Up to 30,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan by summer

[Knight of Knights]

A ratio of 10 soldiers to each insurgent is optimum.

In this war nature forces play vital role at present they in favour of so called insurgents

 

[SSGPA1]

A ratio of 10 soldiers to each insurgent is optimum.

US/UK economies can't support it. Afghanistan has no oil so the govt. of Afghanistan can't fund the war either.

Spend money and make facilities for Afghans otherwise any increase will become another costly blunder.

 

[Keysersoze]

For those of you who think guerrilla warfare equals defeat go back and read about Malaya, Borneo, the Mau Mau in Kenya, the Greek civil war the Boer war. I could go on and on........ I really wish some of you would go and read a few more books....

 

[Keysersoze]

The "surge" tactic didn't do anything in Iraq.

Deals were made with Moktada Al-Sadr who was a problem in the South and his militia men.

As those rebels aligned with the Iraqi government, the additional militias lost their support from these influential people.

That doesn't mean all the warfare has definitely ended. Perhaps it will flare up again.

But Afghanistan cannot be pacified with 20,000, or 30,000 troops. The Soviets had nearly twice as many as the current forces plus another 30,000 troops. People make far too much of "Stingers". The Afghans never won the Soviet war by destroying their planes, it was won on the ground through guerilla tactics. Of which they're very good at.

It needs a lot more, and quite frankly America is too broke to fund this pointless war for much longer.

Err no the Shia were never a massive problem in the south. most of the problems came from Sunni groups further north. once the majority of them came on board then the casualty rates dropped to nothing.

Everyone forgets that the Russians had a CONSCRIPT army (basically a bunch of guys who didn't want to be there) and they had a army trained for open combat on the plains of Europe. Also America isn't supplying the Afghani's with Stingers and assorted other weapons and supplies. The stingers were not to shoot down planes but to shoot down the helicopters which were causing the problems.


America will not let this one go because frankly they haven't forgotten about what happened on 9-11 and it would be political suicide for anyone to suggest it. cost or otherwise.

 

[Shiny Capstar]

US/UK economies can't support it. Afghanistan has no oil so the govt. of Afghanistan can't fund the war either.

Spend money and make facilities for Afghans otherwise any increase will become another costly blunder.

I was just saying that a 10:1 ratio is necessary to defeat an insurgency fully. It was the result of a few studies back from the times of Vietnam so it may not be applicable today.

 

[S-2]

We've no chance of capturing Pakistan's nukes without these forces. I could easily see Karzai as Grand Potentate of Greater Pashtunistan (until we find someone better) once the nukes are gone and we've fractured the government.

Not sure about afterwards though. Oh well, we'll let the U.N. and NGOs worry about it.

Sort of a "Rumsfeldian" solution, if you will.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We've no chance of capturing Pakistan's nukes without these forces. I could easily see Karzai as Grand Potentate of Greater Pashtunistan (until we find someone better) once the nukes are gone and we've fractured the government.

Not sure about afterwards though. Oh well, we'll let the U.N. and NGOs worry about it.

Sort of a "Rumsfeldian" solution, if you will.

Lest a barrage of outraged responses spew forth, which happens far too often with S-2's posts, he is being tongue in cheek.

Translation - he doesn't think the 30,000 is in anyway going to be used against Pakistan.

I believe Mullen made clear how these additional troops will be used in Afghanistan yesterday:

Karzai's office said in a statement that Mullen told the president the new troops would be sent to dangerous regions with little security, particularly along the Pakistan border. Mullen on Saturday told reporters that NATO and the U.S. have "enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear."
The Associated Press: Karzai presses top US military leader on buildup

 

[Knight of Knights]

Lest a barrage of outraged responses spew forth, which happens far too often with S-2's posts, he is being tongue in cheek.

Translation - he doesn't think the 30,000 is in anyway going to be used against Pakistan.

I believe Mullen made clear how these additional troops will be used in Afghanistan yesterday:

In vietnam 5 lac American army failed how few thausand in Afghanistan could suceed, when insurgents still have strong basis in NWFP and NATO supply is also under threat.

link for Story of American Failure in Vietnam
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html

 

[jeypore]

The 'surge' in Iraq was not successful merely because there was an increase in the number of troops and tempo of operations in Iraq.

The success in Iraq was due to a combination of political and military changes. The term 'surge' is misleading in the sense that it suggests the exercise was primarily military in nature.

Looking at Afghanistan right now, there is little (visible) to indicate that the non-military dynamics are being reworked in favor of the end goal. Whether there are factors and actors at play behind the scenes I do not know, though the talk about some of the Taliban leadership engaging in talks through the Saudis suggested that some sort of realignment is being attempted.

Again, increasing troop numbers alone is not what will stabilize Afghanistan and the region - we need to see what US strategy in the region going forward is.

I completly disagree. To start the surge more troopers where required, and the House had Bush by his b***. That every month the house wanted a report on how the surge was going and did it have any effect, if you remember. There were two criteries that the Bush adminstration had to accomplish, one was to stop the insurgencies and Iraq gov't had 15 points to accomplish. As times passed, the surge did work, but th Iraqi Gov't to this day has not accomplished the 15 points given.

 

[roadrunner]

Err no the Shia were never a massive problem in the south. most of the problems came from Sunni groups further north. once the majority of them came on board then the casualty rates dropped to nothing.

Al-Sadr was a big problem.

I recall in 2003 it was the Sunnis fighting in the Sunni triangle.

In 2004 - 2007, the peak of Iraq violence, was when Al-Sadr was fighting.

The violence now seems to be like 2003 levels.

The recent spike in violence here has shown that the enigmatic Shiite cleric and his Mahdi Army militia continue to have the muscle to plunge Iraq into warfare — and essentially reverse recent security gains made by the U.S. military that the Bush administration cites as a key sign of progress. Or as he did in August, al-Sadr can stop much of the bloodshed by ordering a cease-fire — and win some credit from the U.S. military for the resulting calm.
All eyes on al-Sadr as Iraq violence swells - USATODAY.com
Al-Sadr calls off fighting, orders compliance with Iraqi security - CNN.com

Everyone forgets that the Russians had a CONSCRIPT army (basically a bunch of guys who didn't want to be there) and they had a army trained for open combat on the plains of Europe. Also America isn't supplying the Afghani's with Stingers and assorted other weapons and supplies. The stingers were not to shoot down planes but to shoot down the helicopters which were causing the problems.

The Russian Spetsnasz was highly active after 1982 until 1986, plus there were mountain divisions making a total of 150,000 troops.

Even if many of them were conscripts, that's still a lot more troops than 30,000 or 80,000 US troops.

America will not let this one go because frankly they haven't forgotten about what happened on 9-11 and it would be political suicide for anyone to suggest it. cost or otherwise.

America cannot stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. No army in the world can.

 

[Kharian_Beast]

If anything they are following in the footsteps of the CCCP, God Willing.

 

[SherdiL!]

its because of US losing war in Afganistan control over Kabul is no where.....

Pakistan Zindabaad

 

[Kasrkin]

Everyone forgets that the Russians had a CONSCRIPT army (basically a bunch of guys who didn't want to be there) and they had a army trained for open combat on the plains of Europe. Also America isn't supplying the Afghani's with Stingers and assorted other weapons and supplies. The stingers were not to shoot down planes but to shoot down the helicopters which were causing the problems.

Yeah but with all due respect to the Soviets, they adapted pretty quickly to warfare in Afghanistan. The tactics designed for the European invasion were altered within a couple of years i.e. use of armor, artillery and special forces experienced great change after the initial years of resistance.

 

[Knight of Knights]

Al-Sadr was a big problem.

I recall in 2003 it was the Sunnis fighting in the Sunni triangle.

In 2004 - 2007, the peak of Iraq violence, was when Al-Sadr was fighting.

The violence now seems to be like 2003 levels.

The recent spike in violence here has shown that the enigmatic Shiite cleric and his Mahdi Army militia continue to have the muscle to plunge Iraq into warfare — and essentially reverse recent security gains made by the U.S. military that the Bush administration cites as a key sign of progress. Or as he did in August, al-Sadr can stop much of the bloodshed by ordering a cease-fire — and win some credit from the U.S. military for the resulting calm.
All eyes on al-Sadr as Iraq violence swells - USATODAY.com
Al-Sadr calls off fighting, orders compliance with Iraqi security - CNN.com



The Russian Spetsnasz was highly active after 1982 until 1986, plus there were mountain divisions making a total of 150,000 troops.

Even if many of them were conscripts, that's still a lot more troops than 30,000 or 80,000 US troops.



America cannot stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. No army in the world can.

Iraq government is not stable supported by axis of evil iran and syria continues danger for regional peace is also not appreciated by arabs and remain cause of problems for US intrests in middle east.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

“To me, I confess, [countries] are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for dominion of the world.”Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, speaking about Afghanistan, 1898

to be honest i still dont think that india will do such a mistake .... of launching a full scale war
but the option of a short term milletary scenario is 500% inevitable
i beleive their r some other elements in this whole game of INDO-PAK tention .
Our true enemy who is till hiden from most of us is playing the card of india and wnats of to measur
1 how much united we are
2 How would our politicians and our armed forces will react
3 and they will be watcing our every move . If we activate any Nuclear Missile they will certinly know whre our nuclear arsenell is placed even, if they dont know they will probabally guess it out .

4. wat will be the rection of taliban
5 wat will be the reaction of CHINA , IRAN , Saudia Arabia , Bangladesh and SIRILANKA and perhaps Russia
The enemy of which i m talkin abt is also behind the killing of Benezir Bhutto and is responicible for Bankrupting our Nation so that we could go to IMF.

Our Enemy is in the process of getting information abt us so that they could role the dice and play their big cards efficiently . India is one of their Cards . and they are playing it very well

There is millteray terM called " EXTERIOR MANEOVER "
WHICH SAYS YOU HAVE TO GET INFO ABT UR ENEMY ONCE GOT ISOLATE UR ENEMY AND TRY TO HIT IT WITH A LOW FORCE AND MEASURE ITS REACTION. IF THERE IS ANY STRENTH IN IT ELIMINATE IT USING ANY OTHER METHOD EXCEPT MILLETARY. ONECE DID . KILL UR ENEMY WITH ALL THE POWER U HAVE.


INDIA ALSO KNOWS US . AFTERS ALL THEY FAOUGHT THREE WARS WITH US ... HOW THEY UNDERESTIMATE US SO MUCH. ITS A GAME BEING PLAYED ON INTERNATIONAL LEVEL .

RIGHT NOW WE ARE ISOLATED . LOCAL PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING A BLOODY WAR AGAINST US . OUR ECONOMY IS DOOMED . AND OUR ARMED FORCES DEMORELIZED .

I BELIEVE THIS NATION IS BLESSED WITH GREAT PEOPLE .
AND IF WE TACKLED ,WENT OUT THIS GAME MATURELY AND UNHARMED WE WILL DEFFINATELY BECOME THE GREATEST NATION ON THIS PLANET. AND I BELIEVE WE WILL... INSHAALLAH