What's new

'Afghan War Winnable Without Pakistan Help'

I can see few Pakistani think tanks getting defensive here.

BTW it was doomed to come out like this. Alternative stress and stain takes toll on elasticity.

If America is winning WOT without Pakistan then it means, mess left inside Pakistan and less Pakistani leverage In Afghanistan.

American General is foreseeing end of operations in this part of the world and more confident about security situation in Afghanistan.

I wish Pakistan has some better plans when US will end WOT.

What was the date again? 2011? Oh no, it's 2014 now, right?

Petraeus: Afghanistan 2014 Deadline Not A 'Sure Thing'

NATO's 2014 Afghanistan departure date laden with ambiguity - The Globe and Mail

Lisbon: Nato leaders endorse Afghanistan 2014 withdrawal date - Telegraph

The new date to watch in Afghanistan: 2014 - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times
 
.
^^regarding sea afg is landlocked country, land the CIS are charging much more because they are less Dependant on USA so they can demand much..
 
.
this is very good news for us!
lets bring our troops back to their 'peace-time' locations.
and lets stop providing 'humint' for the drone attacks.


Absolute not wise, it means we have to bring troops back and let them enter into our territory when their plan never changed yet of desire to make operation in North Waziristan and related areas?

Pentagon's statement showed their bad nervous status where one claimed to do independently & can't force ally to step up with him although knowing that without ally he can't be successful.

:disagree:
 
.
Guys if pakistan stops the supply routes they wont have any thing to fight with i wanted to know cant they supply army and ammunation through air would it be to costly to do it compared to sea and land

To cut supply rout doesn't in favor of Pakistan, despite reality that other routs are costly but possible.
 
.
Carrying on from what Taimi is saying above... If America brings more troops even then they cant defeat the Afghan resistance... it will only provide more troops for target practice...

and these statements are right BS of the most pathetic type... the one that comes from the mouth of losers...
 
.
Cutting off supply routes will break the back of America... its as simple as that...

so far it seems that they are managing the supply with the help of some friends in the Pak Army... the civilian government on the other hand is just waiting for a chance to split Pakistan on orders of America...
 
.
Cutting off supply routes will break the back of America... its as simple as that...

so far it seems that they are managing the supply with the help of some friends in the Pak Army... the civilian government on the other hand is just waiting for a chance to split Pakistan on orders of America...

Dont be such a pessimist. Nothing is going to happen to pakistan Inshallah.
 
.
I
Guys if pakistan stops the supply routes they wont have any thing to fight with i wanted to know cant they supply army and ammunation through air would it be to costly to do it compared to sea and land

To cut supply rout doesn't in favor of Pakistan, despite reality that other routs are costly but possible.

I was searching for other routes (by air) and IF pak ever stop the supply rutes then they are screwed big time
1 route passing from russian air space i dont think russia will ever allow this
2 passing from europe & midle east not sure if so many countries will allow them
 
.
A cousin of mine is currently doing his Phd from Durham UK, in War Studies. His topic is the current war in Afghanstan and how the US can acheive success. He has met several top brass in the Pak Army, ISI, an others from ISAF and NATO as well. He also met Mc Crystal, Mc Master to name a few. He is also working with a top think tank and NATO aswell and his study/work has taken him to Afghanstan many a times. Last when he was here was when Mc Crystal was still running the show.

He said that the NATO and US forces are absolutely frustated over thier tribulations in the sand box. Intel communities give them bad intel, the soldiers' morale is at a record low and are always flustered. Pocker Arguements turn into deadly gun fights where soldiers have even killed their platoon mates. The ANA personel due to their age old mentality of having a feircely independent nature refuse to take commands from foreign commanders and regard them as 'eye-candy' :woot: Brit troops are actually given an organisational level training how to avoid getting raped by the Afghan Army.

The Afghans regard the Brits a their legendary enemy and still talk of the Anglo-Afghan wars of the 1800s.

He further said that the US commanders are severly pissed off at the panzies in the white house and there are many serios strategic/tactical difference of opinions. Mistrust prevails between the fighting forces and the intel frcesand the integrity and intensions of the CIA are highly questioned by the commanders.

The US top commanders have come to realize that this war is just a big black hole which will suck up everything that the US might takes pride in. They are desperate fo Pak Army support and document the pivitol role of Pakistan in the end game and otherwise in the region as well. Needless to say this petulance of the ISAF and US is a big hinderance in over all war successes.

US Gen. McMaster who was closely working under McCrystal does not beleive that COIN is going to work in Afghanstan and ther is NO WAY OUT IN SIGHT UNLESS PAKISTAN OPTS TO HELP THEM.

PMCs like Black water who are incharge of providing security to important personel and installtions as well as provide logistic support are compensated with exhuberant fee and in turn all they do is hand out money to the Taliban to not dispurt security and 'cooperate' with the PMCs. Sometimes they succeed and some times they don't.

The decision makers DO-NOT want to hear any thing else other than military heavy handed tactics and any of the commanders who suggest other wise and marked for insubordination.

I think that Gen Rod doesn't watch his mouth, he too will pay a visit to the White House where he will be stripped and spankd like Mc Crystal. :rofl:

Sadly, the US and NATO want to beleive that India can help in thi situation but are certain that letting India in the equation will just spead up their anhiliation:hang2: However the politicians are nt paying any heed to the commanders.

:pakistan:
 
.
If US can do that without us we are more happy to deploy our troops at Eastern Border with our enemy.

Secondly so-called claim by US wining war on borders atleast is just pushing terrorists into Pakistani territory and not winning war at borders.
 
