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

[kai]

It needs a massive troop injection. we sweep an area clear of Taliban and then leave because we do not have enough troops to hold it. the Taliban return and destroy or undo anything we have don there. The Afghans know this so they dont want to get killed by the Taliban for cooperating with ISAF.So we have to return and do it all over again.
we either do this properly or not at all. in my view we dont have long to do it. Maybe by the next election or UK troops will be coming out, our troops are not expendable unlike the Talibans view of their Martyrs. And we are beginning to get weary of the military funerals now.

And if we pull out its a disgrace , its a disgrace to every fallen soldier to every person murdered by the Taliban and Alqueda and a betrayal of the Afghan people. and when the Taliban have consolidated their rule and Alqueda have entrenched themselves back in Afghanistan, we can just sit back and wait for the attacks that will surely come. Not to mention the boost this would give the Taliban in Pakistan.

 

[Smoke]

What'll happen if the Taliban win?

Then they will be, as Muslim fundamentalists were by their perceived victory over the Soviet Union, further emboldened and even more deeply convinced that they are favored by Allah and destined for certain victory.

And keep in mind that the Taliban are there in reaction to our occupation.

No, they were there before our occupation. The U.S. government even considered their rise to power a Good Thing for a while.

This is a distinct departure from my usual abhorrence of war, but the thing is that the Taliban is a monstrous organization that is deeply entrenched not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. It is too late now to regret the folly of ever allowing Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons; we have allowed a truly frightening situation to evolve in that part of the world, and I believe it has gone too far already. It is imperative that we crush the Taliban, and if we fail to do so, we will regret it later.

 

[kai]

Then they will be, as Muslim fundamentalists were by their perceived victory over the Soviet Union, further emboldened and even more deeply convinced that they are favored by Allah and destined for certain victory.

No, they were there before our occupation. The U.S. government even considered their rise to power a Good Thing for a while.

This is a distinct departure from my usual abhorrence of war, but the thing is that the Taliban is a monstrous organization that is deeply entrenched not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. It is too late now to regret the folly of ever allowing Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons; we have allowed a truly frightening situation to evolve in that part of the world, and I believe it has gone too far already.

It is imperative that we crush the Taliban, and if we fail to do so, we will regret it later

.

i couldnt agree more.

 

[Duck]

Then they will be, as Muslim fundamentalists were by their perceived victory over the Soviet Union, further emboldened and even more deeply convinced that they are favored by Allah and destined for certain victory.

No, they were there before our occupation. The U.S. government even considered their rise to power a Good Thing for a while.

This is a distinct departure from my usual abhorrence of war, but the thing is that the Taliban is a monstrous organization that is deeply entrenched not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. It is too late now to regret the folly of ever allowing Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons; we have allowed a truly frightening situation to evolve in that part of the world, and I believe it has gone too far already. It is imperative that we crush the Taliban, and if we fail to do so, we will regret it later.

Heck, the US Government trained the dudes that later formed the Taliban and Al'Queda and encouraged the resistance by the mujaheddin against the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan during the 80's. Once the Soviets gave up and left, the US couldn't care less who ran the country, sure there were some rumblings and condemnation of the Taliban because of their blatantly evil treatment of women, but generally until 9/11 no one really cared. (But you know all this, Smoke, so I am not getting on your case or anything, just adding to your post.) And I completely agree that unless we eradicate the Taliban we will have issues later, namely, a Taliban in control of Afghanistan and Pakistan and generally ticked off at the west because of the failed invasion and failed policies during and after the Soviet invasion, a martyr complex and NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Oh, and quiet possibly, issues with its Nuclear armed neighbor India over Kashmir. Not a pretty picture.

 

[England my lionheart]

It needs a massive troop injection. we sweep an area clear of Taliban and then leave because we do not have enough troops to hold it. the Taliban return and destroy or undo anything we have don there. The Afghans know this so they dont want to get killed by the Taliban for cooperating with ISAF.So we have to return and do it all over again.
we either do this properly or not at all. in my view we dont have long to do it. Maybe by the next election or UK troops will be coming out, our troops are not expendable unlike the Talibans view of their Martyrs. And we are beginning to get weary of the military funerals now.

