NationStates Jolt Archive

Title says it all.

Nah, not right now, immediately, at this instance.

No.

At this very moment? No
Eventually once its sort of stable*, sure.

* by sort of stable I mean the Afghan military can patrol its borders, keep suicide bombings and other acts at a much lower rate and the Taliban is finally and truly destroyed.(none of that is likely but one can hope)

No.

no
much as I wish the answer was yes.

OP needs to expand upon itself

No I do not agree that pulling out of Afghanistan is a good idea it would be disastrous for international stability and condemn the country to the likes of the Taliban yet again

Magic 8 Ball says "yes"

No. Totally No.

I voted, "Yes, they should withdraw completely, but gradually." But how long is gradually, We need to withdraw COMPLETELY once Afghanistan can manage its own affairs. I just hope we don't have military bases there for another hundred years.

No, there we go.

I voted, "Yes, they should withdraw completely, but gradually." But how long is gradually, We need to withdraw COMPLETELY once Afghanistan can manage its own affairs. I just hope we don't have military bases there for another hundred years.

wait surely thats option 7?

also why should the US completely withdraw if the Afghan government allows US bases on its soil?

also why should the US completely withdraw if the Afghan government allows US bases on its soil?

$$$?

Si, yes, hai, oui, si, da...

Si, yes, hai, oui, si, da...

Just can't decide, huh?

Seriously, nana-chan, express yourself.

;)

I voted, "Yes, they should withdraw completely, but gradually." But how long is gradually, We need to withdraw COMPLETELY once Afghanistan can manage its own affairs. I just hope we don't have military bases there for another hundred years.

I leave that to your discretion.

Just can't decide, huh?

Seriously, nana-chan, express yourself.

;)

I know. It's so hard and in which language, to add to the indecision.:eek2:


:wink:

Si, yes, hai, oui, si, da...

No, non, nyet, nae, nein, nullus, Ei, nei. Two more, I win! :D

No, non, nyet, nae, nein, nullus, Ei, nei. Two more, I win! :D

Yep. You win pissing money and American lives away. Go you!

Guys, can we stick to the topic, please?

Yep. You win pissing money and American lives away. Go you!
Yay! Pissing money!

With all seriousness, I'm just saying that we should stay in, mostly because the government there is like a house of cards, one slight push and the whole thing comes tumbling down. I'm no fan of chaos, although once the government actually shows something akin to stability, I'm all for getting out and washing our hands of the whole mess. Until then, I say we take responsibility.

Guys, can we stick to the topic, please?

Because lives and money thrown away in war... isn't?

No.

Because lives and money thrown away in war... isn't?

It is, I just want to make sure it stays on topic.

We should stay until one of two things occurs: We are clearly no longer needed, or the government of Afghanistan (as in, one freely chosen by it's people) requests that we leave. In both cases we can withdraw with a clear conscience.

Yay! Pissing money!

With all seriousness, I'm just saying that we should stay in, mostly because the government there is like a house of cards, one slight push and the whole thing comes tumbling down.


I find myself in the same position I've held on Iraq. Pull out, let the factions balance themselves out, and then actually do something to make peace and prosperity with the established order.


I'm no fan of chaos, although once the government actually shows something akin to stability, I'm all for getting out and washing our hands of the whole mess. Until then, I say we take responsibility.

My problem with that situation... I don't buy it. We let a 'peace' and 'order' come to exist, and we pull out. And all the other factions that have been waiting patiently for us to pull out, and have been holding back because we've been propping something up... immediately undo all our good work.

So - try to force a peace, and be prepared for when it all goes shit-shaped when we leave? Or let it straighten itself out naturally, and then try to exert some influence on the calmed situation?

We should stay until one of two things occurs: We are clearly no longer needed, or the government of Afghanistan (as in, one freely chosen by it's people) requests that we leave. In both cases we can withdraw with a clear conscience.

We are clearly no longer needed now.

I find myself in the same position I've held on Iraq. Pull out, let the factions balance themselves out, and then actually do something to make peace and prosperity with the established order.

I'm against that. I'm a bit of an isolationist, intervening in a country for ANY reason is like saying that we know better than they do what's best for them. And if the US intervenes, you know that it's either a puppet government that's going to be set up, or everyone is going to believe it's a puppet government, which isn't much better.

My problem with that situation... I don't buy it. We let a 'peace' and 'order' come to exist, and we pull out. And all the other factions that have been waiting patiently for us to pull out, and have been holding back because we've been propping something up... immediately undo all our good work.

So - try to force a peace, and be prepared for when it all goes shit-shaped when we leave? Or let it straighten itself out naturally, and then try to exert some influence on the calmed situation?
I only want to rid ourselves of the responsibility. Once we've done what we can, we get out and stop muddling around in other countries' business. It rarely helps.

I'm against that. I'm a bit of an isolationist, intervening in a country for ANY reason is like saying that we know better than they do what's best for them.


Which... is what we're doing now?


And if the US intervenes, you know that it's either a puppet government that's going to be set up, or everyone is going to believe it's a puppet government, which isn't much better.


Which... is what is happening now?


I only want to rid ourselves of the responsibility. Once we've done what we can, we get out and stop muddling around in other countries' business. It rarely helps.

So - creating a fake temporary 'victory', knowing it'll go to shit after we pull out... is better than creating a lasting peace?

We are clearly no longer needed now.

Considering they're still fighting large-scale insurgencies by the Taliban out of Pakistan, I seriously disagree.

Which... is what we're doing now?

Pretty much. I'm saying I don't support that kind of thing. Would you prefer a list of recent interventions and invasions within the last decade, or were you trying to make a different point?

Which... is what is happening now?

As far as I understand it, yes. I will admit though, I haven't been over there personally.

So - creating a fake temporary 'victory', knowing it'll go to shit after we pull out... is better than creating a lasting peace?
Intervening rarely creates a lasting peace. I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in making sure that they're fate is their problem, not the US's. Aside from some foreign aid, we should stay out of other countries' problems.

Considering they're still fighting large-scale insurgencies by the Taliban out of Pakistan, I seriously disagree.

Don't see the problem, there?

$$$?

bah I'm sure the US is willing to pay buckets with Military installations in such a cross roads

Pull out, let the factions balance themselves out

like in Somalia? or pre-2001 Afghanistan?

And all the other factions that have been waiting patiently for us to pull out, and have been holding back because we've been propping something up... immediately undo all our good work.

but what do you think of the British policy of letting local warlords hold a degree of autonomy then? (admittedly its been a bit of a disaster with the Taliban just marching right in)

what I'm getting at is why not build up the Afghan army so that it can maintain a balance of power itself?

