they have gained to another generation of young aspiring militants through training camps in places like South Waziristan.

    As these foreign militants scatter to the four winds, they will be taking their skills with them. Judging from past waves of jihadist fighters, they will probably be found participating in future plots in many different parts of the world. And also judging from past cases, they will likely not participate in these plots alone.

    As we have discussed in the past, the obvious weakness of the many grassroots jihadist cells that have been uncovered is their lack of terrorist tradecraft. They have the intent to do harm but not the ability, and many times the grassroots cells end up finding a government informant as they seek help acquiring weapons or constructing IEDs. When these inept “Kramer terrorists” manage to get linked up with a trained terrorist operative, they can cause considerable damage.

    The possibility of these militants conducting attacks or bringing much-needed capability to grassroots cells means that the South Waziristan migration, which has almost certainly already begun, will give counterterrorism officials from Boston to Beijing something to worry about for the foreseeable future.

    Tell STRATFOR What You Think

    For Publication in Letters to STRATFOR
    Not For Publication

    This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com
  5. New Member
    Vance's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  229 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    289

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Five Facts About Afghanistan by Ivan Eland -- Antiwar.com


    The corridors of power in the nation’s capital are abuzz with the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan. If only we send 40,000 more troops, say the military brass, the U.S. could have some hope of turning the situation around and preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorists yet again. Vice President Joe Biden has apparently suggested keeping the number of forces the same but shifting the U.S. mission more toward training the Afghan security forces and conducting Special Forces raids and drone attacks against al-Qaeda.

    Instead, a few simple facts on the ground in Afghanistan point to a third alternative.

    First, al-Qaeda already has a haven – Pakistan – and could have one in any country that has instability – for example, Yemen, Somalia, or Sudan. The U.S. does need to focus more on the untamed areas of northwest Pakistan and encourage the Pakistani government to go after militants there.

    Second, the U.S.-led nation-building occupation in Afghanistan is fueling the Taliban resurgence. If you follow the timelines, increases in Western forces have brought about the Taliban renaissance. Opponents of a U.S. surge believe that 40,000 more American troops could make the Afghan people regard the U.S. superpower as a foreign occupier. Incredible news: they already do, and have for eight years.

    Third, there is a misperception among U.S. policy elites that a troop surge increased stability in Iraq, whereas it was mainly paying off Sunni opponents to quit fighting American forces that brought what probably will be only a temporary respite from the violence. It ain’t over till it’s over.

    Fourth, ultimately, in a republic, escalating an unpopular war is political suicide. If the public and Congress are balking at sending a measly 40,000 additional troops, they will not ever be willing to send the number of troops needed to win.

    Fifth, historical cases abound where a great power, by not committing enough forces early, lost to a lesser foe or won only with great difficulty. The power needs to bring sufficient strength early on to dominate the war or give up and get out. For example, in the late 1700s, the British lost the American Revolution by having insufficient forces in a rather large territory. In the early 1800s, Napoleon lost against the British and Spanish guerrillas because he failed to commit the effort needed to win. During roughly the same period, the Ottoman Empire and their surrogate, Egyptian Muhammad Ali, finally marshaled enough troops to defeat the fierce Wahhabi guerrillas in Arabia. The British – in the Anglo-Sudan War in the late 1800s and the Boer War around the turn of the 20th century – didn’t initially send enough forces to win but then later sent more and won “ugly.”

    In Vietnam, the United States gradually escalated to more than a half million troops, but this was not enough to beat a North Vietnamese/Viet Cong force of only 100,000.

    The bad news is that Vietnam was a much smaller country in population and area than is Afghanistan. Even the Army’s new field manual on guerrilla warfare says that 20 to 25 occupation forces are needed per one thousand inhabitants. Frank Rich of the New York Times puts the Afghan population at 32 million. This would necessitate an occupation force of 640,000 to 800,000 to have a good chance of winning.

    The U.S. will have 68,000 troops there, and the Europeans provide just over 30,000 mostly ineffectual forces; with an added 40,000, this amounts to only a paltry 140,000. The motto for counterinsurgency war should be either commit enough forces to win early or get out.

    After eight long years of a lackadaisical effort, another 40,000 committed this late won’t even lift the Obama administration out of the halfhearted category.

    The U.S. should cut its losses, withdraw from Afghanistan, and concentrate on pressuring al-Qaeda in Pakistan with a smaller military footprint – so as not to stir up more anti-U.S. Islamists than we are neutralizing.
    On the Vietnam point; the US never had much trouble in defeating the NVA/ Vietcong in a stand-up fight. The US military killed the NVA & irregular VC at a rate of approximately 8-10 to 1. Vietnam wasn't a war which was lost due to lack of troops or losing battles. It was lost based on a losing propaganda war on the home-front. Part of the reason they (The US) lost the war was their top level being too heavily focused on killing the enemy to the detriment of effectively holding ground. When the US military moved North to shore up defenses there they left the South open for the Tet offensive - which ultimately cost them the war despite the staggering casualties suffered by the NVA/ VC. I think too many people too readily draw comparisons between Vietnam & Afghanistan.

    The US will not pull out of Afghanistan at this point - the political bloody nose they would suffer would be far more damaging in the long term and would galvanise anti-US sentiment in the region and in the middle east - you would in all liklelyhood see a large resurgense of violence in Iraq as irregular enemy forces could *easily* travel from the border region with Pakistan, through Iran & into Iraq.

