What's new

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

Pakistan did help achieve the current results we see against AQ through its 'intelligence and military operations', and the absence of a "WoT' would have in fact made it even easier for Pakistan to do so, and offer even better results, since Pakistan would not have also been simultaneously dealing with a vicious religious insurgency of its own, and a spike in sympathy for the religious extremists and AQ, catalyzed by the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Apparently, no one else believes what you are saying here.

Not even the hard core Pakistani supporters in your own (new) country.

Pakistan's role has been dubious: "Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds" as your own president acknowledged. This is agreed to by the vast majority of professionals and others who keep a tab on such things.

Closing the eyes wide shut doesn't change things. It only shows that "filter".

Terrorists were neutralized whenever they were found/hunted down, including most of the top level leadership at the time, by Pakistan.

That these people hid in Pakistan was a result of the US invasion of Afghanistan, which drove them into Pakistan, where they were hunted down by Pakistan.

So if WOT had not been brought to Afghanistan, how would they be killed by Pakistan?

The rest of your comment about 'produced when the occasion demanded' is just paranoid conspiracy theory borne out of an obsession to disparage Pakistan on every issue.

You may want to believe that but it is not true.

What I am saying is based on much documented facts.

Facts that even you know but don't let reach the conscious brain.
 
1 Question: Why did USA attacked on Afghanistan??? Is that Objective achieved???
War on Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The George W. Bush administration defined the following objectives in the War on Terror:[38]

Defeat terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations
Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations
Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
End the state sponsorship of terrorism
Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism
Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism
Work with willing and able states
Enable weak states
Persuade reluctant states
Compel unwilling states
Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists
Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens
Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism
Win the war of ideals
Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security
Attain domain awareness
Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad
Ensure an integrated incident management capability
Most objectives have been achieved
 
the very reason its the graveyard of empires, always has been and always will be.......

Not just the empires.. Any country trying to rule Afg meets the same pain.. Funny thing though, no one thought of adding the name of Pakistan to that list yet :)
 
Not just the empires.. Any country trying to rule Afg meets the same pain.. Funny thing though, no one thought of adding the name of Pakistan to that list yet :)

the Afghans and Pakistanis are practically the same people, historically and even socially in the north west, same culture, same religion and same traditions and we already play our cards so we dont have to try and annex it like the other fools.....
 
The graveyard of empire is another funny tag, Afghanistan had been ruled and will be ruled by myriads of empire or their proxies.
 
All we know are stated goals.. Rest of them are as much a conspiracy theory as the next one..

This is an important point to address, since several other posters have made similar arguments, and claimed that the 'US has achieved victory by killing OBL'.

What are the 'stated goals' of the US in Afghanistan? If the 'stated goal' was to just 'kill/capture OBL', then what is the US still doing fighting in Afghanistan and making statements about a US military presence beyond 2014?
 
..........
What are the 'stated goals' of the US in Afghanistan? If the 'stated goal' was .................

The only "stated goal" that is true about USA is "the relentless pursuit of national interests". Period. Everything else needs careful and critical analysis.
 
the Afghans and Pakistanis are practically the same people, historically and even socially in the north west, same culture, same religion and same traditions and we already play our cards so we dont have to try and annex it like the other fools.....

Afghans are not just Pashtuns you know :)

I think Pakistan is one of the worse hit among the list of countries that have tasted defeat in Afghanistan.. From a blue eyed boy of the west who helped NATO beat back USSR in Afghanistan, to the country with one of worst perception in the world and a screwed up economy, all in a span of 20 years, is not a happy ride IMO
 
Its a little nonsensical comparison really..rape and murder of men (hope only murder), women and children by anyone is as condemnable.. However the 2 cases are different in reasons and reaction. The case of bad apples in Indian army (as Karan mentioned before the post was deleted) doing it, is a criminal case in the Indian civilian/military judicial system and the people responsible are tried and punished if found guilty. Unless you have some proof that this is indeed a planned strategy of Indian Army to murder and rape, its a little stupid to blame the institution for the act of individuals....