And if we pull out its a disgrace , its a disgrace to every fallen soldier to every person murdered by the Taliban and Alqueda and a betrayal of the Afghan people. and when the Taliban have consolidated their rule and Alqueda have entrenched themselves back in Afghanistan, we can just sit back and wait for the attacks that will surely come. Not to mention the boost this would give the Taliban in Pakistan.

Spot on Kai,we need more troops and use take and hold tactics and get plenty of aid into Afghanistan and i agree it would be a disgrace if we pull out

 

[Alceste]

My best guess is that when the US loses Afghanistan to the Taliban, things will eventually revert back to the way they were before the invasion, politically. The real deciding factor in whether the global Islamic terror threat will be increased or decreased is what decisions are made after this inevitable failure. Do we begin to solicit international cooperation for a narrow, targeted police and intelligence action aimed at actual terrorists, rather than the civilian population (which is what we should have done to begin with)? Do we increase NATO presence to protect secular governments in nearby "friendly" countries that are threatened by the political fallout from the conflict? Do we continue to pressure domestic funding sources? Do we (GASP) take a good, hard look at supporting democratic political opposition in Saudi Arabia, which is where the Islamic extremist ideology and many of its generals come from?

Right from the start there was a smart way and a dumb way to combat Islamic terrorism. We've tried the dumb way. The sooner we admit that we've failed, the better off everyone will be - both our soldiers and the Afghani civilians on the receiving end of our bullets and bombs. It's never too late to start doing things the smart way.

 

[Alceste]

Spot on Kai,we need more troops and use take and hold tactics and get plenty of aid into Afghanistan and i agree it would be a disgrace if we pull out

Because nothing puts out fires like a flamethrower.

 

[Dunemeister]

What'll happen if the Taliban win?

They'll take over about two thirds of Afghanistan (approximately what they controlled when NATO attacked). They will impose a theocracy and that will be that. America, Holland, and Canada will have received bloody noses for no bloody reason.

 

[Dunemeister]

I think it's a mistake to assume such unanimity.

Even if that's the case, there must be some who consider us the lesser evil, and would resent being abandoned. We're in now, we can't just bail because it's not a walk in the park.

No, we should bail because there is no vital American interest at stake in the war.

 

[kai]

My best guess is that when the US loses Afghanistan to the Taliban, things will eventually revert back to the way they were before the invasion, politically. The real deciding factor in whether the global Islamic terror threat will be increased or decreased is what decisions are made after this inevitable failure. Do we begin to solicit international cooperation for a narrow, targeted police and intelligence action aimed at actual terrorists, rather than the civilian population (which is what we should have done to begin with)? What in Afghanistan? Do we increase NATO presence to protect secular governments in nearby "friendly" countries that are threatened by the political fallout from the conflict? Where would you put these Nato forces without upsetting the Taliban and Alqueda now that they would have free reign. Do we continue to pressure domestic funding sources? Do we (GASP) take a good, hard look at supporting democratic political opposition in Saudi Arabia, which is where the Islamic extremist ideology and many of its generals come from? But surely that would bring forth more accusations of meddling in Islamic affairs

Right from the start there was a smart way and a dumb way to combat Islamic terrorism. We've tried the dumb way. The sooner we admit that we've failed, the better off everyone will be - both our soldiers and the Afghani civilians on the receiving end of our bullets and bombs. It's never too late to start doing things the smart way.

Thers only two ways to deal with this problem and that's to deal with right across the spectrum from military and economic pressure to investment in infrastructure in place like Afghanistan. we havnt used a dumb way we just have gone at it half arsed, it needs a real commitment from Nato in particular.

 

[kai]

They'll take over about two thirds of Afghanistan (approximately what they controlled when NATO attacked). They will impose a theocracy and that will be that. America, Holland, and Canada will have received bloody noses for no bloody reason.

and the Pakistanis will lose momentum in their fight against the Taliban and Alqueda will have a much stronger power base to work from than they ever did.

 

[kai]

Because nothing puts out fires like a flamethrower.

so you think ousting the Taliban beefing up border control and massive investment in Afghan infrastructure is a flame thrower?

