Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
8 December 2008
09:1910551A new report this morning states that the Taliban have gained ground in Afghanistan. Instead of them losing out to the huge western military presence, the opposite is the case.
One year ago they 'had a presence' in 54% of Afghanistan, today they have a presence in 72% of Afghanistan. The Poppy (drugs) Industry is thriving like never before .There are other statistics and so forth and so on, but let me just mention one more. Three out of the Seven main routes into the capitol itself, Kabul, are under Taliban control, which is pretty staggering information after all this time and all the western weaponry, and of course after all the loss of life. So despite the overwhelming force against them, the Taliban appear to be winning the war.
"Our Political masters will tell us differently but the troops on the ground will agree with this" said the reports author's on R4 this morning.
Many a foreign power has come a cropper in this bleak country, as we all know only too well. Now there are calls from one or two western leaders for dialogue.
It looks like its the only way we as a Nato force are ever going to get anywhere...
"jaw jaw not war war"..said one former US President.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 December 2008
10:1810555It is not a 'huge' NATO presence PaulB, far from it. Relative to the area and terrain there are far too few troops to do the job and hold ground. The half hearted and inadequate response from many of our NATO allies certainly does not help.
In every engagement NATO troops come out on top and the Taliban suffer far heavier casualties. Unfortunately this war cannot be won only by conventional means. The Afghan Government has a role, with NATO forces, in a hearts and minds operation. Often heavy handed American methods dont help but the Afghan Government seems ineffectual from reports I have read.
I think it is wrong to say that the Taliban are winning but we certainly are not winning, as such.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
8 December 2008
11:3510556I agree BarryW with the terrain and troop allocation they only way that NATO can operate is Hearts and Minds. With the drug trade and instilled tribal mindset being so much a part of life in Afghanistan that it is an impossible task for the allies to change over a short period of time, they are in for a long haul.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
8 December 2008
13:3410560I never really understood this " hearts and minds " thing. Isnt it a load of ol westernised cock and baloney. How would an occupied country ever fall 'in love' with foreign interlopers, foreign occupiers. It didnt happen in England all those years ago, it didnt happen in Ireland when we had interlopers there, it doest happen anywhere. No it just doesnt happen.
One need look no further than Basra for the most recent example. Started off with all this hearts and minds baloney wearing berets and so forth and at the end of the day we were screaming loudly for heavy motorised vehicles, withdrawing to safety at the outskirts of town and to all intents and purposes 'holed up'.
I myself dont believe these very foreign wars are winnable, we the west do little more than dabble at the fringes, then we eventually withdraw and normal life, centuries old, dribbles back into place, the dust settles over the short term western influence and then forgets about it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 December 2008
13:4810562PaulB - Afghanistan is not an occupied country. NATO is there at the request of the Afghan Government which is threatened by the Taliban, as indeed are we. Remember how the Taliban sheltered Al Qaida enabling them to carry out 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. If they are left free to do that again then we will suffer an increase in terror in the UK and in other western countries.
As for hearts and minds - the British Army have a superb record of these operations. Oman and Malaysia are two examples that immediately come to mind. Oman was threatened in the late 60's by Communist insurgents and UK Special Forces went in to support the Oman Government in a similar way to Afghanistan. The Malaysia insurgency in the early 60's was another hugely successful operation in that case against Chinese Communists insurgents.
Hearts and minds can work but it needs proper application from all the NATO forces and the Afghan Government as well as time. The big problem in the 'ghan is the tribal aspect as Barry W-S says but also the problems with the Pakistan border and foreign terrorist involvement boosting the Taliban.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
8 December 2008
20:2910586at the end of the day no-one likes a foreign force on their soil.
the afghans are no diferent.
our media never explains why the taleban have such support among the population.
they are not our idea of a fun party, but the ordinary afghan that sticks to their rules enjoys a safer life style.
the "students" or " scholars" as they call themselves exercise a major security operation in rural and urban areas.
criminals do not operate where they are active, good news for the residents.
western goverments have an obssession that everyone should be subject to and gratful for western democracy, sadly
the penny does not seem to drop.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
9 December 2008
00:1110597For the average Afghan farmer there is a far greater return from producing 'poppies' than there is from any other crop. As long as that is the case, and it will be until alternative crops with a similar value and the markets at which to realise that value, then the drug production will continue. In a country that recognises their tribal leaders authority high above a wetern style 'elected' government there will always be little hope of winning 'hearts and minds' through the use of an occupying army.
Didn't the Soviet Union say they had been invited in by the government in 1968 to crush the 'Prague spring'?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
9 December 2008
07:4610619There is little difference in the feeling between "occupied" and "invited in by the bosses" for an ordinary citizen in a country full of wealthy uniformed foreigners who have authority over you.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
9 December 2008
08:5310622This is a very difficult one.
Perhaps if there wasn't the demand for heroin, then it wouldn't be such a problem, but I undestand that 95% or more of the heroin used in this country comes from Afghanistan.
