RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/30/2011 9:17:14 PM)

quote:

Aswad
The sick thing is, as stupid as going in was, it's worse to pull out now that we're knee deep in it.


The choices aren't enticing are they?

Basically they are:
1. Stay there forever fighting an unwinnable war. The Taliban isn't going to go away - they have no where else to go;
2. Immediate unilateral pull out of NATO/ISAF forces. Likely outcome: Taliban takeover after a brief civil war that never quite ends in the Afghani style;
3. Stage pull out and transfer of power and security to Kabul Govt. Likely outcome: same as 2 above: and
4. Continue the war until a just peace can be negotiated from position of strength.

Of these only option 4 seems to have any positive features. Sadly, if a position of strength hasn't been attained after a decade of fighting it's unlikely to be achieved in the near future. It's quite possible that Options 2, 3 & 4 will have the same outcome.

From an international perspective, the original goals for the war (destruction of OBL and Al Quada in Afghanistan) have been achieved. Afghanistan is relatively isolated and so the option of encircling it, containing it is a real option. We should note that AQ terrorism in Afghanistan was an imported phenomenon. The Taliban will have their hands full running the country and are unlikely to be supportive of international terrorism again.

This may turn out to be the best available. It would certainly be a lot cheaper than continuing the war, in terms of both Western lives and $. Sadly this means leaving the people of Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban, an option made barely palatable only because all other options are worse. On the plus side, one of history's more corrupt governments (Karzai's) and the biggest State sponsored drug trafficking operation since Noriega (another erstwhile US ally) or Ky (of Sth Vietnam, and yes another erstwhile US ally) will no longer be.

Giving the bleakness of future options, I am unable to see upside in continuing to waste lives and resources on an unwinnable war. Unless an peace deal can be brokered more or less immediately (rather improbable), is there any viable alternative to withdrawal?



willbeurdaddy -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/30/2011 9:32:43 PM)

Nope, which is exactly why Bush de-escalated there as soon as it was clear that OBL had gone to ground.



tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/30/2011 9:43:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Nope, which is exactly why Bush de-escalated there as soon as it was clear that OBL had gone to ground. that Bush was too incompetent to find OBL.


There. Fixed it for you Willbur. Aren't I kind to you! [:D]



willbeurdaddy -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/30/2011 9:47:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Nope, which is exactly why Bush de-escalated there as soon as it was clear that OBL had gone to ground. that Bush was too incompetent to find OBL.


There. Fixed it for you Willbur. Aren't I kind to you! [:D]


Thats actually a TOS violation strangely enough.



Aswad -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/3/2011 5:03:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The choices aren't enticing are they?


Staying seems enticing enough. Get the locals up to a level where they can keep a decent civil war going for a century or so. The problem is we've exposed everything we have, including who could be a likely USA-sympathizer in the future. If we pull out too soon, and just to avoid paying the piper to boot, we may have to learn to say "night of the long knives" in Pashto... and that will not end well.

OBL is the definite #1 winner here.

He pissed on the floor, mopped it up with the USA, proceeded to wash it with the relations to the Middle-East and, to top it off, he did it so that every nation in the world would remember it for ever. All at the paltry cost of his life, and I wager the world will forget that small satisfaction for the USA rather quickly, whereas 9/11 and its aftermath would have to be one of the pivotal moments in postwar history, shifting the balance of power dramatically from day one. To boot, it will probably cost extra (it may already have) that OBL was killed.

We're talking something like 4.5 trillion dollars, 225.000 dead and a global resurgence of crime and terror.

That's quite a legacy for one man. Though, in fairness, he couldn't have done so well without Bush.

quote:

Afghanistan is relatively isolated and so the option of encircling it, containing it is a real option.


Was a real option. Then there was OBL and now 24 sleeping soldiers, just to take Pakistan as one example. Afghanistan is not as isolated as one might think. Besides, how would one contain them? Build a large wall and buffer area, reminescent of the killing zones in the Berlin Wall? Even that has limited efficacy, at best, and politicians forget faster than anything other than the public, and the purportedly vanquished never forget. Containment will probably take killing everyone, which is political suicide.

quote:

We should note that AQ terrorism in Afghanistan was an imported phenomenon. The Taliban will have their hands full running the country and are unlikely to be supportive of international terrorism again.


You could argue that they didn't support it in the first place, as their main objection to handing over OBL was one any country should have held: that GWB never cared to present evidence before demanding extradition for execution, in essence. For that matter, if getting OBL was a goal (wouldn't even have to be the goal), there are at least half a dozen nations that could have taken him out quietly without any need for the USA to bungle the job, and without one of the most expensive wars in modern history.

