NATO will never win Afghan war

[Secur]

US can continue trying to achieve a face saving exit from Afghanistan and in the meantime give the Kremlin a bargaining chip to NDN !

 

[Great Sachin]

That is true NATO will never win.....but they wont let other to win as well....

 

[Secur]

That is true NATO will never win.....but they wont let other to win as well....

Nobody can win Afghanistan , if even somehow they are successful in bringing Taliban to the negotiating table , some other group will rise up and wreak havoc , that country's been a mess for last 200 years ! Unwinnable to be honest , The British tried and failed , the Soviets lost a major part of their country and power , the US attempted the same and have a disastrous economy these days !

 

[Great Sachin]

or I should say Nato can not win..till it seals Pakistan Afghan border completely....

 

[Secur]

Americans have achieved there objectives , they killed OBL. Americans were not against talibans, they were in negotiation with taliban to tap oil.

Indeed , spent trillions and couldn't even control the country , big achievement indeed ! So whatever the Americans say , you guys accept it as truth ... Suddenly after fighting 10 years with Taliban ( which still continues ) they aren't the enemy ? Who's the enemy then ? Yeah , the Taliban will let them control the opium fields before they allow drilling for oil

or I should say Nato can not win..till it seals Pakistan Afghan border completely....

One-liners are no good , learn to contribute something positive to the discussion , The Durand Line cant be sealed !

End of Story !

 

[King Solomon]

Just answer one question ?

Who comes to the negotiation table ? The victor ?

In the history of military conflict, almost all have ended up in the negotiation table even though the victor achieved military victory decisively.

For example, in WWI, the Ottoman empire was decisively defeated yet, negotiation took place at the end of conflict to divide Turkey between the allies (treaty of Sevres) In this case, the victor and the defeated, both came to the negotiation table.

There are numerous other examples.

 

[Great Sachin]

Indeed , spent trillions and couldn't even control the country , big achievement indeed ! So whatever the Americans say , you guys accept it as truth ... Suddenly after fighting 10 years with Taliban ( which still continues ) they aren't the enemy ? Who's the enemy then ? Yeah , the Taliban will let them control the opium fields before they allow drilling for oil



One-liners are no good , learn to contribute something positive to the discussion , The Durand Line cant be sealed !

End of Story !

Please tell me how many line will be consider positive contribution in the discussion......

ok..I will try to contribute positively
Talibans are using border as safe haven ....they do nonsense in Afghanistan and hide in Pakistan also lot of facilities inflow for taliban from Pakistan border....It will be virtually impossible for NATO to remove bad element ......if Pakistan Afghan border can not be completely seal .....means no win for NATO

 

[Secur]

Please tell me how many line will be consider positive contribution in the discussion......

ok..I will try to contribute positively
Talibans are using border as safe haven ....they do nonsense in Afghanistan and hide in Pakistan also lot of facilities inflow for taliban from Pakistan border....It will be virtually impossible for NATO to remove bad element ......if Pakistan Afghan border can not be completely seal .....means no win for NATO

Nice one , yeah that is what considered positive ...

Now let me answer , I am well aware how they function but there is nothing one can do about it ... If NATO - the most advanced army in the country cant control/seal/shut off the Durand Line , why do you put your faith in my army ? If they hide in Pakistan , then they hide in Afghanistan too and cause menace in Pakistan ( our causality count is 40k ) , what has US done about that ? SQUAT ! Why are we the only ones to blame ?

In the history of military conflict, almost all have ended up in the negotiation table even though the victor achieved military victory decisively.

I do not consider Taliban controlling 72% of Afghanistan as a victory for Americans despite having the most technologically advanced army in the world , the best they have done is a kill a guy called Osama who was ( as they themselves acknowledge ) a nobody at the time of his death ! Is there stability in Afghanistan ? Is Kabul safe ? Does the Afghan Govt have jurisdiction over its areas ? Can the NATO troops move around freely at will ? Have they completely eradicated the AQ and Taliban menace which ironically they created themselves ?

If the answer is , then I am sure you understand why the US only is desperate for negotiation and settlement , not the other way around , Taliban can fight for 10 more years , they aren't ready for compromise , Can the Yanks do as their major partners leave in 2013 or maybe a little earlier ?

 

[King Solomon]

I do not consider Taliban controlling 72% of Afghanistan as a victory for Americans.........

You do not have to control 100% of a country to achieve "victory". Tell me one war where the victor controlled each and every inch of a territory?

You just have to oust the government and install a puppet government of your own to look for your strategic interests. If your strategic interests are achieved (as I showed before), this is victory. This was the victory that British Empire achieved in WWI over the middle east. Did the British empire control 100% of its conquered territories? Definitely not. At best, they controlled 20% (which included the central mandates). Would you consider that a "defeat" too?

Thus, your proposition that in order to be the victor, one has to control a country fully is not a correct one.

 

[Secur]

You do not have to control 100% of a country to achieve "victory". Tell me one war where the victor controlled each and every inch of a territory?

You just have to oust the government and install a puppet government of your own to look for your strategic interests. If your strategic interests are achieved (as I showed before), this is victory.

At least be able to defend the places properly you control ! I can consider it as victory ... But even that isn't there ... And cm'on the US is only able to control 28% as per the reports ...
Which means the Taliban are technically dictating terms and controlling Afghanistan ...
Whilst Karzai can sit in Kabul and be a proud owner and ruler of his presidential palace !
What real power does he have even ?

You ousted the Govt , but all know the Taliban will gain power the moment NATO leaves the country , is there any doubt ? How can you keep the puppet Govt in power after you leave ?

So what did you achieve after spending trillions in 10 years when eventually the bad guys would return to rule and you will back to square one ? Is it objective achieved and mission successful ?

Do not bring up the ANA please ! I prefer my local security guards for they are better than them

 

[Banu Umayyah]

You do not have to control 100% of a country to achieve "victory". Tell me one war where the victor controlled each and every inch of a territory?

You just have to oust the government and install a puppet government of your own to look for your strategic interests. If your strategic interests are achieved (as I showed before), this is victory. This was the victory that British Empire achieved in WWI over the middle east. Did the British empire control 100% of its conquered territories? Definitely not. At best, they controlled 20% (which included the central mandates). Would you consider that a "defeat" too?

Thus, your proposition that in order to be the victor, one has to control a country fully is not a correct one.

No, you might not need to countrol every inch of the country to be considered victorious, but when your enemy controlled 3 quarters of the country and when your troops begin to withdraw in a few months, then defeat is the most accurate description.

 

[lem34]

My my if some can regard what has happened in Afghanistan as an American victory what would they call an actual victory lol

 

[King Solomon]

At least be able to defend the places properly you control ! I can consider it as victory ... But even that isn't there ... And cm'on the US is only able to control 28% as per the reports ...
Which means the Taliban are technically dictating terms and controlling Afghanistan ...
Whilst Karzai can sit in Kabul and be a proud owner and ruler of his presidential palace !
What real power does he have even ?

You ousted the Govt , but all know the Taliban will gain power the moment NATO leaves the country , is there any doubt ? How can you keep the puppet Govt in power after you leave ?

So what did you achieve after spending trillions in 10 years when eventually the bad guys would return to rule and you will back to square one ? Is it objective achieved and mission successful ?

Do not bring up the ANA please ! I prefer my local security guards for they are better than them

Again, even if Taliban controls 70% of Afghanistan, it is the US' strategic interests which matter.

I get the impression that by "victory" you mean using deadly military force and enslaving the population. If that is so, you should know that US can turn Afghanistan into radioactive dust in a matter of minutes. However, that is not 'victory'. Victory is achieving your strategic goals, which I highlighted earlier that US achieved for the most part.

About what will happen after US leaves, we can only speculate now. Taliban may take over or may not. Taliban can even become a friend of US as we saw Al-Qaida becoming so in Libya and Syria. Since the question is whether US has achieved victory as of yet, we must analyse keeping in mind the present circumstance, not speculations.

 

[lem34]

America's stated aims and actual aims differ somewhat. There is no way in a month of Sundays for the reasons stated in the OP can this be considered a victory for America. They are well down the road of bankruptcy due.

 

[Secur]

Again, even if Taliban controls 70% of Afghanistan, it is the US' strategic interests which matter.

I get the impression that by "victory" you mean using deadly military force and enslaving the population. If that is so, you should know that US can turn Afghanistan into radioactive dust in a matter of minutes. However, that is not 'victory'. Victory is achieving your strategic goals, which I highlighted earlier that US achieved for the most part.

About what will happen after US leaves, we can only speculate now. Taliban may take over or may not. Taliban can even become a friend of US as we saw Al-Qaida becoming so in Libya and Syria. Since the question is whether US has achieved victory as of yet, we must analyse keeping in mind the present circumstance, not speculations.

Again , you are back tracking from your last statement ... What strategic objectives has the US achieved ? Has it increased its influence in Central Asia or Iran ? Hell , it has become dependent on them now ! Just think what happens if the Russians close the NDN ? Think of any way , the US can fight any longer ? Your supposed " achieved US objectives " change by every post ... May I know Why ?

No , you of course you dont need to enslave the population ... You atleast need to eradicate the group of people you claimed you were fighting against and they were your die-hard enemies - AQ and Taliban ... Has it happened in 10 years ? Please do not bring up the ridiculous nuclear argument ... Because if world ran like that , it wouldn't have survived till now ...

Yeah , let us not speculate however there is a very high probability of that happening , only time will tell ..