It is virtually impossible for a Western force (Christian at that) to impose their will on a Middle Eastern Muslim Country; even if we "won", things would I'm sure return to their former state pretty soon.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 December 2008
09:2710626That is true Roger but to leave the 'ghan and let it fall into the hands of the taliban would bring a return of terror to our streets big time...
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
9 December 2008
09:4010628We've mentioned Pakistan on this thread. Here's the odd thing. We went to war with Iraq because they were reportedly the hotbed of international terror, we then went to war with Afghanistan because they were also the hotbed of international terror, we sabre rattled over Iran as they were another hotbed of international terror, but the real hotbed of international terror we have done nothing about...yes youve guessed it...Pakistan!
The British terror guys were trained there, Bin Laden himself is supposed to live there, Al Quida thrive there, the recent Mumbai terrorists were also trained there.. I mean heavens sake, why does Pakistan remain untouched?
I know we like them, they seem pro western and its all very nice, and we play very nice cricket with them, in our very nice white flannels but lets be real for once. Its the true and real hotbed of international terror. They have universities for it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 December 2008
09:5410631But in Pakistan it is not offficially sanctioned and encouraged by the Government, who are western allies. The terrorists are as much a enemy of the Pakistan state as they are ours. The border region is a wild and difficult terrain where the terrorists hide. Remember, the Pakistan Government got into trouble only recently because they were accused of being complicit in an American Special Forces raid accross the border. A lot of terrorists are also Saudi and are sworn enemies of the Saudi regime (including Bin Laden himself).
Iran is thought to be sponsors of terror and the Taliban certainly were, Iraq was different, not sponsoring the terrorists but were thought to be developing wmd's and presented a threat to the region. We now know the truth about the latter...and the terrorists have capitalised on the events there since.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
9 December 2008
17:3510650The Pakistan government may be western allies but what about the Pakistani people? Iraq was thought to be developing weapons of mass destruction, by who? Certainly not the UN weapons inspectors who were in the country and there was no evidence of support for terrorism. Their regime was nasty but then the West formally recognised Pol Pot and objected to the Vietnamese invasion (the less said about Pinochet the better)
Do the West win hearts and minds? Remember Aden?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
9 December 2008
17:4910652and other such like conflicts.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
9 December 2008
20:4610685getting back to barry's post, he is right that parts of pakistan are ungovernable.
anyone of pakistani origin that lives here will tell you that, the mountains are full of tribesman that do not know of the existence of places like lahore and karachi.
the border with afghanistan means nothing to people that live in that region, whether they be afghans or pakistanis.
moving on to the matter of harbouring terrorists.
our country is one of the worst offenders, our policy of not booting out terrorists to countries that have the death penalty, means that many head here.
does anyone remember the bombings in egypt?
our foreign office advised people not to travel there after the atrocity.
the egyptian government countered with, "we have given a long list of terrorists that reside in your country, together with eveidence to show that they should face trial, they are still living in safety on your benefits system."
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
10 December 2008
07:3710705Well said Howard.
The last paragraph epitemises the problem very well. We have far too many "overseas" terrorists living here, whether on benefits or not - worse of course if they are (on benefits).
Why are we so stupid ??
Roger
10 December 2008
07:4810709Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I have regurgitated this old thread because it dealth with a situation in Afghanistan that clearly hasnt improved in the intervening period. Today on R4 an American general of note, General McKernan, has stated that in southern Afghanistan the coalition forces are clearly "not winning". The notorious Helmond province is of course in Southern Afghanistan so you can see which direction his complaints are aimed...squarely at the British forces.
To be fair to the British forces..its a huge area and there simply isnt enough of them, but fear not...the Americans are on their way. As I understand it they are putting another 17,000 troops alongside the British forces in the Helmond region to bolster up the position.
But not before time as the Taliban are not hurting. They thrive, more recruits, more money from the continued growth in poppy production, any amount of weaponry, life's never been better. These Afghan guys are used to fighting. They fight everyone, Russians, Brits, Yanks they dont care...its part of their culture like fish n chips is to us.
Its a great pity we had to go into Afghanistan at all. Now that Iraq is nearly over..a complete pull out from the region would have been preferable in my book anyway.
Define "winning". This area is so complex, and there are so many western interests at stake too, through the drugs trade, that it all becomes very murky.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Correct Bern. It is a very complex situation. 'Not winning' is not the same as losing. And, yes, PaulB, there is a lot of territory and too few British Troops, who are doing a great job in those circumstances.
The real problem is that we have underfunded the armed forces for the roles that we require of them and just have too few troops. This situation also illustrates that we simply cannot rely on many of our NATO allies. The Americans, Canadians and Poles apart, other nations are simply not pulling their weight and certainly not in the front line. The most unreliable being our European allies, Germans and French included.
As for whether we should be in Afghanistan in the first place. Yes that is a matter of debate but we just have to think what the situation would be if we pulled out. The Afghan Government would fall to the Taliban and Al Qaida would have their safe operating base back and free to stike at western targets. At least while we are there our troops can keep them on the run and limit the ability of Al Qaida's ability to make further 9/11 styles terror attacks.