Killing OBL did not require the West losing a war against a ravaged developing nation whose GDP is less than the revenue of The Coca-Cola Company (even after factoring in foreign aid and opium). Apart from being downright embarassing, it's also counterproductive in every way. The USSR understood pretty quickly that the Mujahadeen, with the support of the USA, were an impossible enemy to fight and that they would lose by attirition. We might've trusted the efficacy of our own Cold War dabblings over the insane fantasies about "shock and awe."

quote:

Sadly this means leaving the people of Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban, an option made barely palatable only because all other options are worse.


What's sad about leaving a population to its own internal politics when our interference is unwelcome?

Should the European Union interfere in the internal politics of Australia?

It's not as if either side is blameless, for that matter.

quote:

On the plus side, one of history's more corrupt governments (Karzai's) and the biggest State sponsored drug trafficking operation since Noriega (another erstwhile US ally) or Ky (of Sth Vietnam, and yes another erstwhile US ally) will no longer be.


The drug trafficing thing is responsible for more than a third of the GDP in a an agricultural country with 35% unemployment, and knocking it back hurts our efforts there a lot. It would've been better to ally ourselves with the drug lords than the rest of them, if we really wanted to get the job done. If eliminating the drug exports had been a priority, we would never have touched the Taliban, the only government I know of to have been effective at suppressing drugs, except perhaps Singapore (another good candidate for going in to interfere, if one absolutely wants to get into the internal politics of countries to 'save' the population).

If you want a way to make the western world lower its living standards to share its wealth with developing nations, culturable drugs are the way to go. Nothing else gets nearly as much foreign aid directly into the hands of the poor, and nothing else is as effective at getting affluent nations to willingly part with their resources. China is the exception, as they buy and cultivate land in Africa piece by piece, turning the tide day by day and securing their own futures in the process. But then, they don't have politics so much as they have a national administration doing a job, and a population with a long history of evicting any government that doesn't look out for its people.

quote:

Giving the bleakness of future options, I am unable to see upside in continuing to waste lives and resources on an unwinnable war. Unless an peace deal can be brokered more or less immediately (rather improbable), is there any viable alternative to withdrawal?


While 'some' nations have been busy attacking soldiers near our main logistics routes in Afghanistan, 'some' have been attempting to broker such a deal in secret. I though that had gone from 'secret' to 'common knowledge' already. Of course, I don't expect it to work, which is why we're all bracing to take the load when the USA pulls out. The rest of us are going to stay a while longer, to see if we can salvage some of the pieces. I guess you could say we're covering the USA's retreat, as they will be the primary benefactor of this approach (except for Afghanistan's corrupt government).

Withdrawal, at least rapid withdrawal, is not on the list of viable alternatives.

Caveat emptor... I've not had my morning dose of caffeine yet.

Health,
al-Aswad.

P.S.: Did I remember to insert a shameless plug for the Armadillo movie?

Edited as I apparently can't spell worth a damn today.



tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/3/2011 7:06:47 PM)

Aswad, there's little discord between our analyses of the situation there. Bush the Dumber and OBL's joint act was mind-bogglingly stupid, tragedy piled on tragedy in one of history's more monumental man-made horrors. Lots of us predicted the disaster - we were ignored by the looney Right and the neo-cons driving policy in Washington. Now we are left to pick up the pieces and find some kind of sensible solution to the mess.

The options for the future are almost as odious as the past has been. As far as I can see, there is no realistic option that offers even the remotest chance of success, of freedom or improvement for the wretched people of Afghanistan (esp Afghani women) or the region.

Given the above, how can anyone justify continued direct military involvement by the West? I know the consequences of withdrawal are horrible. So are the consequences of staying.

Any ideas?



Aswad -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/5/2011 4:13:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Given the above, how can anyone justify continued direct military involvement by the West? I know the consequences of withdrawal are horrible. So are the consequences of staying.


Staying a while longer seems preferrable.

Norway is at least continuing its commitment until 2013. Apart from the mentor folks, I expect Telemark Battalion will be staying, along with the snipers from 2nd, and likely the Marine Ranger Commandos, with the latter hopefully having the shortest stay. FSK is probably largely out, as the mandate doesn't really call for their level of expertise anymore. The last to go will probably be the snipers and the mentors.

I would point out, just for the record, that the snipers aren't primarily marksmen, though they obviously do excel in that department as well. Their main qualifications are observation, memorization, endurance, awareness, alertness, stealth and the ability to make split second decisions on factors that are normally only apparent to a long time native resident of the area. They keep an ear to the ground with the locals, check out that roadside bush that isn't exactly where and how it was a couple of weeks ago, and point out when the wildlife and/or people are subtly off cue. And they hole up for weeks at a time to listen in on a meeting that may or may not take place, then get out quietly and report. We've lost one so far, and he had been reassigned to body guarding at the time, at which he did succeed.