Pretty much. I'm saying I don't support that kind of thing. Would you prefer a list of recent interventions and invasions within the last decade, or were you trying to make a different point?


You don't support that kind of thing - thus, we should pull out immediately, no?


As far as I understand it, yes. I will admit though, I haven't been over there personally.


Again... as above.


Intervening rarely creates a lasting peace. I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in making sure that they're fate is their problem, not the US's. Aside from some foreign aid, we should stay out of other countries' problems.

Agreed. We should withdraw.

Don't see the problem, there?

Yes. Pakistan is not suppressing the Taliban there, allowing them safe harbour, and we are not dealing with that, thus violating rule 1 of dealing with an insurgency.

bah I'm sure the US is willing to pay buckets with Military installations in such a cross roads


You may not have noticed - the US economy ain't that great, right now.


like in Somalia? or pre-2001 Afghanistan?


Sure.


but what do you think of the British policy of letting local warlords hold a degree of autonomy then? (admittedly its been a bit of a disaster with the Taliban just marching right in)


Fundamentally, a good plan. The best bet for controlling the Taliban is (sympathetic) warlords.


what I'm getting at is why not build up the Afghan army so that it can maintain a balance of power itself?

A military dictatorship?

Any government we prop up, any army we construct there - is viable as long as we are there. If the nation is riven by factionalism after we leave, the government has to either rule with an iron fist (AND the military) or it falls into factions, itself. And that probably won't be a choice the government gets to make, either - if the army factionalises after we leave, the nation fragments.

And, looking at Afghanistan... it's going to fragment.

You don't support that kind of thing - thus, we should pull out immediately, no?



Again... as above.



Agreed. We should withdraw.

But I'm saying we shouldn't withdraw IMMEDIATELY. I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't want it to look like we just came in, stomped all over their government, set up a puppet government, and then ran out yelling 'We won!' at the top of our lungs. I'd prefer a short period before the puppet government and the running out where the country has gained a degree of stability, like where Iraq is almost at.

And then I want us to never do that kind of crap again.:D

Yes. Pakistan is not suppressing the Taliban there, allowing them safe harbour, and we are not dealing with that, thus violating rule 1 of dealing with an insurgency.

If we have an issue, now... it's not in Afghanistan.

Also - if the problem is in Pakistan, even if we nail Afghanistan down hard, what happens when we leave?

what the u.s. and its allies, need to do in this context, is to recognize the legitimate government of the people there, which is not the puppet they've set up in cabul, nor the taliban, nor any other single faction at the expense of others, but the annual council of tribal leaders that has been the REAL government of the real people there, for millinea.

then inquire into and accept the decisions of THAT council. perhapse, if invited to do so, participate in them, but only if actually invited to do so. at any rate, it certainly needs to stop sending robotic drones that bomb anyone who picks up a cell phone.

You may not have noticed - the US economy ain't that great, right now.

That's never stopped the U.S. government from spending money it doesn't have in the past.

I support pulling out of Afghanistan as much as I would support having to pull my cock out of Melissa Theuriau, mid-sex.

But I'm saying we shouldn't withdraw IMMEDIATELY.


After all, it's not like a continued presence is against everything you stand for?


I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't want it to look like we just came in, stomped all over their government, set up a puppet government,


We did.


...and then ran out yelling 'We won!' at the top of our lungs.


We will.


I'd prefer a short period before the puppet government and the running out where the country has gained a degree of stability, like where Iraq is almost at.


We haven't pulled out of Iraq, yet.

The factionalism in Iraq is still there. There are BIG divides that are just being ignored... and there are factions that are biding their time - and we KNOW it.


And then I want us to never do that kind of crap again.:D

Agreed.

That's never stopped the U.S. government from spending money it doesn't have in the past.

It's the 'at any cost' part that might make that decision.

I support pulling out of Afghanistan as much as I would support having to pull my cock out of Melissa Theuriau, mid-sex.

Rape is wrong.

Rape is wrong.

And yet it feels so right!

If we have an issue, now... it's not in Afghanistan.

Also - if the problem is in Pakistan, even if we nail Afghanistan down hard, what happens when we leave?

I'm not sure what you're saying in your first sentence.

As regards your second: three possibilities. Allowing a Safe Harbour permits an insurrection to regenerate indefinitely, so if we have not dealt with that, then either the Taliban will gradually regain control, or we will have built up the Afghan Armed Forces to the point of being able to deal with them. If we HAVE dealt with the problem (which would mean, by and large, dealing with the primitive hill/mountains areas of Pakistan - a tough, but not insurmountable problem, provided the Pakistani military stays out of the way) then Afghanistan has a reasonable chance to continue to exist as a viable state - which is the best that can be done in any situation.

After all, it's not like a continued presence is against everything you stand for?



We did.



We will.



We haven't pulled out of Iraq, yet.

The factionalism in Iraq is still there. There are BIG divides that are just being ignored... and there are factions that are biding their time - and we KNOW it.

I know, but it will seem like we did our best (and I think we honestly did, after we figured out we had no real objective), and seem like we didn't leave them high and dry. I think the best way to explain this is a quote.

Don't let me stop your great self destruction.
Die if you want to you misguided martyr.
I wash my hands of your demolition.

I want it to look like the US is clean in the matter, minus the whole problem of invading in the first place.

It's the 'at any cost' part that might make that decision.

One area where U.S. politicians never diverge (with a few heroic exceptions like Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich) is foreign policy. Both parties support upholding our overseas empire come hell or highwater. Even Obama, who was supposed to bring us much-heralded 'change,' has no intention of rolling back the empire. The U.S. continues to have a military presence in over 130 countries. He is even expanding the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, drawing us deeper and deeper into an unwinnable quagmire. No matter how much he may wish otherwise, Afghanistan cannot and will not be conquered. They don't call the place "the boneyard of empires" for nothing.

You may not have noticed - the US economy ain't that great, right now.

like thats ever stopped the US :p

Sure.

but what good will that do? you will just end up with a massive unstable zone where we really don't need one (Pakistan with Nukes and a struggle against militants much?)

Fundamentally, a good plan. The best bet for controlling the Taliban is (sympathetic) warlords.

the problem is when NATO troops have to march back in and retake the place as soon as our backs are turned

Any government we prop up, any army we construct there - is viable as long as we are there. If the nation is riven by factionalism after we leave, the government has to either rule with an iron fist (AND the military) or it falls into factions, itself. And that probably won't be a choice the government gets to make, either - if the army factionalises after we leave, the nation fragments.

so clearly the policy needs to be to bring unity to the Afghan government and for it to be able to provide stability for its people as opposed to warlords?

And, looking at Afghanistan... it's going to fragment.

but thats not what I see when you watch interviews with the ANA and such

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD6EtjenQnw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAbxFWLgxbc&feature=related

I'm thinking no, for several reasons.

#1: The terrorists really are there.

Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the terrorists were already there, and they gave comfort to the man who orchestrated 9/11. Such an action on the Taliban's part should be punished. Further, it is the Bush Administration's neglect of Afghanistan that got them where they are today and allowed the Taliban to reconstitute. Which brings me to #2:

#2: The Taliban is already crowing about a victory.

The Taliban is already crowing that it has beaten the "infidels". This situation is unlike Vietnam for at least one reason: There is no great-power sponsor that the US can lean on to moderate the actions of a successful enemy, as the US leaned on the USSR to keep the newly-constituted country of Vietnam from becoming a hotbed of Anti-American (and anti-Western) attacks.

#3: This war, unlike Iraq, is winnable - if done right.

Unlike in Iraq (where allied forces control only where they are), Afghanistan does not feature an entirely hostile populace - yet. They view themselves as having been liberated from the taliban, not taken over by an empire.

This means that the war is winnable. If the allied forces can ease the grip of fear that the Taliban has on the southern provinces, they may well crumble. But this will take, not troops, but intel. How is as yet undetermined, which means that Afghanistan must be the place that such tactics are tested.

#4: You break it, you bought it. More accurately: You break it, you fix it.

The allied nations have an obligation, having toppled the government (de-facto or de jure, it matters little), to provide all reasonable support for the new regime. Sending the Taliban into hiding, and then leaving whilst Karzai's (admittedly not much nicer) government is still vulnerable is dishonourable. It makes any Western words of friendship with dissidents to such regimes as the Taliban self-serving and utterly untrustworthy.

**

In short, I do not propose vast numbers of conventional troops. They have already done more than can be reasonably asked of them, and in any case regular troops are of limited utility in what is essentially a guerilla war. I would support the following:

1. Maintain large concentrations of troops at key nodal points - travel crossroads, cities, key parts of rivers, etc. This has the advantage of granting Western (and Afghan government) counterterrorism forces the 'home ground' advantage when responding to situations or initiating plans.

2. Send in intelligence. Or at least specialised CT and anti-guerrilla troops. They are the ones who will be able to root out the Taliban's stockpiles, their training facilities, their retreats. These are the troops that can break the insugents by denying them the supplies and leadership they need to be effective. I would suggest that the counterterrorist units of countries such as Russia, Turkey and Georgia would suit, as would some of Colombia's - those of their units that specialise in hunting down FARC strongholds in the mountainous areas. All of the nations I mention have significant, recent experience at facing guerrillas entrenched in mountain chains.

3. Send in different troops (perhaps under UN flags) who can establish a rapport with the Afghani people, and respond to calls for help from the citiznery. Deny the Taliban their compliant victims, and their resources will dry up. Which brings me to:

4. Do not involve Pakistan. All available evidence points to one conclusion: the ISI has been thoroughly and systematically compromised by the Taliban. When I mention the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) organisation, think an unaccountable body with roughly the political clout of all the US intelligence services combined. With a large hidden budget, and by all reports, a thriving business network to support its operation. All under Taliban control. If you involve Pakistan, you involve them. And in that case, you might as well send the Taliban a letter with your plans in it.

I'm not sure what you're saying in your first sentence.

As regards your second: three possibilities. Allowing a Safe Harbour permits an insurrection to regenerate indefinitely, so if we have not dealt with that, then either the Taliban will gradually regain control, or we will have built up the Afghan Armed Forces to the point of being able to deal with them. If we HAVE dealt with the problem (which would mean, by and large, dealing with the primitive hill/mountains areas of Pakistan - a tough, but not insurmountable problem, provided the Pakistani military stays out of the way) then Afghanistan has a reasonable chance to continue to exist as a viable state - which is the best that can be done in any situation.

The 'insurrection' of which you speak... it's global. You can't kill it. We locked it down in Afghanistan, and what happened? It spilled over the borders. We pinned it down in Baghdad, and it moved to Basra.

There IS no military way to kill the problem.

The parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the resistance is and will be? You say a tough, but not insurmountable problem. History says otherwise.

Have you looked at the history of the region we're discussing?

No matter how much he may wish otherwise, Afghanistan cannot and will not be conquered. They don't call the place "the boneyard of empires" for nothing.

This ^^

like thats ever stopped the US :p


It has.

The US never would have joined the Second World War if there was no production advantage to be gained.

The pipedream of missilebases in Afghanistan isn't going to happen.


but what good will that do? you will just end up with a massive unstable zone where we really don't need one (Pakistan with Nukes and a struggle against militants much?)


Whether we need it or not, there HAS been "a massive unstable zone where we don't really need one" for thousands of years.


the problem is when NATO troops have to march back in and retake the place as soon as our backs are turned


Which - I assume - you think isn't going to happen, anyway?


so clearly the policy needs to be to bring unity to the Afghan government and for it to be able to provide stability for its people as opposed to warlords?


What you're describing: "unity... Afghan government... provide stability..." IS "warlords".

There IS no military way to kill the problem.

Agreed.

If we want to stop (or at least minimize) terrorism, we should stop creating and/or exacerbating the conditions that lead people to resort to terrorism.

Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the terrorists were already there, and they gave comfort to the man who orchestrated 9/11. Such an action on the Taliban's part should be punished.


So, now you want us to invade Saudi Arabia?


#2: The Taliban is already crowing about a victory.


That's because the Taliban already won.


#3: This war, unlike Iraq, is winnable - if done right.


You've not encountered the history of Afghanistan, yet, have you?


1. Maintain large concentrations of troops at key nodal points


Saves time and effort. When someone blows up your nicely concentrated troop formations, you can do ALL the clean-up by hiring one guy with a hose.

I have yet to here a convincing reason why we should withdraw and let the country to back to shit.

I have yet to here a convincing reason why we should withdraw and let the country to back to shit.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear a convincing reason why we should stay there longer, then withdraw.

And let the country go back to shit.

