Afghan leader Karzai issues 'last warning' to Nato

[bikerdruid]

The NATO forces should quit Afghanistan and leave him to whatever power base he has for the last week of his life..

no argument here.

 

[geni]

Yeah, but those Iranian diplomats were killed inside Afghanistan. Not nice, but the Taliban didn't even leave their country to do it.

I was refering to the resulting standoff. The taliban certianly appear to have considered engaging in a conflict with Iran. Were probably dissuaded by the knowlage that iran would likely take a rather dirrect appeoach to the problem.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The NATO forces should quit Afghanistan and leave him to whatever power base he has for the last week of his life..

And then what? Remember, the sun keeps coming up and each new day can change things. What change do you want to see, and what change after that?

 

[bikerdruid]

And then what?

i should think that that will be up to the afghanis.
it is their country, after all.

 

[TraneWreck]

This would be more tolerable if there were some sort of goal in mind. I understand that the Taliban will use civilians and we're the side trying really hard to avoid unnecessary deaths, but civilian deaths will occur. That means we better have a damn good reason for being over there and we don't.

 

[egslim]

This would be more tolerable if there were some sort of goal in mind. I understand that the Taliban will use civilians and we're the side trying really hard to avoid unnecessary deaths, but civilian deaths will occur. That means we better have a damn good reason for being over there and we don't.

I think that's a misconception.

I found this article: it's a different kind of fight [than in Iraq, Ed], Marines said. For one, the Taliban'll wait until they're ready, not just when an opportunity appears. They'll clear the area of women and children, not use them as shields. And when the attack comes, it's often a full-scale attack, with flanks, trenches and a plan, said one Marine captain and Iraq veteran who asked not to be identified because he wasn't sure he was allowed to discuss tactics.
Whereas US forces often strike from afar, without going through the trouble of confirming target identification by close observation.

The US tries very hard to avoid casualties among its own forces, but is far less diligent with Afghan people.

 

[Sideroxylon]

i should think that that will be up to the afghanis.
it is their country, after all.

Or up to the warlords at least.

 

[egslim]

What change do you want to see, and what change after that?

Three questions should be asked, and yours is only the first:

1) What change do we want to see?
2) What do we have to do to affect that change?
3) Are we willing to pay that price?

Unfortunately, people often stop short after asking the first question, and conjure up a fantasy scenario how it will be accomplished.

 

[Furcifer]

Absolutely wrong. The civilian casualties lie entirely with the Taliban, in fact it's a war crime to use civilian areas as fighting positions. The idea is to not legitimize the tactic of using civilians as shields, which apparently you want to do.

I wish someone would explain this to these bleeding heart America haters. There are rules to war, rules designed to protect innocent civilians.

They seem to think it's just "creative" to dress like civilians, it isn't. It's a violation of the rules because it gets innocent people killed. It's specifically addressed; you dress like a civilian then you assume responsibility if civilians get killed. That's it, that's all there is to it. If they want freaking uniforms I'll start a collection.

The same thing goes with fighting in urban areas, using hospitals or medical vehicles, the list of war crimes the Taliban has committed goes on and on.

The thing that drives me most crazy is the Taliban relies on stupid people to expect the troops to see through walls and shoot guns out of people's hands and know an insurgent from a civilian at 1000 yards. That's how they intend to win the war, not by beating them, but by inciting enough stupidity in people to change the rules.

The latest of this I saw was they want to change the rules on how to secure an area because the troops are "defiling" their women. Apparently God has no problem with a killer hiding among his flock, he has a problem with a woman showing her face.

Well I had a chat with God the other day and he said a man willing to put his life on the line to protect women and children is "worthy". He also said that was his last warning.

 

[geni]

I wish someone would explain this to these bleeding heart America haters. There are rules to war, rules designed to protect innocent civilians.

They seem to think it's just "creative" to dress like civilians, it isn't. It's a violation of the rules because it gets innocent people killed. It's specifically addressed; you dress like a civilian then you assume responsibility if civilians get killed. That's it, that's all there is to it. If they want freaking uniforms I'll start a collection.

No you are allowed to spontaneously take up arms in defence of your country.

The same thing goes with fighting in urban areas,

No thats legal.

The thing that drives me most crazy is the Taliban relies on stupid people to expect the troops to see through walls and shoot guns out of people's hands and know an insurgent from a civilian at 1000 yards. That's how they intend to win the war, not by beating them, but by inciting enough stupidity in people to change the rules.

Doesn't appear to be the case. Large scale IED deployment looks far more like they are trying to win by making it too unpleasent for anyone else to stay there.

Well I had a chat with God the other day and he said a man willing to put his life on the line to protect women and children is "worthy". He also said that was his last warning.

Of course from the taliban's POV that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[geni]

i should think that that will be up to the afghanis.
it is their country, after all.

The boarders are pretty arbitrary.