In short, they're an important source of information and an invaluable asset in terms of security, so I doubt they will leave until the rest are going home. And if even a fraction of their professionalism rubs off on the Afghan forces, it will do the latter a world of good. Normalization and professionalization of the Afghan forces is crucial to enabling them to make the country work after the retreat, rather than just propagating the pointless civil war that the Taliban originally put an end to.

And, yes, the Taliban did effectively make a huge change for the better in their day. Except in a few areas, where there were forces that tried to wipe them out in a concerted attack, which is presumably why those areas suffered much under their rule. The bulk of what we've seen from there of how life with the Taliban worked is from those areas, where they replaced forces that were at least as extreme. We would've had a better shot at stabilizing the country working out some kind of deal with them than with the corrupt regime we've installed in their place. But that will mean a loss of face and some temporary setbacks as to women's rights, so it won't fly. Thus, staying and mentoring the Afghan forces while we make things manageable for them is really the best option right now.

So, yeah, I think we best stay. Just a while longer. Enough to band-aid some mistakes.

Let's give it a snowball's chance in hell of healing before we bail.

Health,
al-Aswad.




tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/6/2011 4:15:45 AM)

I appreciate your perspective Aswad. It is considered, you're aware of the risks and prepared to take them. I'm not.

For me, 10 + years is already a lot more than enough. When I think about the awful position that leaving will put Afghani women in, I really wish there was another way. But I'm sorry I just can't see it succeeding. Alien armies in Muslim lands just doesn't work any more.




thompsonx -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/6/2011 10:50:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The point is not necessarily what precise moment did the armed forces make this massive blunder,



Why do you think it is a massive blunder to request permission to return fire and then do so when that permission is granted?

and what was the president doing at that point in time, or what are his diplomats doing to ameliorate the situation - and I apologize if I gave that impression.  

The wars have been a constant, but the way the media in general



You have been asked many times to validate your charge of the media having a left bias...all one needs to do is look who owns your so called liberal media.


and the left in particular portrays / portrayed the different presidents is the main point, though there are significant subtexts. In other words, why is this president playing golf during wartime now perfectly acceptable to the media etc, when under Bush it was reason worth going apoplectic.

Which news media went apoplectic when bush&co played golf?


Now its as if this president may openly flaunt his aloofness, his disconnectedness from the military,

It is part of our constitution that the president (civilian) have a certian "disconnectedness" from the military while stll being it's cnc.
and any negative actions said military takes is charged off to NATO or other organizations or figures. Yet if its something positive, such as the killing of OBL, its treated as if the president did it personally with his bare hands and his teeth...

No one besides you has made that characterazation.

I would just like to see some core honesty here, and a level playing field to judge political figures and history itself, but thats not what we are seeing or getting.

If you were to take your own advice we might actually have a discussion.





Aswad -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/6/2011 2:03:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I appreciate your perspective Aswad. It is considered, you're aware of the risks and prepared to take them. I'm not.


I do appreciate the other perspectives. And, in all fairness, I'm neither Afghan, nor in the armed forces, so it's not me taking the risk. As such, it weighs more heavily what the potential gain is, for me. At least now that we're not really fighting the same war GWB started.

quote:

For me, 10 + years is already a lot more than enough. When I think about the awful position that leaving will put Afghani women in, I really wish there was another way. But I'm sorry I just can't see it succeeding. Alien armies in Muslim lands just doesn't work any more.


That's why the military needs to withdraw. Currently, they're covering the asses of the Afghans in training and the bases that have the logistics that support the mentor programme, while handing off the various responsibilities to the Afghans themselves. Mentoring and stability during the transition are the main priorities.

As for the women, they're getting the short end of the stick anyway, and the best bet is for them to eventually grab it and do something about it. Some have already started doing so across the Arab world. Jordan may be furthest along, but it is going on elsewhere, as well. If we really care about that, we should dump subsidized technology and infrastructure down there; the ability to educate oneself is greatly augmented by those, and education has preceded suffrage and civil rights in essentially all cases.

Seeing as I have family that lived through the German occupation, and Gestapo went to town on a neighbouring area, I'm of the view that this is an occupation, and that it is illegitimate, and that the people fighting back pretty much have the high ground.

Leaving is the right thing to do. I just think there are more polite ways to leave than to pack up and be gone all of a sudden with a note saying "sorry we wrecked the place, ciao" or somesuch. Most of  the better alternatives will not happen, so what we're doing seems the most realistic thing. Shipping tons of water filtration units, medical supplies, heavy machinery and the like would be better, but is politically not going to happen, because that's the foreign aid budget, rather than the military budget.

As a side note, I'm not looking forward to dumping thousands of veterans on the job market in a recession.

Some side note, eh...

Health,
al-Aswad.




thompsonx -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/6/2011 3:34:26 PM)

quote:

In short, they're an important source of information and an invaluable asset in terms of security, so I doubt they will leave until the rest are going home. And if even a fraction of their professionalism rubs off on the Afghan forces, it will do the latter a world of good. Normalization and professionalization of the Afghan forces is crucial to enabling them to make the country work after the retreat, rather than just propagating the pointless civil war that the Taliban originally put an end to.


I find it intresting that afghanistan has a highly professional and effective military(that would be the opposition) and yet we cannot recruit,train and equip it's equal. Are they not all the same people from the same country?
I noticed a similar situation fifty years ago in a place called viet nam.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/6/2011 3:42:28 PM)

quote:

Eisenhower was a competent president
He really was, wasn't he? I've been reading up on him, and a lot of what he said wouldn't pass muster with today's Republicans at all, would it?



Aswad -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/6/2011 7:51:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I find it intresting that afghanistan has a highly professional and effective military(that would be the opposition) and yet we cannot recruit,train and equip it's equal. Are they not all the same people from the same country? I noticed a similar situation fifty years ago in a place called viet nam.


Everyone good enough to make the cut is part of the opposition. And most of them are veterans. And there is a huge asymmetry in the rules of engagement. Turning the castoffs into a match for veterans that have already beat the USSR and ended a civil war is obviously going to be a challenge, to put it mildly. It isn't a good situation for anyone, but GWB set the stage, and now everyone gets to pay the price for that. And, yes, it does have strong similarities.

The question is: can we get our leaders to support the Taliban?

I doubt it.

Health,
al-Aswad.




tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/6/2011 9:12:32 PM)

quote:

The question is: can we get our leaders to support the Taliban?


As I understand the situation, the NATO/ISAF goal is not to defeat the Taliban. It is widely accepted that the war is unwinnable. The current goal is to secure a position of strength from which negotiations with the Taliban may be conducted.

A widely-reported view among Western decision-makers is that Pakistan - through its military intelligence arm - finances, equips and controls the Taliban. Why is Pakistan supporting destabilising Afghanistan? Pakistan wants the Kashmir dispute (with India) settled. It foments trouble in Afghanistan because that's the only way it can get international focus on the Kashmir issue.

The Taliban's position is that it refuses to negotiate while foreign troops remain in the country - on its own, a not unreasonable position. We should also note that the Taliban itself isn't a unified movement as much as a broad coalition with elements ranging from Islamic fundamentalists, tribal groupings, various warlords, drug and criminal outfits ..... Taliban logic is that they will retain the will to fight far longer than any foreign interlopers and thus, as long as it remains a viable force, eventually it will inherit the country one way or another.

Can a viable peace agreement be knocked together with such fractious participants and conflicting interests? If you believe it can be, how long might such a process take. (Hint: I'd count in years .....) How viable will the end result be? Will the traditional warlords accept such an outcome or (as has always been the case in the last 25 years) will they break away and start new wars (in the Afghani style and tradition)?

At this week's conference in Bonn, we have Karzai telling us he needs ongoing Western 'support' (read into that term what you will) for at least another 10 years for his notoriously corrupt regime to survive ...... The chances of an honest incorruptible democratic regime in Kabul ..........???? Please don't bet your house on it Aswad.

Sorry Aswad, I just can't see any kind of acceptable outcome occurring. As you say, Bush the Dumber really scrambled these eggs, and I for one have no idea how they are going to be unscrambled ..... especially by foreigners. And, given the choice, I prefer to be optimistic about things .......



thompsonx -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/7/2011 12:12:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I find it intresting that afghanistan has a highly professional and effective military(that would be the opposition) and yet we cannot recruit,train and equip it's equal. Are they not all the same people from the same country? I noticed a similar situation fifty years ago in a place called viet nam.


Everyone good enough to make the cut is part of the opposition. And most of them are veterans. And there is a huge asymmetry in the rules of engagement. Turning the castoffs into a match for veterans that have already beat the USSR and ended a civil war is obviously going to be a challenge, to put it mildly. It isn't a good situation for anyone, but GWB set the stage, and now everyone gets to pay the price for that. And, yes, it does have strong similarities.

The question is: can we get our leaders to support the Taliban?

I doubt it.

I remember a time when my passport was not valid for travel to russia or china and now we are bff.
We will be buds with the taliban just like we now make nice with viet nam.

Health,
al-Aswad.






Aswad -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/8/2011 3:00:56 PM)

Later, we'll make buddies, yes.

Right now, that's less likely.

Aswad.



SternSkipper -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (12/8/2011 5:11:30 PM)

quote:

He really was, wasn't he? I've been reading up on him, and a lot of what he said wouldn't pass muster with today's Republicans at all, would it?


If he had made the statement below as a campaign speech while running for his second term he'd have been deader than Jack Kennedy...

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.We recognize the imperative need for this development ... the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist ... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625