Taliban running out of ammunition

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

~18 year old kids with no clear idea of why they are fighting are no match for indoctrinated, religious fanatics who are defending their families, homes, land and way of life.

Who are these 18 year old kids? I don't know about anyone else, but the average age of the US military is in the mid-20's.

*edit*

Also, what do you consider to be "unacceptable casualties"? This always makes me feel weird. Iraq and Afghanistan have incredibly low fatality rates. I'm certain I've suffered a much higher personal loss than most, but I would never suggest we quit simply because our (very) low number of casualties. If we quit for any reason, it should be because we, as a whole, lack the will to see it to the end.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Clavicula_nox4817

[spooky lynx 73]

Afghans should be left alone with their problems - this was said for many times by themselves. Only they can solve most of the problems, although the methods they will use may look weird and inhumane for europeans. But it's the only way out.

[HyperU2 11]

And just who do you think my heroes are exactly?

I seriously hope you aren't implying that they are the Taliban or AQ because you'd be catastrophically wrong.

Oh, when you claimed that we would not be victorious in Afghanistan I guess I mistook that for hoping that the ANA fails with us.

[dmarkwick 261]

Afghans should be left alone with their problems - this was said for many times by themselves. Only they can solve most of the problems, although the methods they will use may look weird and inhumane for europeans. But it's the only way out.

Naturally enough the western world doesn't give a shit about the Afghan problems (not enough oil ;)), it's the training camps and perceived center of terrorist organisation that made us enter. The situation has since been muddied by woolly thinking politicians who believe that the Taliban can be exorcised by giving the populace western values. I doubt it will work. More accurately, I doubt it will work any time soon.

[maturin 12]

Perhaps it is a language issue on my side, but it seems as though you are talking in circles. Your assertions that terrorism is purely a criminal act, yet a response could be martial law, are contrary to each other.

Martial law is often a response to criminal behavior given (some degree) of popular support and participation by social pressures. And illegitimately so, probably.

Civilian courts can prosecute ideological war criminals (like Karadzic) and ideological traitors just fine. There is absolutely nothing special about a dozen Saudis on a jetliner. They can be prosecuted. U.S. courts prosecuted homegrown anarchist terrorists just fine back in the day.

Unfortunately, you cannot convict someone of having dangerous ideologies (vagaries of local laws notwithstanding). At least not in most of the "civilized" world. You must wait for them to act in a criminal way for the justice system to become involved.

And can the judicial system convict someone of belonging to a mafia until they have committed a crime? No, that's what investigators and police surveillance are for. The CIA is still going to do its job no matter what sort of building Khalid Sheik Mohammed ends up in.

You can't prosecute the Taliban and Hamas, obviously. But they're not stateless "terrorists;" they are paramilitary groups, or insurgents, and belong in the class of generic ideological rebels. They just use terrorist tactics from time to time. Like the CIA, which cut its teeth blowing up Soviet passenger trains whilst being an organization with a wholly different focus and operation. The Taliban aren't that interested in blowing up Western airports, and if they ruled Afghanistan they would probably put less effort into that sort of thing than your average national secret service.

A war to establish a stable regime capable of policing its borders and controlling the implements of violence within its own territory is not a war on terrorism, it is a statebuilding project with the aims of mutual security. When you're trying to build a foreign government's legal legitimacy, it's a pretty stupid idea to undermine your own.

The War on Terror is the most dangerous soundbite I can think of.

Edited March 3, 2010 by maturin

[Daniel 0]

maturin speaks a lot of sense.

Besides the IEDs, the major issues in my eyes is the bumbling politicians throughout the coalition. I think that's whom History will point the finger at. Unfortunately for now, we have to reach an acceptable outcome without

a. dragging on longer than necessary and causing more civilian and coalition deaths (and letting arms companies make too much from of it all)

or b. leaving the Afghans to Taliban retribution (although they already take the brunt of suicide bombings), and letting western-threatening terrorists filter back in from Pakistan (although the less terrorists in Pakistan the better).

All tricky stuff.