    I do however agree with the sentiment that a troop surge of 40,000 is insufficeint to deliver the outcome the US desires in Afghanistan. First and foremost they need to work on disarming the Afghani populace, increasing the integrity of the Afghanistan/ Pakistan/ Iranian border, building an economy to decrease the local's reliance on the opium trade and improving infrastructure both around improving security and developing their (Shambolic) economy.

    Only then will you notice an ongoing improvement at the pointy end of the spear on the ground.
  6. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance View Post
    On the Vietnam point; the US never had much trouble in defeating the NVA/ Vietcong in a stand-up fight. The US military killed the NVA & irregular VC at a rate of approximately 8-10 to 1. Vietnam wasn't a war which was lost due to lack of troops or losing battles. It was lost based on a losing propaganda war on the home-front. Part of the reason they (The US) lost the war was their top level being too heavily focused on killing the enemy to the detriment of effectively holding ground. When the US military moved North to shore up defenses there they left the South open for the Tet offensive - which ultimately cost them the war despite the staggering casualties suffered by the NVA/ VC. I think too many people too readily draw comparisons between Vietnam & Afghanistan.
    Well said.

    First and foremost they need to work on disarming the Afghani populace, increasing the integrity of the Afghanistan/ Pakistan/ Iranian border, building an economy to decrease the local's reliance on the opium trade and improving infrastructure both around improving security and developing their (Shambolic) economy.

    Only then will you notice an ongoing improvement at the pointy end of the spear on the ground.
    Disarm - this will not happen this century. It's too much a part of the culture.

    Borders - see geography. It won't happen, though it's slightly more likely than disarming the populace.

    Economy - again, until there's some security and safety, no one from outside will ever want to step in there. It's tough to ween them off the opium money, when that's about all they have to offer the WEst, and the WEst is afraid to step in there for fear of being blown up.

    Sucks.
  7. New Member
    Vance's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  229 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    289

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Well said.

    Disarm - this will not happen this century. It's too much a part of the culture.

    Borders - see geography. It won't happen, though it's slightly more likely than disarming the populace.

    Economy - again, until there's some security and safety, no one from outside will ever want to step in there. It's tough to ween them off the opium money, when that's about all they have to offer the WEst, and the WEst is afraid to step in there for fear of being blown up.

    Sucks.
    Agree about the disarming if you went for whole-sale disarmament. The key is to get the major 'warlords' embracing the new regime and striving to support it. The fighters can be brought into the Afghani national army/ police (As useless & corrupt as both bodies are at the moment) and given some semblance of identity with their 'country' rather than with the respective 'warlords'. Same thing happened and worked well (Eventually) in Iraq.

    Trick in relation to the borders is that there are only certain borders which are relevant, the most obvious being the Pakistani border. A combined approach between the Pakistani/ NATO forces could crush much of the resistance in this region, but from there the strategy will have to move to one of containment.

    Trick with the opium crops is that the Taliban had all but stamped out Afghani heroin as part of aid packages which were delivered by the West. Now that we have this kid gloves approach to the problem Afghan heroin alone which is grown in 12 months can more than supply the global demand. Subsidising other agriculture is one way in which to off-set this - the entire agriculture segments in most Western economies only exist on subsidies as is FFS, it's ludicrious to assume that the Afghani agricultural sector will be any different - particularly when the cut and the thrust of it will be to meet local demand as opposed to being exported due to the lack of quality control & infrastructure to support this.

    Fact of the matter is the amount of money we have in Afghanistan in troops more than likely exceeds their GDP as is - so obviously a little beauracratic reallocation of funds could make a whole lot of difference to the population. Don't forget that in the 80's pre-Desert Storm Iraq was an extremely modernised Islamic nation too. Hence why they're a little quicker on the uptake than the Afghanis are.

    Truth is Kabul is never going to be New York, at this stage I think we'd settle for Detroit tho.
  8. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Good points to consider, thanks.
  9. New Member
    Vance's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  229 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    289

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Good points to consider, thanks.
    I have my moments, few and far between though they may be.
  10. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Pakistan IS attacking in militantland this very minute.
    In addition:

    War next door creates havoc in Pakistan

    By ERIC MARGOLIS

    Pakistan, increasingly destabilized by the U.S.-led war in neighbouring Afghanistan, is getting closer to blowing apart.

    Bombings and shootings have rocked this nation of 167 million, including a brazen attack on army HQ in Rawalpindi and a massive bombing of Peshawar's exotic Khyber Bazaar.

    Pakistan's army is readying a major offensive against rebellious Pashtun tribes in South Waziristan. Meanwhile, the feeble, deeply unpopular U.S.-installed government in Islamabad faces an increasingly rancorous confrontation with the military.

    Like the proverbial bull in the china shop, the Obama administration and U.S. Congress chose this explosive time to try to impose yet another layer of American control over Pakistan as Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama appears about to send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

    Tragically, U.S. policy in the Muslim world continues to be driven by imperial arrogance, profound ignorance, and special interest groups.

    The current Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, advanced with President Barack Obama's blessing, is ham-handed dollar diplomacy at its worst. Pakistan, bankrupted by corruption and feudal landlords, is being offered $7.5 billion US over five years -- but with outrageous strings attached.

    The U.S. wants to build a mammoth new embassy for 1,000 personnel in Islamabad, the second largest after its Baghdad fortress-embassy. New personnel are needed, claims Washington, to monitor the $7.5 billion in aid.