With the United States debt as it is? withdraw. Were are acting like the British did against Bonaparte, killing so many (Napoleonic Wars) to avenge the deaths of our beloved (Louis XVI and company).

I have yet to here a convincing reason why we should withdraw and let the country to back to shit.

So they can get back to growing my Opium.

I support pulling out of Afghanistan as much as I would support having to pull my cock out of Melissa Theuriau, mid-sex.

After seeing a pic, I have to agree.

The 'insurrection' of which you speak... it's global. You can't kill it. We locked it down in Afghanistan, and what happened? It spilled over the borders. We pinned it down in Baghdad, and it moved to Basra.

There IS no military way to kill the problem.

The parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the resistance is and will be? You say a tough, but not insurmountable problem. History says otherwise.

Have you looked at the history of the region we're discussing?

Of course there is. When they pop up in an area, you find them and kill them. If you kill enough of them then they'll stop fighting...or run out of able Mujahideen which is really just as well. :tongue:

But being serious this time, Iraq has been won. The Insurgency has been for all intensive purposes broken there. Yes, they still lash out every now and then, but many of the foreign fighters are heading to Afghanistan supposedly to fight there, where they believe they've got a better chance of winning. The key to breaking them there, is to clout them where they base themselves; western Pakistan. Yes, its the wild west out there, but if you move in there with sufficient force you'll disrupt their operations to the point where they will likely not recover. From there I can forsee the POSSIBILITY of the movement taking root in Uzbekistan (there was a lot of concern when we first went in there that with an American offensive presence we'd have to put down an Uzbek Uprising, but it never materialized thank GOD). If it does, the Uzbek government promised they would descend like the hand of God and crush it, so with a little effort that fire would be put out. The Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) wouldn't be foolish enough to overtly operate against American military forces, so I'm not overly concerned with them. I think the biggest problem that the NATO coalition faces is the politicians unwillingness to go all out and do what it takes to win: i.e move into West Pakistan.

It'd be ideal to take out Muqtada al-Sadr as well...with him out of the picture then the Mahdi Army would collapse. He's just a thug, and his gang of misfits are just the equivalent of well organized mafiosos...with lots of guns...but they're a powerful bunch of thugs with lots of guns. Killing the head would break them. Problem is that he's in hiding in Tehran...killing Zarqawi put the fear of Allah into him so he sidestepped out of Sadr City...heh...apparantly he's all too willing to let his men die for him but isn't willing to be there himself eh? :rolleyes:

Iraq can stand on its own IF IT WANTS TO. And that means if the people decide that they want it. If they don't, and the military doesn't want to fight the insurgents, then there is no way in hell we can win. Kill ten million insurgents and you'll still have more because the people want there to be. If the people there lash out and say, "Hell no! We're standing!" then they will. America has given them the ability, and they're strong enough. Time'll tell if they're willing. I just really hope for their sakes that they are.

Afghanistan's a little different. They aren't anything close to ready yet. We NEED to continue fighting there. Also unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is actually a place worth fighting for. Not that theres anything of value there...there really isn't...but the Taliban are evil, in the purest sense of the word. If theres any group to stand with the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge who deserve to be destroyed, eradicated, annihilated, or otherwise wiped off the face of the earth: its them.

But being serious this time, Iraq has been won.


Being serious, that's bullshit.


The Insurgency has been for all intensive purposes broken there.


No, it hasn't. Not even vaguely. Indeed, the concept itself is nonsensical. The 'insurgency' is a resistance to the occupation, and that resistance is still ongoing. All it's been doing in the last year and a half is transforming into a form to regain control of Iraq once we do pull out.


Yes, they still lash out every now and then, but many of the foreign fighters are heading to Afghanistan supposedly to fight there, where they believe they've got a better chance of winning.


Some of them are heading to Afghanistan, but not for the reason you think. The "...they believe they've got a better chance of winning..." is pure nonsense -they're not going to Afghanistan to 'win', but to fight.


The key to breaking them there, is to clout them where they base themselves; western Pakistan.


Which won't happen, for several reasons.


Yes, its the wild west out there, but if you move in there with sufficient force you'll disrupt their operations to the point where they will likely not recover.


Not going to happen. It's no accident that this 'war' is taking place THERE. They know there's no way to bring war to them.


From there I can forsee the POSSIBILITY of the movement taking root in Uzbekistan


Doesn't need to. The 'insurgency' movement is global, and can position anywhere. It is centring in the mountains in/around Afghanistan because it can't be touched there by any conventional military approach.


(there was a lot of concern when we first went in there that with an American offensive presence we'd have to put down an Uzbek Uprising, but it never materialized thank GOD). If it does, the Uzbek government promised they would descend like the hand of God and crush it, so with a little effort that fire would be put out. The Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) wouldn't be foolish enough to overtly operate against American military forces, so I'm not overly concerned with them. I think the biggest problem that the NATO coalition faces is the politicians unwillingness to go all out and do what it takes to win: i.e move into West Pakistan.


True. We're not going to invade Pakistan. If for no other reason than - they have nukes, and we never attack anyone that actually has weapons of mass destruction.


It'd be ideal to take out Muqtada al-Sadr as well...with him out of the picture then the Mahdi Army would collapse. He's just a thug, and his gang of misfits are just the equivalent of well organized mafiosos...with lots of guns...but they're a powerful bunch of thugs with lots of guns. Killing the head would break them. Problem is that he's in hiding in Tehran...killing Zarqawi put the fear of Allah into him so he sidestepped out of Sadr City...heh...apparantly he's all too willing to let his men die for him but isn't willing to be there himself eh? :rolleyes:


Again - not going to happen. Al-Sadr is an example of leadership, albeit a good example. We're not going to assassinate Al-Sadr, and, if we did, someone would step into his place.


Iraq can stand on its own IF IT WANTS TO. And that means if the people decide that they want it. If they don't, and the military doesn't want to fight the insurgents, then there is no way in hell we can win.


This part, at least, you got right.


Also unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is actually a place worth fighting for. Not that theres anything of value there...there really isn't...but the Taliban are evil, in the purest sense of the word.


According to some, the US government is evil.

I have yet to here a convincing reason why we should withdraw and let the country to back to shit.

It's already there, pretty much.

I have yet to here a convincing reason why we should withdraw and let the country to back to shit.

How about this: The war is costing American and Afghan lives, and is costing this nation money is cannot afford right now?

We cannot afford to be the world-police at this point.

