If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Not news: Top commander admits there is no way for his forces to win a military victory in Afghanistan. Huge News: A Top TALIBAN commander   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, Afghanistan, Afghans, Taliban, Michael Semple, police, current affairs, Pashtuns, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights  
•       •       •

5237 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2012 at 11:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-12 11:19:04 AM
The NVA couldn't win a military victory in Vietnam either.
 
2012-07-12 11:35:08 AM
They don't need to win military victories. It's guerrilla warfare.

I'm sick and tired of this goddamn war. They're a bunch of goddamn tribal savages, and they will never ever ever be a modern industrialized society. Lets just leave them be so they can go and happily subjugate their women and kill each other in peace.
 
2012-07-12 11:45:10 AM
So now it's just a battle for hearts and minds

/support us with all your heart or we'll blow out your brains
 
2012-07-12 11:53:25 AM
It would be great if true, but this sounds like disinformation.
 
2012-07-12 11:54:58 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So now it's just a battle for hearts and minds

/support us with all your heart or we'll blow out your brains


cdn.thedailybeast.com
 
2012-07-12 11:57:26 AM

Mentat: The NVA couldn't win a military victory in Vietnam either.


This, the US and allies have virtually umlimited time/funds/weapons and research in a military manner of speaking. Toe to toe the Taliban stand less than 0 chance.

However you can protract the fighting to the point that the political and social landscape changes and the allies are forced to pull out.
 
2012-07-12 11:58:43 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: MaudlinMutantMollusk: So now it's just a battle for hearts and minds

/support us with all your heart or we'll blow out your brains

[cdn.thedailybeast.com image 368x245]


The Taliban farked up big time with that last public execution of a woman accused of adultery. The reaction from the locals was essentially "Go rouse Cousin Jethro and Uncle Billy-bob, and Skeeter, and tell 'em to bring their shootin' irons, we's a-going Taliban huntin'" (except in Pashti)

Apparently some Afghani do still have some capacity for shock and outrage left.
 
2012-07-12 11:59:16 AM
This is the same Taliban in Afghanistan that we are actually paying to NOT attack our convoys?
 
2012-07-12 12:01:07 PM
Top commander, sounds legit. And gay.
 
2012-07-12 12:02:04 PM
Of all the things done after 9-11, the only one that makes any real sense is the boots on the ground approach we've been taking to failed states.

Either we put our boot on some necks and keep them at home or we have problems in our own neighborhood. It sends a very strong message - get your asses connected to the rest of the world (from a diplomatic perspective) or cease to exist.

We should be in this for the long haul - and make it very clear that we aren't going away. On top of the very direct confrontation we should also let our culture leak into theirs. We're much better at that than the Soviets were - we don't hamfistedly jam it down your throats - we just seduce you.

Anyway, the cost of keeping troops overseas is minimal - we've got a very well trained, battle hardened set of units because of it. It makes our guys just that much better. Call it training expenses and be done with it. We've found someone stupid enough to be red team with live ammo.
 
2012-07-12 12:02:14 PM

Lando Lincoln: They don't need to win military victories.


QFT.

That said, if we can leave the Afghan National Army in better shape in 2014 than the Northern Alliance were in the 90's, maybe the cities can at least be a haven for the non-fundamentalist Afghans who just want to lead a mostly peaceful life.
 
2012-07-12 12:02:25 PM
Lando Lincoln
Lets just leave them be so they can go and happily subjugate their women and kill each other in peace.

Isn't that exactly what got us here in the first place?
 
2012-07-12 12:03:08 PM

MadHatter500: Of all the things done after 9-11, the only one that makes any real sense is the boots on the ground approach we've been taking to failed states.

Either we put our boot on some necks and keep them at home or we have problems in our own neighborhood. It sends a very strong message - get your asses connected to the rest of the world (from a diplomatic perspective) or cease to exist.

We should be in this for the long haul - and make it very clear that we aren't going away. On top of the very direct confrontation we should also let our culture leak into theirs. We're much better at that than the Soviets were - we don't hamfistedly jam it down your throats - we just seduce you.

Anyway, the cost of keeping troops overseas is minimal - we've got a very well trained, battle hardened set of units because of it. It makes our guys just that much better. Call it training expenses and be done with it. We've found someone stupid enough to be red team with live ammo.


