• Thursday, October 17, 2019

Defeat in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Strategic & Foreign Affairs' started by Zarvan, Jan 13, 2014.

  1. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    47,644
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +84 / 49,356 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    How many insurgents, militants, Taliban – call them what you will – are fighting in Afghanistan? Ten thousand? Twenty thousand? Does anyone in the Afghan government or the International Security Assistance Force have any idea of the number?

    But there are a few things that are certain, no matter how few or how many Taliban (let’s use that inaccurate term for want of a better collective noun) there might be. For a start, the Taliban have no air force. Not one single aircraft. And deployed against them are hundreds of strategic bombers, ground-attack helicopters, ground-attack jet fighters, drones and surveillance aircraft of a sophistication that takes the breath away.

    Foreign forces have monster balloons that fly above their fortresses with cameras to film their perimeters. These, and the surveillance aircraft and the vast array of satellites whirling round the globe ensure that not a movement is undetected; not a telephone conversation goes unrecorded. Not a communication is unread. (Which happens elsewhere, of course, courtesy of various democratic governments.)

    In 1986 the Soviets had some 250 combat aircraft and 140 attack helicopters in Afghanistan, along with a massive intelligence capability, and a fat lot of good that did them. They lost 15,000 dead and 50,000 wounded in their ten years of occupation.

    So far the toll of corpses of foreign troops in the Fifth Afghan War is 3,411 in twelve years. The wounded are estimated at some 20,000. Nobody knows how many Afghan soldiers have been killed or maimed, and nobody cares, except their families. Little wonder the Afghan army desertion problem is so grim.

    The Taliban have no tanks or other armoured vehicles. The foreigners have thousands of them, roaring around in their search for the raggy-baggy irregulars they seek to destroy. The Taliban have no artillery. While the foreigners pound them with high explosive there is no possibility of reaction, save, perhaps, by a few ancient Soviet-era mortars.

    You’re getting the picture: here we have the most technically dazzling military force in the world, with every conceivable martial contraption of the most amazing efficiency, and a bottomless pit of money, and it hasn’t been able to defeat “a bunch of dudes in bed sheets and flip-flops” as the Taliban are so well described by one of the few American military officers who has dared to speak truthfully about the Afghanistan disaster.

    Retried US Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis wrote a paper on the debacle in Afghanistan a few years ago and nobody in Washington paid attention to it. His reports about the idiot senior officers and defence officials responsible for so much of the shambles are revealing. Here, for example, is his record about a particularly stupid commander, one General Stanley McChrystal, who told the US Senate in December 2009 that “additional forces will begin to deploy shortly and by this time next year new security gains will be illuminated by specific indicators and it will be clear to us that the insurgency has lost the momentum. By the summer of 2011 it will be clear to the Afghan people that the insurgency will not win.” Just how wrong can you be?

    Perhaps not as wrong as another fool, the Department of Defence’s Michele Flournoy, who in 2010 told the Senate that “our overall assessment is that we are heading in the right direction in Afghanistan . . . indicators suggest that we are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is beginning to lose momentum.” Phooey.

    Mind you, not all senior military officers are stupid. Five years ago British Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said that “We want to change the nature of the debate from one where disputes are settled through the barrel of a gun to one where it is done through negotiations. If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.”

    Nobody heeded him, either, and I was amazed when he was promoted major general because he also said that “this is a task which one measures in decades.” But the likes of Carleton-Smith are few and far between, and much of the responsibility for losing this war must, alas, be placed squarely on the generals. I have no doubt they’re brave in battle – but they didn’t stand up to their own politicians.

    When a country decides to go to war, the process is in essence simple. The politicians tell the generals precisely what is to be achieved. They define the national mission that makes it so important to hazard soldiers’ lives. The generals make plans and go back to the pollies and tell them exactly what they want: how many troops, the level of tactical support, and so on – all the costs of war must be made clear. And the main thing is the ‘mission’: can it be achieved?

    If the politicians tell the generals they can’t have sufficient resources to achieve the mission – in numbers of troops, for example – then the generals must resign, because it would be totally dishonourable to commit soldiers to battle without being guaranteed absolute support.

    There are complexities, of course, because the mission that used to be given to military men was usually pretty straightforward: ‘To Defeat the Enemy’ was generally regarded as being a reasonable aim. But the present mission of foreign troops in Afghanistan is to “reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population.”

    How on earth can you tell how many troops are needed to “facilitate improvements in socio-economic development”? That’s absurd, and that’s why there has been defeat in Afghanistan. Alas, it’s the generals who bear the final responsibility. They should have told the politicians that it was Mission Impossible.

    The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website: Brian Cloughley
    Defeat in Afghanistan - Brian Cloughley
    This article is slap on the face of liberals the slaves of USA and Nato :sniper::omghaha::omghaha:
    @Aeronaut @WebMaster @Secur @Irfan Baloch @Oscar @nuclearpak @Talon @jaibi @Yzd Khalifa @al-Hasani @Arabian Legend @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE @balixd @qamar1990 @mafiya @tarrar @HRK @PWFI @RazPaK @Slav Defence @GURU DUTT @doppelganger @FARSOLDIER and others
     
  2. Foxtrot Alpha

    Foxtrot Alpha STAFF

    Messages:
    6,432
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Ratings:
    +56 / 11,227 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    well the question here is whether Nato lost or not - what will be the Security situation of the Region - will it be stable enough??

    I have been monitoring security situation in Iraq - with sectarian voilence on the rise and thirst for Power to rule the country - I wonder what will happen with 2 years down road in Afghanistan ?
    will I be looking at same thing??
     
  3. OrionHunter

    OrionHunter ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,820
    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +15 / 23,073 / -19
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    The whole problem is the strategy of fighting this counterinsurgency by using conventional templates which was bound to fail. As the saying goes, you got to be a thief to catch a thief.
     
  4. Neptune

    Neptune SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,619
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Ratings:
    +52 / 11,567 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Turkey
    Counter-Insurgery Warfare is completly a different thing. So don't look at the situation with that perspective. The primary objective of ISAF was maintaining the security of the country, not blowing up the every single cave they see. Within, 12 years of war, right or wrong, i do believe that we've made great achievements too.
     
  5. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    47,644
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +84 / 49,356 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Yes Nato has lost despite being super power if you are not able to wipe out Taliban and they are still controlling several areas of Afghanistan and soon will take over whole of Afghanistan this is the biggest humiliation any super power can face and they are facing now so we also stop using our brain and start talking other wise if we pissed Afghan Taliban too than we are looking disaster for Pakistan
     
  6. Foxtrot Alpha

    Foxtrot Alpha STAFF

    Messages:
    6,432
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Ratings:
    +56 / 11,227 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    if you did not get my point then here - let me rephrase it for you -
    the question is not whether NATO wins or not - because NATO had won in Iraq as well - but look at the country now?
    The question is about the After math of NATO Withdrawal.
    the reason am comparing both countries is because both have almost same internal situation - one is run by Sectarian violence and power for religious domination and other is run by Criminals & Warlords - and their thirst for power.
     
  7. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    47,644
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +84 / 49,356 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Yes Sir their so called wins are turning into defeats but unfortunately some interval wars between Muslims have also started but over all times for USA are getting worse and worse
     
  8. Secur

    Secur THINK TANK CHAIRMAN: ANALYSTS

    Messages:
    10,126
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Ratings:
    +59 / 14,257 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I would rather ask the question " Have the Afghans won ? " and " What have they got from the war ? " rather than wasting time on withdrawals being termed as defeat . Because it appears that the coalition is going to leave and abandon the region just like Soviet Union and get back to their homes safely , whilst the country once again plunges into civil war - a norm in Afghanistan and the neighbors suffer like always . Pray tell me , what are the Yanks losing from all that ? They have lost probably 3000 men , leave that of the other side alone . Their economy is recovering . They are safe in their mainland , you cant fight them there . All you can do is kill more Muslims under that pretext ! How have they lost ? . All we see , is a gloomy picture of post NATO Afghanistan where things will head for the worst after a short lived uneasy peace and the dozens of warlords in the country will take part in a battle royal for control of Kabul being supported by different countries , the Govt of Presidential palace doesn't appear to have the power to prevent that , the ANA is all set to go similarly haywire and most likely desert and join different factions seeing their current pathetic state . The Afghans seduced by the opiate of the masses will continue to support/fight for one or more warlords and the situation will be the same like always . There's nothing good at the moment , I see for a common person in that country .
     
  9. HRK

    HRK PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    9,570
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Ratings:
    +64 / 21,369 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    @Zarvan ..... We need to see a bigger picture to understand the regional puzzle, Afghanistan is just a piece in it.

    'dushman mare te khushiyaa na kariye sajna vi mar jaana
    deegar te din hoya muhammad aorhak nu ddub jaana'

    Dear situation of Afghanistan is not that simple specially from Pakistan's perspective, involvement of neo-crusaders in Afghanistan was not a blessing to us due to which we suffered from change dynamics of the region, but you can't blame them for all of our sufferings, same is the case of their 'partial withdrawal' it won't turn the table in our favor.

    We may have to face some severe threats in 2014-2015 time period from Talibans, their return in Afghanistan as 'victorious' force will have its own repercussions on us .... its time we need to decide to resolve the issue on our terms or otherwise imagine a scenario of hostile India at east and furious Talibans at west .....trembling economic condition of Pakistan and having no ally in West ......

    Hope you will understand the return of 'Neo-crusaders' without face saving will not serve our interest ....

    But keep in mind stability of the 'region is not in the interest of West' .......
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
  10. qamar1990

    qamar1990 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,863
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Ratings:
    +3 / 5,698 / -8
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    **** the taliban and **** you zarvan!.
    we can turn all your terrorist friends into dust within a second but that would be inhumane.

    what are you trying to prove?
    taliban are some super humans?
    they hide in caves, they know the terrain.
    they are good against foreign armies but our own army knows our terrain and we hunt them down like pigs in the areas we go into.
     
  11. IND151

    IND151 BANNED

    Messages:
    10,172
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Ratings:
    +3 / 7,319 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    The terrain is biggest ally of Taliban.
     
  12. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    47,644
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +84 / 49,356 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    You really have nice wet dreams but master of secular and traitors have been defeated and soon they would be wiped out from the face of the earth
     
  13. Secur

    Secur THINK TANK CHAIRMAN: ANALYSTS

    Messages:
    10,126
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Ratings:
    +59 / 14,257 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    No , he's not trying to prove they are super humans - far from it actually , he wants to convince you that Taliban are the common people of Afghanistan with some sort of divine help - angels maybe . I know this disturbing thought pattern from interactions with similar people .

    Stable ? :what: Come on , balixd , you know the situation in Iraq post withdrawal - similar patterns are seen in Libya , Syria is plagued with AQ and you are still using the word . Au contraire , it will get worse by every day after coalition packs its bags and abandon the country . There are too many surprises awaiting for people who believe in " good and bad terrorists " thing .
     
  14. Foxtrot Alpha

    Foxtrot Alpha STAFF

    Messages:
    6,432
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Ratings:
    +56 / 11,227 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I am optimistic - lets just say that - ever since I read that chapter in 9th grade urdu book "Umeed ki kiran" :D

    coming back to the topic at hand - further elaborating what I have said above - how are we going define Success - how are we going define Defeat -
    For US Victory is pulling out of Iraq - digging up oil reserves - extract the production - make billions in Weapons sales - that is Victory.
    For US Victory is pulling out of a country after fighting it for a decade - making billions from drug, mining contracts - and again Oil reserves in North - Western Afghanistan.

    Now where is the defeat over here? :what: :what:

    Victory for Taliban is - they get their recognition in the World - yet their war will never end - as they will be fighting against other local warlords - now is that a victory???

    I am not switching sides over here - i just want US out of the region - what I am trying to say over here is the role of other countries in the region .

    KSA/ GCC & Iran rather than fueling the fire in the region should actually try to put it out.
     
  15. qamar1990

    qamar1990 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,863
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Ratings:
    +3 / 5,698 / -8
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    I'm not secular, just because i hate terrorist pieces of shits I'm a traitor? lol.
    I'm a conservative muslim and i hate fundamentalist pigs.