Is the US close to defeat in Afghanistan ?

[pakdefender]

Here are the facts :

a. The installed government in Afghanistan is inefficient and corrupt. It makes a mockry of democarcy right under the watch ful eyes of those who wanted to bring democracy to Afghanistan.

b. 90% of the areas in Afghansitan are under Taliban influence.

c. Taliban have forced retreat of US forces from number of forward operating bases ( outpost Keating being the latest )

In short the US has not achieved ANY objective it set out for in Afghansitan.

After 8 years , no Osama Bin Laden , No Mullah Omer , Taliban on a rampage all over Afghanistan , if this is not a defeat than what is ?

 

[S-2]

Assuming you're correct with your facts, should we surrender and withdraw? OTOH, we haven't been attacked as we were on 9/11.

That's a good thing for America, isn't it?

 

[SparklingCrescent]

we haven't been attacked as we were on 9/11.

That's a good thing for America, isn't it?

its a gudd idea to u guys... why put troops in afhganistan though?? do they just fly out of the air from aghanistan to america??? why not pressurise more security on airlines thatt come to U.S?? why kill, invade, harass, destabalize, a country when ur like more than 7,000 miles apart and in different continents?? I thought U.S is a supper power, why do they show fear in every kinda little ****??

and no.. U.S is not even 1% close to defeat in afghanistan..

 

[Zee-Gen]

America was never attacked because Big Boss Bush is not there......otherwise u r not saying this........

 

[SecularHumanist]

I think some people are confused. The Taliban is not a threat to the US, it is Al-Qaeda and the groups that have the ability to strike homeland America. The rise of the Taliban seems to have distracted people from understanding what the US is in for. The US is in Afghanistan to make sure Al-Qaeda does not come back. The number of American troops killed in these 8 years is hardly scary for the US. They can keep control of the big cities and let the Taliban have the small towns and villages, that is not a problem.

Ultimately it will be the Afghan government's work that will decide the fate of Afghanistan. The US is only interested in Al-Qaeda's presence in the Afghan-Pak border.

 

[pakdefender]

You have very few options left in Afghanistan , short of dropping a nuke , you have thorwn at this war every class , every type of ordnance you have in the inventory and this war still goes on.

50,000 more troops to Afghansitan are still not enough to pacify the entire afghan theatre. With 50,000 more troops you may be able to bring a semblance to 'peace' in the populated area but the insurgency will not die out.

American soldiers have been tasked to work with the locals to flush out the militants and Taliban .. this is not going to work. This is called playing 'Ghar Ghar' ( a game that little chidlren play in which they play making houses and make belief games etc )

Even the fence sitter in the heartland of the Taliban who doesnt take pot shots at your soldiers STILL sees you as an outsider they will NEVER allow you or help you completly to stomp out those who are essentially their own kith and kin. Even when the Taliban come and whips and kills some of them they will still not co-operate with you to the point that you can compltely wipe out the entire insurgency.

The maths here is very simple and its the simple things that are the toughest to crack. The US should withdraw and let the natural order of things take their course.

 

[S-2]

"The Taliban is not a threat to the US"

Maybe.

"...it is Al-Qaeda and the groups that have the ability to strike homeland America."

It is the taliban that gives them succor to do so, is it not? A.Q. might be able to accomplish the same from Yemen or Somalia but seem to prefer where they are now. That suggests an affinity to the taliban which is important to A.Q.

Why, though, is A.Q. sufficiently important to the Afghan taliban? They certainly attract a lot of bad attention to the taliban. Wouldn't it be better that the taliban not be shackled by pastunwali and avoid this attention drawn by A.Q. upon them?

I think that the afghan taliban could choose to do so if they wished. I'm interested that they don't. It appears to make weak the case that the taliban aren't a threat to America and the rest of the west.

 

[S-2]

"The US should withdraw and let the natural order of things take their course."

I might agree but how do you see the natural order of things unfolding?

 

[SecularHumanist]

"The Taliban is not a threat to the US"

Maybe.

"...it is Al-Qaeda and the groups that have the ability to strike homeland America."

It is the taliban that gives them succor to do so, is it not? A.Q. might be able to accomplish the same from Yemen or Somalia but seem to prefer where they are now. That suggests an affinity to the taliban which is important to A.Q.

Why, though, is A.Q. sufficiently important to the Afghan taliban? They certainly attract a lot of bad attention to the taliban. Wouldn't it be better that the taliban not be shackled by pastunwali and avoid this attention drawn by A.Q. upon them?