... On the other hand, Afghan mujahids coming in and doing the same in Kashmir is mostly a case of cross border terrorism where these actions are more of a side effect of an over all plan of these jehadi outfits (mostly in past sponsored by Pakistan) to keep Kashmir on the boil to pressurize India. And the treatment (apart for condemning it ) is different here. Some of that treatment (for the actual terrrorists) we are seeing in the form of encounters and termination of these mujahids in COIN operation in Kashmir. The treatment for Pakistani state (as we believe these terrorists are sponsored by Pakistan) is visible in Afghanistan where India is cosying up to the ISAF backed Afghan govt to continuously pressurize Pakistani govt..The results of this approach are pretty visible and positive from where I look..
Do you have any 'evidence' that the Afghan Mujahideen groups that Vinod referred to, had a 'planned strategy' to 'murder, and rape men, women and children in Kashmir'? Why would the incidents of 'murder and rape' by these 'Afghan Mujahideen' also not be the result of 'bad apples'?

Using your own argument, without factually establishing that the 'rape and murder of innocents' was a stated policy of the insurgent groups (Afghan mujahideen in this case), you cannot condemn all 'Mujahideen/insurgents', much as you cannot condemn 'the entire Indian Army' for the 'rape and murder of innocents buy IA soldiers'.

In addition, as pointed out already, Kashmir is disputed territory, not Indian territory, so Indian soldiers 'raping and killing men, women and children in Kashmir' are just as much 'external terrorists' as one could argue the Afghan Mujahideen committing these acts are.
 
This is an important point to address, since several other posters have made similar arguments, and claimed that the 'US has achieved victory by killing OBL'.

What are the 'stated goals' of the US in Afghanistan? If the 'stated goal' was to just 'kill/capture OBL', then what is the US still doing fighting in Afghanistan and making statements about a US military presence beyond 2014?

A good place to start...

Washington — President Obama says the U.S. mission in Afghanistan will be successful if U.S. forces leave behind a country where the Afghan government and people can provide for their own security, and al-Qaida is unable to attack the United States, its allies or its overseas interests.
Speaking in a June 29 press conference at the White House, Obama said both goals are meeting with success as the United States prepares to draw down 10,000 troops by the end of 2011, and an additional 23,000 by the end of summer 2012.
“The tide of war is receding. We have shifted to a transition phase,” the president said.
Even before al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan on May 2, Obama said, U.S. forces were able to severely cripple the organization’s capacities and had eliminated some in its middle and upper leadership ranks.
“They are having a great deal of difficulty operating, a great deal of difficulty communicating and financing themselves, and we are going to keep the pressure on,” Obama said.
At the same time he said U.S. and international forces have been able to “ramp up” the training of Afghan troops, adding an additional 100,000 army and police since he announced a surge of U.S. forces in December 2009.
The newly trained Afghan security forces will add to the Afghanistan government’s capacity to defend the country and prevent a collapse that could allow extremist elements to take control of the country again, he said.
Obama said U.S. troops have also been drawn down from Iraq, with the remainder scheduled to leave by the end of 2011. Although Iraq has continued to face violent attacks, he said, it has “been able to maintain a democratic government and to tamp down violence there” without the need for American soldiers.
“We think a similar approach makes sense in Afghanistan,” he said.
“We will … draw them down in a responsible way that will allow Afghanistan to defend itself and will give us the operational capacity to continue to put pressure on al-Qaida until that network is entirely defeated,” he said.


Read more: U.S. Goals in Afghanistan Are Meeting with Success, Obama Says | IIP Digital
 
The only "stated goal" that is true about USA is "the relentless pursuit of national interests". Period. Everything else needs careful and critical analysis.
That is pretty much applicable for any nation, and is a cop-out from trying to answer the question.

What 'national interests are being pursued' in Afghanistan? One has to at least define goals in order to attempt to achieve them.

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

President Obama says the U.S. mission in Afghanistan will be successful if U.S. forces leave behind a country where the Afghan government and people can provide for their own security, and al-Qaida is unable to attack the United States, its allies or its overseas interests.

No mention of democracy or whether the government could include the Taliban ...
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom