quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Quick, name me the last person to successfully conquer Afghanistan?

Alexander couldn't.

Ghengis looked at it and said,"fuck this" ( a roughly translated quote)

And of course we know how the Soviets did.


So who?..... anyone?....Bueller?


This war is doomed and I wish he had the sense to know that.

quote:

Prehistoric evidence suggests that some of the world's first farming communities cropped up in Afghanistan more than 6,000 years ago. But Afghanistan doesn't really show up in written history until around 550 BC, when the region became part of ancient Persia's Achaemenid Empire. Based in what's now Iran, the Achaemenid Empire stretched from Egypt to India, and reached its zenith under Darius the Great (522-486 BC). Darius tried to conquer ancient Greece, too, but his army famously failed to defeat a smaller but better armed Greek force at Marathon in 490 BC.
Alexander the Great
Marathon wasn't the last time Greeks gave the Persians fits. One hundred and fifty years later, with the Achaemenid Empire fraying, Alexander the Great carried Greek culture into central Asia. The mighty Macedonian pounded the Persians and swept through modern Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan in just three years, from 330 to 327 BC. Four years later, Alexander died. Then his cavalry commander, Seleucus, seized control of the eastern part of his empire. Greek rulers would maintain control over most of Afghanistan until 150 BC, when Parthian nomads arrived.
Kanishka the Kushan
The Parthians crashed the Greek party, but an Indo-European tribe called the Kushans got the next dynasty rolling. After arriving from the north around the time of Jesus, they conquered their way across central Asia, building an empire that stretched from Iran to Tibet. The Kushans' glory days came under Kanishka, a 2nd-century patron of the arts and religion. During Kanishka's reign, Buddhism boomed in Afghanistan. It remained the dominant religion till the 8th century. (Many sacred Buddhist monuments, some dating back to Kushan times, remained much longer--until the Taliban destroyed them in 2001.)
Islam's Armies
 In the mid-7th century, Islam's armies reached central Asia, making Muslim converts as they conquered. By the end of the 9th century, most of the people living in what's now Afghanistan were Muslims. A hundred years later, Afghanistan's first major Muslim empire, the Ghaznavid, took shape. The most renowned Ghaznavid ruler, King Mahmud (971-1030), was also the first Muslim warrior to carry Islam into the heart of India. Mahmud's armies raided the area repeatedly, seeking booty from Hindu temples and converts among Hindu souls. With the money they brought back, Mahmud built schools and mosques and turned his capital, Ghazna, into a great cultural center. He also helped ensure Sunni Islam's sway in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Muslim parts of India.
Genghis Khan and Tamerlane
The Ghaznavid Empire fell apart almost as soon as Mahmud died, but other Muslims maintained control in Afghanistan until 1220, when the marauding Mongol Genghis Khan overran central Asia. Eventually, Genghis and his successors conquered everyone from Persia to Peking. Still, they never defeated Islam. In fact, a few generations after Genghis's death, his own descendants were Muslims. The most fearsome heir to Genghis's Khanate rule was Timur (a.k.a. Tamerlane), who rose to prominence in the late 14th century and spread his unique brand of ruthless military rule from Moscow to Delhi. Timurid rulers would reign in Afghanistan until the turn of the 16th century.