[dmarkwick 261]

The War on Terror is the most dangerous soundbite I can think of.

Every time I hear it, I think of Orwell's perpetual war.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The War on Terror is the most dangerous soundbite I can think of.

Agreed, and moreover this expression was a "marketing" concept - to say the least - to advertise the disastrous (ad)venture in Irak. If it wasn't that tragic it would be laughable.

[echo1 0]

You cannot beat a terrorist in war because there is no country to capture and occupy by which one can declare the war won.

Sounds like someone has been playing too much Empire Total War... Most experts on such matters generally agree that the nature of war is changing. Proxy fights between super powers through smaller nations was the first change, now we're increasingly seeing state sponsored terrorism on one hand, and the privatization of warfare in the West on the other.

[walker 0]

Hi all

ch_123 you are not talking about war you are talking about conflict and conflict is always changing; it is part of the constant dynamic between power groups that includes all politics.

That we are in a period low intensity conflicts is not unusual. They existed between Rome and Carthage as did proxy wars and the use of mercenaries and the concept of asymetric warfare.

Conflict != War though it can and often does result in war. Conflict is often though not always the precursor to war.

I am with maturin on this:

The War on Terror is the most dangerous soundbite I can think of.

It trys to equate and conflate all terrorist and conflicts as DMarkwick points out

Every time I hear it, I think of Orwell's perpetual war.

It is part of the fear politics of the conman, out to rush others to war.

War is a serious matter and big step to be considered carefully. It is worth considering that those who rush to war in recent times, have rarely won them, rather it has been the defender who has won.

I also point out that it is not soldiers or battles that win wars it has and will always be politicians who win wars.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 3, 2010 by walker

[Pathy 0]

I also point out that it is not soldiers or battles that win wars it has and will always be politicians who win wars.

Somehow, as the Russian Armies advanced towards Berlin at the end of WW2, I don't think the sudden arrival of the German 26th Politician Shock Army would have stopped them. :)

Edit: And yes, I know.....it was just a funny mental image. Joking aside, I think it'd be more accurate to say that Politicians can lose a war, no matter how well the military does it's job. However, a Politician cannot win a war where the military cannot.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Pathy

[maturin 12]

Yeah, explain your thinking there.

(The Politician Shock Division wouldn't have stopped the Soviets, but an Allied occupation ahead of them may have. IIRC Roosevelt and Churchill negotiated leaving Berlin to Stalin.)

[walker 0]

Somehow, as the Russian Armies advanced towards Berlin at the end of WW2, I don't think the sudden arrival of the German 26th Politician Shock Army would have stopped them. :)

Hi Pathy

There were still Germans there including German soldiers and various German Generals made local surenders both to Montgomery and others in your case of Berlin On April 30, 1945, the Reichstag was captured, signalling the military defeat of Third Reich but German forces continued to fight Soviets until May 8th in Prague until May 11th.

The official instrument of surrender was a political act and took place with the signing by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the Allied Expeditionary Force and Soviet High Command on May 7 and formally ratified on May 8, 1945.

It is and will always be politicians who decide a war is won or lost.

Soldiers of one side can win every major battle of a conflict and yet still the political leaders can loose the war as for instance Nixon did in Vietnam.

War is a political act and it is only by a political act that a war can end.

Wars may be faught with the blade, the bomb and the bullet, but they are ended with a pen.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 3, 2010 by walker

[binkster 0]

Hi Pathy

There were still Germans there including German soldiers and various German Generals made local surenders both to Montgomery and others in your case of Berlin On April 30, 1945, the Reichstag was captured, signalling the military defeat of Third Reich but German forces continued to fight Soviets until May 8th in Prague until May 11th.

The official instrument of surrender was a political act and took place with the signing by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the Allied Expeditionary Force and Soviet High Command on May 7 and formally ratified on May 8, 1945.

It is and will always be politicians who decide a war is won or lost.

Soldiers of one side can win every major battle of a conflict and yet still the political leaders can loose the war as for instance Nixon did in Vietnam.

War is a political act and it is only by a political act that a war can end.

