What's new

Pakistan looks ahead to end of Afghan war

US troops pass Soviets' Afghan stay
US-led forces have been in Afghanistan for 3,338 days, as long as the Soviet Union's ill-fated occupation.

20101127105344427140_20.jpg

Soviet forces left Afghanistan after nine years and the loss of 15,000 troops

US-led forces have now been In Afghanistan for 3,338 days, the same amount as the ultimately unsuccessful occupation by Soviet forces in the 1980s.

The two invasions of the country may have had different goals – one was trying to extend Soviet influence during the Cold War, while the other sought to force out Al -Qaeda and the Taliban - but whether they have significantly different outcomes remains to be seen.

Afghanistan has been referred to as the 'Graveyard of Empires' as it has never been successfully conquered by a foreign army.

The Soviet army arrived with a force of 40,000 soldiers in 1979. By 1985, there were 118,000 troops in the country. In 1989, Afghan fighters - armed by the CIA and known as the Mujahidin - drove the Soviets out.

Over the course of those nine years, 15,000 Soviet soldiers and as many as 1.3 million Afghans, mostly civilians, had been killed.

Twelve years later, in October 2001, the US toppled the Taliban government with a force of more than 5,000 troops. But now the war against the Taliban is being fought by nearly 150,000 US-led foreign troops, with an additional 112,000 private contractors working for the US department of defence.

Ill-matched battle'
Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from southern Afghanistan, said that the conflicts were very different, but some critics say the US is making many of the same mistakes as the Soviet Union.

"Guerrilla fighters - equipped largely with old weapons, and homemade bombs - taking on the largest, best-equipped military in the world, with its satellite technology, state of the art fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships, cruise missiles and deadly unmanned drones," he said.

"But the Afghans have fought another ill-matched battle once before - and they won."

However, Faheem Dashty, editor-in-chief of the Kabul Weekly newspaper, told Al Jazeera on Saturday that there were major differences in terms of how the Afghan people perceive the foreign forces.

"Generally, there is this understanding between Afghans that they need Americans, or Nato, to fight a very dangerous enemy, which is [the] Taliban enemy, al-Qaeda or whoever," he said.

The attitude of the US troops towards the Afghan people, however, has had a negative impact on their relationship with the locals, he said.

"The behaviour of Red Army troops [was] much better than what we see from the American-Nato forces."

During the siege of Kabul, the US-led Nato forces "looked at each and every Afghan as the enemy, which wasn't the case in the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan," he said.

Soviet 'mistake'
Andrey Avetisyan, the Russian ambassador to Afghanistan in Kabul, told Al Jazeera that with hindsight, Russians see their occupation of Afghanistan as "a huge mistake".

"I wouldn't regret losing this kind of world record," he said.

One thing the Soviet Union did better than the US, he argued, was to invest in the country's infrastructure. Whilst the Russians would never again have any military presence in the central Asian country, he said they would like to return to assist the Afghans to rebuild and to help with their economic development.

"All important infrastructure or industrial projects here were fulfilled by the Soviet Union," he said.

"The fact is that not a single big project - infrastructure, industrial or agriculture - has been implemented during the past nine years … a school here, a hospital there, some small roads, but nothing big."

He criticised the coalition for not focusing on supporting the Afghans to take ownership of governance and fighting sooner.

"I think the biggest mistake is been focusing on military efforts," he said.

Civilian deaths
2010112484946377112_20.jpg

Just 5,000 troops toppled the Taliban, but now there are more than 150,000 soldiers in Afghanistan

The Americans, like the Soviets before them, have repeatedly killed civilians, turning the public against them.

But Nader Nadery, an Afghan analyst who has studied the Soviet and US invasions, said "the time may be the same" for the two conflicts, "but conditions are not similar".

More than one million civilians died as Soviet forces propping up the communist government waged a huge war against the anti-communist Mujahidin forces.