I think that the afghan taliban could choose to do so if they wished. I'm interested that they don't. It appears to make weak the case that the taliban aren't a threat to America and the rest of the west.

I agree with what you said about their relationship. Al-Qaeda will move out of this region if the Taliban falls, but the Taliban have nowhere else to go, they are an Afghan-centric group right? Al-Qaeda already has a substantial presence in Yemen and Somalia and that will be their new nerve center.

During the 8 years the US has been there, they have done a better job of dismantling the Al-Qaeda than addressing the Taliban problem. Do you think that the defeat of the Taliban is as essential now? If that is the case, this war will be much longer and America will have to go into more Taliban strongholds. This will become a prolonged and really bloody war in that case. More importantly, are the US policymakers committed to such a solution because lately there seem to be some mixed signals. The US will have to provide a lot more security, and in more provinces. I am not sure how big a role the Afghan Army will be playing soon.

 

[S-2]

"Do you think that the defeat of the Taliban is as essential now?"

S.H.,

Omar has 1.) refused to permit elections-philosophically and functionally, 2.) had an open offer to participate in a coalition gov't. That would require, though, #1 as part of the party process, 3.) an open offer to himself and his troops to renounce violence, swear allegiance to the afghan constitution, and be welcomed back into the afghan political milieu.

They've refused at every turn. Why not if they believe that they're in ascendancy? What might reverse such and create conditions amenable to accomodation? Kickin' their azz.

Do I think that's possible?

I don't honestly know. McChrystal is correct about the population protection thingy...philosophically. However, I have grave concerns that the functional implementation of such because the demographics of Afghanistan are markedly different from the presumed rough parallel in Iraq.

Less densities that can be cost-effectively capitalized upon. In short, less bang-per-buck for an American rifle platoon in the population protection scheme. So the numbers of coalition troops needed would be exponentially higher than currently forecasted, in my not-entirely-informed view.

Secondly, I've grave concerns about most of my coalition allies. For the most part they are ball-less, toothless, or both. So no viable assistance to be seen on the macro level bar the Brits and they barely equate to 9% of our projected forces and about 15% of our current strength. All told, they equal one-half of our commitment now and it's bound to get smaller, not larger.

I know this, matters began to improve in Iraq as our allies withdrew. Draw your own conclusions but the benefits drawn from broad-based political consensus are dubious relative to the friction of attempting to execute such. Too many cooks in the kitchen-all with a different recipe for the same dinner.

Third, it's impossible to achieve functional security for afghan citizens when they'd remain vulnerable to the preying machinations of their own government although protected from the taliban by us.

Makes us look (and FEEL) like sh!t to support a worthless group of sub-humans like the Karzai clique. All our good work has and will continue to be undone by these miserable fcuks.

They, like many elements of Pakistan's gov't, broke the social contract to govern many, many moons/suns (take your pick) ago.

Fourth, sanctuary in your lands provides a means of getting out from the storm. So long as sanctuary exists, the insurgency has traction. That might change.

Hope that helps...

 

[paritosh]

well I might add that there is a perception that majority Afghans link democracy to corruption and dilution of Muslim values....I read some time back that the common Afghans think that once they have a full fledged democracy functioning....democratic liberation would give way to an infusion of sex in their daily lives...they even quote our example.
if this is true...then I guess many Afghans would resist democracy...and even when America is able to provide the necessary momentum to the Afghan govt. to function on it's own...once it leaves...people might get seduced by these 'islamists' terror groups who'd offer to cleanse the Afghan society of the evils of democracy....
this is exactly what happened when the Taliban first came to power...they declared watching movies,singing,etc as Haram....and they were popular in the beginning.
So how do you help those who'd not want to be helped?this concept of nation is still alien to many Afghans

 

[pakdefender]

"The US should withdraw and let the natural order of things take their course."

I might agree but how do you see the natural order of things unfolding?

With the major US military presense removed from Afghanistan , you could see an internal power strugel between the various factions in Afghanistan.

Americans have done a very poor job at traning the Afghan Army so the ANA is probably going to get disbanded or severly cripled once the Americans leave.

Ethnicty matters a lot in Afghanistan , were it not for this then after the rout of the Taliban in 2001 the US and Coalition forces woudnlt have felt the need to have a figure head Pashtun ( Kharzai ) as the President.

The way I see the natural order of things playing out is some power struggle inside Afghanistan as to who gets to rule the roost in this forsaken country.

India has in the past eight years made a huge investment in Afghansitan essentially to dent the influence Pakistan had there before 2001.

Taliban were dumped by Pakistan after 2001 and its very unlikely that there can be the same sort of understanding with them now so Pakistan will have to work out its stratergy on how to go about countering indian build up in Afghansitan.

The US leaving Afghanistan is not going to bring immediate stabalization but it will take away a major irrtant that is adding fule to the fire.

I know that US leaving Afghsnitan will stablize the situation greatly but if I were the US I would not just pack up and leave.

I would give this theatre of war one big full fledged push for 6 months to a year and if things settle down , well and good declare victory and hand over a stablized country to the Afghans and then leave.

If the Afghans and others screw it from there on in , its not the US's headache.

 

[r3alist]

the us is doing just fine in afghanistan, that is to say that they have a medium term pretext to remain in t he nation thus keep secure an important energy corridor and other strategic aims, they clearly dont give a **** about the people, or democracy, thats just sugar coated fluff for the ignorant who swallow all they are told.

 

[ARSENAL6]

the us is doing just fine in afghanistan, that is to say that they have a medium term pretext to remain in t he nation thus keep secure an important energy corridor and other strategic aims, they clearly dont give a **** about the people, or democracy, thats just sugar coated fluff for the ignorant who swallow all they are told.

I can't see america winning this war at all.
the british troops has lost hopes a long side with US

 

[FireFighter]

"Do you think that the defeat of the Taliban is as essential now?"

S.H.,

Omar has 1.) refused to permit elections-philosophically and functionally, 2.) had an open offer to participate in a coalition gov't. That would require, though, #1 as part of the party process, 3.) an open offer to himself and his troops to renounce violence, swear allegiance to the afghan constitution, and be welcomed back into the afghan political milieu.

because you can't invade people, put a gun over their heads and tell them "You must vote in the elections!"

Logic simply fails there, doesnt it?

They've refused at every turn. Why not if they believe that they're in ascendancy? What might reverse such and create conditions amenable to accomodation? Kickin' their azz.

Do I think that's possible?

You try to kick their ***, and they multiply as a consequence. Sounds about the perfect strategy, eh

Less densities that can be cost-effectively capitalized upon. In short, less bang-per-buck for an American rifle platoon in the population protection scheme. So the numbers of coalition troops needed would be exponentially higher than currently forecasted, in my not-entirely-informed view.

No number of foreign boots are enough. The more you deploy, the more they multiply. Today McChrystal demands 60k more troops, tomorrow it will be someone else.

You've only been increasing troops there since your arrival, now tell me where have you gone so far in your objectives even with a 100k boots?

My only fear is that the troops are not being gathered for some ulterior motive...

Secondly, I've grave concerns about most of my coalition allies. For the most part they are ball-less, toothless, or both.

The allies are blackmailed into the war so you can't really expect any better.

So no viable assistance to be seen on the macro level bar the Brits and they barely equate to 9% of our projected forces and about 15% of our current strength. All told, they equal one-half of our commitment now and it's bound to get smaller, not larger.

Yeup, its bound to get smaller with time, 8 years without any progress, many are finally waking up and smelling the afghan Chai - damn its sour, afghans use no sugar my friend

I know this, matters began to improve in Iraq as our allies withdrew. Draw your own conclusions but the benefits drawn from broad-based political consensus are dubious relative to the friction of attempting to execute such. Too many cooks in the kitchen-all with a different recipe for the same dinner.

well if there was a consensus amongst cooks on what dish they're supposed to make, they wouldn't end up with so many soups...

Third, it's impossible to achieve functional security for afghan citizens when they'd remain vulnerable to the preying machinations of their own government although protected from the taliban by us.

Makes us look (and FEEL) like sh!t to support a worthless group of sub-humans like the Karzai clique. All our good work has and will continue to be undone by these miserable fcuks.

Glad to hear that at least you admit to their failures. these 'miserable fcuks' are trained and recruited by you, they're a reflection of their masters...buddies of Bushes and Dicks...what do you expect?

Fourth, sanctuary in your lands provides a means of getting out from the storm. So long as sanctuary exists, the insurgency has traction. That might change.

Hope that helps...

this line is so tiringly old and boring, you need to find another excuse to pressurize Pakistan and pop her up in American Headlines every now and then.

not an insurgency, but insurgencies. its about time you come to realize they're quite indigenous.

you're a funny fellow. fun talking to you mate