How is this for an Alternative Plan?

[tagos]

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Afghanistan is as close to success as we could have ever hoped for. Even when there is no war Afghans seem to like fighting. We have opened up the nation to NGOs, banished the Taliban from power and reopened schools. What more could anyone have expected. This is what success looks like, imperfect, but success nonetheless.

Pull out as best we can? I dunno. I suppose it would take ninety or so days. Something like that. Write off Iran as beyond our ability to fix. Let the Iraqis deal with it, in the long run there is no other choice really.
[/QUOTE]

No, sorry - Afghanistan is nowhere near a success. The Taliban effectively control large swathes of the country in the same way the VC did in South Vietnam. I’ve been watching a series of documentaries on Channel 4 where a very brave reporter went on patrol with the US army, on an operation with the British Army and got access to Taliban bases and it was a real eye-opener for someone who once thought we might be winning.

In the British operation to clear a town (in theory as ‘support’ for the Afghan Army but soon had to take over leadership) the ANA took heavy casualties, the British a few and took 6 days to achieve their objective against a planned 24 hours. The battles saw a record number of airstrikes called in by the British Army and at the end of it they had to hand the town back to the Taliban as the Afghan Govt could not/would not reinforce them.

This week’s episode saw him visiting a US outpost supposedly ‘controlling’ a region. None of the troops thought the war was going well. They were meant to be company strength but had just 40 men split between two bases which could only be suppled by helicopter as the roads were too dangerous. They could only patrol at night and were under constant sniper attack. The local village upped and left as soon as they moved in due to fear of the Taliban.

The local police in the region could not wear their uniforms because of fear of assassination while the Taliban, safe in their mountain bases, numbered in the thousands have fought off all attempts to dislodge them.

Here’s an article on the first in the series

NEW film footage from Afghanistan has suggested the British Army controls little but isolated pockets in Helmand, the province in the south of the country where the troops are trying to establish stability.

The film, taken by the reporter Sean Langan for Channel 4, shows the extent of the difficulties British troops have faced, with severe shortages of helicopters preventing resupplies and men forced to live off corn cobs foraged from nearby fields.

With its pictures of Afghan troops wounded and dying, it is among the most graphic footage from Afghanistan since British paratroopers arrived last summer.

An officer admits the whole area south of Garmsir, in central Helmand, more than 100 miles north of the Pakistan border, is controlled by the Taliban who have no problem resupplying and reinforcing their men.

“The Taliban pretty much control everything south of us all the way down to the Pakistani border,” says Captain Doug Beattie. “That’s their main supply route and they have pretty much free access of movement.”

<snip>

The Ministry of Defence described the film as “out of date”, adding: “Since then British troops have moved into the area”.

Troops ‘too thin’

British troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are too thin on the ground, do not have the equipment they need and there is a significant risk they will fail in their mission, a cross-party committee of MPs warns today.

In a hard hitting report reflecting fears in the military about an impending crisis, the MPs question Ministry of Defence claims that it is achieving its objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MPs express their concern after the MoD announced yesterday that a Royal Marine from 42 Commando died in an attack by Taliban forces in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan. He is the second Marine killed fighting the Taliban in a week.

Last summer the USA had only 20k troops in Afghanistan and the UK is leading the fighting with even less. They are vastly outnumbered by the Taliban and the Afghan National Army isn’t stepping up to the plate.

One of the most depressing part of the documentary series was the ordinary people’s belief the govt was doing nothing for them. A whole village of refugees were begging for water in a makeshift camp (a US airstrike had destroyed their village they say and the survivors left the dead in the rubble and fled).

We might have ‘won’ the war in Afghanistan but we took our eye off the ball and the Taliban and Al-Q are right back in the game. They have the numbers, they have the fanaticism, they have the safe havens of the Pakistan Tribal region, they have vast heroin funds and they have an endless stream of new recruits created by the reliance on and the callous use of airpower.

[Burton]

"Yes, but there is nothing stopping us chasing them in Pakistan

• sure tribally raised local regiments, but heck, they are not going to lose their pay packets - mainstream Pakistan is, and has always been, very pro USA"

There’s no Muslim country anywhere in the world that’s pro-USA that I can see. Some deal with us like the Saudi’s because it’s in their interest to do so. Packistan has to be bullied into any kind of assistance, their failure to timely mobilize troops is main reason Osama got away.

Yes there are forward operating bases all along the border with Pakistan but they’re not all that effective. They can’t stop the all movement across the borders. The Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran situation is the biggest clusterfuck of all time. The more I think about it the worse I feel. It’s going to get bigger and bigger.

[FRDE]

[QUOTE=Burton]
"Yes, but there is nothing stopping us chasing them in Pakistan

• sure tribally raised local regiments, but heck, they are not going to lose their pay packets - mainstream Pakistan is, and has always been, very pro USA"

There’s no Muslim country anywhere in the world that’s pro-USA that I can see. Some deal with us like the Saudi’s because it’s in their interest to do so. Packistan has to be bullied into any kind of assistance, their failure to timely mobilize troops is main reason Osama got away.
[/quote]

Pakistan is very pro USA, it has been for a long time.
It has problems on the borders, but the old friendship is there.

