US decreasing not withdrawing forces from Afghanistan: Kerry

[Tshering22]

A million couldn't do jack in a decade with all the king's horses and all the king's men ( every equipment and resource ) yet a token force of 5-6 thousand will do wonders and win the war for US . Yeah , right !

That number is not there to fight WW3.

It is there simply to monitor your new de-humanized, wingl metal friends; with love from US.

At the most probably be training and providing support to the Afghan security forces and consulting them in modern military doctrine.

 

[Secur]

That number is not there to fight WW3.

It is there simply to monitor your new de-humanized, wingl metal friends; with love from US.

At the most probably be training and providing support to the Afghan security forces and consulting them in modern military doctrine.

The coalition has lost and lost badly in the asymmetrical warfare , it is just damage limitation now . The equation still remains the same for US , a token presence isn't going to do wonders to keep the Kabul-only Govt intact .

If the country has to drift into a civil war as predicted by most , it will , after the withdrawal is followed by an uneasy peace , that is what the history of Afghanistan tells anyone willing to study it . The ANA simply isn't there yet , not ready and certainly not trained enough to tackle the militants by themselves . What happens post 2014 remains to be seen , but I wouldn't attach such high hopes with a force with mass desertions , corruption , low morale , drug use patterns and inhumane behavior . In my opinion , they will disintegrate and join different faction groups . If a coalition of 53 countries couldn't fight the ' invisible enemy ' , then I have no hope with the infant army .

As the plan goes , yes . A civil war in Afghanistan is the worst thing for Pakistan . We still hope that the situation in that country can be contained and controlled , I want the ' Peshawar accords ' sort of agreement to be successful this time . But then again , the 200 years of Afghan history will prove me wrong .

 

[karan.1970]

The coalition has lost and lost badly in the asymmetrical warfare , it is just damage limitation now . The equation still remains the same for US , a token presence isn't going to do wonders to keep the Kabul-only Govt intact .

If the country has to drift into a civil war as predicted by most , it will , after the withdrawal is followed by an uneasy peace , that is what the history of Afghanistan tells anyone willing to study it . The ANA simply isn't there yet , not ready and certainly not trained enough to tackle the militants by themselves . What happens post 2014 remains to be seen , but I wouldn't attach such high hopes with a force with mass desertions , corruption , low morale , drug use patterns and inhumane behavior . In my opinion , they will disintegrate and join different faction groups . If a coalition of 53 countries couldn't fight the ' invisible enemy ' , then I have no hope with the infant army .

As the plan goes , yes . A civil war in Afghanistan is the worst thing for Pakistan . We still hope that the situation in that country can be contained and controlled , I want the ' Peshawar accords ' sort of agreement to be successful this time . But then again , the 200 years of Afghan history will prove me wrong .

USA has realized its mistake of trying to fight an asymmetrical war with symmetrical means. That mistake is now being corrected. You will see more and more of targeted attacks like drones and abbotabad strikes (not in Pakistan alone but also in Afghan strongholds of Taliban) where as Afghan forces trained by India and adviced by the US mil core staying back in Afh will form the critical mass against frontal attacks by Taliban..

I find it amusing when Pakistanis celebrate the withdrawl of USA forces from Afghanistan thinking that this translates to AT and Haqquanis win in their coveted backyard. Its not.. Its USA replacing a losing strategy with a new one. And you need to see how that plays out before celebrating it...

 

[Tshering22]

The coalition has lost and lost badly in the asymmetrical warfare , it is just damage limitation now . The equation still remains the same for US , a token presence isn't going to do wonders to keep the Kabul-only Govt intact .

The token presence as you acknowledge is not at all to continue the boot-on-the-ground policy.

Haven't you realized? The war has already shifted to your country.

If the country has to drift into a civil war as predicted by most , it will , after the withdrawal is followed by an uneasy peace , that is what the history of Afghanistan tells anyone willing to study it . The ANA simply isn't there yet , not ready and certainly not trained enough to tackle the militants by themselves . What happens post 2014 remains to be seen , but I wouldn't attach such high hopes with a force with mass desertions , corruption , low morale , drug use patterns and inhumane behavior . In my opinion , they will disintegrate and join different faction groups . If a coalition of 53 countries couldn't fight the ' invisible enemy ' , then I have no hope with the infant army .