"There was indiscriminate mass bombardment of villages for the eviction of Mujahidin," Nadery said. "Civilian casualties are not at all comparable."

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank and expert on Afghanistan, said Nato forces have killed fewer than 10,000 civilians and a comparable number of fighters.

He pointed out that at the height of the resistance, there were 250,000 mujahidin representing all Afghan ethnic groups fighting the Soviets, while "the current insurgency is perhaps one-eighth as large and is only Pashtun".

"We do have big problems. But there is no comparison between this war and what the Soviets wrought."

However, comparison can be made between the two enemies. Some of those fighting the US invasion were the same men who had fought in the Mujahidin against the Soviets, while all have benefitted from honing the skills developed during that conflict.

Most of those fighting against the US and Nato are battle-hardened locals with knowledge of the difficult terrain and the complex tribal structures.

'Self-sufficient structure'
A Pentagon-led assessment released earlier this week described the progress made since the United States sent an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan earlier in the year as "fragile".

But despite this, the US is still seeking to withdraw its soldiers from a combat role and hand over security to local security forces in 2014.

Alexander Konovalov, a Russian analyst, compared the transition to the Soviet Union's departure. It backed Mohammed Najibullah, the president, with money and weapons, and left behind a trained and heavily armed Afghan military, but it all crumbled and the mujahidin took over Kabul in 1992.

"The Soviet Union tried to leave its protégé alone to run the country, but that ended in the Taliban victory," Konovalov, who heads the Moscow-based Institute of Strategic Assessment, an independent think tank, said.

"The US now wants to create a self-sufficient structure behind backed by some support forces," he said. "It remains to be seen how successful it could be in Afghanistan."
 
Last edited:
.
"In all history, there is no instance of a country having benifited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realize the supreme importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close. It is only one who is throughly acquainted with the evils of war who can throughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on"

Sun Tzu in Art of War


IF THE END OF AFGHAN WAR IS NOT IN SIGHT THAN THE END OF ANOTHER SUPERPOWER IS IN SIGHT
 
.
Stable Afghanistan is needed to have global peace. The war in Afghanistan needs to come to a logical end with most of the targets being achieved. An incomplete finish will lead to additional wars both civil and military.
 
.
"In all history, there is no instance of a country having benifited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realize the supreme importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close. It is only one who is throughly acquainted with the evils of war who can throughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on"

Sun Tzu in Art of War


IF THE END OF AFGHAN WAR IS NOT IN SIGHT THAN THE END OF ANOTHER SUPERPOWER IS IN SIGHT
Prolonged wars are not an indication of decline of superpowers. Does the infamous 'Vietnam debacle' rings any bells? Instead, USA came out much stronger after that debacle and we saw the results in 1991.

Wars are indeed costly ventures in existing world environment. Weapons are easily accessible to parties involved and fighting never stops. Wars can put strain on economies of involved parties. However, rich nations can deal with such stresses.

Americans were not just fighting in Afghanistan but also in Iraq simultaneously. OIF has been a success, however OEF is yet to conclude.

World has a responsibility in Afghanistan. Isn't this what we (Pakistani) also believe in? This is why we are part of the coalition.

Their is simply no comparison between power projection capabilities of USA and former USSR.

WEST has a history of overhyping its foes.

"Afghanistan is certainly, historically, a difficult place to conquer and to rule, and the 'graveyard of empires' does suggest some things that are true -- but they need to be strongly qualified," said Porter.

Though empires tend to fall after their Afghan skirmishes, he says, for the British this was largely down to World War II, for the Soviets, it was ideological crisis in eastern Europe and for Alexander the Great it was a failure to ensure the stable succession of his Asian empire.
Source: Is Afghanistan really a 'graveyard of empires?'
 
Last edited:
.
US position is as clear as gutter water..first of all who asked them or invited for this little party..they only came after a staged terror attack to divert nations and world attention from their bankrupt economy. Had it not been for false wot America would be going into civil war over its economic woes. The US has achieved what it wanted from Afghanistan and WOT..end of story now!!

