You mean we should have focused on this region. I'm shocked.

Wait, bombing runs don't scare them? Well, we're farked.

Concerning Iran, "there is evidence that the insurgency ... has been provided with lethal aid originating in Iran since at least 2006."

So, in the middle of reporting how Afghanistan is failing, we take a moment to try to rev up interest is an Iranian War. Just farking great.

/Click-throughs aren't being reported on Fark today?

Nothing 50,000 more boots on the ground won't fix. Owait, we've got tons of forces tied up in Iraq...

Unright: Concerning Iran, "there is evidence that the insurgency ... has been provided with lethal aid originating in Iran since at least 2006."

So, in the middle of reporting how Afghanistan is failing, we take a moment to try to rev up interest is an Iranian War. Just farking great.

/Click-throughs aren't being reported on Fark today?

You mean it's all the IRANIANS' fault?
God Damn, we should have kept Saddam.

NewportBarGuy: Wait, bombing runs don't scare them? Well, we're farked.

No way man, the scores zero to zero but we're WAY ahead!

Giggity...

Occam's Chainsaw: Nothing 50,000 more boots on the ground won't fix. Owait, we've got tons of forces tied up in Iraq...

Actually I think the Russians are negotiating to add thier boots to the ground. Admitedly a sticky situation considering the history of the two countries; which is why it's a negotiation instead of a slam dunk deal.

Just wait til South Korea says something stupid and Bush gets mad at them in October and puts them back on the AXIS OF EVIL!

I would hardly call Afghanistan failing.

Memories of Taliban rule, and current Taliban tactics have alienated most of the population.

Suicide bombings which kill Afghani women and children are not popular.

Afghanistan only launches offensives because it can recruit Shaheeds from Pakistan.

The biggest problems in Afghanistan are tribal and separatist.

I take that back. It's weapons and training they are offering and it's past Negotiation and into "an agreement in principle"

Link (new window)

Sounds like the German general is asking for 6000 more NATO Forces.

bulldg4life: Just wait til South Korea says something stupid and Bush gets mad at them in October and puts them back on the AXIS OF EVIL!

North Korea.

CanisNoir: Occam's Chainsaw: Nothing 50,000 more boots on the ground won't fix. Owait, we've got tons of forces tied up in Iraq...

Actually I think the Russians are negotiating to add thier boots to the ground. Admitedly a sticky situation considering the history of the two countries; which is why it's a negotiation instead of a slam dunk deal.

Y'know, at this point I'd welcome them with open arms(deals). Afghanistan is where it counts, and I don't see us getting it under control until we're out of the Iraq Clusterfark.

Occam's Chainsaw: Y'know, at this point I'd welcome them with open arms(deals). Afghanistan is where it counts, and I don't see us getting it under control until we're out of the Iraq Clusterfark.

I think the problem with them having troops is the reaction of the Afgan's. I'm sure there's still some real bad blood there.

Though you're right, we should make darn sure we have the resources to do the damn job right, and at least here we've got full NATO support.

CanisNoir: Though you're right, we should make darn sure we have the resources to do the damn job right, and at least here we've got full NATO support.

I agree. This should be a NATO or, god forbid, UN deal. We put enough resources into both for them to shoulder a bit more of the load.

CanisNoir: I think the problem with them having troops is the reaction of the Afgan's. I'm sure there's still some real bad blood there.

Though you're right, we should make darn sure we have the resources to do the damn job right, and at least here we've got full NATO support.

I would use them as a "carrot & stick" force, IE: "We know you guys have bad history and we'd love to send the Russians home, but attacks are still up and we can't seem to find the holdouts / strongholds / non-uniformed combatants, etc."

'Course, this is from someone who thinks that if Pakistan won't clean out the tribal areas their damned selves, we should march 50,000 troops from the border to Islamabad and "ask nicely", so take with a grain of salt.

Mind you this is from an Aisia Times article and it seemed to heavily favor the Russian point of view - so take this for what it is.

