Pfeh. Sometimes I like him, other times not. This time not.Afghanistan is again being lost to the West, even as a coalition force of more than 5,000 troops launches a major spring offensive in the south of the country. The insurgency may drag on for many months or several years, but the tide has turned. Like Alexander's Greeks, the British and the Soviets before the US-led coalition, inferior Afghan insurgents have forced far superior Western military forces on to a path that leads toward evacuation. What has caused this scenario to occur repeatedly throughout history?
In the most general sense, the defeat of Western forces in Afghanistan occurs repeatedly because the West has not developed an appreciation for the Afghans' toughness, patience, resourcefulness and pride in their history. Although foreign forces in Afghanistan are always more modern and better armed and trained, they are continuously ground down by the same kinds of small-scale but unrelenting hit-and-run attacks and ambushes, as well as by the country's impenetrable topography that allows the Afghans to retreat, hide, and attack another day.
'continuously gunned down'? I guess he doesn't follow "TerroristDeathWatch" or even be able to add correctly? I mean, they do publish casualty figures and they are way-one-sided.
| One thing that's different about our invasion of Afghanistan is that we've largely divided the country and have a good number of the ethnic groups working with us. This is really a Pashtun revolt; the other tribes in the north and west like us (at least as long as we spread money and guns around). We haven't united the country against us the way the Brits did in the 19th Century or the Soviets did in the 1970s. |
Total misreading of history as well as a complete misunderstanding of current military conduct.
The latest episode in this historical tradition has several distinguishing characteristics. First, Western forces - while better armed and technologically superior - are far too few in number. Today's Western force totals about 40,000 troops. After subtracting support troops and North Atlantic Treaty Organization contingents that are restricted to non-combat, reconstruction roles - building schools, digging wells, repairing irrigation systems - the actual combat force that can be fielded on any given day is far smaller, and yet has the task of controlling a country the size of Texas that is home to some of the highest mountains on Earth.
We only need to kill the enemy.
| And we have a fair number in the Afghan National Army, which is a better than expected army for the region. |
The Afghani people are frightened by the talibunnies.
| He can't be serious in thinking that the Taliban was ever 'acceptable' to the Afghan people -- the real question is, acceptable compared to whom? The Talibunnies got to power by promising to end the civil war, which they did. They then went around beating women, regulating the length of beards and banning music and kites. If the choice was 'Taliban or civil war bloodbath', then the Taliban were more accepted. If the choice was 'Taliban or rebuild a reasonable country in which you're left alone', the choice is obvious. At least to the Afghans. |
Better armed? With more ammo? Newer AK-47s? T90 tanks? Please explain.
| It's the new Taliban attack helicopters -- reeeeeaally skeeery. |
'Failed to kill is '01 and '02', huh? How about all those killed in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '-7? From what I read, their tradecraft is stricly jihadi, i.e. absolutely no real military skills, but only a mastery of brutality and willingness to die. There are very few 'seasoned' talibunnies left from 2001, I am sure.
Western leaders in Afghanistan are also finding that many Afghans are not unhappy to see the Taliban returning. Much of the reason lies in the fact that the US-led coalition put the cart before the horse. Before the 2001 invasion, the Taliban regime was far from loved, but it was appreciated for the law-and-order regime it harshly enforced across most of Afghanistan. Although women had to stay home, few girls could go to school and the odd limb was chopped off for petty offenses, most rural Afghans could count on having security for themselves, their families and their farms and/or businesses.
'Odd limb'? Well, they should be able to accept that!. 'Security' is defined as: a state of NOT having fanatical mohammedeans trying to kill them
| The odd limb, the occasional wife or sister executed in a soccer stadium, hey, who's complaining about a hard life? |
Must.stop.now. He called the Taliban 'law and order'. Amazing
| To borrow from Orwell, you have to be an 'expert' to make up stuff like this -- no ordinary person would be so stoopid. |
The welcome is only fear, asshat.
| So we should have left the women as cattle and breeding stock, left the kids ignorant, and let a small bunch of thugs remain in charge, so as to preserve a millenium-old culture. Got it. |
While not precisely xenophobic, ...
| ... no, not 'precisely' ... |
I think the Taliban government was bribed by UBL and the people has no say in the matter, doofus.
This perception of a "foreign yoke", along with spreading warfare, little reconstruction and endemic banditry, has created a fertile nationalistic environment for the Taliban and their allies to exploit.
'Nationalist' Afghanis? Shit, they are just trying to stay alive.
| If by 'nationalist' he means the ones who want to create an islamic emirate and allow all sorts of islamic 'brothers' to attack the west, ... |
| Not just because the Soviets were infidels, but because they were brutal infidels. |
This is true.
Today, many non-Afghan Muslims again perceive that the Afghans are being occupied and tortured by another infidel entity, the US-led coalition. This is especially the case because the Afghan war is occurring in tandem with the Iraq war, which broadens the sense that all of Islam is under infidel attack.
This is mainly due to the seething mohammedeans and their supporters in the media.
| Except that what he claims isn't true. The northern tribes took on the Soviets at least as well, if not better, than the Pashtuns, and you don't see Muslim Uzbeks and Tajiks fighting us today. They understand that they have it good now for the first time in over thirty years. |
If you take out the PakiWakis, the rest amounts to a few platoons. ISI=Talibunnies=alQ.
| And that's a key point, because this is a fight being waged by Pashtuns on both sides of the border. |
So jihadis are able to mastermind the complex tasks of uploading and downloading files on the internet. He should know this shit. WAY to easy to fisk.
The future for the West in Afghanistan is bleak, and it is made more discouraging by the fact that much of the West's defeat will be self-inflicted because it did not adequately study the lessons of history.
| We succeeded in 2001-2 precisely because we studied the lessons of history. We moved fast and light. We kept our footprint small. We employed Afghan tribes as allies and let them do the bulk of the ground fighting. We double-dealed and split alliances. We worked ourselves in with the locals. We did everything the Soviets couldn't possibly do. |
"It should be remembered that, in 1878, the British did succeed in bringing the Afghans to heel [with a punitive expedition]. Lord Roberts' march from 'Kabul to Kandahar' was one of [Queen] Victoria's most celebrated wars. The Russians, moreover, foolishly did not try to punish rogue Afghans, as Roberts did, but to rule the country. Since Afghanistan is ungovernable, the failure of their efforts was predictable ...
I can dig it. New, more open RoE all around, please!
"America should not seek to change the regime, but simply to find and kill the terrorists. It should do so without pity."
WOW! I almost have a sexual reaction to that! Niiiice.
That IS the key. A merciless hunt with no bounds. Everyone warned that we will try and limit collateral damage, but woldn't it jut be better for you to make sure there are NO jihadis anywhere near. If you do that, we won't replay Sherman's march to the sea on you. Got it, punk?