What's new

Afghanistan: the war the West can't win

Then that chunk should find a means of peaceful coexistence with the west and the east. If they want to get back to their old habits, not just Afghanistan, even Pakistan and to some extent India, Iran and China will suffer.
If you read the second article in the thread, from the Guardian, the argument being made is that the Taliban were in fact interested in compromise and 'co-existence'. That argument is also bolstered by the fact that various Taliban officials also offered to have OBL and company tried in a third country, which was rejected by the US.

That hundreds of thousands have died as a result of US invasions, wars and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq is the direct responsibility of the US, and specifically the Bush Administration. Negotiations with the Taliban over OBL's trial in a third country and a commitment to hand over AQ and no longer shelter them would have resulted in the same solution that the West is currently trying to obtain through 'political reconciliation'.

And without the lightening quick initial war, invasion and overthrow of the Taliban, US government and military planners would likely have not considered yet another war in Iraq.

I believe history is showing quite clearly what failures both US interventions have been, especially in terms of the loss of innocent life and spread of terrorism resulting from those interventions.

The causes behind the Arab Spring, none of which tie to 'democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan', but certainly do to ease of communication and access to information with modern technology, catalyzing a 'public consciousness' in those nations and allowing the citizenry of those nations to coalesce and cooperate against poor governance and autocracy.
 
.
If they fail to achieve their goals in Afghanistan, that means that their adventure in Afghanistan was a failure. Period. No amount of bombing can change that fact.

I am not offering excuses for the United States but one needs to be wary of their prowess in the battlefield.Their goal was the capture or killing of OBL which they did and the demise of Al Qaeda(also on the horizon).

What other goals do you speak of?The killing or capture of each and every rebel engaged in battle with the United States?You and I both know that is impossible as well as absurd.Yet,you would have to concede that Afghanistan isn't going to trouble the American homeland for a considerable time in the future.
 
.
A first-person view of the Afghan collapse

Posted By AP On October 7, 2011 @ 11:15 am


KABUL: When I look back, the warning signs of chaos to come were there right from the start.

Two weeks into the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, I was the only Western journalist allowed into Kabul by the Taliban. I hunkered down in the basement while planes roared overheard, ever closer, shaking the whole house. Outside, tanks and trucks piled high with black-turbaned Taliban or Arab soldiers rumbled down the dark streets.

The US had been reassured by its allies, known as the Northern Alliance, that their heavily armed ethnic militias would not storm Kabul when the Taliban left. So I called Abdul Rasool Sayyaf, a powerful Afghan warlord, to ask where his men would go instead.

He laughed at the naïveté of the Americans. ”We will all be there,” he said. ”No one can keep us out.”

And indeed, within hours after the Taliban left, Kabul was swarming with militia.

They took over houses, rampaged through the streets looking for Taliban and killed a few stragglers, throwing their bodies into a park.

It was the beginning of a pattern of deception and misunderstanding that plagued Operation Enduring Freedom, which has endured longer than virtually anyone in the US had feared.


In its eagerness to oust the Taliban and get out of Afghanistan fast, the US turned for help to the ethnic militias who had long jockeyed for power in Afghanistan. Once unleashed, the warlords stoked ethnic fighting, corruption and lawlessness, while the US turned away. By the time the US and its Nato allies looked back, it was too late.

”There was never any long-term strategy for Afghanistan,” said Seema Samar, chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Association, who was stripped of an earlier job as women’s affairs minister after criticising the warlords’ dominance in government in 2002.

”Because of the quick collapse of the Taliban, the international community was so full of themselves, their success story. They went to Iraq and handed it (Afghanistan) over to a bunch of warlords.”

The US argues that it had few choices at the time, because only the Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban.

”When state institutions are weak, you should not go out of your way to alienate forces that are willing to cooperate. You don’t need more enemies,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, President George W. Bush’s representative in Kabul following the collapse of the Taliban.

”The US also backed a political process…to shift power from those who had guns to those who could attract votes.”

But what happened shouldn’t have surprised anyone.

The ethnic militias last ruled Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996. During that time, they killed 50,000 people, mostly civilians, and laid to waste vast swaths of the capital, Kabul. I remember one day counting 100 incoming and outgoing rockets — all within two minutes.

The streets of the capital were divvied up among various leaders. The whole country was carved into fiefdoms controlled by warlords. In a report called ”Blood Stained Hand,” Human Rights Watch called the warlords ”the world’s most serious human rights offenders.”

About 25,000 people were killed just from January through June 1994, according to estimates from Afghan and international human rights groups.

I remember Sayyaf and his men all too well. One day in 1993, after a particularly brutal bout of shelling in the Afghan capital, I went to an area Sayyaf’s men had just left.