 

[Valjean]

How do we defeat a non-organization? The Taliban are not what they originally were. They're the angry, the unemployed, the disaffected. One can be a baker one day and Taliban the next. When threatened they can melt back into the population.
Sure we can destroy Taliban patrols. But how do we correct the conditions that generate them?

The Afghanis aren't ready for a centralized government, or Democracy. What sort of "country" do we presume to forge for them, and how is it to be administered?

 

[kai]

How do we defeat a non-organization? The Taliban are not what they originally were. They're the angry, the unemployed, the disaffected. One can be a baker one day and Taliban the next. When threatened they can melt back into the population.

The Taliban are nothing of the sort they are an Islamist predominantly Pashtun radical political ,Organisation that are based mainly in the north west territories of Pakistan.
Sure we can destroy Taliban patrols. But how do we correct the conditions that generate them?
What actually generates them is a corrupted form of Islam which they wish to impose on the region by force.

The Afghanis aren't ready for a centralized government, or Democracy. What sort of "country" do we presume to forge for them, and how is it to be administered?

why do you keep saying the Afghans arnt ready for democracy? what ever government is eventually produced there will be forged by the Afghans over time and they should be given a chance to do so without the fear of the Taliban.

 

[Alceste]

so you think ousting the Taliban beefing up border control and massive investment in Afghan infrastructure is a flame thrower?

I think we are supposed to be looking for / foiling the plots of al Qaeda, not crushing an entirely domestic Afghani theocratic political party that has little or nothing to do with international Islamic terrorism.

And, yes, when al Qaeda's primary complaint is foreign meddling with Middle Eastern theocracies, meddling with Middle Eastern theocracies even more is a flamethrower.

 

[kai]

I think we are supposed to be looking for / foiling the plots of al Qaeda, not crushing an entirely domestic Afghani theocratic political party that has little or nothing to do with international Islamic terrorism.

the Taliban are not an entirely domestic Afghani theocratic Political party.where did you get that idea?

 

[kai]

I think we are supposed to be looking for / foiling the plots of al Qaeda, not crushing an entirely domestic Afghani theocratic political party that has little or nothing to do with international Islamic terrorism.

And, yes, when al Qaeda's primary complaint is foreign meddling with Middle Eastern theocracies, meddling with Middle Eastern theocracies even more is a flamethrower.

well we cant upset Alqueda can we.:sarcastic

 

[Alceste]

the Taliban are not an entirely domestic Afghani theocratic Political party.where did you get that idea?

Insofar as the borders of Afghanistan mean anything at all, the Taliban is an Afghani domestic movement to establish an Islamic theocracy in that country (and whatever it can nab of the more lawless parts of Pakistan if you want to be nit-picky). Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a globally dispersed Islamic terrorism network fighting US economic and ideological imperialism. Al Qaeda is "the enemy", and that's who we should be going after. The Taliban is the former government of Afghanistan - a government which will inevitably return to power after we finally admit to the impossibility of wiping them from the face of the earth and get back to the important business of fighting international Islamic terrorism.

 

[Alceste]

well we cant upset Alqueda can we.:sarcastic

Somehow I think they would be even MORE upset if we went after them instead of trying to wipe out the former Islamic government of Afghanistan (killing thousands of Muslim civilians in the process). As it is, we're the best recruiting tool they could possibly have hoped for.

 

[kai]

Insofar as the borders of Afghanistan mean anything at all, the Taliban is an Afghani domestic movement to establish an Islamic theocracy in that country (and whatever it can nab of the more lawless parts of Pakistan if you want to be nit-picky). Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a globally dispersed Islamic terrorism network fighting US economic and ideological imperialism. Al Qaeda is "the enemy", and that's who we should be going after. The Taliban is the former government of Afghanistan - a government which will inevitably return to power after we finally admit to the impossibility of wiping them from the face of the earth and get back to the important business of fighting international Islamic terrorism.

if you stick to the borders of Afghanistan you would slice of a considerable amount of Taliban areas of influence namely all of the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan . To do so would be an error when talking about the Taliban which is a predominantly Pashtun organisation. it is also an error to think the Taliban are not an enemy and that they do not sympathise with the goals fo Alqueda.Those international Islamic terrorists that you agree should be fought are based in Taliban held territory with Taliban consent.