Babur and Nadir Shah
Then, in 1504, a central Asian prince named Babur--a descendant of both Genghis Khan and Timur--conquered Kabul. Twenty-two years later, Babur invaded India, where he founded the Mogul dynasty, which ruled there until the 18th century. At first, Afghanistan remained under Mogul control, though more as an imperial outpost than as a major Mogul thoroughfare. In time, the outpost became a contested border region, squeezed between the Moguls and the Iranian Safavid Empire--with a variety of smaller players scrambling for stakes in the game. Finally, the "Persian Napoleon," Nadir Shah, swept through the region in 1738. Nadir Shah conquered Afghanistan, outmatched a Mogul army in India, plundered Delhi, and massacred thousands of Hindus before heading home to Iran. Then he died, just a few years later.
The Pearl of Pearls
 After Nadir Shah's death, Afghanistan fell to homegrown rulers. From 1747 to 1973, a long line of ethnic Pashtuns from the Abdali group of clans governed the land--though sometimes only nominally. The first Abdali Pashtun to seize control was Ahmad Shah, who adopted the title "Durr-I-Durrani," meaning "pearl of pearls." The Abdali Pashtuns have been known as the Durrani ever since. The last Durrani king, Muhammad Zahir Shah, abdicated after a coup in 1973, then spent 28 years of exile in Rome. Once he was gone, Afghanistan split into rival factions. Conditions only got worse when the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 to prop up a communist government. When the Soviets pulled out in 1989, Afghanistan slipped into civil war. In 2002, the 87-year-old Zahir Shah returned home--not to assume his previous position, but to help Afghanistan move toward peace and democracy, a "Durr-I-Durrani" worth pursuing. Zahir Shah died in 2007. The oft-conquered country is still searching for a way to have that pearl.

quote:

Few nations in Asia have remained truly independent in the past several millenia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vaughner

What is important there however is that anyone who has really studied Vietnam knows at that point the North was defeated. They could not have kept fighting another 6 weeks, let alone another 6 months. Yet, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and because we were tired of the fighting simply left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The truth is that the original strategy, surgical strikes with cruise missiles and raids by spec ops troops was the way to go.  Large scale combat operations with large numbers of troops will not succeed in Afghanistan, the population is split up into too many factions along clan lines.

We should have made an example out of Afghanistan and just bombed them back to the stone age for harboring terrorists.  It would have been cheaper, more effective and put less men and women in harm's way.

The problem has never been conquering Afghanistan but holding it.  With the various clans fighting among themselves for the most part, until some outside force invades, then they all join up to fight the invader.

Someone said Obama needs a history lesson in another thread, perhaps the military powers that be should also look at the facts, you cant invade Afghanistan and expect to hold what you got.

NATO troops have already had to pull out of one valley because it was too hard to hold, but no one has learned the entire country is going to be that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The attacks won`t be as spectacular or with as much resources and time spent on them.

Now,they will come smaller and cheaper but with multiple attempts.

Sure I agree we don`t have to worry about hijacked jet liners.They have changed tactics tho and we must adapt.

But we relay can`t count on there not being other attempts on us or our allies.

To clear up one point,sure the actual hijackers were predominately from Saudi Arabia(one or two were from Egypt) and some of the planing took place outside of Afghanistan,but the 9/11 attacks were hatched,nurtured and payed for by bin-laden,who was at the time,was operating terrorist training camps and launching his attacks from inside Afghanistan.The CIA is in Virginia.but it can hardly be said that they don`t also operate in other states or other countries.

One other point.I still want to get bin-laden.I really don`t care how or how long it takes.Not for what he may do but for he has done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain


I like this approach because it's probably more effective and less expensive, not to mention you don't have to deal with roadside bombs putting the guy's lives in danger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The truth is that the original strategy, surgical strikes with cruise missiles and raids by spec ops troops was the way to go.  Large scale combat operations with large numbers of troops will not succeed in Afghanistan, the population is split up into too many factions along clan lines.

We should have made an example out of Afghanistan and just bombed them back to the stone age for harboring terrorists.  It would have been cheaper, more effective and put less men and women in harm's way.

The problem has never been conquering Afghanistan but holding it.  With the various clans fighting among themselves for the most part, until some outside force invades, then they all join up to fight the invader.

Someone said Obama needs a history lesson in another thread, perhaps the military powers that be should also look at the facts, you cant invade Afghanistan and expect to hold what you got.

NATO troops have already had to pull out of one valley because it was too hard to hold, but no one has learned the entire country is going to be that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain


I like this approach because it's probably more effective and less expensive, not to mention you don't have to deal with roadside bombs putting the guy's lives in danger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The truth is that the original strategy, surgical strikes with cruise missiles and raids by spec ops troops was the way to go.  Large scale combat operations with large numbers of troops will not succeed in Afghanistan, the population is split up into too many factions along clan lines.

