Afghanistan

[Julia]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

A bit of an over statement there Julia, I wouldn't say bombing Taliban strongholds equated to bombing the entire country.

OK, I could have worded it more carefully. But the following is what I was getting at, i.e. if bin Laden was hiding in some cave in the mountains, what was the purpose of bombing so many other areas, Taliban strongholds or not?

Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Civilian casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan)
Jump to: navigation, search
The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has caused the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians directly from insurgent and foreign military action, as well as the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of Afghan civilians indirectly as a consequence of displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness resulting from the war. The war, launched by the United States as "Operation Enduring Freedom" in 2001, began with an initial air campaign that almost immediately prompted concerns over the number of Afghan civilians being killed.[1] With civilian deaths from airstrikes rising again in recent years[2], the number of Afghan civilians being killed by foreign military operations has led to mounting tension between the foreign countries and the government of Afghanistan. In May 2007, President Hamid Karzai summoned military commanders to warn them of the consequences of further deaths.[3] There are no official figures of civilian deaths caused by the invasion, so it is necessary to aggregate individual reports.

 

[kitehigh]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

The death of innocent civilians is always saddening, but what it fails to say in the Wikipedia site is that thousands of civilians were already dying of all those things they mentioned prior to US and coalition involvement.

The Taliban had their chance to hand over Bin Ladin, but they refused and we saw what happened next. Maybe things would be a lot different now if they had handed him over, who knows they may have eventually won the war against the Northern Alliance and controlled all of Afghanistan.

 

[jman2007]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Basically this country can't be governed

Not in our sense of the word "governed" anyway.

Their first and foremost allegiance is to their tribe, they don't understand the concept of a central authority. It's completely alien to them.

Trying to impose a Western political model is great in theory, but it will be like pushing s$$t uphill in this country.

The coalition need to sit down and talk to the Taliban.

 

[Sean K]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

I have to say i disagree on this one Kennas.

Well, I still disagree due to the changing nature of the world through globalisation and a human value system that is universal and should be upheld.

One country can no longer just do as they like in this day and age due to the direct impact they have on those surrounding them, or even on the other side of the planet.

There is also a human value system relevant to the modern world that in a globalised society needs to be upheld. The treatment of women has been mentioned as an easy example of new modern laws and rules that should be universal.

While the only reason we have initially entered Afghanistan is on the back of 9/11, the world, including many Muslim countires support the assistance provided to the Afgham people to rid themselves of the Taliban rule which suppressed their society pushing them back into the dark ages.

I put this intervention up there with Rwanda and the Sudan as a morally and politically justifiable cause.

 

[mayk]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Kennas, why not then bomb KSA? They have the same rules (some might say extreme than taliban), double standards or hypocrisy, your pick.

Until the day we have one world, one currency and one army (add world peace into the mix, while I am at it), I think it is best to leave the individual countries on their own fate. If people want change they have to rise up.

 

[Sean K]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Kennas, why not then bomb KSA? They have the same rules (some might say extreme than taliban), double standards or hypocrisy, your pick.

Until the day we have one world, one currency and one army (add world peace into the mix, while I am at it), I think it is best to leave the individual countries on their own fate. If people want change they have to rise up.

KSA?

I agree to a large extent on the national sovereignty issues, and once thought that the Middle East and Africa solution might be to just put a big fence around them, throw in lots of guns, and let them shoot it out. Last man standing wins.

I think we're all dreaming that solutions can be found by sitting around a table for some of these countries. Who said that 'war is an extention of politics by other means?'

Hope I'm not sounding like a war monger here, I just have a poor opinion of the human animal to solve things through compromise.

I actually think we will have one world one day. Maybe by the year 10,000 ish, or after we're invaded by aliens and the human species is under threat.

 

[Sean K]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

While the US bashing rolls on in the Syria attack thread because people want to believe all that the good Syrian government propagada machine lay down, over the US, Islamic fundamentalists/extremists continue to use their last tactic to kill unarmed civilians, women and children. The same type of extremists the US were probably trying to kill in Syria.

The key difference in these battles is that the coalition/west try as best a possible to limit damage to civilian property and mitigate civilian casualties.

For the Muslim extremists, the opposite applies.

Some commentators are saying that the ISF are considering negotiations with the Taliban. This would be a major step in this conflict, but on what basis are the Taliban and al-Qaeda going to lay down their arms for a sustainable peace in the region?


Taliban attack kills five
October 31, 2008

A TALIBAN suicide attacker blew himself up inside the information and culture ministry building in the Afghan capital today, killing at least five people and wounding several more, police said.

The bomb exploded in a conference room underneath the office of the minister, Abdul Karim Khoram, but he was not in the building at the time, ministry spokesman Hameed Nasiri Wardak said.

"I can say that the target was the minister," he said.

Mr Khoram was badly wounded in a suicide blast in the southern city of Kandahar in May.

The Islamic Taliban, who were in power in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, are waging an insurgency against the Western-backed government that has seen a record number of attacks this year, leaving hundreds dead.

The attacker had first shot dead a guard at the entrance to the building and then ran into the conference room where he blew himself up, deputy Kabul police chief General Alishah Ahmadzai said.