Yes there are forward operating bases all along the border with Pakistan but they’re not all that effective. They can’t stop the all movement across the borders. The Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran situation is the biggest clusterfuck of all time. The more I think about it the worse I feel. It’s going to get bigger and bigger.

Iran is not a problem. It looks like one, but it is not.

[tagos]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Pakistan is very pro USA, it has been for a long time.
It has problems on the borders, but the old friendship is there.

Iran is not a problem. It looks like one, but it is not.
[/QUOTE]

Pakistan attitude to USA

The U.S. draws its most negative assessments from Muslim nations, with Jordan at just 21% favorable and Turkey and Pakistan at 23%.

Pakistan is not a friend of the West. The current dictator is. Different thing all together.

[Burton]

“Iran is not a problem. It looks like one, but it is not.” How so?

[glee]

Sorry, messed up my quoting!

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]

Double Down, in Afghanistan Pull out of Iraq in the best way possible. Then move all the troops to Afghanistan where we are winning.

[/quote]

Winning in Afghanistan?

‘President Hamid Karzai’s lined, care-worn face is as good a record as any of five years of terror and counter-terror in Afghanistan. The strain is plain for all to see. Speaking in Kabul last week, George Bush’s favourite Muslim democrat was in tears as he talked about Afghan children killed in the west’s latest campaign against the Taliban.’

‘Since then 4,000 or more people have died in insurgency-related violence. The kill rate is accelerating. Civilian deaths account for roughly one-quarter of the total. There have been over 100 suicide attacks. Drug trafficking is up. And British troops have become the latest foreign detachment to be accused of killing civilians.’

‘Afghanistan has agreed to poppy-spraying measures in a desperate bid to deflate the soaring drugs trade, America’s anti-narcotics tsar announced at the weekend.’

‘The debate has been injected with fresh urgency by this year’s record opium harvest. Production rose 49% to 6,700 tonnes in 2006, more than 90% of the world’s supply. Taliban commanders have started to take a slice of drug profits, which fuel the insurgency. The money trail also leads to the higher echelons of government, where corruption at provincial and central levels has eroded public confidence in Mr Karzai.’

‘France’s decision to pull out the troops comes amid mounting violence in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are returning to the fore despite some 32,800 Nato troops in the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). Isaf commanders have recently been demanding more troops for the south, where the militants are most active.’

Simon Tisdall: Dark days ahead for Kabul

Afghanistan's opium poppies will be sprayed, says US drugs tsar

French to leave Afghan south

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Afghanistan was never a well-ordered place. Things in that country are as good as can be expected.

[tagos]

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Afghanistan was never a well-ordered place. Things in that country are as good as can be expected.
[/QUOTE]

No - they are worse than they have been and are getting worse (from our point of view) because we did not finish the job and show no sign of finishing the job.

‘As good as can be expected’ means the Taliban will be back in five years, heroin is flooding the world market, teachers are intimidated into not teaching girls or killed and schools blown up while the same old bunch of murdering warlord thugs with their democratic face masks on continue looting what little wealth there is until such times as they change sides again.

Global Policy Forum

I

n December 2001 the Security Council authorized the International Security Assistance Force to maintain security for the Afghanistan Transitional Authority. In March 2002 the Council established the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan, UNAMA, to manage all UN humanitarian, relief, recovery and reconstruction activities. Despite these initiatives, Afghanistan remains a “failed state.” The authority of President Hamid Karzai, victor in the presidential election of October 2004, barely extends beyond Kabul’s suburbs and warlords are once again in control of most of the country.

Violence fuels disillusionment and corruption

Growing insurgency, impunity for criminals and corrupt officials are factors causing signs of despondency and disillusionment among Afghans, according to a report by a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mission to Afghanistan, released in New York on Wednesday.

The report warns these problems, along with weak governance and the growing drug trade constitute “a grave threat to reconstruction and nation-building” and that Afghanistan’s state institutions are too fragile to fully meet the challenges. “Afghanistan needs additional and sustained support from the international community both for quick gains and for sustained progress over the long term,” the report said.

However, the 13-page document says the partnership between the international community and Afghanistan that began with the 2002 Bonn Agreement is still “largely on track” and the commitment of the international community is unwavering.

Afghanistan is going through its deadliest phase of violence since the Taliban regime was ousted in December 2001. Almost 4,000 people, about a quarter of them civilians, have been killed in fighting this year. Many have been killed in southern Afghanistan – the heartland of the Taliban-led insurgency and the drug trade. The impoverished central Asian state produces more than 90 percent of the world’s opium and has seen a nearly 60 percent increase in poppy cultivation this year, compared to 2005, aid experts estimate.

Afghan leaders told the mission members that the Taliban-led insurgency had been “fed by the failure of the government and the international community to provide basic services, governance and security to rural communities”.