    So U.S. mercenaries are being brought in to protect U.S. "interests." New U.S. bases will open. Most of this new aid will go right into the pockets of the pro-western ruling establishment, about 1% of the population.

    Washington is also demanding veto power over promotions in Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence agency, ISI. This crude attempt to take control of Pakistan's proud, 617,000-man military has enraged the armed forces.

    It's all part of Washington's "AfPak" strategy to clamp tighter control over restive Pakistan and make use of its armed forces and spies in Afghanistan. Seizing control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the key to its national defence against much more powerful India, is the other key U.S. objective.

    However, 90% of Pakistanis oppose the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, and see Taliban and its allies as national resistance to western occupation.

    Violence

    Alarmingly, violent attacks on Pakistan's government are coming not only from once-autonomous Pashtun tribes (wrongly called "Taliban") in Northwest Frontier Province, but, increasingly, in the biggest province, Punjab. Recently, the U.S. Ambassador in Islamabad, in a fit of imperial hubris, actually called for air attacks on Pashtun leaders in Quetta, capital of Pakistan's restive Baluchistan province.

    Washington does not even bother to ask the impotent Islamabad government's permission to launch air attacks inside Pakistan.

    Along comes the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Big Bribe as most irate Pakistanis accuse President Asif Ali Zardari's government of being American hirelings. Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, has been dogged for decades by charges of corruption. His senior aides in Pakistan and Washington are being denounced by what's left of Pakistan's media not yet under government control.

    Washington seems unaware of the fury its crude, counter-productive policies have whipped up in Pakistan. The Obama administration keeps listening to Washington-based neoconservatives, military hawks, and "experts" who tell it just what it wants to hear, not the facts. Ottawa does the same.

    Revolt

    As a result, Pakistan's military, the nation's premier institution, is being pushed to the point of revolt. Against the backdrop of bombings and shootings come rumours the heads of Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence may be replaced.

    Pakistanis are calling for the removal of the Zardari regime's strongman, Interior Minister Rehman Malik. Many clamour for the head of Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, my old friend Hussain Haqqani, who is seen as too close to the Americans. One suspects the wily Haqqani is also angling to get the U.S. to help him become Pakistan's next leader.

    The possibility of a military coup against the discredited Zardari regime grows. But Pakistan is dependent on U.S. money, and fears India. Can its generals afford to break with patron Washington?
  11. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Pakistan keeps popping up!

    Iran Vows ‘Crushing Action’ After Commanders Killed in Suicide Bombing
    Attack on Revolutionary Guard Leaders 'Planned in Pakistan'

    Iranian officials vowed a “crushing response” today after a suicide blast in Sistan-Balochistan killed at least 49 people, including several high ranking members of the nation’s elite Revolutionary Guard forces.

    Iran’s state media reported the Baloch separatist group Jundallah had claimed credit for the attack, and officials in the military accused the US and Britain of involvement, threatening to take revenge against those responsible. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs....710189874/1133

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the Pakistani government to help with the apprehension of those responsible, and also accused elements of the Pakistani government with complicity in the strike. Jundallah is active on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border, but the Pakistani government denies that the leadership is on its side of the region.

    Though it is well established that the US has been supporting Jundallah since at least 2005 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...ws_exclus.html , the State Department condemned the attack as an “act of terrorism,” and insisted they had nothing to do with the attack.
  12. Banned
    roids1's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,394
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    For once, I agree with something that Luther posts. Afghanistan is a quagmire. It's like we can't leave, but we can't stay. It was the initial front in the war on terror after 9/11, so to pull out now would make we were accpeting defeat by the Taliban and all the bloodshed over the past 8 years was for nothing. In reality, it's looking more and more like this is our new Vietnam.
  13. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Pakistan keeps popping up!

    Iran Vows ‘Crushing Action’ After Commanders Killed in Suicide Bombing
    Attack on Revolutionary Guard Leaders 'Planned in Pakistan'

    Iranian officials vowed a “crushing response” today after a suicide blast in Sistan-Balochistan killed at least 49 people, including several high ranking members of the nation’s elite Revolutionary Guard forces.

    Iran’s state media reported the Baloch separatist group Jundallah had claimed credit for the attack, and officials in the military accused the US and Britain of involvement, threatening to take revenge against those responsible. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs....710189874/1133

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the Pakistani government to help with the apprehension of those responsible, and also accused elements of the Pakistani government with complicity in the strike. Jundallah is active on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border, but the Pakistani government denies that the leadership is on its side of the region.

    Though it is well established that the US has been supporting Jundallah since at least 2005 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...ws_exclus.html , the State Department condemned the attack as an “act of terrorism,” and insisted they had nothing to do with the attack.
    I doubt the us was directly involved, that's too small fry, and lots of collateral. Indirect involvement would mean they simply support the group who claimed responsibility for the attack, but didn't authorize or help with it.
  14. New Member
    Vance's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  229 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    289

    Reputation

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is sillier than a clown's c*ck.
  15. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    I doubt the us was directly involved, that's too small fry, and lots of collateral. Indirect involvement would mean they simply support the group who claimed responsibility for the attack, but didn't authorize or help with it.
    Who knows,but

    "it is well established that the US has been supporting Jundallah since at least 2005 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...ws_exclus.html "
  16. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    At least 7 people were killed, 13 injured when a suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up Friday, Oct. 23, outside the big Kamra aeronautical complex 60 km west of Islamabad. DEBKAfile's military sources report this is where Pakistan houses most of its nuclear bombs and air-air and air-ground missiles. In Mohmand, 15 wedding guests were killed when their minibus hit an explosive device and in Peshawar a car bomb injured 15 people at the Sawan hotel.