Occam's Chainsaw
Agree wholeheartedly with the Pakistan plan :) However the Carrot and Stick might not be such a good idea.

As recently as March, public demonstrations erupted in Afghanistan against alleged "deployment of Russian troops" reported in a Polish newspaper, which had all the hallmarks of a sting operation by Western intelligence.

Even threatening would probably lose us any good will we've earned.

3_Butt_Cheeks
This comes from an "unnamed Pentagon Official" so I'm not sure how valid it is, but it sure sounds like a NATO thing to me.

A top Pentagon advisor told the Telegraph, "There's frustration, there's irritation. The mood veers between acceptance and despair that nothing is changing. We ask for more troops and they're not forthcoming in the numbers we need. The mistake was handing it over to NATO in the first place. For many countries, being in Afghanistan seems to be about keeping up appearances, rather than actually fighting a war that needs to be won. Was that necessary diplomatically? Probably. Is it desirable militarily? I don't think so nor do most others who are involved with Afghanistan."

Regarding TFA here, this is just warnings by the Pentagon anyway; I think it's in thier best interest to set expectations low so that we can have a "big success story" when things don't go as badly as they thought. The 'Machiavellian' in me almost things that success story might occur, oh, sometime around the beginning of November.

/damn where's my tinfoil hat

You know how frustrating it is to read this. I want to deploy to Afghanistan and I still cant manage to get there. Its not like I am not specialized in something that's applicable (unless of course they all of a sudden don't need combat engineers).

NewportBarGuy: You mean we should have focused on this region. I'm shocked.

Instead of Iraq? B-b-but Saddam caused 9/11!

Ace Frehley's Ghost: NewportBarGuy: You mean we should have focused on this region. I'm shocked.

Instead of Iraq? B-b-but Saddam caused 9/11!

Poor use of sarcasm.

/We can give up after Osama eats the peanuts out of my bacon and puled pork infested shiite.

thisisntnamtherearerules: /We can give up after Osama eats the peanuts out of my bacon and puled pork infested shiite.

The barrett is nice and all, but I prefer the ma deuce for delivery of .50 ammo. If one round is good, 5 is much better.

Concerning Iran, "there is evidence that the insurgency ... has been provided with lethal aid originating in Iran since at least 2006."


For the love of god they need to stop saying this. The Taliban and al-Qaeda hate the Iranian government and if the US and Israel weren't in the region they would be attacking them. To them the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.

Liberal Elite: For the love of god they need to stop saying this. The Taliban and al-Qaeda hate the Iranian government and if the US and Israel weren't in the region they would be attacking them. To them the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.

Waaait... *dons tinfoil hat* What if we let the IRANIANS get after them?! Brilliant! A joint NATO-Iran exercise! One, we cause Iran to deploy their army afield, which is great for both intelligence and operational reasons. Two, positive interaction between Iran and NATO would cause about a half dozen different regimes to immediately shiat kittens.

/I wonder if we'd keep playing with NATO if they undertook military operations we weren't keen on, or if we'd take our toys and go home?
//Why yes, you can have some of what I'm smoking.

Goddammit.

We could have won this by now if we'd really wanted to.

Let's redeploy all Iraqi combat troops to Afghanistan, and hire Bechtel to build them a new country. Its time to get serious about this. These ARE the bastards that attacked us, and we ought to wipe them clean off the face of the Earth.

Hmm.

Somacandra I thought 16 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. The more you know eh.
Iran would be a better ally than the Saudies.

Send one of these in...

CanisNoir: Interesting link, much appreciated.

Somacandra

I think deploying that many troops to Afghanistan is unfeasible.

First, the country is land-locked, and I doubt Iran, Russia or Pakistan would allow troops to be moved through their territory on roads.

Second, it would make resupply a nightmare. The costs of feeding that many troops, and bringing it all in by air, would be astronomical.

Third, only an idiot would think "lets saturate Afghanistan with troops". It's better to build up local forces and structures.

But please, continue on with your seething and your "We need to move everything over" mentality.

The Beacon Man Quote 2008-06-28 10:47:46 AM
The Taliban will likely try to boost its presence in new areas of Afghanistan while continuing to fight in its south and eastern strongholds


Then they will die.


Awesome dude! That plane is about as worrying to the commander-in-sandals as his chefs cooking.

When considering Afghanistan, one should always remember that it has historically been a confederation of states, not a united nation. The CIA understood this, had gone to each of the 31 different provinces, and had all but run the Taliban out of Afghanistan before Cheney and his sorry nation building ass interjected himself into the mix. The experiment to unite Afghanistan had a high payoff; running a pipeline through it to get to the landlocked oil rich former Russian alphabet states, a pipeline run by Western interests which would increase world oil production at a time when that production is shrinking.

Unfortunately, the American effort is being spearheaded by Dick Cheney, whom has kicked the state department out of the mix and is running both the Pakistani and Afghani policy out of his office.
Our illustrious vice-president, who routinely puts the interests of the oil cartels above American interests, proceeded to prop up a couple of corrupt dictators (Mushareff and Karzai) with the usual results.

Think about it. Why would anyone want the Taliban, a group of murdering thugs whose stated ambition is to take Afghanistan back to the 13th century back? It is because the government of Karzai
is so corrupt that people are starving to death. The money going to construction projects have been given to American (or in some cases UN) politically leverage companies. Like in Iraq, they are bringing in outsiders to do the work, which means that the local
Afghanis, whom are being starved, are watching these huge projects go forward but are not being hired to work on them. In an iconoclastic world like Afghanistan, this is a tremendous insult.

One of the first things that Karzai did, (after granting Halliburton sole rights to build the pipeline) was to set his younger brother up as supreme drug lord in Afghanistan. Poppy production had formerly been the only cash crop that the smaller farmers had, and they were eradicated. But they were not eradicated to destroy the poppy trade, they were destroyed because the "official" Afghani government wanted to wipe out their competition. This with other unchecked corruption, has quite a few of the states looking around for a better deal than they are getting from the "official" government, which is actually just a few of the former 31 states near the capitol banded together, using the USA as a credit card while neglecting (or using American air assets to harass) anyone outside their tribal units.

Enter the Taliban, whom have been allowed to regroup, refit and recruit across the border in Pakistan, despite repeated assurances from Mushareff, the dictator running Pakistan, and Cheney's personal friend. To this very day, any incursion by the Americans into Pakistan, even bombing Taliban troops returning from raids onto Afghan soil, are routinely made into international incidents by the same man that the USA is paying 10 billion dollars a year to do the exact opposite.

The best article that I have found on the current doings in Afghanistan is Link (new window) It explains the situation from an economic and military standpoint, including why NATO has been so reluctant to commit troops to a war that will only get worse until Dick Cheney is taken out of the mix.

The Beacon Man: You don't know much, do you?

Sandals-in-chief isn't worried for his own hide, because for an A-10 to actually perform its role as angel of death, it requires competent ground intelligence to guide all that firepower. Competent ground intelligence apparently went out with anklewarmers some time in the 80's.

Nor is he worried about the potential impact of an A-10 against his fighting force. Until they gather to raid, guard, or show the flag, they're mixed nicely into the civilian population. While it is an amazing instrument of abject destruction, an A-10 is utterly useless against a distributed guerrilla force.

So, to quote a genius: The Beacon Man: You don't know much, do you?

TaGirl_Keri: Hmm.

Somacandra I thought 16 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. The more you know eh.
Iran would be a better ally than the Saudies.

Apparently, Afghanistan is the new Saudi Arabia.
Who knew?

maddogdelta: Send one of these in...

Not particularly useful against insurgencies, especially ones located in the desert.

Unright: So, in the middle of reporting how Afghanistan is failing

It must take a really twisted imagination to believe that is actually happening.

NATO, get off your pansy butts.

thisisntnamtherearerules: /We can give up after Osama eats the peanuts out of my bacon and puled pork infested shiite.