The exact reasons why US realized the blunder of fighting an ideology based enemy that conveniently scuttles between Afghanistan and your country both of where elements supportive of their ideology help them take refuge.

Commando operations and Rambo-style assaults don't work when fighting this type of combat.

Russians and our then generals had already expressed this concern to the Bush administration. But they went ahead with the bomb-the-hell-outta-ya campaign. And see where it got them.

As the plan goes , yes . A civil war in Afghanistan is the worst thing for Pakistan . We still hope that the situation in that country can be contained and controlled , I want the ' Peshawar accords ' sort of agreement to be successful this time . But then again , the 200 years of Afghan history will prove me wrong.

US presence will remain there to increase its drone war capabilities.

As better tech for drones, precision targeting and more cost effective techniques emerge, the soldiers stationed even in such limited numbers will be there to do very rudimentary things to 'show' the local crowd that they're not there in aggressive capacity.

The real war will be fought from Nevada's drone control rooms, where pilots safe from gunfire, tank fire or even your retaliation will pick and choose targets.

The mode of this war has drastically changed after the OBL hunt.

Whether it was true or not, we can endlessly debate it but that won't be stopping what is happening now.

 

[GR!FF!N]

no we knew that american forces were going to stay in small numbers all along.

you should know few facts..

most NATO members engaged in Afghanistan is leaving a sizable force in Afghanistan..most of the country is leaving around 1 division soldiers,while Turkey will post most forces,after USA..and don't get upset as they will be there mostly for training..2 lakh(actual number will be 3 lakh) ANA soldiers and around same number of police forces will be enough to tackle Taliban..that might seem impossible to you guys,but thats the fact..

 

[qamar1990]

you should know few facts..

most NATO members engaged in Afghanistan is leaving a sizable force in Afghanistan..most of the country is leaving around 1 division soldiers,while Turkey will post most forces,after USA..and don't get upset as they will be there mostly for training..2 lakh(actual number will be 3 lakh) ANA soldiers and around same number of police forces will be enough to tackle Taliban..that might seem impossible to you guys,but thats the fact..

and what did i say in post number 12? lol
i said american forces will stay in small numbers, and no ana is not going to be able to take on the taliban, i know americans soldiers, who are friends of mine and they told me that the taliban will take over and the afghan army is poorly trained.

 

[GR!FF!N]

and what did i say in post number 12? lol
i said american forces will stay in small numbers, and no ana is not going to be able to take on the taliban, i know americans soldiers, who are friends of mine and they told me that the taliban will take over and the afghan army is poorly trained.

actually,american force will remain there for training purpose as well as for Drone operation..and please don't contribute from your personal experience..one example,In Russia,soldiers were recruited from commoners in both WW,and in both cases they proved that even rugged greenhorns can be nightmare to the professionals..ANA isn't poorly trained.they just need few years to become a professional army..but even now,they're performing their duty quite well..they proved their mettle in various encounters with Talibans.

 

[notsuperstitious]

A broken magic wand called 2014!!!

USA has realized its mistake of trying to fight an asymmetrical war with symmetrical means. That mistake is now being corrected.

I agree.

 

[K-Xeroid]

 

[rockstarIN]

The coalition has lost and lost badly in the asymmetrical warfare , it is just damage limitation now . The equation still remains the same for US , a token presence isn't going to do wonders to keep the Kabul-only Govt intact .

If the country has to drift into a civil war as predicted by most , it will , after the withdrawal is followed by an uneasy peace , that is what the history of Afghanistan tells anyone willing to study it . The ANA simply isn't there yet , not ready and certainly not trained enough to tackle the militants by themselves . What happens post 2014 remains to be seen , but I wouldn't attach such high hopes with a force with mass desertions , corruption , low morale , drug use patterns and inhumane behavior . In my opinion , they will disintegrate and join different faction groups . If a coalition of 53 countries couldn't fight the ' invisible enemy ' , then I have no hope with the infant army .

