Pakistan Government Deathwatch.

[oggiesnr]

Traditionally the progress of a way is measured in ground taken and held. The common denominator of Afghanistan, Vietnam and Cambodia is that the western forces are not taking ground. They are essentially bunkered down and go out to patrol and fight skirmishes, they don't control the land they pass over and as soon as they withdraw the Taliban/rebels/local warlords come back. In those circumstances you're not going to win hearts and minds and your certainly not going to get the locals collaborating with you on the one day a week you pass through their village.

There are not enough forces in Afghanistan to control land and the local security forces are not and may never be up to the task. Tribal loyalties run deep and strong.

The tribal areas of Pakistan have more in common with Afghanistan than with the more westernised urban areas and those parts of the country who rely on the cities and towns.

Is there a military solution? Probably not, in which case we should get out and leave. Is there a political solution? Not one that a western input will help.

Brits fighting Brits? The easy answer is to say if we weren't there we wouldn't be fighting. The harder answer is to look at the society we have become and try and work out a way of us all becoming "British" (whatever that means) and stop becoming a "Hyphenated society", British-Muslim, British-Affro/Carib, British-Asian, British-Indigenous etc etc.

Steve

 

[gumboot]

Yeah, hell it probably is.

I got most of the knowledge from people who were actually involved in it. They're bound to not know what the hell they're talking about.

In regards to the overarching political circumstances? Probably not.

On the other hand, which country where "intervention" has been involved turned out well so far?

It's impossible to assess the effectiveness of an intervention because you will never know what would have happened.

Grow some eyes, boy.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Mate, I've seen enough of your fallacies since you've been here. How's that lunatic/crime/moon link going?

That's not really on topic.

In addition, The Atheist, with all due respect you don't know as much about this topic as you think you do. It might be in your interests to keep quiet and try learn something, instead of spouting ignorance.

 

[gumboot]

Traditionally the progress of a way is measured in ground taken and held. The common denominator of Afghanistan, Vietnam and Cambodia is that the western forces are not taking ground. They are essentially bunkered down and go out to patrol and fight skirmishes, they don't control the land they pass over and as soon as they withdraw the Taliban/rebels/local warlords come back. In those circumstances you're not going to win hearts and minds and your certainly not going to get the locals collaborating with you on the one day a week you pass through their village.

I think you're over-simplifying things here.

I agree with your point on Vietnam, although I think another important factor you're overlooking is that the allied forces in Vietnam were not prepared to combat the degree of brutality utilised by the Viet Cong campaign.

In regards Cambodia, the incursions there were never intended to conquer or control Cambodia, but to target specific NVA positions inside Cambodian territory. While those incursions were not entirely successful, the objectives were so entirely different to either Afghanistan or Vietnam that there's really no comparison.

Finally, in regard to Afghanistan I believe you're wrong because the ISAF is precisely holding ground and using WHAMO tactics - specifically the Provincial Reconstruction Teams which are being ignored in the media's incessant negative coverage and yet which are in fact highly successful.

Indeed, the very fact that the Taliban have become more active in Pakistan is precisely because of the ISAF's success in Afghanistan. Yes, the Taliban are still launching attacks in Afghanistan, but their power base has been forced out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

The problem in Afghanistan is, I think, two-fold. Firstly the initial invasion lacked the personnel to seal the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That would have required huge thousands of men, and while I think it was possible, the USA clearly didn't want to get involved in Afghanistan and initially only committed a token force. Had the border been sealed the Taliban and other Islamists could have been tracked down and defeated. Letting them slip away into Pakistan was a big mistake.

Secondly, and deriving from the first, is that the coalition are not willing to aggressively pursue the conflict into Pakistan. I think the reasoning for that is pretty obvious.

Simply put, Afghanistan was always going to be an incredibly difficult operation, and the US initially approached it too soft-handed. With Islamist-friendly neighbours in Iran and Pakistan, unless the borders were immediately sealed any hope of victory was unlikely.