    Taliban fighters began to battle their way towards Pakistan's nuclear arsenal on Saturday, Oct. 10, by attacking the roads connecting the capital and high command with the nuclear ordnance centers in northern Pakistan near the town of Kohat, at Wah and in Kamra in order to cut them off.

    Terrorist pressure to reach Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at these sites was first reported by DEBKA-Net-Weekly on May 15.

    Friday morning, the Pakistani military spokesman said the suicide bomber was stopped at a checkpoint where he blew himself up before he could enter the Kamra complex. This was the closest a terrorist had come to the cluster of bases where Pakistan maintains the bulk of its nuclear bombs and air-air and air-ground missiles for delivery by its air force.

    This month, surging Taliban attacks have left more than 180 dead, the level mounting sharply as the Pakistani army continued its offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds in South Waziristan. Thursday, a Pakistani army brigadier and his driver were killed in a shooting attack in Islamabad. He was the second high officer to die this week in what appears to be a targeted assault on Pakistani commanders in retaliation for the South Waziristan drive. Tuesday, twin blasts killed seven people at Islamabad University.

    DEBKAfile's military sources report that three Pakistani columns are advancing very slowly in the mountainous tribal region amid sporadic clashes. Most of the insurgents have pulled back to the 15,000-ft peaks.
    Print Print Post this story to Facebook Facebook Send by e-mail E-Mail
    Terror attacks near nuke facilities??? :huh:
  17. Professional Member
    Army Guy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,206
    Rep Power
    1808

    Reputation

    Point 1 on the 40,000: these are not just combat troops. This is GEN Petraeus' plan that he used In Iraq, something that turned the tide there. There will be combat advisers throughout this force, something that I have a little experience with given that I am one doing the mission as I write this in Iraq. The mission of the 40,000 is to surge in with more security for the first few months, while that happens guys like me get the local police, border agencies, and militaries up to speed. After 8-9 months there is a slow transition that begins and the local populace begins taking over and owning ground while the US forces join them on these patrols, but they are led by the locals. Once the US Commanders feel the new military or police have enough experience then US forces start going on less and less patrols.
    This approach does a few things. It gives the country way more stability with the extra combat forces. Locals feel this immediately and recruiting goes through the roof. The training that we provide them during the 6 months is second to none. The confidence of the local forces goes through the roof, especially on the first few joint patrols. It also gives the locals national pride in their own forces once they begin to see their success.
    Bottom line, no one need compare this to Vietnam. The Russians had their Vietnam here, we had ours in Asia. This is a new war with new problems. If the politicians would finally get out of the way and allow this surge, like we did in Iraq (which one the war for us here in case you missed it) then the security in Afghanistan would be secured and it would force the Jihadist into the hills of either Iran or Pakistan.
    And Luther... try getting your news from a website other than antiwar.com because one could argue they have a slight agenda. Trust me, I hate war. I have been on 4 of these damn deployments and am ready for a break to see the family. Help us with the peace process by not posting hatefilled one sided pieces. Support the offense so we never have to go back on defense!
    AG
  18. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Army Guy View Post
    Point 1 on the 40,000: these are not just combat troops. This is GEN Petraeus' plan that he used In Iraq, something that turned the tide there. There will be combat advisers throughout this force, something that I have a little experience with given that I am one doing the mission as I write this in Iraq. The mission of the 40,000 is to surge in with more security for the first few months, while that happens guys like me get the local police, border agencies, and militaries up to speed. After 8-9 months there is a slow transition that begins and the local populace begins taking over and owning ground while the US forces join them on these patrols, but they are led by the locals. Once the US Commanders feel the new military or police have enough experience then US forces start going on less and less patrols.
    This approach does a few things. It gives the country way more stability with the extra combat forces. Locals feel this immediately and recruiting goes through the roof. The training that we provide them during the 6 months is second to none. The confidence of the local forces goes through the roof, especially on the first few joint patrols. It also gives the locals national pride in their own forces once they begin to see their success.
    Bottom line, no one need compare this to Vietnam. The Russians had their Vietnam here, we had ours in Asia. This is a new war with new problems. If the politicians would finally get out of the way and allow this surge, like we did in Iraq (which one the war for us here in case you missed it) then the security in Afghanistan would be secured and it would force the Jihadist into the hills of either Iran or Pakistan.
    And Luther... try getting your news from a website other than antiwar.com because one could argue they have a slight agenda. Trust me, I hate war. I have been on 4 of these damn deployments and am ready for a break to see the family. Help us with the peace process by not posting hatefilled one sided pieces. Support the offense so we never have to go back on defense!
    AG
    OK,forget antiwar.com,check this out:

    It is a film that is available for free online

    Rethink Afghanistanhttp://bravenewfilms.org/videos/rethinkafghanistan/

    Short review: http://bravenewfilms.org/press/?p=614

    In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Robert Greenwald described his latest film, Rethink Afghanistan, as a way to ask “fundamental core questions:”

    “The argument we make in the film is that there are a lot of unanswered questions about the war: How many troops? What’s the cost in lives and treasure?” says Greenwald. “In the film, we try to ask these fundamental core questions. It’s not just 10,000 troops there, or 12,000 there, it’s why troops at all?” He added, “Those are the questions we need to ask, and those are the questions you need to ask in a democracy.”