"Three people were martyred immediately at the spot. Two others who were critically wounded died of their wounds in hospitals," he said.

The dead were four men and a woman, Gen Ahmadzai said.

The interior ministry said three were ministry employees.

"In total 23 wounded were taken to different hospitals in the city," health ministry spokesman Abdullah Fahim said, confirming two had died in hospital.

The wounded included some children at a kindergarten on the compound for ministry employees, a witness said.

A British-South African aid worker was shot dead in Kabul last week in a murder also claimed by the Taliban.

Also overnight, a remote-controlled bomb blew up a police vehicle in the southern province of Kandahar and killed four policemen, a police commander said.

 

[mayk]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

KSA?

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

 

[mayk]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Some commentators are saying that the ISF are considering negotiations with the Taliban. This would be a major step in this conflict, but on what basis are the Taliban and al-Qaeda going to lay down their arms for a sustainable peace in the region?

AQ and Taliban are different, this distinction is key, I guess the frequent ad nuseaum use of Taliban with AQ has enforced the image that they are the same. A better strategy will be to separate the Taliban from AQ and then use their help to eliminate AQ. Just like what was done in Iraq recently.

 

[Glen48]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

This war has been going on for thousands of years it is nothing different to the Christians fighting Islam when Richard the Lion Heart started fighting. These wars are unwinable due to religion and once religion stops there will be peace.
The Arabic countries brain wash their kids from the first day they watch TV with anti USA slogans and when you see USA putting up Palin as a choice you have to shake your head and think we are sunk.
The Islamic people have some thing like 5 trillion saved due to their belief of not charging interest which they do under a different disguise so they as cashed up and we are broke.
Now we have a recession, Global warming, no Oil, Islam's wanting to fight for ever, house prices going down, No super other than that things are rosy.

 

[Calliope]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Mr Rudd has made a two hour visit to Afghanistan to raise the morale of the troops. He praised the troops for the job they are doing with a mention of building roads and schools.

His visit again raises the question of what the hell we are doing there. He rabbited on again about building a democracy and young girls being able to go to school. The truth is that the Taliban control about 75% of the country and are gaining all the time and democracy is a pipe dream.The military situation is deteriorating rapidly. The Taliban even collects taxes on the roads into Kabul which no doubt we helped build.

Obama is going to send more troops. This has always been America's answer in a losing situation. Will they never learn? The truth is that the West will never control the Taliban without controlling Pakistan. And this is not going to happen.

 

[Sean K]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

I doubt 6000 Australians, but the bulk of a Brigade Group with the Kiwis and add ons assisting - Probably not Fijians due to the coup, but possibly Irish and Singaporean as we worked well together in Timor, and as a long shot, Japanese for the same reason. That would be interesting.


Obama may want more Diggers for Taliban warfare
Mark Dodd | December 23, 2008
Article from: The Australian

THE Rudd Government should brace for a request from the US to increase its troop commitment to Afghanistan, the head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said yesterday.

But retired Major General Peter Abigail played down calls by former colleague Jim Molan for Australia to commit a 6000-strong force to the war-battered country.

The Australian Defence Force had spare capacity to send 6000 troops to Afghanistan but would be unable to sustain the commitment, Major General Abigail said yesterday.

Major General Molan, who recently retired from the ADF, served as a senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq.

The 40-year army veteran is regarded as a specialist in counter-insurgency warfare.

Last week, General Molan warned that the NATO-led coalition battling a resurgent Taliban insurgency was heading for defeat unless it drastically increased troop numbers.

The quality and experience of Australian soldiers meant Kevin Rudd should expect to get a call soon from US president-elect Barack Obama asking for more Diggers, General Abigail said. Echoing the comments of a recent outgoing British Afghan commander, he raised the prospect of a negotiated settlement with moderate Taliban elements.

 

[johenmo]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Afghanistan will be close to being a Vietnam but pollies are more sensitive to public perception so that will . Outsiders are in their country, and they are fanatical/deeply patriotic (depends on your view). Our hearts aren't in it like theirs are, so the West can't (help them to) win.

Extremists/extreme patriots of any view are not rational or will continue resistance. American war of independence shoudl tell the USA that. And infidels, we are not wanted. The ME remembers the crusades & some still have a grudge. I have had great discussions on this with Islamic friends and workmates.

We impose western concepts of "countries" on what was originally tribal boundaries. These aren't compatible, and never will be. Palestine is a classic. African states are another.

I don't agree with what happens under the Taliban but the UN/US will never win what is a war of attrition. To think anything else is making yourself feel warm and fuzzy.

Understand the Quoran and you get a glimpse of Islam. And no, I don't have an answer.

 

[Sean K]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Things are still shaping this to be our biggest committment since East Timor, but a hell of a lot more serious.

My early thoughts that we'd end up comitting a Brigade group with coalition support may happen.

It'll probably be an ANZAC Brigade with key support from the US and GB for attack helos (or Dutch if they don't totally pull out), and left wing players like Japanese engineers, and a rifle platoon maybe from the Irish, Singos, or Ghurkas.