.
US one day wakes up and decides as they normally do that they can win the war in Afghanistan with out the Pakistanis.
cowboy-cowboy-gun-west-smiley-emoticon-000801-facebook.gif

Military guys are sure.
soldier-anim-desert-storm-soldier-war-smiley-emoticon-000270-facebook.gif

Obama promises change.
obama-president-anim-obama-barack-obama-president-smiley-emoticon-000567-facebook.gif

They are optimistic going in.
UFC-Champion-UFC-ultimate-fighting-smiley-emoticon-000858-facebook.gif

Pakistan takes a break.
Relax-relax-rest-cool-smiley-emoticon-000628-facebook.gif

And then Reality strikes.
UFC-TKO-UFC-ultimate-fighting-smiley-emoticon-000857-facebook.gif

And again they get angry at Pakistan for not doing enough.
swear-swear-curse-mouth-smiley-emoticon-000661-facebook.gif
 
.
U cannot clap with one hand, it's but obvious that things can only settle down in Afghanistan, when Pakistan starts clamping down those terrorists n starts flushing out those safe havens.

Agree, attempts are on, but need further push.
 
.
TaimiKhan:Has the security situation improved in Iraq ?? Has the number of suicide bombings or other bombings reduced or increased in recent times ??

If they have not yet pacified Iraq, leave aside Afghanistan where the enemy, The Taliban are still intact and very much in control of the countryside and running the show.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

USA has left the Iraq, now its GoIraq's responsibility to handle the situation.

USA's mission in Iraq was not to find WMD but killing a potential enemy; who might have learnt how to punish America after 9/11. American are trying isolate enemies. Without neutralizing Iraq, any further attack on American soil could have confused the whole effort of WOT.

The objective was achieved and a govt. more favourable to American Interest is planted in there. Now Americans are rest assured that any state sponsored act of terror on its soil is almost impossible to be planned by Iraqi state which could have been not the case without removing Saddam Hussein.

Its like ''Sawari Apne saman de aap Jimeywar'' 'Passenger is responsible for his own luggage' in Iraq. Furthermore the Suicide bombing phenomenon in Iraq is not simply because of anti American sentiments but due to pre-existing fault lines and influence of AQ also. Iraq is a totally new democratic state now. Democracy is a very broad term, which help tackle insurgencies also. More they be able fine tune its newly formed democratic institutions more they will be able to overcome such difficulties.

The only way the US can win militarily, is if they inject about a million or so troops and have presence in whole country, till then they can keep issuing such statements and pardon us from their everyday BS of blaming us for whatever is happening inside Afghanistan.

They have adequate presence in Afghanistan but it is Pakistan's responsibility to plug its porous borders by placing more men.

Furthermore it is in Pakistan's interest to impose more federal control upon it own areas. Especially after when deal between GoP and Sardars failed last time even after providing legitimacy to enforce Sharia Law.

By the way, why don't you guys ask the Americans since Afghans are brothers of Indians, that why US injected about 500K troops in Iraq, while in Afghanistan they have in total of all allied nations invading force just around 100K. Common sense would dictate that the invaders don't want to bring stability in Afghanistan, had they been for that reason, they would have justified it by bringing in more troops close to what they used up in Iraq, but since the Iraq war was for oil, they did whatever they could, while war for Afghanistan is for some other reason, thus not serious about it.


You do not kill mouse by throwing house on her.

Non of Iraq's neighbour was interested in strategic depth in Iraq. They all were traditional enemies. ;)

The war was against a typical military therefore it was a complete war by any military standards. It was not the first war they fought against the same regime. Massive Air strikes failed to tone down Saddam last time therefore a massive military invasion was planned. All the numbers deployed in Iraq are justifiable. As far as Afghanistan is concerned then the same objective by sending less soldiers has been achieved i.e democratically elected govt. Anyone would disagree with you on this that Afghanistan was more stable under Taliban harbouring AQ than this newly elected GoA.

I may be wrong but the problem here i can see after reading your post is that you haven't yet started conditioning your self to see Iraq and Afghanistan as an Independent state.
Acts of terrorism doest not discredit democracy or prove it as a failed effort.
 
.
What was the date again? 2011? Oh no, it's 2014 now, right?

I think my observation about think tanks getting defencive is correct.:azn:

Unfortunately for Pakistani posters the end of WOT doesn't mean end of American presence or end of American Influence to project policy on independent stable Afghanistan.
 
.
I think my observation about think tanks getting defencive is correct.:azn:
If that be the case, i bet you then dont know a shyt about being offensive.

Unfortunately for Pakistani posters the end of WOT doesn't mean end of American presence or end of American Influence to project policy on independent stable Afghanistan.

Please cut the crap.

We are already quite clear about these kind of statements and have been subjected to both positive and negative kind of statement for so long now that they really dont matter us any more. Most importantly we exactly know what's the usual theme behind such one-liners. As i can see that your inception on this forum is a recent one, i would suggest you to go through the lengthy threads regarding Op RR, Op RN, Gen Kiyani etc etc (i can provide you with the links of you want) and may be you can understand what we ALL are trying to say here. Also those threads and the news within would provide you with ample evidence that these well-timed statements from the American military and civilian hierarchy are not taken quite seriously anymore, not atleast on this Forum.

No wonder (obviously) you dont seem satisfied as you didnt see what you had expected out of the news, that is to say half of the Pakistani members going gung ho and wild in sheer delight that it's forces could now go back and concentrate more on the real threat i.e. india, and the other half getting worried as Pakistan is soon going to loose its face value and those $$$ it earns from the GWoT.


Unfortunately some sarcasm from another Think Tank (sir Fat) also failed to correct your senses. Alas!
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom