What will happen if US/British/Nato forces lose in Afghanistan?

[England my lionheart]

Absolutely. Our absence will remove their raison d'etre.

I'm sure many, who have acquired a taste for adventure, will find will find other mischief to be up to. The Arab world has tens of thousands of unemployed, disaffected youth seeking a place and purpose in life, and a long history of conflict -- internal and external. But if we don't impinge ourselves on their lives they won't bother themselves with ours.

I think a reminder of what the Taleban (meaning student) are and what they believe is:
From Wiki but there are many sources,the ideas are Sayyid Qutbs
The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard [36] to fight jahiliyyah with a twofold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihad."
The vanguard movement would grow with preaching and jihad until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world, attaining leadership of humanity. While those who had been "defeated by the attacks of the treacherous Orientalists!" might define jihad "narrowly" as defensive, Islamically-correct Jihad (according to Qutb) was in fact offensive.

So as we can see they have no intention of ambling back to the hills at all,and i cannot see how anyone can believe they will.

 

[Alceste]

Its not the number of Alqueda operatives its the spread of the ideology. they have the same ideology as the Taliban and they cant operate and grow without a sympathetic sponsor.

Most Muslim governments are terrified of fundamentalism its a stark choice represented to Muslims, modernisation which brings with it western ideas and things, or a fundamentalist version of Islam. What makes their numbers increase is that they present themselves as being in a struggle for the survival and eventual success of Islam and the Caliphate and Sharia, they portray the west as evil. Alqueda openly declare themselves to being in a holy war that's what brings in new recruits.

The Taliban ruled in Afghanistan and they are a big problem in Pakistan and the Taliban shelter and agree with Alqueda, they are allies.you yourself have mentioned other countries that have Alqueda or Alqueda influenced groups operating in them. the core group of Aqueda may indeed be small but the idea is huge.

My point is that it is harder for them to "portray the West as evil" if the West stops actually being evil.

Also, I have a lot more confidence in mainstream Muslims than you do. Middle Eastern states have kept Islamic fundamentalists from power until now - I see no indication they are likely to lose the battle, unless it is the direct result of our moronic destabilization of the region.

 

[Valjean]

then why did the Taliban exist before we even got there if their reason for existence is our being there? why didnt they wander off back to the hills before we got there? I am not sure where you get your idea for the "raison d'etre" of the Taiban its very odd.

True, the Taliban originally emerged from the madrasas of Pakistan as mujahideen during the Soviet occupation, but they owe their organization and success to covert ISI and CIA support.

How are we to deal with them in Afghanistan? The Leadership is in Pakistan, where our troops can't easily reach them. Many of the regular Afghani fighters are ad hoc opportunists, and the 'professionals' are hydra headed and indistinguishable from the indigenous population. We can't garrison every village plus police the outlying districts for Al Q'eida camps.

How long are we to remain in Afghanistan? "Afghanization" seems an unlikely proposition, considering the culture.
The greater our numbers and longer our occupation the more we will be resented as imperialistic invaders, and there's no legitimate government we might hope to turn over power to.
We've got our fingers in an increasingly holed dyke, with little hope of repair and no-one to replace us. As I see it, the deluge is inevitable, it's only a question of how much water we allow to build up. Yet Obama's apparently taken withdrawal off the table, which leaves only the unacceptable status quo or a more drawn-out but equally futile troop buildup.

 

[kai]

My point is that it is harder for them to "portray the West as evil" if the West stops actually being evil. the west is Kafir its easy to portray kafir as evil. the very existence of non Islamic states is an affront to the Fundamentalists in their view they have no right to exist.

Also, I have a lot more confidence in mainstream Muslims than you do. Middle Eastern states have kept Islamic fundamentalists from power until now - I see no indication they are likely to lose the battle, unless it is the direct result of our moronic destabilization of the region.

Ok do you consider the Regime in Iran mainstream, Iran sees itself as the vanguard of true Islam in the Moslem world. The first target of its militant fundamentalist Islam is the Arab world not the west. Iran has become the supporter of all Islamic revolutionary movements from Morocco to Afghanistan.

The destabilisation of the region will come with the rise of fundamentalism, the Sunni answer to Iranian hegemony and the dissatisfaction of present Muslim governments.

 

[kai]

True, the Taliban originally emerged from the madrasas of Pakistan as mujahideen during the Soviet occupation, but they owe their organization and success to covert ISI and CIA support. What in the last 8 years?

How are we to deal with them in Afghanistan? The Leadership is in Pakistan, where our troops can't easily reach them. Many of the regular Afghani fighters are ad hoc opportunists, and the 'professionals' are hydra headed and indistinguishable from the indigenous population. We can't garrison every village plus police the outlying districts for Al Q'eida camps.

Thats why Pakistan must deal with it.

How long are we to remain in Afghanistan? "Afghanization" seems an unlikely proposition, considering the culture.
The greater our numbers and longer our occupation the more we will be resented as imperialistic invaders, and there's no legitimate government we might hope to turn over power to.
We've got our fingers in an increasingly holed dyke, with little hope of repair and no-one to replace us. As I see it, the deluge is inevitable, it's only a question of how much water we allow to build up. Yet Obama's apparently taken withdrawal off the table, which leaves only the unacceptable status quo or a more drawn-out but equally futile troop buildup.[/QUOTE

There's only two options A troop build up to face Taliban and its allies militarily along with infrastructure build up, and Palistani cooperation. there will be a legitimate government and when there is we can support them.The alternative is to let the Taliban rule again in Afghanistan which would enable Alqueda to reinstate itself there. and for the Taliban to greatly increase its influence in Pakistan.

 

[Valjean]

The Taliban originally fluorished in the wake of the lawlessness and chaos that enveloped the region after the Soviets left. They were the only available force for security and stability. The US virtually turned its back on the region after the soviet collapse.

Unless the US can offer a cedible force for security and organization there is going to be either a Taliban resurgence or civil war. The Karzai (sp?) government is a corrupt and disintegrating joke -- no-one respects it.

A unified, "national" government in a culturally tribal region is an iffy proposition under the best of circumstances.
Most Afghanis don't think of themselves as Afghanis. They consider themselves Tajiks, Pashtuns, Uzbecs, Hazars, &c. They're loyalties are to their villages first, tribes second and country a very distant third. The only unifying institution they have in common is Islam, and the US holds a pretty poor hand in that department.

 

[kai]

The Taliban originally fluorished in the wake of the lawlessness and chaos that enveloped the region after the Soviets left. They were the only available force for security and stability. The US virtually turned its back on the region after the soviet collapse.It was the victor of fighting in a civil war i would say in a large part due to resources in man power from the pakistan maddrassas providing what is estimated to be thousands of men to join the fight back in the nineties, there was always a small part of Afghanistan that wasnt under Taliban rule.

Unless the US can offer a cedible force for security and organization there is going to be either a Taliban resurgence or civil war. The Karzai (sp?) government is a corrupt and disintegrating joke -- no-one respects it.

well i think the US is going to have to because no one else will.

A unified, "national" government in a culturally tribal region is an iffy proposition under the best of circumstances.
Most Afghanis don't think of themselves as Afghanis. They consider themselves Tajiks, Pashtuns, Uzbecs, Hazars, &c. They're loyalties are to their villages first, tribes second and country a very distant third. The only unifying institution they have in common is Islam, and the US holds a pretty poor hand in that department.

which is why the Taliban had to rule with an Iron fist with there own brand of Islam to justify it.

 

[sandandfoam]

As a brief aside if you don't mind Kai, I heard a former RSM from the Royal Irish interviewed yesterday about a book he's written about his time in Afghanistan.
I'm planning on reading it after these ******* exams, sounded like it'd be very informative. Have you come across it? 'Task Force Helmland(sp?)' I think it's called

 

[kai]

As a brief aside if you don't mind Kai, I heard a former RSM from the Royal Irish interviewed yesterday about a book he's written about his time in Afghanistan.
I'm planning on reading it after these ******* exams, sounded like it'd be very informative. Have you come across it? 'Task Force Helmland(sp?)' I think it's called

Ha Ha isnt this your thread, sorry if i am hogging it i have a vested interest you might say.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Task-Force-Helmand-Soldiers-Combat/dp/1847376444

 

[Valjean]

"Well, I think the US is going to have to because no one else will."

And that will make us colonizing invaders indeed -- and guarentee a robust and perpetual insurgency.

 

[kai]

"Well, I think the US is going to have to because no one else will."

And that will make us colonizing invaders indeed -- and guarentee a robust and perpetual insurgency.

who mentioned colonists?

 

[Alceste]

"Well, I think the US is going to have to because no one else will."

And that will make us colonizing invaders indeed -- and guarentee a robust and perpetual insurgency.

 

[kai]

did you steal that from a wall in Truro?

 

[Alceste]

did you steal that from a wall in Truro?

No, I found it floating around in the intertubes.

 

[Valjean]

"who mentioned colonists?"

That's what this whole brouhaha is about!
First the Soviets invade and now the Americans have moved in.

People generally object when a foreign power moves into their country. Call it invasion, occupation, colonialism, imperialism, military takeover, whatever. You're proposing that we move in, set up a government and rule this country. You don't think Jihadis from all over the Arab world wouldn't flock to Afghanistan to oppose us? You don't think terrorists wouldn't plot attacks on US soil, suicide bombs, planes into skyscrapers, &c?

What would you do If China invaded the US and set up a communist government?

 

[kai]

"who mentioned colonists?"

That's what this whole brouhaha is about!
First the Soviets invade and now the Americans have moved in.

People generally object when a foreign power moves into their country. Call it invasion, occupation, colonialism, imperialism, military takeover, whatever. You're proposing that we move in, set up a government and rule this country.where on earth did you get that idea? You don't think Jihadis from all over the Arab world wouldn't flock to Afghanistan to oppose us? You don't think terrorists wouldn't plot attacks on US soil, suicide bombs, planes into skyscrapers, &c?

What would you do If China invaded the US and set up a communist government?

Seyorni

you are are aware that with the "brouhaha" has the authorisation of the United Nations, and that America has not invaded Afghanistan to set up a colony arnt you?

 

[Valjean]

De jure vs de facto.

 

[kai]

De jure vs de facto.

OH so its a smoke screen by those Yankee imperialist dogs. why didint i see that.

 

[Neo-Logic]

The sad thing of it is that the coalition will most likely lose. Look back at the history of Afghanistan. It's one of the few countries on Earth that was unconquered and arguably, remains unconquerable. It's for good reasons. Geographically harsh, mountains make for conventional type of warfare impossible, much less the fact that the enemies are no where near conventional in nature or tactic. And the people of Afghanistan have had a strong enough national identity to fight off past invaders.

In our purpose, the cause may be more justified - terrorism is becoming far less sexy world wide, even in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda has brought much mysery to the people and have reinforced fundamentalism and militant Islam in their population that has divided the national identity.

At best, we can achieve a negative peace with the lack of conflict, but only with our strong presence. How long can our combined armies remain in these regions, economically? Keep in mind we're fighting terrorists and they're dubbed this label for a good reason. They already know they are inferior in force, economic support, and logistics. But they know this fact. Theirs is a game won simply by outlasting us. Defensive technology and doctrine of theirs is especially effective give that they have geographic advantage, fights unconventionally, and blends into the population.

"WINNING" in this sense, can only come through positive peace by stopping the structural violence and cultural violence that exists - through building of schools, stable government that is relatively legitimate among the people, and having a diverse economic structure that is supported by more than Opium, narcotics, arms trades, and terrorism. Terrorists and non-state actors are working hard to undermine these very institutions that would allow for a positive peace.

It's sort of presumptuous of us to think that we can do what no one has been able to do in the past Millennium. What will happen when we lose? Think, another Iraq, but worse.

 

[kai]

The sad thing of it is that the coalition will most likely lose. Look back at the history of Afghanistan. It's one of the few countries on Earth that was unconquered and arguably, remains unconquerable. It's for good reasons. Geographically harsh, mountains make for conventional type of warfare impossible, much less the fact that the enemies are no where near conventional in nature or tactic. And the people of Afghanistan have had a strong enough national identity to fight off past invaders. except you forget one thing its not similar in any way this time around.to any situation that has gone before it. and we are fighting Taliban not Afghans as a national identity.

In our purpose, the cause may be more justified - terrorism is becoming far less sexy world wide, even in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda has brought much mysery to the people and have reinforced fundamentalism and militant Islam in their population that has divided the national identity.

At best, we can achieve a negative peace with the lack of conflict, but only with our strong presence. How long can our combined armies remain in these regions, economically? Keep in mind we're fighting terrorists and they're dubbed this label for a good reason. They already know they are inferior in force, economic support, and logistics. But they know this fact. Theirs is a game won simply by outlasting us. Defensive technology and doctrine of theirs is especially effective give that they have geographic advantage, fights unconventionally, and blends into the population.

"WINNING" in this sense, can only come through positive peace by stopping the structural violence and cultural violence that exists - through building of schools, stable government that is relatively legitimate among the people, and having a diverse economic structure that is supported by more than Opium, narcotics, arms trades, and terrorism. Terrorists and non-state actors are working hard to undermine these very institutions that would allow for a positive peace. I agree

It's sort of presumptuous of us to think that we can do what no one has been able to do in the past Millennium. What will happen when we lose? Think, another Iraq, but worse.

Like i said, no one has tried to do ,what we are trying to do, at any time in the past.