The issue then, is not so much holding ground in Afghanistan itself - something the ISAF is managing fairly easy. The issue is the insurgents are utilising neighbouring countries as their base of operations, and for pretty good reason the coalition cannot afford to escalate the conflict against those neighbours.

This actually goes back to my discussions with The Atheist and why you cannot approach a state as a single isolated entity, as states are always affected by those around them.

Brits fighting Brits? The easy answer is to say if we weren't there we wouldn't be fighting.

This is true, obviously however it doesn't actually address the problem. MI5 estimates 4,000 Britons trained in Islamists training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan prior to the US invasion. This Radicalisation of westerners has been going on for a very long time, we just haven't really been paying much attention to it.

"Brits fighting Brits" is really a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

 

[The Atheist]

In regards to the overarching political circumstances? Probably not.

You even missed the simple point, so the answer is no surprise.

It's impossible to assess the effectiveness of an intervention because you will never know what would have happened.

We know that intervention has had disastrous effects. Trying to cry that things might have been worse is the same as saying aliens might have landed.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

That's not an attack, it's a plea for you to open your eyes - you seem blinded by some strange kind of fanatical belief that you know best what other people should do.

In addition, The Atheist, with all due respect you don't know as much about this topic as you think you do. It might be in your interests to keep quiet and try learn something, instead of spouting ignorance.

Well, it's obvious that, unless I want to learn how to behave like an ill-informed buffoon, I won't be learning it from you. Your sum of knowledge of the Pakistani situation is nil.

Your constant mantra that the world's biggest problem is radical islam is verging on phobic. And boring.

 

[FireGarden]

Simply put, Afghanistan was always going to be an incredibly difficult operation, and the US initially approached it too soft-handed. With Islamist-friendly neighbours in Iran and Pakistan, unless the borders were immediately sealed any hope of victory was unlikely.

Especially when it is important to keep distance between Iran and America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Afghanistan_relations

Following the emergence of the Taliban and their harsh treatment of Afghanistan's Shi'a minority, Iran stepped up assistance to the Northern Alliance. Relations with the Taliban deteriorated further in 1998 after Taliban forces seized the Iranian consulate in Mazari Sharif and executed Iranian diplomats.

Following this incident, Iran almost went to war with the Taliban regions of Afghanistan but intervention by the United Nations Security Council and the United States prevented an imminent Iranian invasion.

So much more sensible to work with Pakistan. Remember our discussion about the US funding/helping Afghans who later became Taliban?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5747696.ece

In a transcript passed to Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence in May 2008, General Ashfaq Kayani, the military chief who replaced Pervez Musharraf, was overheard referring to Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani as “a strategic asset”. The remark was the first real evidence of the double game that Washington had long suspected President Musharraf was playing as he continued receiving US military aid while aiding the Taleban.

Mr Haqqani, a veteran of the anti-Soviet mujahidin wars of the nineties, commands a hardline Taleban group based in Waziristan and is credited with introducing suicide bombing into themilitants’ arsenal.

Here's wiki on Haqqani:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalaluddin_Haqqani

Operating against the Soviets and the Afghan government from a safe haven in North Waziristan, Haqqani is reputed to also have had strong ties with the Pakistani ISI.

History repeats.

Also:

In 1991 he was the first resistance leader to capture a city, Khost, from the Najibullah government. After the fall of Kabul to the Mujahideen in 1992, he was appointed justice minister in the first Mujahideen government.

But now he is Taliban. Doesn't that go against your claim that the US only helped those anti-Soviet Afghans who became the Northern Alliance?

In addition, The Atheist, with all due respect you don't know as much about this topic as you think you do. It might be in your interests to keep quiet and try learn something, instead of spouting ignorance.

I think it is safe to say that none of us know as much about this subject as we think we do. So why don't we just share knowledge on the matter?

 

[gumboot]

But now he is Taliban. Doesn't that go against your claim that the US only helped those anti-Soviet Afghans who became the Northern Alliance?

I don't recall the specific wording of that previous discussion, but my fundamental point is that the regime that became the Taliban did not take part in the Soviet-Afghan War, but arose to importance after the Soviet withdrawal, with the aid of the ISI and after the USA had ceased involvement. I don't think pointing out that some individual former recipients of US aid ended up switching allegiance to the Taliban undermines the accuracy of that position.

