Taliban.. our Enemy ?

Discussion in 'Postwar' started by Groundhugger, Sep 15, 2010.

  1. arkrite

    arkrite Senior Member

    It appears to me that our efforts to bring western style democracy and social values to both Iraq and Afghanistan have been neither successful nor wanted by the majority of the inhabitants.We being regarded as Christians they fear for their religion. We are an occupying power propping up puppet governments. It does not inspire locals when western politicians speak of better to fight the war there than in the west. No one likes their country to be used as a battle ground .
    The two invasions were knee jerk reactions by politicians. Of course George Bush was expected to do something after 9/11 but in my opinion he was given bad advice. I think a low key war against the Taliban using those groups who oppose them i.e The Warlords would caused less political damage around the Arab world.
    The Terrorists, by whatever name, have had their victory. The distrust and hatred between the Christian West and the Muslim East has not been this great since the Ottoman Empire tried to spread into Europe.
    It is now a case of withdrawing whist saving face. That is another political decision to be made but none want that hot potato .
     
  2. slaphead

    slaphead very occasional visitor

    It is now a case of withdrawing whist saving face. That is another political decision to be made but none want that hot potato .

    And there is the rub. No one wants to "lose".
    I agree that the treatment of women by the taliban is wrong. And I for one would wish the world rid of them and extremists of all kinds, but I dont think invading the country is the right idea when it is a mobile ideology that is the problem...

    I dont think it right to stone adulterers to death. I dont think the death sentence in any country is anything but societies vengence. Basically if you want to invade a country because you dont like its laws the list is going to be very long. I am sure Her Magestys Revenue and Customs would love to invade the Caymen islands :).
     
  3. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    The definition could well change over time but the first question is what does it mean to have "won"?
    If that is defined as weakening the militant Islamic organizations and preventing further serious attacks like 911 then perhaps the West has already achieved all it could hope to and has won it's first victory.

    If it means taming Afghanistan and bringing peace and stability to that country then I would agree that history has shown that to be a difficult objective. However, it is easy to look now and describe the campaign in Afghanistan as an unwinnable quagmire and almost impossible to assess what would have transpired if no intervention had occurred at all. Go back 9 years and consider post 911 politics and the public mood. Taking no action was really not a viable option at the time.
    So, I would pose the question, what alternative course of action could the U.S./Britain have taken which would have been more strategically sound than the military intervention undertaken in Afghanistan?
    Certainly ill gree doing nothing was not an option. Going off elsewhere half way through most certainly was though
     
  4. Formerjughead

    Formerjughead Senior Member

    I can understand going after the Taliban and Bin Laden and I can get behind going into Iraq to ensure that WMDs were not present.

    The unfortunate thing about both conflicts (theatres) is that while the indigeonous peoples bear the brunt of the suffering the actual fighting is being done by or encouraged by foreigners. Just as the Coalition is recruiting and training new Armies and National Police Forces; the insugents are also recruiting from the ranks of locals. The Coalition offers running water and a life less feudal. The insurgents offer revenge.
     
  5. slaphead

    slaphead very occasional visitor

    I agree Formerjughead, but in both tasks surely special forces, spys and drones could have done those jobs with less collateral damage. Though some of the other tasks the coalition has since been given could not have been done without a ground presence of some kind...
     
  6. Formerjughead

    Formerjughead Senior Member

    I agree Formerjughead, but in both tasks surely special forces, spys and drones could have done those jobs with less collateral damage. Though some of the other tasks the coalition has since been given could not have been done without a ground presence of some kind...

    It would be nice if that were truly the case; however, there is no substitute for having boots on the ground if you are wishing to deny an enemy force presence in a specific area.

    I fear that if the entire operation would have been run using only Special Forces and Spies that the Coalition would be in need of more Spies and Special Forces. Not to point fingers; but, it is exactly those "Special Forces and Spies" that said Iraq had WMDs in the first place.

    The colateral damage is not necessarily a result of having non elite forces on the ground; it is more the result of the nature of insurgent warfare, where the combatants mix in amongst non combatants.
     
  7. Ropi

    Ropi Biggest retard of all

    Just some thoughts with my young (20 is young right?) head:
    "Why we fight?" This question was asked by many in many wars. It is public opinion. People as a whole has a short memory, is influencable and likes comfort. If they are told that "war is wrong, we are oppressing poor afghans" they will stick to "end war, leave those poor people alone!" but as soon as they, the people (because it is never the army, who gets it, it is now always the helpless people) are attacked, they will ask "How could that happen? How could our governement not protect us, why wasn't the army busy fighting the "bad guys"?"
    "Sorry mates, you wanted us outta there..." - will say the army...
    Harrasing the enemy is, IMHO, better than leaving them alone, because if we do, they will be able to prepare strikes, do damage to the really helpless poor afghans (one of the main issues encountered by Hungarian forces is agressive enroling of afghans into the taliban militia), and if ISAF forces leav that country there will be blood. And much more than there is now.

    Sorry if it is a senseless comment, but this is what I think.
     
  8. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Za,

    That is a very disturbing and compelling image.
    But, as noble as it might seem to stay and attempt to prevent a return to that reality, do you think it is actually achievable?
    We are currently substituting disfigured Afghanis for military body bags. Over 150 for Canada alone.
    Maybe one of those 'no win' scenarios. For everyone concerned.

    Not wishing to put things in the wrong context but can I remind of a post I read today?

    http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/322223-post256.html

    the account of casualties is also vastly different as for example in one ten day battle on the Coriano Ridge near Rimini in Italy in September of 1944 - 8th Army was losing 150 dead and more than 600 wounded etc PER DAY - the full battle of the Gothic line yielded some 14,000 dead in less than 28 DAYS and are laying in seven cemeteries in that area with 2000 in each...so your statement of the present forces are suffering more in one day than we ever were is again tenous at best - the present casualites in X YEARS is what ?
     
  9. canuck

    canuck Token Colonial Patron

    Not wishing to put things in the wrong context but can I remind of a post I read today?

    http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/322223-post256.html

    Za,
    At those casualty rates all Coalition troops would have been home 5 years ago. The tolerance doesn't exist today for that kind of bloodshed. At least not in Afghanistan.
     
  10. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    ZA the casualties figures you quote to another thread is in fact a direct misquote by the author and aimed at me. If this taints your post on this thread I can only apologise for my being misquoted for whatever reason Iwas misquoted for. Make sense? Ah who cares.
     
  11. Formerjughead

    Formerjughead Senior Member

    Not wishing to put things in the wrong context but can I remind of a post I read today?

    http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/322223-post256.html

    In light of that it would appear that the troops making up the Coalition are nothing but a bunch of shirkers.

    How is a young man expected to hold up to that example when he is consistently bombarded by e-mails and the threat of spilling their Venti Caramel Macciado down their flak jacket whilst rushing back to camp to play Call of Duty?

    It's no wonder that there is such disparity in the casualties as it is painfully apparent that the younger generation simply is not applying themselves and and refuse to incur more casualties

    Maybe a letter writing campaign of strongly worded e-mails suggesting that body armor and automatic weapons be substituted for woolen shirts and bolt action rifles. While they are at maybe the medical corps could malinger a bit more before rushing off to retrieve wounded; give the lads a chance to die on the battlefield instead of returning home clogging up the medical offices and taking all the good parking spots.

    Maybe instead of all the fancy armored vehicles we could have the troops ride bicycles into combat; besides saving the precious fuel the fresh air will do them good, put their minds in the right place before facing the enemy.

    (Note: Text appearing in green is sarcasm and is not meant to convey the true feelings of the poster, and is only used to alleviate the posters frustration with the direction of "Compare and Contrast" essays that is running rampant through the forum)
     
    Owen and canuck like this.
  12. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

  13. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    Too true Owen but thats not why we are there. And Karazi has no problem himself with his peoples attitude to women if not to such extremes..and my god hes our man.
     
  14. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    We ought to go into Zimbabwe & kick Mugabe's arse out.

    sorry Za, I didn't see you'd already posted that photo as a link.
     
  15. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    Im all for the Zimbabwe one..too long that one...Why aint we gone into Zimbabwe. No dont answer I think I already know the answer...No jungle boots.
     
  16. Formerjughead

    Formerjughead Senior Member

    Im all for the Zimbabwe one..too long that one...Why aint we gone into Zimbabwe. No dont answer I think I already know the answer...No jungle boots.

    I have a pair I can loan you urqh, 10 1/2 wide. I'll cash in my frequent flyer points and meet you in Tangiers.
     
  17. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    My apologies, Urqh, I was not addressing you, neither directly nor undirectly, and as for the figures I might have quoted Passchendaele.

    But it's quite a different world today, nor are the media of today what they were 70 years ago. Can you imagine Overlod with live TV from the beaches relayed to the home audiences?
     
  18. canuck

    canuck Token Colonial Patron

    My apologies, Urqh, I was not addressing you, neither directly nor undirectly, and as for the figures I might have quoted Passchendaele.

    But it's quite a different world today, nor are the media of today what they were 70 years ago. Can you imagine Overlod with live TV from the beaches relayed to the home audiences?

    So true. CNN might have captured Caen before the British/Canadians while Christine Amanpour was conducting a live interview with Goering.:D

    Vietnam changed everything.
     
  19. Groundhugger

    Groundhugger Senior Member

    Thanks Guys for some good insights and thoughts from a cross section of this forum ,
     
  20. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    Urqh, to answer your question from earlier, it is sad to say but the longer that conflict drags on, public interest in it will wane even more than it has now. With the current administration we have now, it's almost a given that the Allied Coalition effort there will go the way of "Vietnamization", and we all know how that worked out. When will it end? Your guess is good as mine. We still have troops in Europe and along the DMZ in Korea, so go figure. All the Taliban has to do is wait us out.

    As far as the win scenario for us is simple. Fighting them there is better than fighting them here. We haven't been hit since that fateful day of September 11th, so maybe it is playing out along those lines for now. Every p1$$ed off r@ghead who can't wait to go see Allah and get his 72 virgins have been buying one way plane tickets to southwest Asia since then. The Coalition forces have been doing their best to accommodate them upon arrival.
     

Share This Page