Cheer on ye from comfy spaces. Perpetuate war in whatever way however small ye can.
 
2012-07-12 12:04:17 PM
At this point the Taliban's purpose is just trolling everyone. There never was any hope of "winning" to begin with.
 
2012-07-12 12:05:16 PM

Magorn: The Taliban farked up big time with that last public execution of a woman accused of adultery.


Big deal. I'd be willing to bet that more Afghans are pissed at American drones bombing their neighbours( or children) to smithereens than some single crackpot religious murder.

It's not like these guys went on a killing rampage in a nearby town, slaughtering whole families and then going back to their American base to be arrested.

No matter what terrible atrocities the Taliban does, they pale in Afghans' eyes to the atrocities the US military has rained down upon them.

I mean, you're still the foreign occupiers, remember? Afghan society is BUILT on the fact that they are the toughest, unconquerable muthafarkers the world has ever seen.
 
2012-07-12 12:08:09 PM
We should just put Mike Ehrmantraut in charge. No half measures for him.
 
2012-07-12 12:10:24 PM

MadHatter500: Anyway, the cost of keeping troops overseas is minimal


$22,000 every second. that's what the US spends on the DoD's annual budget.
 
2012-07-12 12:10:24 PM

tortilla burger: At this point the Taliban's purpose is just trolling everyone. There never was any hope of "winning" to begin with.


They don't have to win. They just have to peck at the US Army, killing the odd soldier here and there and then running away and hiding, and then doing it again next week.

It's why you can never ever ever win a war against insurgents. Because they're not going to line up in nice straight lines so the superior force can waste them. They melt into the crowd immediately, and the one thing they RELY on is that the Occupier, in its' desperation to eradicate the insurgents, will be entirely too heavy-handed in their zeal, killing innocents and putting public opinion back into the insurgents' camp.

Which is what happened in Iraq. Iraqis HATED Al Qaeda, but they hated the USA even more and even blamed the USA for Al Qaeda being there in the first place.
 
2012-07-12 12:11:40 PM
jakomo002:
Which is what happened in Iraq. Iraqis ... even blamed the USA for Al Qaeda being there in the first place.

such ignorant savages.
 
2012-07-12 12:12:39 PM
Don't listen to him, NATO...

cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-07-12 12:14:35 PM
We cannot defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Only the people of Afghanistan can defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. What we can do is provide the people of Afghanistan with badly needed material support in doing so, and perhaps provide a bit of pressure in the right direction if that proves necessary.

That's what it's going to take to win this, and our strategy needs to be based around that. Counterinsurgency is a good step, but there is room for improvement.
 
2012-07-12 12:15:49 PM
"The Taliban capturing Kabul is a very distant prospect. Any Taliban leader expecting to be able to capture Kabul is making a grave mistake. Nevertheless, the leadership also knows that it cannot afford to acknowledge this weakness. To do so would undermine the morale of Taliban personnel. The leadership knows the truth -- that they cannot prevail over the power they confront."


And this guy is worried about senior leadership undermining morale? Not the sharpest chisel in the shed, is he?
 
2012-07-12 12:18:53 PM
The Taliban commander, whose name is not revealed during the interview, is said to be a senior leader who spent time at Guantanamo Bay

Step 1: Capture Taliban commander.
Step 2: Agree to "release" him in exchange for his cooperation.
Step 3: Have him destroy the Taliban from within
Step 4: ???
 
2012-07-12 12:20:02 PM
Possibly relevant to US/Afganistan...
c2.bibtopia.com
 
2012-07-12 12:23:53 PM
Bullshiat. If he was really released from Guantanamo Bay, 1) We would have watched him like a hawk to see where he goes and then blown him and his buddies up and 2) The Taliban would assume that he defected and would not trust him. He could not have been an active Taliban commander after his capture. If he does know anything, it's years out of date or he's making it up.
 
2012-07-12 12:24:09 PM

Millennium: We cannot defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Only the people of Afghanistan can defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. What we can do is provide the people of Afghanistan with badly needed material support in doing so, and perhaps provide a bit of pressure in the right direction if that proves necessary.

That's what it's going to take to win this, and our strategy needs to be based around that. Counterinsurgency is a good step, but there is room for improvement.