I think it is safe to say that none of us know as much about this subject as we think we do. So why don't we just share knowledge on the matter?

That would be the ideal solution. However it's hard to develop useful discussion when your points are arrogantly dismissed with such intellectually stimulating offerings as The Atheist has scraped together.

 

[The Atheist]

I think it is safe to say that none of us know as much about this subject as we think we do. So why don't we just share knowledge on the matter?

Gladly. As soon as genocidal twats whose response is to slaver "Nuke all radical islamists" cut the crap, I'll gladly discuss the situation in rational terms.

The answer lies within Pakistan, not without.

I don't recall the specific wording of that previous discussion, but my fundamental point is that the regime that became the Taliban did not take part in the Soviet-Afghan War, but arose to importance after the Soviet withdrawal, with the aid of the ISI and after the USA had ceased involvement. I don't think pointing out that some individual former recipients of US aid ended up switching allegiance to the Taliban undermines the accuracy of that position.

Of course you wouldn't. Anything not supporting your hypothesis must be crap.

That would be the ideal solution. However it's hard to develop useful discussion when your points are arrogantly dismissed with such intellectually stimulating offerings as The Atheist has scraped together.

"Useful discussion" That is a classic.

Aside from shreiking "Radical islam is causing the sky to fall", you have nothing.

Seems to me that your slavish devotion to "official" information is as far out there as any CT believer. You do realise that US intelligence agencies blatantly lied about Iraq, don't you?

 

[gumboot]

Gladly. As soon as genocidal twats whose response is to slaver "Nuke all radical islamists" cut the crap, I'll gladly discuss the situation in rational terms.

Let me know when you feel like supporting this brainless strawman with some evidence.

Of course you wouldn't. Anything not supporting your hypothesis must be crap.

I see your reading talents haven't improved.

Aside from shreiking "Radical islam is causing the sky to fall", you have nothing.

Yawn.

Seems to me that your slavish devotion to "official" information is as far out there as any CT believer.

Oh look, poisoning the well. The irony is pretty... do you even realise how much like a slavering Conspiracy Theorist you sound like with statements like that? You seem to be losing the plot.

You do realise that US intelligence agencies blatantly lied about Iraq, don't you?

Well, I know they didn't tell the truth, but determining if they lied? That's another matter entirely. Particularly if you're talking about an entire government agencies, and not an individual.

What I've seen seems to indicate that by and large the intelligence agencies were pretty luke warm on evidence of WMD; it was the politicians and the top people who fudged the data and misrepresented the intelligence to forward their little warmongering agenda.

If you have some evidence otherwise I'd be happy to read it.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, I know they didn't tell the truth, but determining if they lied?

That's just beautiful.

 

[gumboot]

That's just beautiful.

So you don't have any evidence?

 

[FireGarden]

I don't recall the specific wording of that previous discussion, but my fundamental point is that the regime that became the Taliban did not take part in the Soviet-Afghan War, but arose to importance after the Soviet withdrawal, with the aid of the ISI and after the USA had ceased involvement. I don't think pointing out that some individual former recipients of US aid ended up switching allegiance to the Taliban undermines the accuracy of that position.

Try this to refresh your memory:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4337688

That the Taliban didn't exist as a group during the war with the Soviets isn't in dispute. The point comes up again and again when people point out that America supported Afghans against the Soviets. Some want to claim that all the money went to freedom-loving, non-Islamist Afghans. But I don't see how that claim stands up.



Anyway, on topic for this thread, I find it interesting that prominent members of the Mujahadeen based themselves in Pakistan when they fought the Soviets also. But with more open support from the government of Pakistan.

 

[gumboot]

Try this to refresh your memory:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4337688

That the Taliban didn't exist as a group during the war with the Soviets isn't in dispute. The point comes up again and again when people point out that America supported Afghans against the Soviets. Some want to claim that all the money went to freedom-loving, non-Islamist Afghans. But I don't see how that claim stands up.