Poop thread!

NewportBarGuy: "You mean we should have focused on carpet-bombed this region. I'm shocked."

FTFY

thisisntnamtherearerules: Yes Sound: thisisntnamtherearerules: /We can give up after Osama eats the peanuts out of my bacon and puled pork infested shiite.

The barrett is nice and all, but I prefer the ma deuce for delivery of .50 ammo. If one round is good, 5 is much better.



How about the best of both worlds?

/Want!

I want that gattling gun that fires 3000 inciniary rounds per minute! The enemy will need closed-casket funerals after that, though. :p

/Gundam Heavyarms, FTW

TromboneBlown: Is it about time to turn our eyes away and "reduce" our nuclear arsenal with experiments in the Middle East?

No, it's time for you to STFU and GBTW.

We had this one locked up.

We went after the people who attacked us, obtained a lot of popular support from uniting other Afghani fractions, and kicked Taliban ass.

Bin Laden and the Taliban were cowering in caves licking their wounds and awaiting their doom.

Then we shifted priorities. Suddenly the people who attacked us were no longer important. We decided we needed to reshape the Middle East in our image instead. So the vengeful fury of the American people was refocused on a country that did not attack us and was no threat.

Now the unity between the anti-Taliban Afghani fractions is lost. The Taliban has recovered and is rebuilding. We are now in danger of getting bogged down in a prolonged gorilla war with people who know every inch of the countryside. Just like the USSR did.

Have we learned anything from this?

Burn98: "Have we learned anything from this?"

Yes. Dont' bother with "nation building". It is a waste of time, manpower and resources.

Burn98: We had this one locked up.

We went after the people who attacked us, obtained a lot of popular support from uniting other Afghani fractions, and kicked Taliban ass.

Bin Laden and the Taliban were cowering in caves licking their wounds and awaiting their doom.

Then we shifted priorities. Suddenly the people who attacked us were no longer important. We decided we needed to reshape the Middle East in our image instead. So the vengeful fury of the American people was refocused on a country that did not attack us and was no threat.

Now the unity between the anti-Taliban Afghani fractions is lost. The Taliban has recovered and is rebuilding. We are now in danger of getting bogged down in a prolonged gorilla war with people who know every inch of the countryside. Just like the USSR did.

Have we learned anything from this?

Yeah, that we need to bomb and invade Iran, you farking liberal!

The Beacon Man: Then they will die.

OoooOo I'm sure they are shaking in their dirt poor boots. What the fark are you guys doing in the middle east again besides bankrupting your own country? The people that attacked on 9/11 (let's just forget the fact that your own government let it happen) were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and trained to fly planes IN YOUR OWN DAMN COUNTRY. You tough guy clowns give me a real chuckle.

Burn98: "Have we learned anything from this?"

Bloody William: "Yeah, that we need to bomb and invade Iran, you farking liberal!"

That too.

Not particularly useful against resistance fighters, especially ones dispersed and supported throughout the local population.

/hey, you used to keep all your pokemon pics scaled down. Y'know, like your million different "facepalm" pics. Getting lazy?

Giggity?

/slashies don't say no
//especially with CHCL3

Random Reality Check: Not particularly useful against insurgencies, especially ones located in the desert.

Works great against them.

Two things need to be dealt with
1. That pesky issue of separating the good guys from the bad guys. If you don't care about that, then
2. the other pesky issue of using enough. Can't just use 1 for a "demonstration" you have to start using them, then keep using them until all the Taliban are gone.

For rugged outdoor types, think of it as hunting rock sheep. Except they're human rock sheep. Guys who sign up for service in the badlands are guys who would be hunting bighorns if they weren't into more interesting game. Live fire manuevers gets their gonads tingly. If we don't keep blasting them to hell, the region including nukular Pakistan flips. Pakistan is the reason we in Afghanistan.

Death to America
You have balls. I like balls. To kick up around your ears. Your handle is kick me sign, weasel dick.