We should have made an example out of Afghanistan and just bombed them back to the stone age for harboring terrorists.  It would have been cheaper, more effective and put less men and women in harm's way.

The problem has never been conquering Afghanistan but holding it.  With the various clans fighting among themselves for the most part, until some outside force invades, then they all join up to fight the invader.

Someone said Obama needs a history lesson in another thread, perhaps the military powers that be should also look at the facts, you cant invade Afghanistan and expect to hold what you got.

NATO troops have already had to pull out of one valley because it was too hard to hold, but no one has learned the entire country is going to be that way.

This is what will remain after NATO pulls out most of it`s troops.That date may(probably)well be extended.

But what we leave ,will be a combo of special ops and drones and when neccessary,cruise missiles to deal with whatever pops up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I like this approach because it's probably more effective and less expensive, not to mention you don't have to deal with roadside bombs putting the guy's lives in danger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The truth is that the original strategy, surgical strikes with cruise missiles and raids by spec ops troops was the way to go.  Large scale combat operations with large numbers of troops will not succeed in Afghanistan, the population is split up into too many factions along clan lines.

We should have made an example out of Afghanistan and just bombed them back to the stone age for harboring terrorists.  It would have been cheaper, more effective and put less men and women in harm's way.

The problem has never been conquering Afghanistan but holding it.  With the various clans fighting among themselves for the most part, until some outside force invades, then they all join up to fight the invader.

Someone said Obama needs a history lesson in another thread, perhaps the military powers that be should also look at the facts, you cant invade Afghanistan and expect to hold what you got.

NATO troops have already had to pull out of one valley because it was too hard to hold, but no one has learned the entire country is going to be that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I like this approach because it's probably more effective and less expensive, not to mention you don't have to deal with roadside bombs putting the guy's lives in danger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The truth is that the original strategy, surgical strikes with cruise missiles and raids by spec ops troops was the way to go.  Large scale combat operations with large numbers of troops will not succeed in Afghanistan, the population is split up into too many factions along clan lines.

We should have made an example out of Afghanistan and just bombed them back to the stone age for harboring terrorists.  It would have been cheaper, more effective and put less men and women in harm's way.

The problem has never been conquering Afghanistan but holding it.  With the various clans fighting among themselves for the most part, until some outside force invades, then they all join up to fight the invader.

Someone said Obama needs a history lesson in another thread, perhaps the military powers that be should also look at the facts, you cant invade Afghanistan and expect to hold what you got.

NATO troops have already had to pull out of one valley because it was too hard to hold, but no one has learned the entire country is going to be that way.

quote:

The original strategy worked fabulously.The use of small teams directing guided munitions was devastatingly successful.Those techniques (perfected under President Clinton)were force multipliers.A laser gun/pointer,a Tough Book laptop and walky-talky combined with guided bombs/missiles/rockets/bunker-busters dropped/fired/lunched from any platform in the theater, is almost impossible to survive.

Taking the killing force of hundreds of men and concentrating it down and affected by small teams equipped with state of the art communications and powerful lasers.All a GI had to do was to lase the target and guided bombs dropped from aircraft/launchers miles away would guide the munitions right onto the laser lighted target.

quote:

All that is history though,b/c much of what was accomplished was allowed to unravel.Had Iraq not taken the loin`s share of men, equipment and money,there would have been ample resources to deal with holding what we had won,not allowing parts of the country to slip back.

quote:

Do we need to remake the country in our own eyes and impose our culture and values,as rich suggests?Lofty and sounds nice on paper, yes.But so did Iraq.

quote:

Should we limit ourselves to just fighting the border tribes while negotiating with rest of the Taliban, to integrate them back into society?

quote:

Or should we attempt to defeat anyone with black head-wear or who calls themselves,Taliban?

quote:

Or should we just pull out now and let come what may?

quote:

We also need to debate what our goals are.