We should withdraw them to attack Tonga and rid them of their Weapons of Mass Destruction

of COURSE the u.s. "should" extract its fat ass from everyplace other then home it has planted it, but the situation on the ground isn't that simple, or at least, i'm willing to allow for the possibility that it might not be, not claiming to know ALL the details, and i rather seriously doubt anyone on here does. still yes, any place we send people to kill people, that is an embarrasment and a shameful one to be doing so.

i'm just saying i don't have all the details it would be neccessary to have to form a rational extraction proccess, but i do feel it is absolutely shameful not to be creating and implimenting one, everyplace it is both neccessary and possible.

maybe a surge is part of the proccess. that doesn't on the face of it make a lot of sense to me, but i honestly don't believe any of us are sufficiently informed of the details, other then to look at the over all picture and in that context, have a general feel for what might or might not seem logical.

in the mean time of course, people are being killed in many places, totally unneccessarily and for the lamest of excuses. face it, military force is a very crude instrument, and not one appropriate for preforming brain surgery.

Yes, completely and immediately.

The 'insurrection' of which you speak... it's global. You can't kill it. We locked it down in Afghanistan, and what happened? It spilled over the borders. We pinned it down in Baghdad, and it moved to Basra.

No, you are quite wrong.

The al Qaida and other pro-Jihad forces would dearly love you to believe this. But the facts are otherwise. The insurrections are composed of relatively small proportions of the relatively small populations of the Middle East, and even smaller proportions of the relatively large populations of some states of the far east, salted with tiny quantities of people from other areas. They're supported by some quite wealthy nations, but primarily for secular reasons, and by those believers, such as bin Laden, with the wealth to do so.

There is no "global insurrection". Jihadists move to locations they think are targetable, and there aren't enough to go around. Chechnya, for instance, has dried up as a useful combat zone - the Jihadists have largely moved to support Hezbollah or HAMAS against Israel, or to Iraq or Afghanistan.

There IS no military way to kill the problem.

Wrong again. Military actions against insurrections take time, and money, and cost lives - but most insurrections eventually lose.

The parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the resistance is and will be? You say a tough, but not insurmountable problem. History says otherwise.

History says nothing of the sort. That area was effectively pacified by the Mughals, several other Indian Empires over the centuries, and by the British. What they could NOT do is control the area past the Khyber region - but that's not the area we're talking about. The hill country of Pakistan is eminantly controllable.

Have you looked at the history of the region we're discussing?

Quite extensively, actually. The area was indeed a horror for 18th and 19th century forces - snipers around every rock, insufficient room to maneuver bodies of troops, strongpoints atop every hill.

Newsflash - we don't fight that way anymore. The very things that made it terrifying to the Great Powers play straight into our strengths, with small forces combat and long range support options making life hell fro anyone going against us. Yes, they will know the area better - they live there. But overcoming that home-field advantage are such things as satellite observation, reconnaisance drones and fast-mover ground strike aircraft.

This why we are NOT taking massive casualties, and they are. Their "claim of victory is nothing more than hollow propaganda.

Their "claim of victory is nothing more than hollow propaganda.

as is "ours". no one is "winning" anything. period. just a lot of people killing and getting killed for a lot of totally lame bullshit excuses. and al cia da ain't got shit to do with the real chainge in the wind. the whole world realizes its been suckered by the major powers, and people everywhere are damd tired of taking it in the ass, even people, damd near if not completely, a majority of them, IN the dominant super power nations as well.

there's no war on "terror". there's a war on civil rights, that is being fought to entrench the corporate mafia in a position of world dictatorship. if there is any favor of fortune on the side of any sort of REAL morality, it will ultimately loose.

the CORPORATE mafia, NOT marxism, socialism, or anything other then economic makiavellianism.

What exactly is the reason for being there?

No, non, nyet, nae, nein, nullus, Ei, nei. Two more, I win! :D

Art thou challenging moi?:eek2:

We should stay until we are no longer needed. Once we are no longer needed in Afghanistan, we should withdraw.

Afghanistan's a little different. They aren't anything close to ready yet. We NEED to continue fighting there. Also unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is actually a place worth fighting for. Not that theres anything of value there...there really isn't...but the Taliban are evil, in the purest sense of the word. If theres any group to stand with the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge who deserve to be destroyed, eradicated, annihilated, or otherwise wiped off the face of the earth: its them.

Yes no one has managed to tame Afghanistan in centuries. There is no way to get rid of the Taliban or Al Queada without surgical precision, which the US is incapable of. And we don't have the ability or political will to put enough troops in Afghanistan to pacify it.

A bad idea me thinks

No, you are quite wrong.


No, you are quite wrong.


The al Qaida and other pro-Jihad forces would dearly love you to believe this. But the facts are otherwise. The insurrections are composed of relatively small proportions


You are confusing active fighting with the nature of asymmetrical war.


There is no "global insurrection". Jihadists


Here's half of your problem - you're fighting ghosts.


...move to locations they think are targetable, and there aren't enough to go around. Chechnya, for instance, has dried up as a useful combat zone - the Jihadists have largely moved to support Hezbollah or HAMAS against Israel, or to Iraq or Afghanistan.


No - people are moving to areas where they are thinking they can do the most effective damage.. not where they think is 'targetable'.

If Chechnya is 'drying up', it's because he situation on the ground warrants it. And if people are moving to other combat zones, it's because they think the situation on the ground there, warrants it.


Wrong again. Military actions against insurrections take time, and money, and cost lives - but most insurrections eventually lose.


No, they don't. Historically.


History says nothing of the sort. That area was effectively pacified by the Mughals, several other Indian Empires over the centuries, and by the British. What they could NOT do is control the area past the Khyber region - but that's not the area we're talking about. The hill country of Pakistan is eminantly controllable.


Which isn't the entirety of the area we're discussing, because we're talking about porous borders in a labyrinth battleground.

Sure, you could control the Pakistani hill country... by covering it with mines, shoulder to shoulder. And if you did, the fight would move into the mountains... or somewhere else. You just don't seem to understand the nature of asymmetrical war.


Quite extensively, actually. The area was indeed a horror for 18th and 19th century forces - snipers around every rock, insufficient room to maneuver bodies of troops, strongpoints atop every hill.

Newsflash - we don't fight that way anymore.


Yes, we do, actually - unless you are now going to explain to me that the next 4000 troops being sent into Afghanistan are actually robots?


The very things that made it terrifying to the Great Powers play straight into our strengths, with small forces combat and long range support options making life hell fro anyone going against us. Yes, they will know the area better - they live there. But overcoming that home-field advantage are such things as satellite observation, reconnaisance drones and fast-mover ground strike aircraft.


Satellites are the only really useful thing you mentioned. And they are of limited use unless we weaponise them.

Fast-moving aircraft are useless in a mountain war.

Worse than useless, because they are high single-strike costs, if they are lost - and their justifications for BEING that expensive (height and speed) are disadvantages in the theater of operations.


This why we are NOT taking massive casualties, and they are. Their "claim of victory is nothing more than hollow propaganda.

We are taking casualties. And we're killing a lot of people, sure - but without ever making a noticeable dent in the resistance... which means we're not hitting the right people. Blowing up a village full of civilians isn't winning.

What exactly is the reason for being there?

To catch one man and to exact retribution upon him or any who defend him.

To catch one man and to exact retribution upon him or any who defend him.

More specifically, to catch one man who probably isn't there, and to exact retribution upon anyone who defends him by saying he's not there... even if he's not there.

I'm kind of horrified that 18 people want us to 'stay until the mission is complete' when we don't actually have a 'mission', in the first place.

I'm kind of horrified that 18 people want us to 'stay until the mission is complete' when we don't actually have a 'mission', in the first place.

The statistics might be different if one could only answer if one has lost a family member to the war, or is an Afghan whose house was bombed.

I'm kind of horrified that 18 people want us to 'stay until the mission is complete' when we don't actually have a 'mission', in the first place.

What, is "Defeat the Taliban and establish a democratic and free government" a little too complex for you?

I think the US should stay, at least for a few more years, to fight the Taliban, and get the Afghan government on it's feet to the point where it can fight the Taliban on it's own, and keep law and order. I would much rather withdraw from Iraq quickly, and focus on Afghanistan.

Seems to me that this is just pissing away human lives and resources for no effect before a humiliating withdrawal. The longer the wait before withdrawing the more lives lost, the more money spent, and the bigger the humilition.

I'm kind of horrified that 18 people want us to 'stay until the mission is complete' when we don't actually have a 'mission', in the first place.

The mission is to fight evil in the land that is God's gift to warfare.

What, is "Defeat the Taliban and establish a democratic and free government" a little too complex for you?

That is not a real mission to a liberal CNN type. I am not sure what they recognize as a mission beyond instill socialism at home and speak disrespectfully about the USA.

I'm not really bothered if the US stays but Britain should pull out immediately. We should never have got involved in the first place, it wasn't our war. Besides, the idea that you can turn a primitive dump like Afghanistan into some western-style democracy is laughable, the people there still have a dark ages mindset.

The mission is to fight evil in the land that is God's gift to warfare.

Or maintain US control over the middle east and it's vast energy reserves?

Art thou challenging moi?:eek2:

Muhahahaha! Fear my ability to speak only one language, but say 'no' in over ten!

Now, what were those other two...:tongue:

Muhahahaha! Fear my ability to speak only one language, but say 'no' in over ten!

Now, what were those other two...:tongue:

CM, sweetie, I have no idea.

Oh goody! Now I have to approve a Special Forces crest! This day keeps getting interesting.:(

How about this: The war is costing American and Afghan lives, and is costing this nation money is cannot afford right now?

We cannot afford to be the world-police at this point.

No, youre right we cant. But we made a mess. Its our responsibility to clean it up.

What, is "Defeat the Taliban and establish a democratic and free government" a little too complex for you?

Well, if thats the mission, we kinda did that, so we can pull out.
That is not a real mission to a liberal CNN type. I am not sure what they recognize as a mission beyond instill socialism at home and speak disrespectfully about the USA.

God the things you say are so fucking out there.

No, youre right we cant. But we made a mess. Its our responsibility to clean it up.

It was already a mess. Are you one the those persons who believe we should have stayed in Vietnam? Our withdrawal did lead to problems.

It was already a mess. Are you one the those persons who believe we should have stayed in Vietnam? Our withdrawal did lead to problems.

Our entering Vietnam did not dismantle a state. We had no responsibility to be there.

We dismantled a state in Afghanistan. To leave now would be irresponsible.

Our entering Vietnam did not dismantle a state. We had no responsibility to be there.

We dismantled a state in Afghanistan. To leave now would be irresponsible.

If we left Afghanistan, the Taliban would immediately grab power; the Taliban was this "state" you speak of, so things would merely be as they were before the United States invaded. By the way, did you know that the Bush administration prepared the invasion of Afghanistan two days before 9/11? and confirmed (we decided we were going to invade in October) the use of the exact plan we are now using just a day before the attacks?

Hm, the UK is thinking of deploying 1200 troops extra :S

That makes 10000 British soldiers out there. Would I like them bought home, yes, but after they finish the job in hand.

People disagree with the reason they are out there, this is fine, but they should allow the soldiers to do their jobs so they can come home earlier.

What, is "Defeat the Taliban and establish a democratic and free government" a little too complex for you?

No, but it'd be a fucking stupid mission statement. You can't 'establish' a free government through application of force.

That is not a real mission to a liberal CNN type. I am not sure what they recognize as a mission beyond instill socialism at home and speak disrespectfully about the USA.

I'm not sure what you think your point was supposed to be.

It's not a 'real mission' because it's counter-intuitive, counter-productive, and self-contradictory.

I'm not sure what a CNN type is supposed to be (I thought MSNBC was supposed to be the 'liberal' news channel?)... but it LOOKS like it would be... people that actually pay attention to world news and current affairs?

Afghanistan has never been, and might never be, free and democratic. The puppet "government" controls only Kabul - and just barely that - and is saturated with enough corruption to make even the most rapacious kleptocrats blush. The government places a higher priority on fellating the U.S. then in addressing the country's pressing problems, and civil rights for religious minorities remain a pipe dream.

If Afghanistan is ever to become democratic, it must do so of its own accord. We cannot impose it on them at gunpoint.

Afghanistan has never been, and might never be, free and democratic. The puppet "government" controls only Kabul - and just barely that - and is saturated with enough corruption to make even the most rapacious kleptocrats blush. The government places a higher priority on fellating the U.S. then in addressing the country's pressing problems, and civil rights for religious minorities remain a pipe dream.

If Afghanistan is ever to become democratic, it must do so of its own accord. We cannot impose it on them at gunpoint.

And the best bet for democracy in Afghanistan, is the warlords.

What we could have done, if we wanted the Taliban ousted, is financed the warlords (preferably, indirectly) - because they already HAD a vested interest in removing Taliban control. The united and coordinated warlords could have been encouraged to explore representative government, maybe, after the fall of the Taliban regime.