Wars may be faught with the blade, the bomb and the bullet, but they are ended with a pen.

Kind Regards walker

Maybe if they had cell phones they would have known of the surrender.

The times have changed. The world is smaller and I doubt you will see many Nation vs Nation wars anymore. Maybe the Definition of "War" needs to be changed.

Terrorist are not a nation but they waged war so in this case politicians and the media called it War against Terrorism.....

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future." Hitler

[maturin 12]

Several hundred people can't wage war. And wars involve weapons and various strategic objectives.

9/11 involved none of that. It was pure symbolism, and has been met with a largely symbolic response.

[HyperU2 11]

We can just keep killing extremists forever. It's the new war.

[maturin 12]

Great, when do we move on to the Hindu fundamentalists and BNP? :p

[HyperU2 11]

Well if India wants help. :)

[spooky lynx 73]

Naturally enough the western world doesn't give a shit about the Afghan problems (not enough oil ;)), it's the training camps and perceived center of terrorist organisation that made us enter. The situation has since been muddied by woolly thinking politicians who believe that the Taliban can be exorcised by giving the populace western values. I doubt it will work. More accurately, I doubt it will work any time soon.

There were enough in-country enemies of Taliban. The best you could do is to provide them with money, weapons and some military advisors. This way westerners would be treated as some kind of helpers. The former Soviet Union acted this way untill 1979, and this was the time of the most warm relations between afghans and us. We were the people who just help them to solve their problems. But when we entered their country, even as military supporters for government army, we became the invaders for many afghans. And this was our main mistake. The coalition had made just the same mistake as we did in the end of 1979 year.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The former Soviet Union acted this way untill 1979, and this was the time of the most warm relations between afghans and us. We were the people who just help them to solve their problems. But when we entered their country, even as military supporters for government army, we became the invaders for many afghans. And this was our main mistake. The coalition had made just the same mistake as we did in the end of 1979 year.

You don't believe those propagandist bullshits do you ? Soviet Union didn't invade Afghanistan to help anybody, apart from the Afghan puppet governement. This invasion was as helpful as the ones in Prague or Budapest were.

[spooky lynx 73]

You don't believe those propagandist bullshits do you ? Soviet Union didn't invade Afghanistan to help anybody, apart from the Afghan puppet governement. This invasion was as helpful as the ones in Prague or Budapest were.

Yes, you are right in one moment: USSR didn't invade Afghanistan because the 40-th Army deployment was coordinated with legitimate afghan government. And soviet troops often co-operated with afghan army. And if you have read my post, you should notice that I've said about troops deployment - it was a mistake. The afghan army should do all the job, but not soviet.

[echo1 0]

Yes, you are right in one moment: USSR didn't invade Afghanistan because the 40-th Army deployment was coordinated with legitimate afghan government.

When you say 'legitimate government', is this the one the Russians killed during the invasion, or was it one of the seemingly endless list of others who briefly seized and held power in the years before?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, you are right in one moment: USSR didn't invade Afghanistan because the 40-th Army deployment was coordinated with legitimate afghan government.

I'm afraid "legitimate" isn't the appropriate word in that case...there was no real independant afghan governement at that time, which i'm afraid is still the case today.

[spooky lynx 73]

When you say 'legitimate government', is this the one the Russians killed during the invasion, or was it one of the seemingly endless list of others who briefly seized and held power in the years before?

All of them. They were officially recognised by UN.

I'm afraid "legitimate" isn't the appropriate word in that case...there was no real independant afghan governement at that time, which i'm afraid is still the case today.

Friendly speaking, there are not many really independent countries in the world. Most of others are somebody's satellites and have to behave in the manner, which does not differ with that of the regional (or global) leading countries. But, speaking about Afghanistan, formally there is no reasons to call it "colony" - it had all branches of power, the army, the laws and all other things that independent country has. And if you doubt in it - so look at the Great Britain and some other EU countries and its foreign policy, how it is close to US one. Is it the reason to doubt in the independence of the UK?

[echo1 0]

Last time I checked, the UK doesn't have to call in US troops to maintain power.