They also heard criticism of the international community for doing too little to help Afghanistan develop its own security forces. President Hamid Karzai told the mission that the international community is at fault for “inadequate and belated efforts” to build a national police force. The Afghan Parliament Defence Commission Secretary reported that the Afghan National Army (ANA) remains poorly equipped and understaffed.

The Commander of the 31,500-strong NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Gen David Richards, told the mission that the ANA could field just over 14,000 combat soldiers. The Bonn Agreement called for a force of up to 70,000 soldiers and support staff. Inadequacies of the Afghan national police have already led to the development of an auxiliary police force.

Afghan Envoy says Taliban strength growing

Taliban strength in Afghanistan is on the rise and even with a growing NATO security force, the country’s defenses against explosive devices and suicide bombings are severely strained, the Afghan ambassador said Friday.

Taliban, which controlled the South Asian country for five years until it was toppled in a U.S.-led invasion in 2001, is acquiring more sophisticated weapons and motorcycles from abroad and continues to receive training in neighboring Pakistan, Ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad said in an interview.

Taliban fighters are crossing the border into Afghanistan 15 to 20 at a time, and are able to kill five or six Afghan police officers, who are trying to make do with old Soviet-era jeeps, with a single mine, Jawad said.

Etc, etc.

I’m all in favour of the US and the UK going back and finishing the job. It’s a shame we didn’t do it right first time out.

[black_rabbit]

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Afghanistan was never a well-ordered place. Things in that country are as good as can be expected.
[/QUOTE]

Are you serious?

The whole country’s going back down the toilet. In another five years, the Taliban will be back in charge.

[FRDE]

[QUOTE=Burton]
“Iran is not a problem. It looks like one, but it is not.” How so?
[/QUOTE]

Fair point.

Iran would not wish to expand into Iraq, they are different ethnic groups, so they would be repelled regardless of a common religion.

My take is that rationally, Iran would not want a failed State on its border, things have a habit of trickling over - not that Iran minds stirring things up for the USA and others.

My understanding is that Iran was alarmed by the ‘axis of evil’ garbage, and it regards itself as being under threat - remove the threat and they should calm down.

[Burton]

It’s a fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing ground with mainstream Iranian’s and politicians but it’s also a fact that he’s the Mullah’s man and isn’t going anywhere. I’m not so certain he desires a stable Iraq. He’s certanly done nothing to help that cause. Of note, today in 1979 the Shah fled Iran.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
I don’t go for this 'uman rites stuff, crimes against humanity is c/ap, like Churchill I reckon the solution is to line up the non useful ones and shoot them.
[/QUOTE]

Unless you’ve misspelled “Genghis Khan” there, I’d like a cite for that Churchill quote.

[FRDE]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Unless you’ve misspelled “Genghis Khan” there, I’d like a cite for that Churchill quote.
[/QUOTE]

Sign in - Google Accounts

On April 12, 1945, as the war drew to a close, Churchill rejected the idea of a war crimes trial.

Agree the trial will be a farce. Indictment: facilities for counsel. All sorts of complications ensue as soon as you admit a fair trial. I would take no responsibility for a trial - even though U.S. wants to do it. Execute the principal criminals as outlaws - if no Ally wants them.

The above is from blogspot.com, but the quotation(s) of Churchill should be verifiable.

The article goes on to say that: After the Nuremberg trials were underway, Churchill’s view of the power of prosecution altered.

The jist is that he regarded the criminals as outlaws (which has a very precise meaning that few people appear to understand) and that the prosecution was pushed for by the USA.

I think that Churchill had a pretty good understanding of the basis and evolution of Law, Nueremberg set a precedent - and precedents are things that are vulnerable to the ‘law of unforseen consequences’.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=FRDE]

Sign in - Google Accounts

The above is from blogspot.com, but the quotation(s) of Churchill should be verifiable.
[/quote]

Which does not translate to, “line up the non-useful ones and shoot them.”

It also depends on presumption of guilt – not unreasonable WRT the Nazi leaders; not reasonable or legal WRT suspected Taliban/al-Qaeda members like those at Gitmo.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
[The jist is that he regarded the criminals as outlaws (which has a very precise meaning that few people appear to understand) . . .
[/QUOTE]

It means a long-obsolete (and unlamented) category in Anglo-Saxon common law, and one to which, even in the Middle Ages, one could not simply be relegated without some form of due process. Certainly the victors in war would not have had a recognized legal right to unilaterally declare the losers “outlaws,” like Parliament passing a bill of attainder. Churchill would not have had a leg to stand on if he had stuck to that point.

[FRDE]

Nice point on ‘Bill of Attainder’

• beats me why Charles I signed them off - probably he was a dickhead.

What Stalin and Churchill could have signed off would boggle your mind

• we don’t know half of what happened

I, personally have an aversion to artificial law - you might take your rights seriously, but I consider Dworkin a jerk. Parochial comes to mind.

Kindly affirm or deny whether my earlier post on Churchill’s views were factually correct

• digging was a PITA - especially when it it is common knowledge.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Kindly affirm or deny whether my earlier post on Churchill’s views were factually correct
[/QUOTE]

I have already denied it – see above.