    While the Journal got it right, the New York Times reviewer apparently wants no truck with either such questions – or with a film that reminds us that:

    Military engagements, it seems, are messy and claim innocent lives.

    In fact, she was upset that the film did not allow time for an opposing view – yet, as Greenwald shows us throughout Rethink Afghanistan, the messiness and loss of innocent lives is precisely at the core of this (or any) war and is the central reason we need to look more closely and ask our own questions about our government’s decision to continue into a 9th year in Afghanistan.

    But the film also does much more.

    Rethink Afghanistan combines footage from Greenwald’s own trip to Afghanistan earlier this year with interviews with key experts like Robert Grenier, former CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, former CIA operative Robert Baer, Graham Fuller, the former CIA station chief in Kabul, Anand Gopal, the Afghanistan correspondent of The Wall Street Journal and Steve Coll, author of the Pulitzer winning book on Al Qaeda, Ghost Wars.

    Such expertise provides us with important insights, insights lacking in the spotty coverage of this war in the standard media which rarely strays beyond the usual footage of American soldiers to ask the question why they are there and if it is the “right war” after all.

    Yet Rethink Afghanistan is not simply a platform for various experts, it is so much more because the film introduces us to Afghan voices. So often our policy debates completely leave out the views, the worries and the concerns of those most impacted by our actions. Rethink Afghanistan includes them throughout – and these voices are so important for us to hear.

    From the refugee who tells us:

    If the Talib comes and fires a bullet, Americans will come and they kill the whole village.

    To the Afghan women activists who describe our alliance with the misogynist Northern Alliance and our support for Karzai’s misogynist cabinet, to the voice of Fatana Gailani, founder of the Afghanistan Women Council who starkly reminds us that:

    The United States government has not sent one delegation to go and talk with the Afghan people, what the Afghan people want and especially what the Afghan women want.”

    These are voices we have not heard in the debate over our war and occupation, voices which should be at the center of any discussion of what we will do next. Rethink Afghanistan finally allows us to listen and learn.

    Robert and the Brave New Films team are not just providing a new forum for these voices, they are also creating a new model of filmmaking with Rethink Afghanistan. By producing the film in stages and releasing it online, they have made their work immediately available to us all in time to inform the debate not merely document it after the fact – and they have used the film as the centerpiece of a campaign to raise the questions and concerns we all must face about Afghanistan.

    They also invited viewers along the way to contribute to help the people profiled in the film, raising $15,000 in aid which has already made its way to families living in the refugee camps the film profiles.

    And now they are asking us all to participate in the education of our communities. Rethink Afghanistan does such a good job of raising the critical issues and encouraging discussions that it really must be shared and viewed with friends and neighbors. You can order a copy here to do your part to help shape this essential debate.

    .
  19. Senior Member
    corsaking's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,778
    Rep Power
    13343

    Reputation

    Please remember its not all about America in this war. The UK is involved too with heavy loss of life along with other EU countries. Each has a part to play in this war, its so easy to forget these soldiers when the focus is purely on America.
  20. Professional Member
    Army Guy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,206
    Rep Power
    1808

    Reputation

    Where to begin with this film. Brother let me tell you from first hand experience that there were and are mistakes being made. We are human and subject to them throughout our entire lives. That being said, let me make a few points.
    1. The reason we went to Afghanistan is pretty straight forward and, unlike Iraq, all can agree upon it... 911. Do you remember watching those towers come down??? We were attacked by a regime and a people who wanted nothing more than to wipe us Christian Imperialists off the face of the earth. Al Qaida was behind the attacks, they were holled up in Afghanistan. The Taliban not only supported them but funded them as well. If we as Americans have forgotten this, the rest of this is pointless. No nation on this earth would turn their back on an unprovoked attack.
    2. Troop numbers - If you read my post above you will see the argument there. Bottom line is that we let the war in AF slip because of the war in Iraq. Mistake??? absolutely!! For the last year the Coalition Commanders have tried fixing that problem. The troop strength increase that GEN P used in Iraq was a miracle and it is still working well. Believe it or not there are more deaths in Chicago or Detroit than in ALL of Iraq on a daily basis, and that INCLUDES the suicide attacks that took place yesterday.
    3. Women rights issues in AF - are you kidding bro??!! If they want the Taliban back with their full body dresses that hide even their faces they are welcome to them. Pulling one quote like that is far from portraying reality. Of course I have the advantage of actually talking to these people myself as opposed to reading about them. Truth - the women there have more rights and representation now than even PRE - Taliban. AF customs and laws prohibit any interactions with the women of that country, but rest assured... they LOVE not having to wear those stupid dresses. They LOVE being able to send their daughters to school (something THEY were not allowed to do). They love being able to own and operate their own businesses. And by saying the US sends no envoys or reps..., come on. That is ALL we do. Even here in Iraq we meeting ourselves to DEATH. The only reason that US forces might not have been there at this particular meeting was because there are certain cases when the AF government REQUEST US forces not be there. Other than that, we are ALWAYS at those stupid things.
    4. You find me another war anywhere throughout the history of time where there have been less civilian casualties than these two wars happening now... come on guy! We can shoot a rocket from thousands of miles a way or from a plane going the speed of sound and still hit to within inches of the intended target!
    Bottom line - The reasons for even going to war there are not disputable. Their people ATTACKED US and their government funded and protected them. Brother I don't need to watch a video on this stuff. I have lived it on and off multiple times now over the course of the last 8 years. If you want peace there, support the troops and the commanders, yell at the politicians, and have patients..., WHY??? Because it's a great day to be an American!!!

    AG
  21. Professional Member
    Army Guy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,206
    Rep Power
    1808

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by corsaking View Post
    Please remember its not all about America in this war. The UK is involved too with heavy loss of life along with other EU countries. Each has a part to play in this war, its so easy to forget these soldiers when the focus is purely on America.
    Bless you my British mate!!! I have lived with, worked with, sweated with, and indeed bled with a few of your mates. Better group of blokes you'll never meet!!!
  22. New Member
    Vance's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  229 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    289

    Reputation

    Aussies are there too, as well as a bunch of others. Hell, there's even been a few british expats like me in the Aus Army over there.

    I can't wait for the day where luther actually has an opinion of his own rather than just cut and pasting a bunch of anti-US crap. If you hate America dude, as I've said to you across multiple threads, take the time to strap on a pair and say it, "I hate America" Don't hate America but don't like the policies? That's fine too, just say I disagree with <whatever>, this is <why> and <this> is what I think we should do differently.

    Stop hiding behind other people's words and then going, "Hey I'm an ex-pat American I'm not anti-US" because buddy, it's bull**** and nobody is buying it.
  23. Professional Member
    Army Guy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,206
    Rep Power
    1808

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance View Post
    Aussies are there too, as well as a bunch of others. Hell, there's even been a few british expats like me in the Aus Army over there.

    I can't wait for the day where luther actually has an opinion of his own rather than just cut and pasting a bunch of anti-US crap. If you hate America dude, as I've said to you across multiple threads, take the time to strap on a pair and say it, "I hate America" Don't hate America but don't like the policies? That's fine too, just say I disagree with <whatever>, this is <why> and <this> is what I think we should do differently.

    Stop hiding behind other people's words and then going, "Hey I'm an ex-pat American I'm not anti-US" because buddy, it's bull**** and nobody is buying it.
    Love you like a brother Vance! Agreed on those Aussies studs. I lifted with some Aussies in Kuwait for a while during a few week layover before moving north. Some seriously strong dudes!! All of our Coalition Brothers are great... really love the Georgians... them dudes are crazy!
    Luther... what else can we say man?
    AG
  24. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Someone say Georgians? They're like Russians with a sense of humor. I served in israel with a bunch of em, and damn, they are crazy, and crazy strong.
  25. Professional Member
    Army Guy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,206
    Rep Power
    1808

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Someone say Georgians? They're like Russians with a sense of humor. I served in israel with a bunch of em, and damn, they are crazy, and crazy strong.
    Agreed!!! Served with them it FOB Warhourse in Baquba Iraq. Between my bad Russian and their bad English, I think we insulted everyone known to man, including each other. Great dudes!!!! I did wish one thing though... they used the showers a bit more often!
    AG
  26. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    One thing that will gain you instant respect from a Georgian, is to insult his mother.








  27. New Member
    phL8Tme's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  171 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    236
    Rep Power
    182

    Reputation

    A couple comments. These radical religous idiots have been killing their own brothers over interpritations in a book for thousands of years. Killing women because they got raped-by being outdoors without their husband, i.e. it's the bitches fault.

    They fund their war with drugs that are shipped to the US.


    You want your holyland? I say turn it to glass with a dozen or so nukes. It would be soo holy you couldn't walk through it for 40 or so years due to radiation.

    Would anyone really miss these F'tards? including their own women? I'm in the Twin Cities area. Full of Somalies. Why the hell would you come from a country thats about 100 degrees to Minnesota? Yeah their great cab drivers, til it snows or rains.

    I'm sick of bailing out the world at taxpayer expense. If we go into a country I say we wipe out the bad seed and keep it for ourselves. Lets start with the Carribean!
  28. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance View Post

    I can't wait for the day where luther actually has an opinion of his own rather than just cut and pasting a bunch of anti-US crap. If you hate America dude, as I've said to you across multiple threads, take the time to strap on a pair and say it, "I hate America" Don't hate America but don't like the policies? That's fine too, just say I disagree with <whatever>, this is <why> and <this> is what I think we should do differently.

    Stop hiding behind other people's words and then going, "Hey I'm an ex-pat American I'm not anti-US" because buddy, it's bull**** and nobody is buying it.
    I am posting critiques of the current policy,you are reading "I hate America" into it.Remember the words of Senator Fulbright:

    "To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."
  29. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Army Guy View Post
    Point 1 on the 40,000: these are not just combat troops. This is GEN Petraeus' plan that he used In Iraq, something that turned the tide there. There will be combat advisers throughout this force, something that I have a little experience with given that I am one doing the mission as I write this in Iraq. The mission of the 40,000 is to surge in with more security for the first few months, while that happens guys like me get the local police, border agencies, and militaries up to speed. After 8-9 months there is a slow transition that begins and the local populace begins taking over and owning ground while the US forces join them on these patrols, but they are led by the locals. Once the US Commanders feel the new military or police have enough experience then US forces start going on less and less patrols.
    This approach does a few things. It gives the country way more stability with the extra combat forces. Locals feel this immediately and recruiting goes through the roof. The training that we provide them during the 6 months is second to none. The confidence of the local forces goes through the roof, especially on the first few joint patrols. It also gives the locals national pride in their own forces once they begin to see their success.
    Bottom line, no one need compare this to Vietnam. The Russians had their Vietnam here, we had ours in Asia. This is a new war with new problems. If the politicians would finally get out of the way and allow this surge, like we did in Iraq (which one the war for us here in case you missed it) then the security in Afghanistan would be secured and it would force the Jihadist into the hills of either Iran or Pakistan.
    And Luther... try getting your news from a website other than antiwar.com because one could argue they have a slight agenda. Trust me, I hate war. I have been on 4 of these damn deployments and am ready for a break to see the family. Help us with the peace process by not posting hatefilled one sided pieces. Support the offense so we never have to go back on defense!
    AG
    Now I am enjoying your responses and actually learning things from your posts. Here is more from Ivan Eland,the guy who wrote about the 5 things and I think he makes very valid points:

    "Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan
    October 8, 2009
    Ivan Eland

    "Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal, the U.S. must face two stark facts. First, a surge in Afghanistan to match the “successful” surge in Iraq is not likely to work because Afghanistan is a larger country with guerilla-friendly mountainous terrain, has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq, and where the insurgency has a sanctuary (in Pakistan).

    And now Afghanistan will likely have an illegitimate government. Besides, it is far from clear that the surge in Iraq worked. In 2005, the U.S. also conducted a similar troop surge in Iraq, and violence increased. Prior ethnic cleansing and paying off Sunni guerillas to redirect their belligerence from U.S. forces to al-Qaeda are probably more likely reasons for the lower violence, which is likely to be temporary.

    Iraq’s underlying ethno-sectarian fissures remain, the country’s security is fragile, and violence will likely erupt again when the U.S. draws down its forces.

    Second, even opponents of the surge in Afghanistan understate their case against it. Their correct conclusions are that in a democracy, it is dangerous to escalate a war on which U.S. public opinion has soured after eight long years of losing and that al-Qaeda in Pakistan can be effectively fought using fewer troops, drones, cruise missiles, and intelligence. However, proponents of the surge answer, seemingly cogently, that Afghanistan must be stabilized or it will be a safe haven yet again from which al-Qaeda will attack the United States.

    Because politicians are intrinsically cautious when it comes to national security, the proponents are likely to win this argument unless Americans finally face up to the question that they have avoided since 9/11: Why do radical Islamists, such as al-Qaeda, which are halfway across the world, focus their attacks on the United States?

    The answer is in plain sight, but it is too painful for Americans to acknowledge. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given us his reasons—U.S. occupation of Muslim lands and support for corrupt Middle Eastern dictators. For example, in 1998, bin Laden charged that it was “an individual duty for every Muslim” to “kill the Americans” and drive their military “out of all the lands of Islam.”

    So the nation-building, drug-busting fiasco in Afghanistan is merely inflaming the Islamist urge to throw out the foreign occupiers. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of the Taliban is correlated with increases in the foreign military presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, nation-building in Afghanistan has destabilized neighboring Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons.

    In conclusion, the likely futile attempt to stabilize Afghanistan to prevent another safe haven for al-Qaeda is actually fueling the fires of anti-U.S. Islamist rage.

    Withdrawing from Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing the real threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan—not the Taliban—using the aforementioned techniques with a lighter footprint will give the U.S. better results."

    Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books

    Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq,
    http://www.independent.org/store/boo....asp?bookID=79 and

    Recarving Rushmore
    http://www.independent.org/store/boo....asp?bookID=77.
  30. Board Sponsor
    poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Now I am enjoying your responses and actually learning things from your posts.
    If only we could say the same about you, luther.

    Here is more from Ivan Eland,the guy who wrote about the 5 things and I think he makes very valid points:

    "Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan
    October 8, 2009
    Ivan Eland

    "Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal, the U.S. must face two stark facts. First, a surge in Afghanistan to match the “successful” surge in Iraq is not likely to work because Afghanistan is a larger country with guerilla-friendly mountainous terrain, has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq, and where the insurgency has a sanctuary (in Pakistan).

    And now Afghanistan will likely have an illegitimate government. Besides, it is far from clear that the surge in Iraq worked. In 2005, the U.S. also conducted a similar troop surge in Iraq, and violence increased. Prior ethnic cleansing and paying off Sunni guerillas to redirect their belligerence from U.S. forces to al-Qaeda are probably more likely reasons for the lower violence, which is likely to be temporary.
    temporary? That's conjecture. The US, despite a very rocky start (due to rumsfeld involvement), has done amazingly well, defying all odds so far. I wouldn't be so quick to bet against the US.

    Iraq’s underlying ethno-sectarian fissures remain, the country’s security is fragile, and violence will likely erupt again when the U.S. draws down its forces.

    Second, even opponents of the surge in Afghanistan understate their case against it. Their correct conclusions are that in a democracy, it is dangerous to escalate a war on which U.S. public opinion has soured after eight long years of losing and that al-Qaeda in Pakistan can be effectively fought using fewer troops, drones, cruise missiles, and intelligence. However, proponents of the surge answer, seemingly cogently, that Afghanistan must be stabilized or it will be a safe haven yet again from which al-Qaeda will attack the United States.

    Because politicians are intrinsically cautious when it comes to national security, the proponents are likely to win this argument unless Americans finally face up to the question that they have avoided since 9/11: Why do radical Islamists, such as al-Qaeda, which are halfway across the world, focus their attacks on the United States?