You are confusing active fighting with the nature of asymmetrical war.

No, not hardly. Warfare is and must deal with the entire picture. I have detailed where the fighters are coming from, and their support and logistical basis. Ideology is a more slippery fish, but pretty much breaks down to either religion or revenge, either perceived or actual.

Here's half of your problem - you're fighting ghosts.

Such is the nature of Asymmetric War. One side is too weak to fight the other directly, so adopts hit-and-fade and terror tactics.

But against modern armies, trained to counter such, hit-and-fade is a losing proposition. Ambush is stymied by counter-ambush; mines and IEDs by ubiquitous surveillance and rapid response.



No - people are moving to areas where they are thinking they can do the most effective damage.. not where they think is 'targetable'.

If Chechnya is 'drying up', it's because he situation on the ground warrants it. And if people are moving to other combat zones, it's because they think the situation on the ground there, warrants it.

Yes. It warrants it because they're not getting the support they used to from the Middle East, which is now going to Iraq and Afghanistan and Southern Lebanon. There isn't enough to around, and without that support the Russians are kicking tail even with their piece of crap Red Army. The JIhadists are leaving because they are losing.



No, they don't. Historically.

Well, if there was anything that could convince me of your ignorance in this area, congratulations, you just managed it. Approximately 90% of insurrections and incursions fail. That drops to closer to 60% if you accept a negotiated settlement as being at least a partial success, which is a reasonable position to take, but it's still more than half.

Insurrection/Asymmetric Warfare is nothing new, you know. Both the Roman and Persian Empires fought them, and won them. It keeps popping up because it's a good way to even the odds against a superior military force - but over time and with determination, that superior military will usually win.


Sure, you could control the Pakistani hill country... by covering it with mines, shoulder to shoulder. And if you did, the fight would move into the mountains... or somewhere else. You just don't seem to understand the nature of asymmetrical war.

Better than you do, apparently. Asymmetric war cannot function without a base of operations effectively. Denying them one is one of the key actions to defeating them - and right now they're using the Pakistani Hill Country as that base. Yes, they can move their forces, but training grounds, medical facilities (however rudimentary) and recruiting facilities are not anywhere near as mobile.

By preference, you place these difficult-to-replace items somewhere near the conflict zone, but where the enemy cannot access them. Over porous borders is a good one - but sooner or later your opponent is going to go after them if he can. If you can't reposition, fast, you're screwed.

And that's where the Taliban have a real problem, because they have nowhere to go. Retreating to the interior of Pakistan is out - the much more cosmopolitan Pakistanis of the Cities and plains despise them, and the Pakistani Military would love to prove their worth to their US allies. Iran would shoot them on sight. As would their northern neighbors - not for being Taliban, just for being Afghans. And if they go into the Afghan mountains - well, we've already proven that area is not defensible when we kicked them out of it last time.



Yes, we do, actually - unless you are now going to explain to me that the next 4000 troops being sent into Afghanistan are actually robots?

So, you can't tell the difference between modern small unit tactics and British battalion squares? This explains some things.



Satellites are the only really useful thing you mentioned. And they are of limited use unless we weaponise them.

When they can see a small group of men moving through mountainous terrain, much less any sort of large-scale operations, "limited use" is more than enough.

Fast-moving aircraft are useless in a mountain war.

Worse than useless, because they are high single-strike costs, if they are lost - and their justifications for BEING that expensive (height and speed) are disadvantages in the theater of operations.

Bollocks. First, modern fast-movers can hit targets down to the square-meter - so they can pinpoint strikes right on identified positions. Directing a missile straight down the mouth of a tunnel is going to kill everyone inside, and cluster-bombing a valley will take the fight out of enemy fighters in the area of effect - those few who survive.

No, fast movers probably can't identify enemy units on the ground. But When your patrols and recon units do, fast-movers can annihilate them.

As for losses - despite considerable worries on the issue, the insurrectionists have NOT managed to develop a good anti-air doctrine, and our most modern fighters are largely untouchable by our OWN latest mobile SAMs. So pardon me, but what are they going to use to shoot down our planes?



We are taking casualties. And we're killing a lot of people, sure - but without ever making a noticeable dent in the resistance... which means we're not hitting the right people. Blowing up a village full of civilians isn't winning.

No it isn't. And yes, we're taking casualties - that's the nature of any war. But as long as they're volunteers and willing to go, that's a price a nation must be willing to pay to get things done on occasion. As to a "noticeable dent in the resistance" - in case you hadn't noticed, the Taliban have gone from level 3 insurrection (open war) to level 2 (no go areas, mass attacks, elimination of government control) to level 1 ( random guerrilla conflict and assassination). That's major progress.

Id say we have 3 goals in Afghanistan:

1) Capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden

2) destroy Al Queda and any remnants

3) leave a Stable and Afghani supported Government in place

No, not hardly.


'Not hardly' is right. 'Entirely' would be appropriate.


I have detailed where the fighters are coming from..


Handwavistan.


Such is the nature of Asymmetric War.


No, I mean you, personally, are fighting ghosts. You're buying the 'jihadi' propaganda hook-line-and-sinker.


But against modern armies, trained to counter such, hit-and-fade is a losing proposition. Ambush is stymied by counter-ambush; mines and IEDs by ubiquitous surveillance and rapid response.


Yep. Which is why we've suffered no casualties from ambushes, mines, IED's, etc.

Or you're talking bullshit.


Well, if there was anything that could convince me of your ignorance in this area, congratulations, you just managed it. Approximately 90% of insurrections and incursions fail.


I flee in the face of your superior made-up numbers.


Insurrection/Asymmetric Warfare is nothing new, you know.


I'm surprised that you know.


Better than you do, apparently. Asymmetric war cannot function without a base of operations


More bullshit. Par for the course, by now.

Clearly you are unaware of the Partisans of WW2, for example.


So, you can't tell the difference between modern small unit tactics and British battalion squares? This explains some things.


So, you can't read? Where did I mention British batallion squares?

You're claiming 'we don't fight that way any more' - and here we are sending ground troops. Grunts with guns, marching into Afghanistan. That's never been tried before.


No, fast movers probably can't identify enemy units on the ground. But When your patrols and recon units do, fast-movers can annihilate them.


Patrols... those would be those soldiers on foot.


No it isn't. And yes, we're taking casualties - that's the nature of any war. But as long as they're volunteers and willing to go, that's a price a nation must be willing to pay to get things done on occasion.