QFT

DISCLAIMER: this is not a true story, nor is it what I would actually do if there were children. (In real life, I wouldn't use bats or weapons - only fists. ;) )

If a little kid is being bullied by a kid with a baseball bat, I give the smaller kid a Louisville Slugger and teach him how to use it. I don't take a professional baseball player and have him chase the bully until he submits - that only pisses off the whole schoolyard and neither kid learns anything.
 
2012-07-12 12:25:13 PM
community.netidea.com
 
2012-07-12 12:27:00 PM

Seequinn: Lando Lincoln
Lets just leave them be so they can go and happily subjugate their women and kill each other in peace.

Isn't that exactly what got us here in the first place?


No. OBL got us there in the first place. Our military bases in Saudi Arabia pissed off OBL, and he did what he did because of it. And we have military bases in Saudi Arabia because they have a lot of oil.

So let's get ourselves weaned off of the oil teat, let's pull all of our military bases out of the middle east, and let's leave those savages alone.
 
2012-07-12 12:31:33 PM

MadHatter500: Of all the things done after 9-11, the only one that makes any real sense is the boots on the ground approach we've been taking to failed states.

Either we put our boot on some necks and keep them at home or we have problems in our own neighborhood. It sends a very strong message - get your asses connected to the rest of the world (from a diplomatic perspective) or cease to exist.

We should be in this for the long haul - and make it very clear that we aren't going away. On top of the very direct confrontation we should also let our culture leak into theirs. We're much better at that than the Soviets were - we don't hamfistedly jam it down your throats - we just seduce you.

Anyway, the cost of keeping troops overseas is minimal - we've got a very well trained, battle hardened set of units because of it. It makes our guys just that much better. Call it training expenses and be done with it. We've found someone stupid enough to be red team with live ammo.


Subtle. Nice. Really well done. Shame you didn't get more bites with it.
 
2012-07-12 12:32:00 PM

ChrisDe: [community.netidea.com image 500x375]


And we're done here.

/god damnit that was over 9 years ago.
 
2012-07-12 12:45:09 PM

jakomo002: It's why you can never ever ever win a war against insurgents. Because they're not going to line up in nice straight lines so the superior force can waste them. They melt into the crowd immediately, and the one thing they RELY on is that the Occupier, in its' desperation to eradicate the insurgents, will be entirely too heavy-handed in their zeal, killing innocents and putting public opinion back into the insurgents' camp.

Which is what happened in Iraq. Iraqis HATED Al Qaeda, but they hated the USA even more and even blamed the USA for Al Qaeda being there in the first place.


So... so you ADMIT Al-Qaeda was in Iraq!

SUCK IT LIBS! *flips double bird* USAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAGES!
 
2012-07-12 12:46:00 PM

Carn: ChrisDe: [community.netidea.com image 500x375]

And we're done here.

/god damnit that was over 9 years ago.


... and even more annoying than it was at the time
 
2012-07-12 12:48:33 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: Mentat: The NVA couldn't win a military victory in Vietnam either.

This, the US and allies have virtually umlimited time/funds/weapons and research in a military manner of speaking. Toe to toe the Taliban stand less than 0 chance.

However you can protract the fighting to the point that the political and social landscape changes and the allies are forced to pull out.



Considering the frequency with which I've seen Farkers saying that we never should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, I'd say that the Taliban and AQ have done a pretty decent job at winning American hearts and minds.
 
2012-07-12 12:58:41 PM

ltdanman44: The Taliban commander, whose name is not revealed during the interview, is said to be a senior leader who spent time at Guantanamo Bay

Step 1: Capture Taliban commander.
Step 2: Agree to "release" him in exchange for his cooperation.
Step 3: Have him destroy the Taliban from within
Step 4: ???



Taliban Commander Raymond... Prentiss... Shaw.
 
2012-07-12 01:00:53 PM

Lando Lincoln: They don't need to win military victories. It's guerrilla warfare.

I'm sick and tired of this goddamn war. They're a bunch of goddamn tribal savages, and they will never ever ever be a modern industrialized society. Lets just leave them be so they can go and happily subjugate their women and kill each other in peace.


If they were like most of the African nations, who have ongoing tribal wars, and keep the fight in their own borders, we would have ignored them for ever.

But, they gave safe harbor to a bunch of nutjobs, who wanted to make war on the whole world.

Sounds like they learned their lesson. If we are comfortable with the idea that they have learned their lesson about keeping their fighting inside their own borders, I am pretty comfortable with letting them continue to abuse each other.
 