As the plan goes , yes . A civil war in Afghanistan is the worst thing for Pakistan . We still hope that the situation in that country can be contained and controlled , I want the ' Peshawar accords ' sort of agreement to be successful this time . But then again , the 200 years of Afghan history will prove me wrong .

The day they loose the 'invisible' standard, they will about to give up all the success made against a conventional force.

 

[Secur]

Are the drones coming with boots on the ground in pakistan. Yet see how effective they are. Very foolish to think that small force is a disadvantage. It just means more technology, smaller target for haqqanis, smaller risk and bigger headache for pakistan. Let the eloquence thus
flow............

Yeah , quite effective in creating ' new ' enemies by deaths of innocents , with less causalities of the High Value Targets . You think you understand the ' asymmetrical warfare ' there , by declaring ' the small force isn't a disadvantage ' ? . It means less troops to effectively hold off areas , more soldiers stationed in remote bases for protection of large cities only unlike now , limited to training and consultation , more breathing space for the militants , a bigger headache for the ANA who has to fight on its own now without the extensive U.S support . The technology use will more or less remain the same , after all the coalition didn't come ill prepared in 2001 . As for Pakistanis having a problem , I dont really think so .

The day they loose the 'invisible' standard, they will about to give up all the success made against a conventional force.

Please enlighten me , why will they ever loose the ' invisible ' standard ? This is the basic MO of the militant groups .

 

[Secur]

USA has realized its mistake of trying to fight an asymmetrical war with symmetrical means. That mistake is now being corrected. You will see more and more of targeted attacks like drones and abbotabad strikes (not in Pakistan alone but also in Afghan strongholds of Taliban) where as Afghan forces trained by India and adviced by the US mil core staying back in Afh will form the critical mass against frontal attacks by Taliban..

I find it amusing when Pakistanis celebrate the withdrawl of USA forces from Afghanistan thinking that this translates to AT and Haqquanis win in their coveted backyard. Its not.. Its USA replacing a losing strategy with a new one. And you need to see how that plays out before celebrating it...

So , where is the significant shift ? Even the Afghans are going to fight the war in the same way and seeing the coalition's progress , there's not much hope attached . The ANA and the Kabul-only Govt will still take more than a decade to be able to control and manage the country even to a little extent on its own , are the militants going to be sleeping at that time ? I dont think , I need to comment about the present state of ANA which is now going to win the war for you all , judging by the responses , though the Americans had a lot of harsh words to say about them . Yeah , ' fancy terms ' without taking into account the ground realities . Before Mr.Kerry landed in Islamabad , the Yanks restricted the drone attacks to ' HVT's only ' . Why negotiate , in such case ? If everybody's confident enough that ANA can step up and take charge of the country . Living in fool's heaven , somehow ?

I find it amusing that people still assume that the war can somehow be won , with most of the Americans analysts saying that its only ' damage limitation ' now and the war has already been lost . The country's been the same for 200 years and there's no remote indication that it is going to change in the foreseeable future . We are seeing how's it playing out , when the U.S president offers to talk ' despite attacks from Taliban ' . Its no rocket science predicting the future , one just needs to look at the Soviet withdrawal , even they left a sort of the army . Yeah , I heard the same words when the coalition landed in Afghanistan and now we are all seeing the results

 

[Secur]

Haven't you realized? The war has already shifted to your country.

The exact reasons why US realized the blunder of fighting an ideology based enemy that conveniently scuttles between Afghanistan and your country both of where elements supportive of their ideology help them take refuge . Commando operations and Rambo-style assaults don't work when fighting this type of combat.

US presence will remain there to increase its drone war capabilities.

As better tech for drones, precision targeting and more cost effective techniques emerge, the soldiers stationed even in such limited numbers will be there to do very rudimentary things to 'show' the local crowd that they're not there in aggressive capacity . The mode of this war has drastically changed after the OBL hunt.

Whether it was true or not, we can endlessly debate it but that won't be stopping what is happening now.

When did that happen now ? Another wish list of sorts ? Seeing more than there is , as usual ?

The U.S , I am afraid will have to carry on with the same infant ANA suffering from the same problems in the future , the sudden realization isn't changing anything on ground . You know what we warned the Americans after they landed in Kabul , to keep in mind the sensitivities of the people and try and win the hearts instead of going all guns blazing , they never listened .

At the moment , the drone strikes have been reduced , targeting only HVT's at the moment . That remains to be seen . The Op.Geronimo changed nothing , killed a man who was a nobody at the time of his death , without facing any resistance , the enemy was dead at the cost of trillion dollars and creation of ' new ' enemies . So , the mode of the war never changed and hasn't even until now .

Surely , but one can always take lessons from the history , after all , the best indicator of the future behavior remains the past behavior , right ?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The token presence as you acknowledge is not at all to continue the boot-on-the-ground policy.

Haven't you realized? The war has already shifted to your country.



The exact reasons why US realized the blunder of fighting an ideology based enemy that conveniently scuttles between Afghanistan and your country both of where elements supportive of their ideology help them take refuge.

Commando operations and Rambo-style assaults don't work when fighting this type of combat.

Russians and our then generals had already expressed this concern to the Bush administration. But they went ahead with the bomb-the-hell-outta-ya campaign. And see where it got them.



US presence will remain there to increase its drone war capabilities.

As better tech for drones, precision targeting and more cost effective techniques emerge, the soldiers stationed even in such limited numbers will be there to do very rudimentary things to 'show' the local crowd that they're not there in aggressive capacity.

The real war will be fought from Nevada's drone control rooms, where pilots safe from gunfire, tank fire or even your retaliation will pick and choose targets.

The mode of this war has drastically changed after the OBL hunt.

Whether it was true or not, we can endlessly debate it but that won't be stopping what is happening now.

The long and short of it is this: Afghanistan is going to steadily keep BOILING.
And the SPILLOVER from that boiling is going to scald people in the neighborhood who are least equipped either economically, militarily or strategically to handle that. Who might that be?

That is the explanation for the spate of multi-lateral meetings that have taken place internationally over Afghanistan. Which is a part of the efforts by major international players to cover their bases. But it will finally show results in relation-ship to the three factors enumerated above. The lesser players will have lesser immunity to the eventual blow-back.

The Americans are just setting into place, the PLAN B that they always had.

 

[karan.1970]

So , where is the significant shift ? Even the Afghans are going to fight the war in the same way and seeing the coalition's progress , there's not much hope attached . The ANA and the Kabul-only Govt will still take more than a decade to be able to control and manage the country even to a little extent on its own , are the militants going to be sleeping at that time ? I dont think , I need to comment about the present state of ANA which is now going to win the war for you all , judging by the responses , though the Americans had a lot of harsh words to say about them . Yeah , ' fancy terms ' without taking into account the ground realities . Before Mr.Kerry landed in Islamabad , the Yanks restricted the drone attacks to ' HVT's only ' . Why negotiate , in such case ? If everybody's confident enough that ANA can step up and take charge of the country . Living in fool's heaven , somehow ?

I find it amusing that people still assume that the war can somehow be won , with most of the Americans analysts saying that its only ' damage limitation ' now and the war has already been lost . The country's been the same for 200 years and there's no remote indication that it is going to change in the foreseeable future . We are seeing how's it playing out , when the U.S president offers to talk ' despite attacks from Taliban ' . Its no rocket science predicting the future , one just needs to look at the Soviet withdrawal , even they left a sort of the army . Yeah , I heard the same words when the coalition landed in Afghanistan and now we are all seeing the results

The thing is that we are debating about how the future will play out, arguing that the one that we desire will be the one that actually happens. At the end of it, they are all predictions. Two key differences though between USA and USSR are

1. There is no super power opposing USA
2. USA does not have the need to hold on to the land. As long as they do not allow the opposing force to consolidate enough to be able to launch attacks out side of Afghanistan, they are pretty good.. And there in lies the difference in definition of a win .. USA really does not lose much as long as the fight is restricted to Afghanistan and Pakistan .. and even India. As long as they can keep it localized, their objective is met..