The problem is, wars are hard to win here.




Diggers urged to double offensive in Afghanistan
Patrick Walters, National security editor | February 07, 2009

US military leaders want Australia to take the lead role in NATO-led coalition operations in Afghanistan's Oruzgan province following an expected drawdown by Dutch forces.

NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, has asked the Australian Defence Force if it could take over the province from the Dutch if The Netherlands proceeds with plans to phase out its effort from mid-2010.

General McKiernan made his request to the Australians in December, but the Pentagon then stopped short of making a formal written approach to Canberra in advance of President Barack Obama assuming office 17 days ago.

If the Rudd Government were to agree to General McKiernan's request, this would mean at least a doubling of Australia's current 800-strong military presence in the province.

Running the province would mean the ADF would provide a brigade headquarters as well as a battle group of about 450 combat troops and some "enablers" such as aviation, artillery and logistical support.

 

[Go Nuke]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

In my mind this isn't really about winning a war. Its about something more important to a government and its military......EXPERIENCE!

Nothing can substitute for an armed services better than real life experience. Not war games or training, but creating battle savy and hardened soldiers!

From commanders, right through to grunts.

Planning attacks, defence putting all this coordinated effort into action is what its all about imo

 

[Calliope]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

Obama has committed another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan "to stabilise a deteriorating situation".That's the easy bit. The tricky bit is trying to put these troops to some useful purpose and that hasn't been worked out yet.

And that is not easy to decide when you have to work from the premise that the war is unwinnable by the only methods that the Americans know. That is bombs, rockets, tanks, artillery etc.

The Taliban get plenty of support from the population. If they don't they get murdered and because neither Karzai nor the Americans can guarantee their safety they have no choice. They also have to pay taxes to the Taliban. Most of their hard earned opium poppy money goes to the Taliban also.

Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place. Rudd may want to gain Obama"s approval, but he would be crazy to commit more troops.

 

[Sean K]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

I wonder if we'll have to add Pakistan into the equation down the track. They look to be in quite a pickle at the moment and if the Taliban keep using the border region inside Pakistan to train and rearm who knows where the fight will go. Troubling.

War in need of more than tokens
Patrick Walters | March 07, 2009
Article from: The Australian

WHEN Kevin Rudd finally sits down in the Oval Office on March 24, Barack Obama will have a new road map for the Afghanistan war and a determined view on what the US expects from its close allies, including Australia.

The White House talks won't include a formal request from the US President for Australia to commit more troops to the fight in southern Afghanistan. The Prime Minister already understands with crystal clarity that Washington wants us to lift our game in Afghanistan together with the US's other close ally, Britain.

While the Rudd Government continues to publicly hold the line on Australia's 1090-strong military commitment, the reality is that our troop numbers are set to rise. By late next year they could easily expand to about 1600 to 1700 depending on how the US-led troop surge unfolds over the next 18months.

The Defence Department has been working the options for months following requests from top US military commanders for us to consider taking over the running of Oruzgan province from the Dutch late in 2010.

They range from offering a brigade headquarters of about 120 personnel for a command role in Oruzgan, together with the provision of up to two infantry combat teams to assist with security for Afghanistan's national elections due in August. The army is also looking at sending more specialised trainers to assist the fledgling Afghan National Army.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and his top military advisers are not considering a larger 2500 to 3000-strong brigade size force for Oruzgan; those numbers would be difficult for the army to sustain for a multi-year assignment. But a "brigade-minus" option with a lot of US "enablers" or supporting assets, including helicopters, fixed wing-aircraft, medical and artillery support, remains a possibility.

 

[noirua]

Hi kennas, America, with this recession, may not be losing quite so much by increasing troop numbers as they would otherwise be unemployed. Equipment for war should keep certain major industries ticking over, and keep certain workforces going.

Australia's position is different but the basics are still the same. Coal mines, iron ore mines and oil developments, benefit from production during wartime.

After all, armies are meant for war, and economies often benefit in very many ways, advancement in ideas and inventions being two of them.

All a bit sad really.

 

[IFocus]

Kennas the situation developing in Pakistan is really concerning.

The components coming together such as a fractured government / political process and a military losing respect and apparently control is not good.

Imagine an Indian government thinking they can or need to take action against a destabilized Pakistan.

With nuclear weapons in the mix at what point do others feel they have to intervene...........ugly

 

[Tysonboss1]

Re: Afghanistan - Australia's next Vietnam?

In my mind this isn't really about winning a war. Its about something more important to a government and its military......EXPERIENCE!

I agree in part, experance is good for the army in general. But it has the side effect of creating a massive turn over of soldiers.

We have already seen the SAS disband a squadron due to lack of numbers because of the massive rate of people leaving after there 2nd or third tour of duty, so there are only 2 x operational squadrons where in 2003 there was 3.

It takes alot for a man to leave his family for six months at a time, so when these guys have done a tour of IRAQ and 2 tours of afganistan within 4 years they often leave and take their experiances with them.

most of my mates have left after their 2nd or 3rd tour, some after their first, these are guys that probally would have stayed in for 20years had the work load not been so high.