2012-07-12 01:01:56 PM

BigNumber12: DoBeDoBeDo: Mentat: The NVA couldn't win a military victory in Vietnam either.

This, the US and allies have virtually umlimited time/funds/weapons and research in a military manner of speaking. Toe to toe the Taliban stand less than 0 chance.

However you can protract the fighting to the point that the political and social landscape changes and the allies are forced to pull out.


Considering the frequency with which I've seen Farkers saying that we never should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, I'd say that the Taliban and AQ have done a pretty decent job at winning American hearts and minds.


I'd rather have the tens of thousands of people killed and wounded in perfect health and the hundreds of billions of dollars unspent than... Wait, what happens if we win? I don't think it's particularly likely, but what do we win that's worth it? Is it gold? Does the entire country of Afghanistan turn to gold? That could be worth something.
 
2012-07-12 01:05:25 PM

BigNumber12: DoBeDoBeDo: Mentat: The NVA couldn't win a military victory in Vietnam either.

This, the US and allies have virtually umlimited time/funds/weapons and research in a military manner of speaking. Toe to toe the Taliban stand less than 0 chance.

However you can protract the fighting to the point that the political and social landscape changes and the allies are forced to pull out.


Considering the frequency with which I've seen Farkers saying that we never should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, I'd say that the Taliban and AQ have done a pretty decent job at winning American hearts and minds.


Afghanistan was the just war. The problem is how you define the winning objectives. I'd argue that smashing the Taliban government and killing bin Laden were the primary goals. We've achieved that, let's get the hell out. We might also leave the people of the country a message "don't let those assholes take over and send bombers to our country again, or else the next round might get kinda nukey."
 
2012-07-12 01:15:59 PM

Lando Lincoln: Seequinn: Lando Lincoln
Lets just leave them be so they can go and happily subjugate their women and kill each other in peace.

Isn't that exactly what got us here in the first place?

No. OBL got us there in the first place. Our military bases in Saudi Arabia pissed off OBL, and he did what he did because of it. And we have military bases in Saudi Arabia because they have a lot of oil.

So let's get ourselves weaned off of the oil teat, let's pull all of our military bases out of the middle east, and let's leave those savages alone.


Sadly, that's not enough. We're on the fast track to energy independence as it is, and what oil we do import mostly comes from Canada, Mexico or other western hemisphere sources. The sad fact is that we're there to protect Europe's oil supply, since if that's cut off they either start a bidding war the oil we're buying, or they crash and burn and take our economy down with them.

We either need to develop an energy source that makes oil itself obsolete, or get the Europeans to man up and police their energy sources themselves.
 
2012-07-12 01:24:31 PM

cleek: jakomo002:
Which is what happened in Iraq. Iraqis ... even blamed the USA for Al Qaeda being there in the first place.

such ignorant savages.


The US government was pretty ignorant when the opened the door to Iraq for Al Qaeda and friends, in March 2003.
 
2012-07-12 01:24:52 PM
The article, propoganda or not, seems to mesh with current events. It also seems to be in line with ISAF operations and the POTUS goal.

You could say that ISAF (and the role the US plays in it) is moving in the right direction.

" I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." - O

Many taliban leaders are cooperating with Kabul. Kabul now has a central Gov't that has a growing ANSF. It has some relations with most tribal areas. Social services and infrastructure are improving....yadda....yadda

I think the article is saying that the Taliban are to a point where they accept the gov't in Kabul grudgeoningly, and they are getting the shiats of AQ.
(AQ are mostly foreign occupiers too).

I think overall that AQ is getting disrupted in Afg and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Because they are now moving into other regions. You see an influx in Africa and some countries like Yemen, Egypt, etc....

I think it is true that AQ is now being squeezed out and does not
have a whole country to use as their own training camp. They are being disrupted.

Now they are no longer a large group under one umbrella (with a whole country to use as a base). They are fragmented mujahideen, with almost no central leadership. They are still out there, but spread out and less organized.
Some say also less funded.

Today, they've popped up in Libya, Somalia, Mali etc.... but they are not what they once were.

...the Taliban will always be part of Tribal Afghanistan. There is no goal to 'win' them over. Just try to get them to not control all of Afghanistan, so that some social improvements can be made. (ie: education). Some degree of moderate government.