An old man grabbed my sleeve and threw down a shawl full of bloodied hair on my feet. Then he dragged me into a foul-smelling room to show me the bodies of five women Sayyaf’s men had raped and scalped because they were of a different ethnicity, the Hazaras.

It was their hair that lay on my feet.

In its 1995 report on terrorism, the US listed Sayyaf, not Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, as a terrorist threat. It was Sayyaf and Hajji Qadir, a minister in President Hamid Karzai’s first government, who welcomed Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan from Sudan in 1996. I heard accounts of the visit from Afghans who drove bin Laden from the airport and attended a lunch in his honour.


Yet after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the US still joined forces with Sayyaf and other militants in the Northern Alliance. Within two months, they had routed the Taliban.

The Northern Alliance signed an international accord stating that the militias would leave Kabul before the international soldiers came. It meant nothing. Thousands of armed militiamen were still in Kabul when 5,000 soldiers from the newly formed International Security Assistance Force arrived in December.

The warlords deny the allegations of corruption and wholesale violence. They insist that they deserve a place of honour as mujahedeen, or holy soldiers, because they freed Afghanistan from the decade-long Soviet occupation in 1989.

Kathy Gannon is the special Associated Press regional correspondent for Afghanistan and Pakistan. She has covered Afghanistan for two decades.

A first-person view of the Afghan collapse | World | DAWN.COM
 
.
I am afraid you haven't seen those videos uploaded on youtube, leaked by wikileaks and some soldiers.

They damn care about collateral damage.... They don't even spare innocent animals... What are you talking about?

You aren't getting my point friend.The blunt reality is that they are capable of unleashing ten times the horror they are currently unleashing.Does that absolve the United States of it's crimes? Of course not.Are they a nation to be wary of? Absolutely
 
.
The US argues that it had few choices at the time, because only the Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban.

”When state institutions are weak, you should not go out of your way to alienate forces that are willing to cooperate. You don’t need more enemies,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, President George W. Bush’s representative in Kabul following the collapse of the Taliban.

That, BTW, is the exact argument Pakistan would make in defense of its support of first Hekmetyar and then the Taliban, and indeed an argument Pakistan would make currently in defense of its policy to 'hedge its bets' with respect to the future in Afghanistan.
 
.
An excerpt from an article posted by Muse in another thread - the Mullah Omar interview referred to in the article supports my earlier comments to Ramu that negotiations with the Taliban in 2001 would have been by far the best option:

On June 4, 2001, three months before al-Qaida's 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon, this reporter and Dr. Ammar Turabi, a Pakistani American who was UPI's regional consultant for South Asia, interviewed Mullah Omar in Kandahar.

It became quite clear then that Omar was losing patience with bin Laden. Omar didn't invite bin Laden to Afghanistan; he invited himself. And Omar criticized him for issuing "too many fatwas," which he said bin Laden wasn't authorized to do as he hadn't finished his religious education. He also said bin Laden "talks too much" and that he had no authority to invite foreign journalists.

If he has committed crimes, Omar suggested, he should be judged by a Shariah court in a neutral Muslim country. The Clinton administration's State Department said it tried everything possible to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Not hard enough, in our judgment.

After the U.S. invasion, in the first 10 days of December 2001, bin Laden escaped into Pakistan with some 50 followers. Omar made his way to Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan province, where he enjoys the protection of ISI. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan in a raid by U.S. Navy SEALs May 2 in his hiding place in Abbottabad, 30 miles from Islamabad.

What would be the downside of negotiating a peace agreement with Omar now that he clearly isn't affiliated with the transnational al-Qaida of Osama bin Laden? The 44 nations that are allied with the United States in Afghanistan didn't sign on to fight Taliban. They volunteered as they were led to believe they were fighting al-Qaida and its Taliban allies.

Yet this has never been the case. The war on al-Qaida metastasized rapidly into a wide variety of Taliban and Taliban-affiliated groups in Afghanistan. The Taliban fighters in Pakistan aren't allied with the Taliban guerrillas in Pakistan that tried to topple the government and got to within 60 miles of Islamabad in 2009.

As for the Haqqani guerrilla network that Mullen says is protected by Pakistan's ISI and attacks U.S. forces in Afghanistan from its privileged sanctuary in North Waziristan on the Afghan border, the situation is anything but clear cut.

Its chief is Jalaluddin Haqqani, in his early 50s, who was once referred to by former U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Texas, as "goodness personified" for his effectiveness in fighting the Soviet occupation.

