Afghanistan: Another Vietnam

As I said above Plan B would be to tackle the teachings of Islam head on or to accept our troops causing mass civilian casualties. Unless bombings rise exponentially those options are simply off the table for our society right now, so Plan A it is.

As for the US doing nothing they've tried that many times, Rwanda 1994 and Zimbabwe recently come to mind.

Taltan,

You've never read Edward De Bono then?

wayneL said:

So essentially we need to have perpetual war to keep the b@stards off our back? (presuming the totally manufactured account of 911 is even remotely close to the truth)

Plan B please!

Click to expand...

Don't larf!

Isn't that what the Egyptians, Greeks & Romans up resorting to as their Empires began to unravel?

Hmmmm.. now we have the "endless global war on terror"??

Do I perceive the sickly-sweet smell of dejavu??

Aussiejeff said:

*Pssst. Q to GG re Afghanistan=Vietnam. Does Afghanistan have dense tropical jungle? Is AQ & Taliban overtly backed & funded by one of the worlds most powerful nations (eg as China backed N. Vietnam)? Not a lot of similarity there. The only similarity I see is the "strategic quagmire" scenario the US seems to be heading into. "Democracy" can be such a drag in the conducting of wars?

Click to expand...

The Chinese get their kicks by sitting back and watching rogue states make the western democracies look foolish. Most of these rogue states such as Burma, Zimbabwae, Soudan, Somalia, Iran, Libya, North Korea etc are client states and are heavily dependant on China for support, and China could make them stop their nonsense at any time they liked.

If they don't support the Taliban in Afghanistan and Parkistan it's because they share a border and the don't want freedom movements spilling over into Xinjiang province where the Uygurs (among others ) live. That's not to say they don't enjoy seeing the American's getting their arses kicked in Afghanistan.

wayneL said:

Taltan,

You've never read Edward De Bono then?

Click to expand...

Nope I havn't.

As for a perpetual war. Well as long as this war has no conscription, no specific taxes, there's no effective life difference to most of us. If ever there was our will to win the war would increase. We didnt win Vietnam and we won't win Afghanistan cause we don't have the will not because we lack the know-how.

The objective of Al Qaida (or Al Qaieda) is the destruction of the leading infidel - USA.
They cannot fight militarily to achieve this objective so they look for other avenues. Fiscal methods.
They were able to use small 'box cutter' knives on several airflights and do there own 'shock and Awe'. As a consequence draw the US and other infidels into an unwinneable Afganistan war which could seriously harm if not criple the US economy.


Chrisian Science Monitor
By David R. Francis | Staff Writer/ September 15, 2009 edition

"For the first time, the war in Afghanistan in the next budget year will cost Americans more than the war in Iraq. By the end of the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, the total military budget costs for both wars will have exceeded $1 trillion.

That’s more than the cost of the Vietnam War, adjusting for inflation, or any other US war except World War II ($3.2 trillion in 2007 dollars).

A trillion dollars is hard to imagine. Think of it this way: If you had an expense account good for $1 million a day, it would take 2,935 years to spend $1.071 trillion, which is the actual estimate for the wars’ price tag by Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington. He reckons the two conflicts will have cost the typical American family of four roughly $13,000 by next year.

Wars, even counterinsurgency conflicts, are expensive in lives and dollars.

Why is Afghanistan getting so expensive? The US is sending more troops, of course. It also costs about 50 percent more to keep a soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq, says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard University economist. In sharp contrast to flat, urbanized Iraq, most of Afghanistan’s population lives in rural, mountainous terrain with few good roads to link them up.

Officially, Afghanistan war costs are budgeted at $65 billion for fiscal 2010, somewhat more than the $61 billion for the Iraq war.

The true total is probably closer to $85 billion or more, estimates Gordon Adams, a defense expert at American University’s School of International Service in Washington. He says the US is paying more than $500 million a year to counter the narcotics business there.

Further, there is foreign aid coming out of the State Department budget. To counter the Taliban from crossing the border into Afghanistan, Pakistan gets easily $1 billion in military and other foreign aid.

If one looks beyond immediate war costs, the price tag escalates dramatically. Factoring in outlays for such things as veterans’ health and other benefits, the replenishment of military hardware worn out or destroyed by war, a higher price for oil, and the interest on debt incurred by the war, the total cost of the two wars will be “significantly more” than $3 trillion, says Professor Bilmes.

It is only recently that we have begun "costing" wars.

If you take the Second world War , you had a bunch of fascists and maniacs against the Allied forces. That war could have been easily lost by the Allies, were it not for the force and vigour with which it was fought.

Dresden and Hiroshima were dreadful events but were necessary to pulverise the enemy in to capitulation by destroying their morale.

A similar attitude needs to be adopted in Afghanistan. The population are as guilty as the fighters by harbouring the Taliban and providing recruits for the Islamist forces.

Unfortunately innocent civilian lives need to be lost if the Taliban are to be comprehensively removed as a threat to the Free World.

The people of Australia, Europe and the USA need to take some harden up pills and realise this difficult fact.

The Islamist and Taliban fighters cannot be reasoned with and have as their avowed aim the imposition og their religion and values worldwide. We should not and cannot allow this to happen.

The first thig that need to be removed is the right of civilians to use the courts of the Allies to gain compensation for injury or death received in the conflict.

gg

Zird said:

The objective of Al Qaida (or Al Qaieda) is the destruction of the leading infidel - USA.

Click to expand...

From what has been said by several ex US military, CIA and other government US leaders the number one issue this group have is infidels on their holy land. They want the US off the saudi peninsula and other places nearby.

Unfortunately innocent civilian lives need to be lost

Click to expand...

GG, this is unfortunately true in the current climate. The issue with it these people are needlessly dying. Your comment may be in some way justified if there was a result.
The truth is that after 8 years the Afghanistan affair is in at least the same state. Splinter groups have infiltrated Pakistan and India. Seems like all those civilian casualties were nothing but a waste.

The people of Australia, Europe and the USA need to take some harden up pills and realise this difficult fact.

Click to expand...

So the families of those who died in 9/11 should harden up, too? Those victims were casualties of war in the eyes of non radicals of other countries. After all they have relatives and friends who've been victims of collateral damage from the US. They may not be right, but it is their perception.


cheers,

Stan 101 said:

From what has been said by several ex US military, CIA and other government US leaders the number one issue this group have is infidels on their holy land. They want the US off the saudi peninsula and other places nearby.

Click to expand...

My answer to this would be "tough". We need the oil and are in a stronger bargaining position than they are. We also have some moral boundaries which stop us behaving like the Saudi princelings, drinking , *****ing and lining their pockets. At last count there were 12000 of these bastards extant. Some are Al Qaeda sympathisers. The Saudis will need to be broken economically to the West's benefit.

Stan 101 said:

GG, this is unfortunately true in the current climate. The issue with it these people are needlessly dying. Your comment may be in some way justified if there was a result.
The truth is that after 8 years the Afghanistan affair is in at least the same state. Splinter groups have infiltrated Pakistan and India. Seems like all those civilian casualties were nothing but a waste.

Click to expand...

I agree mate. A lack of resolve on the coalition's part has led to low morale amongst the combatants on our side. Give them better ROE and they will fight more effectively.

Pakistan is a failed state, run by patriarchal playboys and imbeciles. The sooner it goes down the clearer the field will be. We cannot save Pakistan. Its stuffed. Its the poor man's Saudi.

Stan 101 said:

So the families of those who died in 9/11 should harden up, too? Those victims were casualties of war in the eyes of non radicals of other countries. After all they have relatives and friends who've been victims of collateral damage from the US. They may not be right, but it is their perception.


cheers,

Click to expand...

We have hardened up mate, and the very fact that I can post a thread like this without the basket weavers banning it is justification for the fact that the wheel is turning.

The Atrocity of 9/11 will be paid for by the perpetrators.

We have hardened up.

gg

The armed forces are following orders, and no amount of forum opinion will change that policy. Strategies are being changed and developed to fit with current terrorist warfare methodology.

The whole thing's a learning curve, as this type of warfare is new to not just our forces but those worldwide as well.

Simplistic phrases like "fight hard" won't win this war. A more apt phrase would be "fight smart"

Obama is driven by adverse comparisons with Vietnam.

US hints may put Al-Qaeda, not Taliban, in crosshairs

October 9, 2009 - 1:49PM
The White House said the Taliban posed less of a threat to US security than Al-Qaeda, raising speculation that President Barack Obama may not opt for a vastly increased counter-insurgency force in Afghanistan.

Officials involved in Obama's intense Afghan policy review argued that Al-Qaeda poses a grave danger to US interests and the American homeland while the Taliban, though hostile to US forces in Afghanistan, did not.

The assessments seemed to differ with the picture of the war painted by US commander General Stanley McChrystal, who asked for up to 40,000 more troops and warned the counter-insurgency against the Taliban could fail without reinforcements.

Click to expand...

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-not-taliban-in-crosshairs-20091009-gq59.html

As you can see in this article they haven't ruled out working with the Taliban

My guess is that the Obama administration is learning towards a drawing down of conventional troops and a increase of SF troops to continue the fight against both AQ and the Taliban. This will cost a truck load less in both lives and money and probably will end up being more effective than the current operation. I can't see Afghanistan being a stable democratic country as we know for the foreseeable future. The best the Western countries can hope for is probably something similar to the present situation in Pakistan. Eg: a functioning Govt but pockets outside of Govt control and ongoing fighting against the rebels. Yes its not a perfect situation but expecting to achieve a western model is unrealistic in my opinion.