We're either taking casualties or we're not. You might want it both ways to fix the holes in your rather weak walls, but reality is not inclined to acquiesce to your demands.


As to a "noticeable dent in the resistance" - in case you hadn't noticed, the Taliban have gone from level 3 insurrection (open war) to level 2 (no go areas, mass attacks, elimination of government control) to level 1 ( random guerrilla conflict and assassination). That's major progress.

Jihadis. Taliban. You've really no idea what's going on, have you?

Id say we have 3 goals in Afghanistan:

1) Capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden

2) destroy Al Queda and any remnants

3) leave a Stable and Afghani supported Government in place

So - what should we do about the fact that bin Ladin and Al Qaeda aren't there?

And, how are we going to construct that government when Afghanis aren't going to support any government we try to impose?

Leave it up to Kabul.

Clearly you are unaware of the Partisans of WW2, for example.


I'd just like to point out that WWII is a bad example. As it kind of destroys the point, the partisans did have 'bases" in their country and outside it(Governments in Exile and the Allies in general semi directing them what to do and sending them supplies and operatives, towns and cities as bases.etc) and that the Nazi were almost always distracted during WWII(be it planning their invasion of the USSR or trying to fight back the Allies in Italy,etc) so they couldn't focus their whole might on crushing them and when they did decide to crush them(be it Poland or what/whereever) they generally did a "good" job of it and that the Nazis had a whole lot more land to cover than the US and allies do now(at least I'd guess they do, I've never compared the size of Afghanistan/Pakistan to Europe and parts of Africa),etc.

Note this is just all my opinion/conjecture after seeing/reading various stuff on WWII and the current war(s) and I can't really point out one source that says this stuff.

I'd just like to point out that WWII is a bad example. As it kind of destroys the point, the partisans did have 'bases" in their country and outside it(Governments in Exile and the Allies in general semi directing them what to do and sending them supplies and operatives, towns and cities as bases.etc) and that the Nazi were almost always distracted during WWII(be it planning their invasion of the USSR or trying to fight back the Allies in Italy,etc) so they couldn't focus their whole might on crushing them and when they did decide to crush them(be it Poland or what/whereever) they generally did a "good" job of it and that the Nazis had a whole lot more land to cover than the US and allies do now(at least I'd guess they do, I've never compared the size of Afghanistan/Pakistan to Europe and parts of Africa),etc.

Note this is just all my opinion/conjecture after seeing/reading various stuff on WWII and the current war(s) and I can't really point out one source that says this stuff.

Well, I was mainly speaking of the Russian partisans, so being distracted by the invasion of the USSR is unlikely to have had a notable effect. The asymmetric war the (Russian) partisans fought included attacking Germna supply lines, fighting occassional pitched battles, and slashing and burning everything they left behind. It was a scorched-earth defence in depth - which, by it's very nature, had no central base.

No, but it'd be a fucking stupid mission statement. You can't 'establish' a free government through application of force.

Lincoln, anyone?

Lincoln, anyone?

Ugh, no thanks. One was enough.

Well, I was mainly speaking of the Russian partisans, so being distracted by the invasion of the USSR is unlikely to have had a notable effect. The asymmetric war the (Russian) partisans fought included attacking Germna supply lines, fighting occassional pitched battles, and slashing and burning everything they left behind. It was a scorched-earth defence in depth - which, by it's very nature, had no central base.

I don't know the (remaining) Russian/Soviet army may have been abit of a distraction but I concede the point since I thought your were talking about the occupied areas in (Western/Central) Europe and the Russians were largely what you suggested.

As for what we should and shouldn't do I'd like it if we waited to leave until the Afghan Military/People could defend themselves from domestic and foreign power but I really doubt thats likely so, I don't really know what then

I don't think that the coalition should pull out of Afghanistan right now. Right now the best thing to do would be including in the coalition UN troops from other countries, possibily islamic ones - Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco come to my mind. Iran? Meh, they're neighbours, so maybe it's not the best option. Saudi Arabia has been involved with the talibunnies too much.

No, I mean you, personally, are fighting ghosts. You're buying the 'jihadi' propaganda hook-line-and-sinker.

So, what would you call them?



Yep. Which is why we've suffered no casualties from ambushes, mines, IED's, etc.

Or you're talking bullshit.

I must admit, this comment makes me somewhat upset. I've been very careful NOT to make ANY claim of invincibility or perfection, and I would think it would be fairly obvious that even with the proper tactics to lessen and counter enemy tactics, casualties would still occur.

I can only assume that either you aren't even attempting to read my statements, or you are choosing to deliberately lie about them. Either way, I request an apology.



I flee in the face of your superior made-up numbers.

Not mine. British War College.

If you had asked, I'd've told you where to find them. Since you instead choose to insinuate that I am lying, look it up your bloody self.



More bullshit. Par for the course, by now.

Clearly you are unaware of the Partisans of WW2, for example.

What a laughably stupid statement. WWII Partisans prove my point in every particular!
Their bases were the nations fighting against the Axis forces. You know, places like Britain, Free France, the USSR? In many cases these were far enough away to make access more difficult than was absolutely optimum, but their patrons responded to that with vigour and intelligence, utilising such tactics as paradrops and submarine resupply to provide equipment and evacuate casualties where possible. Entire units of French, Belgian and Polish resistance were pulled back to Britain for training and equipping before being returned to fight their lonely wars. The Russians were notably proficient at getting troops behind the lines of the Germans and wreaking havoc on the lines of communication and supply.

But NONE of that could have happened without logistical and personnel support from the bases back home. Sooner or later partisans/insurgents/whatever would run out of sufficient supplies and equipment and fresh troops for the meat grinder, unless they were getting resupply from somewhere.

So, you can't read? Where did I mention British batallion squares?

You claimed we fight the same way as we did in British colonial times. Ergo, Batallion Squares. That's how they fought.

You're claiming 'we don't fight that way any more' - and here we are sending ground troops. Grunts with guns, marching into Afghanistan. That's never been tried before.

And again, I have to say, if you can't tell the difference between modern small unit tactics and a British colonial tactics, you have no business commenting on the military at all.



We're either taking casualties or we're not. You might want it both ways to fix the holes in your rather weak walls, but reality is not inclined to acquiesce to your demands.

And I'm not going to answer your lies about what I said.



Jihadis. Taliban. You've really no idea what's going on, have you?

Enlighten me. What do you see?