Haqqani's network was never integrated with Taliban but joined them in 2003 when Haqqani, concluded U.S. occupation of Afghanistan had become permanent. In 2006-07, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's emissaries offered Haqqani the post of prime minister. By then Karzai had lost most of his popularity and Haqqani declined.

The bottom line for the Obama administration is that there is no Afghan solution without Pakistan. And for Pakistan, there is no solution without Taliban and the Haqqani network.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...n-pakistan-holds-all-cards-3.html#post2174351
 
.
You aren't getting my point friend.The blunt reality is that they are capable of unleashing ten times the horror they are currently unleashing.Does that absolve the United States of it's crimes? Of course not.Are they a nation to be wary of? Absolutely

Agreed... Now please help me to understand the bottom line of what you tried to put up.

All should be scared of US might and something like that, is that your point?
 
.
Agreed... Now please help me to understand the bottom line of what you tried to put up.

All should be scared of US might and something like that, is that your point?

Don't underestimate them would be it.I started replying on this thread with the same message;On the irrationality of assuming American forces as weak and unable to stand to plain gunmen as some folks put across earlier.The rest I agree to with no reservations.
 
.
no one can beat these so called terrorists, they fought three wars with british, one with ussr, and now usa. these afghanis never lost, and they wont lose now.
 
. .
Don't underestimate them would be it.I started replying on this thread with the same message;On the irrationality of assuming American forces as weak and unable to stand to plain gunmen as some folks put across earlier.The rest I agree to with no reservations.

OK... then Afghan should wait for Ashoka to appear from US army.

I think you don't consider Iraq and Vietnam, also don't value a tremendous downfall in US economy.
 
.
They American military has two choices either stay on another 20 years in the hope of a turn around that will never come and risk certain bankruptcy or pull out in about 5 years at the risk being seen as a defeated military force.

In your dreams mate. Lot depends upon behind the door negotiations between the interested parties. You can fantasize about USA bankruptcy all your life and it is not going to happen. USA is there with intentions to stay for long run. You guys were crying fowl when they left after Russian defeat which created an opportunity for thugs to destroy the core of the nation. Over thirty years of destruction of a nation's institutions, which was self sufficient in many sectors of the economy during earlier times.

This time around we are going to make sure that Afghanistan can stand on its own without interference from drug dealing Army of foreign nation from across the border. You guys under the hypnotic spell of your all weather friend and that friend is looking forward to use your nation for its own strategic reason. It is your choice to accept the long term reality on the ground.

On one hand you guys give us the examples of attempts by British and Soviet Union in 1980s to control Afghanistan and how they were defeated. Therefore question arises what gives you the confidence that Pakistan who is on verge of breaking up can somehow control the people of Afghanistan?

On one hand some of you discredit people of Afghanistan and also use abusive words towards them and in return you expect respect from them. What kind of fantasy LALA land you live in? Pashto's are proud people and will always be, they are known for keeping their promises. My parents have told me about the time before partition. It is about time for your Military and other agencies to be genuine in your intentions when you talk to them about co-operation and development.

India has all ready won the hearts and mind of Afghan people and western countries would have achieved the same if they had not been forced to counter attack the talibans pouring in from across the border. Let me ask you guys something about the weapons and ammunitions , who is supplying those to them? Is it coming from your all weather friend through your country? This question has been on my mind for two reasons first being there are no factories with in Afghanistan and second is the recent episode of China's attempt to supply the arms to Gaddafi's regime was exposed. This was done in violation of UNO resolution.
Why would they not try to benefit from this golden opportunity in order to keep USA and NATO forces occupied with this headache. Just the same way they did in Vietnam war.

These are just my views for you to respond after analysis it and thinking it through if you are in agreement or disagreement and why?
 
.
AM, that goes to indicate that Northern Alliance as well as Taliban are equally dangerous. But the problem lies in the detail. Taliban openly supported Al-Q. Norther Alliance did not at least after 9-11. US needed allies in it was in Afghanistan and NA is not a bad choice. Indians have historically hated Taliban for being hand in glove to the Kandahar hijacking and release of terrorists in return of the safety of the passengers and the plane. Among the two devils, it is better to side with Northern Alliance than with Taliban.

NA was definitely more liberal and moderate when compared to Taliban on its policy and its attitude towards women.
 
.
It isn't a question about advanced warfare,They are trying to avoid massive collateral damage.America very well posses the capabilities of carpet bombing every inch of and turning Afghanistan into a parking lot.
Lolz, i know they even have the option to nuke it, they even used cluster chemical bombs before, but it was giving a colateral damage to US itself, poppy fields were getting destroyed;)
 
.
America should run away as soon as possible if the want to save their country from economic disaster
 
.
Back
Top Bottom