Thanks for the link. That's pretty much what I thought I had written. My memory still works.

Well I don't agree with the claim above at all, and agree that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In fact, as I pointed out, the main recipient of US aid was an Islamist organisation. My contention, which I think is supported by the evidence, is that the USA did not ever support the foreign Jihad fighters, and only supported the Afghanis.

Anyway, on topic for this thread, I find it interesting that prominent members of the Mujahadeen based themselves in Pakistan when they fought the Soviets also. But with more open support from the government of Pakistan.

I think Pakistan probably knew very well that allowing their country as the base for the fighting against the Soviets would put them into a perfection position to have influence in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew - and that's exactly what happened.

I think perhaps the US really underestimated this when they went into Afghanistan. Ultimately Pakistan were firm allies of the Taliban and relying on them as a key ally was doomed to failure.

 

[Polaris]

Gee, and Afghanistan had had such a nice, simple history for all those years beforehand.

I am well aware of Afghan history, thank you. From your posting history, it's safe to say I'm more aware of more of it than you are.

Pray tell, what on earth would you have done 20 years ago? Even using hindsight, do offer a realistic alternative to what actually happened.

I wouldn't have ended aid abruptly; I'd have sent a similar continuous amount of re(?)construction aid, with personnel to do it, for five years - directly, not through Islamabad. I would have insisted that the ISI not be given carte blanche in where the $4 billion went. I would have assassinated Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar. I would have insisted the $2 billion the Saudis contributed were the extent of their help - denying any Arabs entry to Afghanistan. This is what I'd do in hindsight.

Like Gumboot, you're living in Fantasyland. You have the stark evidence of the number of horrendous ****-ups around the planet caused by intervention in someone else's business, but you want more.

You know, I just deleted a lengthy response, full of a quickie-history of Afghanistan and the timeline from the Russian invasion to the hatching of the 9/11 plot, but your atrocious logic and obvious agenda don't deserve it.

Frankly, the cry of "What about 9/11?" has become long past its use-by date. The number of corpses illegally killed by invading forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is exponentially higher than than from 9/11. Why on earth don't you at least be honest and propose genocide? Nuke 'em all!

By that standard, the US should only have killed 2347 Japanese servicemen and civilians in retaliation for Pearl Harbor (I've subtracted the 55 Japs killed in the attack). Since the war against the Taliban is ongoing, 9/11 is valid. It was the lowest point the Islamists have yet reached, but it is only a part of the ongoing war, declared unprovoked (by any rational person - i.e., not an Islamist) by the the Islamists on any civilized progress since the 7th century (well, other than cell-phones and Swiss banks, apparently).

There are good Afghans and Iraqis, Pakistanis, certainly Iranians, and, probably, Saudis. We who you are ideologically opposed, apparently, are not going to propose a genocide. Are you too lazy to even build your own strawman? Want me to admit something? Ok, pal, here goes.

The US has been entirely too nice to the enemy. The namby-pamby, half-assed handling of the Afghanistan campaign (my vitriol is directed at the leadership, not the servicemen), such as the decision to not turn Mullah Omar's convoy that crossed through Logar into flaming metal and fishbait in order to not kill any civilians (as if Afghan civilians travelled in a convoy of vehicles) was stupid. The ridiculous caution toward avoiding collateral damage has the opposite effect (we're dealing here with an enemy that uses human shields in the hope that they die to score PR points), makes the West look weak, and has probably saved the lives of jihadi cockroaches.

There needs to be less concern for jihadi "rights". There needs to be entirely more ruthlessness toward the enemy. You say the number killed is too high? I say it's stupidly low. If you count Wahabbis/Salafis as an ethnic group, of course, yes I agree they should be wiped out. There hasn't been nearly enough pain inflicted on that group in return for 9/11 and the rest of their atrocities. If this includes killed everything remotely Islamist on the earth, so be it. But no nukes. Well, maybe in Waziristan.

 

[dudalb]

I would love The Athiest to go to a fire station in New York and sell his "9/11 was no big deal" crapola and see what happens.