    The answer is in plain sight, but it is too painful for Americans to acknowledge. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given us his reasons—U.S. occupation of Muslim lands and support for corrupt Middle Eastern dictators. For example, in 1998, bin Laden charged that it was “an individual duty for every Muslim” to “kill the Americans” and drive their military “out of all the lands of Islam.”
    Ok, let me get it straight: we're supposed to listen to OBL when he threatens us, but ignore Ahmedinejad when HE threatens us. Gotcha.

    The 'answer' that is so painful for Americans is bull****, standard leftist propoganda. You are essentially saying that because some islamist ******* from Podunk, Arabia decides 'his' lands need to be american-free, we should capitulate and aquiesce to his wishes. This, despite the fact that we are in the countries he wishes to free by invitation of the people (in iraq) and/or the rulers (saudi arabia, which is OBL's main gripe, he wants the us out of SA, as well as Jordan, Egypt, etc). This, despite the fact that al Qaeda has been severely damaged by our actions, and they've replaced the top leaders several time due to assassination.

    If Muslims fell wronged, or unhappy with their position or stature on the world stage, or dislike US involvement in their countries affairs, they should take action. Attacking the US or US interests is not the right course of action. Change comes from within, and right now, iraq is case in point. For the first time these people have the opportunity to have a say in their governance, and most all of them prefer that to the dictatorship cum torture chamber which iraq was before. You might say it's artificial, orchestrated by the US, and to some degree you are correct. I would call it a guiding hand, just like the US lent in Japan post-wwII. You couldn't expect the Japanese mentality to change overnight, it took 50+ years; and so, you can't expect the Muslim mentality to change overnight, either.

    You seem to believe it's their right to choose a terror-infected, militant islamist gov't and path. I disagree; that's like saying it's my choice to choose a path as a serial killer. Sure I can make that choice, but I can also expect to have the worlds finest hunting me down, because there really isn't room for that kind of evil in the world. Militant islam must not be allowed to choose for the rest of the Muslim world just because they have the biggest guns, and balls, and aren't afraid to use em. That's not a valid form of governance, or shouldn't be, if there's another option. Muslims need to change their mentality, learn to accept others, and join everyone else on the world stage, and take part, without using threats to do so. **** gets a hell of a lot better, as well as more fun, when that happens.

    People today are products of the internet age, and require instant results. It doesn't work like that. It took the Japanese 50 years, I expect it'll take the Muslim world just as long or longer.

    So the nation-building, drug-busting fiasco in Afghanistan is merely inflaming the Islamist urge to throw out the foreign occupiers. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of the Taliban is correlated with increases in the foreign military presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, nation-building in Afghanistan has destabilized neighboring Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons.
    **** the Islamists. Tossers. You think that the women who now walk around feeling wind on their faces, who go to school, who hold gov't positions give a flying five what the Islamists think or want? You think they're unhappy the US 'meddled' in Afghanistan?

    Do you really believe we should throw those women who finally have a chance to live and learn like human beings, not cattle, under the bus in order to capitulate to the will of a violent minority of ignorant *******s?

    In conclusion, the likely futile attempt to stabilize Afghanistan to prevent another safe haven for al-Qaeda is actually fueling the fires of anti-U.S. Islamist rage.

    Withdrawing from Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing the real threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan—not the Taliban—using the aforementioned techniques with a lighter footprint will give the U.S. better results.
    Have you not been watching the news? The US has been conducting cross border raids and targeted bombings into Pakistan for several years now, and just this month Pakistan finally mobilized a massive operation against the Islamists. If you think this is not because of US pressure, you're wrong. What's wrong with a 2 pronged approach: keep after Afghanistan, and coerce Pakistan to kick some ass?

    Withdrawing from Afghanistan now could be fatal, for them and us. Leaving those we've freed to the wolves is inhuman and would undermine our actions in any country in the world for decades. It's dishonest and cruel. It would also be construed as defeat; on one hand, it shouldn't matter, but on the other, it would rally support for the Islamists, and create a backlash of terror for the US. They would gain support through their 'success', and that's the last thing we need.
  31. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by jakellpet View Post
    luther - appreciate the thought-provoking articles you post here mate.

    . . I guess the question is, the US Military hierachy must know the facts as presented above . . . what is their real agenda?
    Good books on the subject are:

    THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski

    An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

    "...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power... (p. xiii)

    "... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

    "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

    "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

    "America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful ***** - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

    "In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

    It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

    "Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

    "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

    "Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

    Another book: http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0375.html

    Gangster Capitalism – The United States and the Global rise of Organized Crime by Michael Woodiwiss

    Gangster Capitalism’ does one heck of a job in documenting the process,it is relentless in its exposure and all the while revealing the underlying motivations; power and control by the few over the many.

    For video Check out:

    RFK at Greg Palast's ARMED MADHOUSE Book Release

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXw7epzrl_U"]YouTube - RFK at Greg Palast's ARMED MADHOUSE Book Release[/ame]
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. A Recon Marine in Afghanistan
    By The Neck in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 11:28 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-08-2011, 04:30 PM
  3. Phera before Afghanistan?
    By ARMYSTRONG 75 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-10-2010, 10:06 AM
  4. Life As A Marine Grunt In Afghanistan !!!
    By anabolicrhino in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 08:22 AM
  5. Afghanistan Cruise
    By msclbldrguy in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-31-2003, 03:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in