Those that are bringing up oil as the major reason the US wants control of Afghanistan are ill informed. There simply is no significant hydro carbons in Afghanistan.

kitehigh said:

Those that are bringing up oil as the major reason the US wants control of Afghanistan are ill informed. There simply is no significant hydro carbons in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

I believe you are correct about the known hydrocarbons in Afghanistan, but the importance of that state to the West is that any pipeline from the oil richer Stans further north, Turk etc., would have to go through Afghanistan, to get to the West.

So its the pipeline that is the important point to remember when talking of oil and the present conflict.

gg

I agree Kitehigh - the oil is in Iraq.

However there is much info on the web about the US Geological Service searching for oil and finding significant quantities. There is much talk about potential huge reserves and also the massive reserves in countries nth of Afganistan and pipelines from them running through Afg into US ships etc. A US Oil company , in 2005 was given exclusive drilling rights in Afganistan.

Of course the profits would be shared with the villagers! Uncle Sam is such a sharing and caring nation.

Iraq proven oil reserves 112 billion barrels of oil & 110 trillion cf of gas.
90% of Iraq unexplored for reserves only 2000 wells drilled. (1 million wells drilled in Texas)

Iraq 2nd biggest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia. Pre Kuwait war producing 3.5 million barrels/day now about 2.5 mill/day.

Where is this money going? Under US control the Iraqi's have not got enough food/water/medicines - Under Saddam, pre Kuwait it was regarded as a well off country. All you had to do was lick his boots.

. No doubt US tapping into the oil to pay for the war.

In 2002 USA imported 11.3 million barrels from Iraq
From other countries:


Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

L


.

To further my point about the Taliban/Alqeida using box cutter knives for 'shock and awe' attack on USA.

There is no huge army facing the infidels in Afganistan or any need for a huge army, just small bands of fighters firing a few shots here and there, blowing up infrastructure plus occasional few suicide bombers reeking death and havoc. With 1000s of willing replacements in the mountains. They are just continuing on the fight where Russians left off.

These small bands living on nothing are causing the US economy to wobble. USA - too much power not enough brain. Hollywood could not have scripted such supidity.

There is further bad news.

Obama has just been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

We are in the middle of a war against the biggest threat to Western civilisation since the Plague, and the liberal media and their hangers on are celebrating the award of a Peace prize for gods sake to Barack.

Perhaps we should have a Nobel War Prize, to be awarded to the best Commander in Chief leading his country and Allies to victory.

That lickspittle Neville Chamberlain would have won a Peace prize while condemning the West to six years of world war.

A Peace Prize for the CIC of the western world, at this time in our history when we are fighting insane godbotherers ready to stick a grenade up their coits to kill our innocent population, and get to heaven.

What a load of cobblers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

A Peace Prize for the CIC of the western world, at this time in our history when we are fighting insane godbotherers ready to stick a grenade up their coits to kill our innocent population, and get to heaven.

What a load of cobblers.
gg

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if this great man of Peace escalates the war in Afghanistan.

The west isn't all that innocent - mate. Our population is complicit in the west's scramble for oil by its silence, which, to not only the Islamic mind, is one of agreement.

America, the leader of the "free world" armed to the teeth with a defence budget which is greater than the rest of the world's COMBINED, fights a bunch of goat herders with less than spectacular success. These (basically) goat herders do not want the infidel on their soil, and do not want its brand of democracy. How can it fight such a huge war machine? Terrorism is the only tool at hand.

I absolutely do not condone terrorism, but an understanding of what's going would be an advantage. Platitudes and the mindset that we here in the west are somehow innocent is absolute bollocks.
We're energy hungry and we'd do anything to keep our lifestyle. After all, we must have our toys, and we must have our televisions. Anything to keep us from thinking. We've grown used to living in human feed lots. It's comfortable and anything which opposes it must be destroyed.

Totally agree

we got the good ole USA wanting to fight stating queensbury rules

and we got the underdogs happy to fight using "carpark" rules

while i also do not condone the use of these terrorist tactics , i also understand why they use them ................ how else are they going to win ?

its called WAR and when it comes to the crunch , both sides want/need to win it .

Aussiejeff said:

Don't larf!

Isn't that what the Egyptians, Greeks & Romans up resorting to as their Empires began to unravel?

Click to expand...

Not really, in each case they were just overwhelmed by aggressors. First of all, the greeks were not an empire, and at best were alliances of city-states. I believe the Egyptians were just conquered by superior foes (such as the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans etc). The Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Turks over time, but I'm not familiar with the causes (civil war, economic and then throw in outside pressures like the Turks?). The Western Roman Empire was overrun by germanic tribes, but Rome was in a very weakened state by this stage. As far a I know, in none of these cases was there perpetual war that lead to their downfall, at least no more in a state of war than they had been in their past.

To compare it to a similar situation today, and using the US as our 'empire', it would be like China invading the US, rather than the US getting itself caught up in Vietnams. Eventually, the many small scale wars might bring down the superpower, but historically it has usually been another superpower than has delivered the blow.