 

[egslim]

There are rules to war

Considering war basically represents the ultimate breakdown of rules, that sentiment is not entirely sane.

So what do you propose, put the Taliban on trial for breaking rules?

Then you first have to defeat them, and the whole point of their "cheating" is to make them win.

 

[Furcifer]

No you are allowed to spontaneously take up arms in defence of your country.

I don't think15-20 years falls under "spontaneous" unless you're continental plate.

No thats legal.

I'm not sure to be honest. I vaguely remember from the last thread some of the regulations and I thought there was some sort of evacuation notice to be posted or something to that effect. I could be wrong.

Doesn't appear to be the case. Large scale IED deployment looks far more like they are trying to win by making it too unpleasent for anyone else to stay there.

"anyone else" seems to be complaining a lot less than the locals about being able to stay there.

It's a dirty war, one side is making an attempt to follow the rules to minimize civilian casualties and another is breaking them in order to maximize civilian casualties. So where exactly do you think the blame lies here?

 

[Furcifer]

So what do you propose, put the Taliban on trial for breaking rules?

No, but I don't think it's far fetched to expect their leaders to properly assign blame. It's fairly obvious the Taliban is causing civilians to be put in the line of fire, it's their fault.
I don't even expect them to know any better (although I'm quite positive they do) I expect people to know and lay blame where the blame is due. That's my only request if I were to have one.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think that's a misconception.

I found this article: it's a different kind of fight [than in Iraq, Ed], Marines said. For one, the Taliban'll wait until they're ready, not just when an opportunity appears. They'll clear the area of women and children, not use them as shields. And when the attack comes, it's often a full-scale attack, with flanks, trenches and a plan, said one Marine captain and Iraq veteran who asked not to be identified because he wasn't sure he was allowed to discuss tactics.
Whereas US forces often strike from afar, without going through the trouble of confirming target identification by close observation.

The US tries very hard to avoid casualties among its own forces, but is far less diligent with Afghan people.

I'm sure there are abuses, but this would be a very different war if we didn't care about civilian casualties. Just compare what we're doing to Vietnam or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

We need to get the hell out of there, but we have kept civilian casualties insanely low given the way wars and occupations generally play out.

ETA: I should say, civilian casualties by ally forces are extremely low. As in Iraq, most civilian deaths directly caused by violence are perpetrated by the thuggish elements within those societies. That's not to exonerate the US from the destruction both countries have suffered, but the real predators are homegrown in the case of Afghanistan and some combination of local forces and terrorists from neighboring countries that joined the battle after Saddam fell in Iraq.

 

[geni]

Considering war basically represents the ultimate breakdown of rules, that sentiment is not entirely sane.

Not really. The concept of rules of war works quite when in some cases such as the falklands war.

 

[IDB87]

My main problem is when mission-goals and tactics/strategy conflict.

Then it will be your job to explain how house-to-house fighting in Afghan villages (akin to the fighting in Haditha and urban warfare in General) is less terrorizing than drone strikes.

 

[egslim]

No, but I don't think it's far fetched to expect their leaders to properly assign blame. It's fairly obvious the Taliban is causing civilians to be put in the line of fire, it's their fault.
I don't even expect them to know any better (although I'm quite positive they do) I expect people to know and lay blame where the blame is due. That's my only request if I were to have one.

The article I linked had a US marine captain state: "the Taliban'll wait until they're ready, not just when an opportunity appears. They'll clear the area of women and children, not use them as shields."
Which is quite an interesting statement. Do the Taliban put civilians intentionally in the line of fire, or do US forces often simply have no idea who they're shooting at? I suspect the latter is a common situation.

Either way, blame is irrelevant. Results matter. If the US kills civilians it pushes their family members and friends towards the Taliban. It's self-defeating.

I'm sure there are abuses, but this would be a very different war if we didn't care about civilian casualties. Just compare what we're doing to Vietnam or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

We need to get the hell out of there, but we have kept civilian casualties insanely low given the way wars and occupations generally play out.

Well, you're right the US has a goal to keep civilian casualties low.

I think the priority list is something like this:
1) Preserve US lives.
2) Kill Taliban.
3) Preserve innocent Afghan lives.

But to really win over the Afghan people and defeat the Taliban it should be something like this:
1) Preserve innocent Afghan lives.
2) Kill Taliban.
3) Preserve US lives.

Not really. The concept of rules of war works quite when in some cases such as the falklands war.

That's true. Such wars are the exception, though.

Then it will be your job to explain how house-to-house fighting in Afghan villages (akin to the fighting in Haditha and urban warfare in General) is less terrorizing than drone strikes.

That's an apples and oranges comparisson.

The problem with airstrikes is you often have no idea whom you're attacking, drone strikes are only slightly more discriminate. But mistaken identity is common when you try to identify someone from high up in the air.
And killing the wrong people in a battle for hearts and minds is a Bad Thing.
If you send in an infantry squad by helicopter to confirm the target's identity that risk is greatly reduced.