The article kind of points out that the Taliban will never again control all of Afghanistan as they once did. They know that. And the other point is that they are getting tired of AQ.

Sooooo.... is POTUS achieving the goal ??

/With wars...it's better to fight 'away' games than 'home' games
//Central Africa, Mali, Yemen. Libya
 
2012-07-12 01:26:18 PM
The Taliban leadership knows it cannot win the war in Afghanistan and is prepared to accept peace with the Afghan government, but only if the militant group plays a prominent role in the country's future.
Oh, I get it. They want a big say in government, but not bad enough to actually fight for it.

Or vote for it.

// What a bunch of losers
 
2012-07-12 01:28:04 PM

dywed88: cleek: jakomo002:
Which is what happened in Iraq. Iraqis ... even blamed the USA for Al Qaeda being there in the first place.

such ignorant savages.

The US government was pretty ignorant when the opened the door to Iraq for Al Qaeda and friends, in March 2003.


sometimes my little jokes are too dry.

i shall apply more grease, in the future.
 
2012-07-12 01:28:41 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So now it's just a battle for hearts and minds

/support us with all your heart or we'll blow out your brains


cdn.crooksandliars.com
"We still have their hearts and minds"

//I would love to link to the video, but cannot watch any at the moment to get the right one :(
 
2012-07-12 01:36:46 PM

Carn: Afghanistan was the just war. The problem is how you define the winning objectives. I'd argue that smashing the Taliban government and killing bin Laden were the primary goals. We've achieved that, let's get the hell out.


I agree thoroughly. As someone else here has noted, it sounds like the Taliban learned a hard lesson in all of this - watch who you give official guest rights to.

My problem is with the people who are now so weary of having to watch news segments on Afghanistan that they spout off about how unjust and ill-advised the war was, and how we never should have attacked those poor people in the first place. A sort of "Hit me again, Ike!" style of foreign policy.
 
2012-07-12 01:39:18 PM

Lando Lincoln: Seequinn: Lando Lincoln
Lets just leave them be so they can go and happily subjugate their women and kill each other in peace.

Isn't that exactly what got us here in the first place?

No. OBL got us there in the first place. Our military bases in Saudi Arabia pissed off OBL, and he did what he did because of it. And we have military bases in Saudi Arabia because they have a lot of oil.

So let's get ourselves weaned off of the oil teat, let's pull all of our military bases out of the middle east, and let's leave those savages alone.



Soooo, when a small group of cavemen on the other side of the world decides that the way we protect our National Interests conflicts with their religious ideals, we should fold like a house of cards, apologizing profusely all the way home?
 
2012-07-12 01:44:29 PM

toraque: The sad fact is that we're there to protect Europe's oil supply


Or make sure Europe and China know who's hand is on the tap. Not to mention a nice little reminder of which currency you use to buy that oil.
 
2012-07-12 01:57:43 PM

Loadmaster: The Taliban leadership knows it cannot win the war in Afghanistan and is prepared to accept peace with the Afghan government, but only if the militant group plays a prominent role in the country's future. Oh, I get it. They want a big say in government, but not bad enough to actually fight for it.

Or vote for it.

// What a bunch of losers


I read that and thought.. so they will stop fighting if we put them in charge?
 
2012-07-12 03:23:02 PM

Lando Lincoln: They don't need to win military victories. It's guerrilla warfare.

I'm sick and tired of this goddamn war. They're a bunch of goddamn tribal savages, and they will never ever ever be a modern industrialized society. Lets just leave them be so they can go and happily subjugate their women and kill each other in peace.


That makes no sense. Saint Ronald said they were the good guys.

www.legitgov.org
 
2012-07-12 03:26:16 PM

Loadmaster: The Taliban leadership knows it cannot win the war in Afghanistan and is prepared to accept peace with the Afghan government, but only if the militant group plays a prominent role in the country's future. Oh, I get it. They want a big say in government, but not bad enough to actually fight for it.

Or vote for it.

// What a bunch of losers


Its kind of like the Nazi's implying they want a say in the reunified German government.

/They had their chance and they farked the place over.
/No, they shouldn't be allowed to have a say in anything.
 
2012-07-12 03:36:15 PM
what's interesting is it's stating the taliban had a falling-out with al qaeda. didn't see that coming.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report