Dear Somebozo:

Would the US, or any country for that matter, continue to spend billions on the war in Afghanistan and military aid to Pakistan to, as you allege, “divert world attention from their bankrupt economy “? Is not bankruptcy the absence of money? Without money can a country commit to war and training? Has not the US, despite its hard economic times, generously contributed to the international war against terror, security force training, and disaster relief?

Pakistan Flood Relief

When a nation’s safety is at risk the first and foremost obligation of its government is to be vigilant and eliminate any threat that might cause any harm to the citizens of its country. The terrorist attack on 9/11 certainly made a priority of ensuring the safety of our citizens when thousands of lives were claimed in that brutal act of violence. Al Qaeda along with Osama bin laden and his deputies openly claimed responsibility of the planning and executing those attacks.

YouTube - Bin Laden "Confession" Video

Al Qaeda also warned the US of more terrorist attacks in the future. Do you relax or go after the threat which carries a lot of credibility at that point? As the events have continued to unfold since 9/11, we witnessed al Qaeda and its extremist allies continuously claim responsibility for the terrorist attacks around the world. In Pakistan, we have witnessed sacred Sufi shrines, mosques, and, in addition, schools and shopping centers become targets. Attacks on government buildings and officials have become the norm. The War on Terror (WOT) was never just a US war as international terrorist organizations threaten the safety of many nations across the world. The WOT has created a strategic alliance among nations who are willing to fight the ideology of hatred and the dishonorable work of evil doers to ensure the safety of its citizens.

As you may have heard “2014” has been announced as the year the Afghan security forces will independently protect the people and serve the common good, and the US, in agreement with the Government of Afghanistan, will continue its staged withdrawal from Afghanistan – just as we have committed to do, and fulfilled that same commitment, in Iraq.

LCDR Bill Speaks
DET, United States Central Command

CENTCOM
 
.
CENTCOM... we Pakistanis dam care about one super man named OBL.
What we need to know is emergence, financing and logisitcs support of TTP and Indian presence in Afghanistan?
Brahmdagh Bugti's Indian passport? and his residence in Kabul?
Bomb blasts in Pakistan?
Why US forces do not man Afghan side of border areas?
Why is anti Pakistan elements (Northern Alliance) made incharge of Afghanistan?
Why US embassy in Islamabad, bribe Pakistani ministers, officials and media personals?
 
. .
its in pakistan's own interests to prolong this war .

What you actually should mean is that it is in the interests of certain groups in Pakistan to prolong the war, but NOT in the interests of the State of Pakistan.

These are two very different things.
 
. . .
Afghan police officer kills 6 U.S. troops
Tuesday Nov 30, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan border policeman killed six American servicemen during a training mission Monday, underscoring one of the risks in a U.S.-led program to educate enough recruits to turn over the lead for security to Afghan forces by 2014.
Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that the six killed were American

It is Ok if people keep ignorng news like this.Why should I damn care.No further comment.
 
.
another grave incident which clearly displays the challenges and utter frustrations NATO is facing in the war-torn country

much duplicity; much double-dealing......it's very easy for these forces (many of the recruits are illiterate and addicts) to be corrupted or infiltrated by the rebels fighting the foreign invaders

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ----------

its in pakistan's own interests to prolong this war .

care to explain? :coffee:
 
.
In my opinion the US led forces would leave Afghanistan within ten years. A Taliban led government is most likely to take over Afghanistan. The Taliban were overthrown last time because they did not listen to Pakistan. This time when they come into power as expected can we hope that they will be more attentive to what we say?
 
.
Does that mean that US and its allies has accepted defeat and will let Taliban to take over Afghanistan??
 
.
No not necessarily. I don't think the US operations in Afghanistan are a complete failure. the primary reason for these opearations was to prevent another 9/11. In this they have succeeded. If they can move out and still prevent another 9/11 they would not have failed.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom