19 true things US generals can't say in public about the Afghan war

[Luftwaffe]

the only beaten people i see around is the Afghans. Afghanistan have been under occupation for the last 40 years.

Ahmed, my sincere condolences to all the afghans who got killed for the past 40 years by the bloody war but honestly looking around do you have a real man who has a strong voice can call upon all Parties in afghanistan convince them and make them understand get through to their psyche that look you people are fighting each other and here we are being beating day & night by then Soviets, US-NATO and other third parties for some silly war on terror that had its roots in only liberating Afghanistan from Islamic regime, now look around after arab spring atleast 3 countries have Islamic Parties in power, US would have planned to invade them also had it not been such a bad US worst economy. So the next question is for karazai afghans must ask why have karazai failed to put all of afghan fractions-parties together and discuss to reunite and struggle to fix the mess 10 Years is a long time you have to agree karazai miserably failed had put no efforts in. Lastly if afghan government had any sense it would have asked for UN to intervene in Afghan War rather then inviting US to play dirty cold war. See the blame equally goes to afghanistan. Under UN all sort of ban and pressure would have sent russians out of afghanistan and no other single entity would have taken advantage.

 

[Vinod2070]

'Victory or failure' would depend upon whether the goals of the occupying entity were achieved - that is after all a definition of 'victory' that many Indians use when arguing with Pakistanis over who was 'victorious' in the 1947/65 India-Pakistan wars.

What were Soviet goals in occupying Afghanistan? Did they achieve them?

From what I understand, the communist regime of Afghanistan invited the USSR troops to the country. And they were in control of Kabul within hours.

Of course, there was a resistance movement by some Afghans and the USA and others got involved. The resulting conflict killed 12000 Russian soldiers and millions of Afghans and destroyed the country (leave aside its impact on Pakistan here).

The only victor would be USA that got its revenge for the Vietnam debacle.

The Afghans didn't achieve anything except a country in ruins and full of graveyard and lurching from one civil war to another.

How is that a victory by any stretch?

What are US goals? Arguing that it/they were 'get OBL' is nonsensical - OBL was irrelevant and isolated as a 'leader of AQ' when he was killed.

Yes, killing OBL was a culmination. He may have been dysfunctional but had a huge value as the symbol of AQ brand of terror.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

From what I understand, the communist regime of Afghanistan invited the USSR troops to the country. And they were in control of Kabul within hours.

Of course, there was a resistance movement by some Afghans and the USA and others got involved. The resulting conflict killed 12000 Russian soldiers and millions of Afghans and destroyed the country (leave aside its impact on Pakistan here).

The only victor would be USA that got its revenge for the Vietnam debacle.

The Afghans didn't achieve anything except a country in ruins and full of graveyard and lurching from one civil war to another.

How is that a victory by any stretch?

So your argument is that the occupying entity, the USSR, was only in Afghanistan because it was 'invited for tea'?

The question is simple enough - What was the USSR goal in Afghanistan and did they achieve it? The answer to that determines whether the USSR 'won or lost'.

Apply the same to the US/NATO invasion and occupation.

Yes, killing OBL was a culmination. He may have been dysfunctional but had a huge value as the symbol of AQ brand of terror.

He had no value from an operational perspective, never really did, since his funds were cut off. He never had the acumen to be a tactical, operational or visionary leader. Killing OBL is the equivalent of killing Zardari (or Gen. Hamid Gul if you prefer) in an attempt to damage the PA/ISI.

And in the end it was not an massive invasion and occupation that resulted in OBL's death, rather years of international intelligence cooperation, especially by Pakistan (in arresting AQ operatives and sharing intelligence with the US) - none of this required hundreds of billions down the drain and hundreds of thousands dead in three nations.

BTW, Pakistani military leaders in Swat and FATA made this argument a few years ago when the military operations in Swat and FATA were launched - the death of the TTP leadership was not the goal, the destruction of the TTP operational capability in those regions, their support networks and investing in local development and institutions to take on the challenge of maintaining security was the goal, and is the goal.

 

[Jango]

I am sure you realize how many people get on a high claiming this and that on the part of the Afghans.

The Afghans themselves don't matter. Their suffering doesn't matter.

All that matters is they get to make claims like "two superpowers defeated by the Muslims".

Now, how does a 12,000 body count for USSR versus millions of Afghan dead and a ruined country for decades, equates to victory is never made clear.

Same as half of destroyed Lebanon and no rockets fired afterwards is still a "victory" for Hizbollah for some reasons.

To get victory, you need to have some set goals, you achieve them you win, you don't, you lose.

The USSR did not achieve it's goals of conquering the land, hence it lost.

The US is not getting it's goals now, hence it is losing.

 

[Vinod2070]

To get victory, you need to have some set goals, you achieve them you win, you don't, you lose.

The USSR did not achieve it's goals of conquering the land, hence it lost.

The US is not getting it's goals now, hence it is losing.

So your argument is that the occupying entity, the USSR, was only in Afghanistan because it was 'invited for tea'?

The question is simple enough - What was the USSR goal in Afghanistan and did they achieve it? The answer to that determines whether the USSR 'won or lost'.

Apply the same to the US/NATO invasion and occupation.

My understanding is that the goal was to help the Afghanistan communist regime that was facing instability. If you have a different set of goals, do let me know with facts.

The USSR won every single battle, yet in the end, due to its crumbling economic situation at home it chose to withdraw rather from Afghanistan.

My argument is not whether the USSR "won" but whether the Afghans "won". It was not a simple case of USSR versus Afghans. There were Afghans on both sides of the war.

If they knew the outcome, would they do the same all over again?

He had no value from an operational perspective, never really did, since his funds were cut off. He never had the acumen to be a tactical, operational or visionary leader. Killing OBL is the equivalent of killing Zardari (or Gen. Hamid Gul if you prefer) in an attempt to damage the PA/ISI.

And in the end it was not an massive invasion and occupation that resulted in OBL's death, rather years of international intelligence cooperation, especially by Pakistan (in arresting AQ operatives and sharing intelligence with the US) - none of this required hundreds of billions down the drain and hundreds of thousands dead in three nations.

BTW, Pakistani military leaders in Swat and FATA made this argument a few years ago when the military operations in Swat and FATA were launched - the death of the TTP leadership was not the goal, the destruction of the TTP operational capability in those regions, their support networks and investing in local development and institutions to take on the challenge of maintaining security was the goal, and is the goal.

He had a huge symbolic value and symbols matter in this kind of war.

It does bring a sense of closure that won't be there had he not been killed.

And it sends a signal to other wannabe terrorists of what their fate would be.

You are thinking from a very narrow perspective here.

 

[jeypore]

You Know Elmo there are certain things that you can discuss based on past and present situations, and also link Past and Present situations, but here I find it hard to do so:

• The situation American faces in Afghanistan is similar to the one it faced in Vietnam during the Nixon presidency: A desire a leave and turn over the war to our local allies, combined with the realization that our allies may still lose, and the loss will be viewed as a U.S. defeat anyway.

First of all, of my basic linking between the two, Americans afterall have killed the true leaders in there 911 cause (compare to vietnam situation), secondly the strategic game played by the pakistanies to keep its own power in region is not working because in last 8 years, it has not shown any positive results in improvement of Pakistanie control of Afgan.............

• We don't know why we are here, what we are fighting for, or how to know if we are winning.

The answer to this question is so basic, even though it sound complicated..........
Pakistan has never had a benchmark or any type of guidelines based on the country, as Americans would put there benchmark as Constitution.....

There is no feedback of how a country is doing.......

The Feedback has always been based on the ruler of what the military authority says..........

Thanks...

• Karzai's family is especially corrupt.

What is new news about Pakistanie powered families of Gov't and Army..................

• But the problem isn't corruption, it is which corrupt people are getting the dollars. We have to help corruption be more fair.

And that Puts Pakistanies in higher ground............

• Making this a NATO mission hurt, not helped. Most NATO countries are just going through the motions in Afghanistan as the price necessary to keep the US in Europe

This is a truly a fragment by English language, but even in fragmentation, it does not make any sense?? Some one please explain........

 

[F.O.X]

One more important thing US want to but cant say .

We messed up & we are sorry

and this is not to Pakistan but to their own public.

 

[jeypore]

One more important thing US want to but cant say .

We messed up & we are sorry

And OPINIONATOR true to it cause..............

 

[pmukherjee]

Don't say like that Afghan pplz are not stupid . They are the most brave nation in the world faught one super power and disintegrated it into many small pieces. Now is fighting the whole western world and winning without any resistance....Don't U see their country is a graveyard of Empires....Nobody needs to messup with Afghan people otherwise is gonna be his suicide....Who told US/NATO to messup with these worlds greatest warriors of all times...

---------- Post added at 11:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------


Hey we will love to see Indian Army fighting the Afghan warriors there, at least we will have some fun then, probably a live movie .........

Yes we will fight these so called warriors but not in Afghanistan. We will fight them in Kashmir. We fought the mujaheddin when Pak Army sent them to Kashmir in 1990/1995 after the Soviets left Afghanistan. They speak a little Hindi/Urdu and are brave fighters who know that for them, surrendering is not an option in Kashmir. We know them all right. The Kashmir Valley is full of graveyards of these Afghan Mujaheddin. Mostly unmarked graves because all we know was their radio call signs and that they were Afghans/Pushtuns. We know they will come again. We know that you won't disappoint us, we know that you will send them to us again. We are waiting for them to return after the Americans leave.

 

[Vinod2070]

Yes we will fight these so called warriors but not in Afghanistan. We will fight them in Kashmir. We fought the mujaheddin when Pak Army sent them to Kashmir in 1990/1995 after the Soviets left Afghanistan. They speak a little Hindi/Urdu and are brave fighters who know that for them, surrendering is not an option in Kashmir. We know them all right. The Kashmir Valley is full of graveyards of these Afghan Mujaheddin. Mostly unmarked graves because all we know was their radio call signs and that they were Afghans/Pushtuns. We know they will come again. We know that you won't disappoint us, we know that you will send them to us again. We are waiting for them to return after the Americans leave.

Exactly right.

These cowards came after the Afghan war full of bravado. They raped and killed the civilians and challenged the IA.

Their arse was kicked so hard, the cowards have not been seen since then in Kashmir.

If they come again, it will be worse. I hope we do some interesting things to them before they are killed like dogs.

 

[Avatar]

Until recently, US was hopeful that Pakistan would cooperate fully and help meet WoT objectives, and have a honorable exit from Afghanistan. However, due to the economic screw up Americans have become impatient and want to reduce WoT bills. Now the Americans have given hope on Pakistani cooperation, and that's why we see the souring of relationships and articles such as these gaining popularity.

These objectives aren't hard for America to meet, its just that the costs are not worth the effort. They wanted to outsource the dirty work to Pakistan and now it's not happening.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Exactly right.

These cowards came after the Afghan war full of bravado. They raped and killed the civilians and challenged the IA.

Their arse was kicked so hard, the cowards have not been seen since then in Kashmir.

If they come again, it will be worse. I hope we do some interesting things to them before they are killed like dogs.

How are the Indian Army cowards raping and killing women and children in Kashmir any better than the Afghan Mujahideen?

Or do you consider a predominantly Hindu/Sikh Army 'killing, raping and pillaging' a predominantly Muslim population under Indian occupation somehow 'acceptable'?

 

[karan.1970]

How are the Indian Army cowards raping and killing women and children in Kashmir any better than the Afghan Mujahideen?

Or do you consider a predominantly Hindu/Sikh Army 'killing, raping and pillaging' a predominantly Muslim population under Indian occupation somehow 'acceptable'?

From an Indian perspective, all that you are saying, even if true is all within the family (India) like Balochistan.. Afghan Mujahid idiots coming in to try and do the same is not the same..

You wanted a flippant answer.. You got one ....

 

[karan.1970]

'Victory or failure' would depend upon whether the goals of the occupying entity were achieved - that is after all a definition of 'victory' that many Indians use when arguing with Pakistanis over who was 'victorious' in the 1947/65 India-Pakistan wars.

No disagreement...

What are US goals? Arguing that it/they were 'get OBL' is nonsensical - OBL was irrelevant and isolated as a 'leader of AQ' when he was killed.

All we know are stated goals.. Rest of them are as much a conspiracy theory as the next one..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My understanding is that the goal was to help the Afghanistan communist regime that was facing instability.

And did they succeed in ensuring the communist regime was strengthened? No. .

The USSR won every single battle, yet in the end, due to its crumbling economic situation at home it chose to withdraw rather from Afghanistan.

The part about 'winning every battle' is not true - there are plenty of battles the Soviets lost, though they did win the overall battles. The Soviets also lost pretty badly in th majority of the battles they engaged in directly with Pakistani forces, in the air and on the ground - these were very infrequent of course. But whatever the cause behind the withdrawal, the fact is that Soviets were denied their goal of leaving behind a strong communist regime.

My argument is not whether the USSR "won" but whether the Afghans "won". It was not a simple case of USSR versus Afghans. There were Afghans on both sides of the war.

The Afghan won in the sense that they forced the Soviets out without the Soviets achieving their goals for a strong communist regime. The Afghan failed in that they were not able to unite after defeating the Soviets and build their nation.

If they knew the outcome, would they do the same all over again?

That is for Afghan to decide. My guess is that they would resist another Soviet occupation again, despite knowing the costs.

He had a huge symbolic value and symbols matter in this kind of war.

It does bring a sense of closure that won't be there had he not been killed.

And it sends a signal to other wannabe terrorists of what their fate would be.

You are thinking from a very narrow perspective here.

How many AQ leaders surrendered after OBL'S death? Did the TTP stop finding individuals to fill the leadership role when Nek MOhammed, Abdullah Mehsud, Abdullah Mehsud etc. were killed? The facts refute your argument.