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

[Alceste]

treat it as a war and fight the Taliban with sufficient men and equipment that's my solution.

Sufficient men and equipment to accomplish what? Killing them all, and all of their sympathizers, and all of their financial supporters, and all of their mullahs and informants, and anyone who is toying with the idea of establishing an Islamic theocracy in Afghanistan? Not to mention all of their children and grandchildren?

Even if you did manage to accomplish all this, al Qaeda would not be adversely affected. The Taliban =/= al Qaeda. Al Qaeda =/= the Taliban.

How can you possibly hope to neutralize a global security threat by winning one localized war - even if this were possible in Afghanistan, which it isn't (as history has shown)?

Or should we just go ahead and make it a World War? Invade Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia, and Chechnya, and Algeria, and Pakistan, and Sri Lanka? Start conscripting people to make up the numbers? Start rationing so we can feed the troops? Start building bunkers in case any nuclear-armed players get annoyed with one another?

 

[England my lionheart]

When we pull out, the Taliban is going to do it anyway, regardless of whether we waste tens of billions of dollars more of our future grandchildrens wages and hundreds or thousands of our own lives on perpetual violent conflict.

I assume you're one of those "stay until the job is done, no matter what the cost, even if we have to stay forever and never finish the job, and even if the cost can never be repaid" people.

The cost could be a hell of a lot more if we leave,the Taleban are not going to be satisfied with our withdrawal from Afghanistan,they have there sights on controlling Pakistan.
"Stay until the job is done" well i guess when you embark on any campaign thats what you want to do,the cost in money is of no consequence but i agree the cost of people is but people die in wars and thats a fact.

 

[Alceste]

The cost could be a hell of a lot more if we leave,the Taleban are not going to be satisfied with our withdrawal from Afghanistan,they have there sights on controlling Pakistan.
"Stay until the job is done" well i guess when you embark on any campaign thats what you want to do,the cost in money is of no consequence but i agree the cost of people is but people die in wars and thats a fact.

Yes, well, down here in the real world, money has consequences.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes, well, down here in the real world, money has consequences.

So does terrorism,do you really want a terrorist training ground the size of Afghanistan.

 

[kai]

Sufficient men and equipment to accomplish what? Killing them all, and all of their sympathizers, and all of their financial supporters, and all of their mullahs and informants, and anyone who is toying with the idea of establishing an Islamic theocracy in Afghanistan? Not to mention all of their children and grandchildren?

Even if you did manage to accomplish all this, al Qaeda would not be adversely affected. The Taliban =/= al Qaeda. Al Qaeda =/= the Taliban.

How can you possibly hope to neutralize a global security threat by winning one localized war - even if this were possible in Afghanistan, which it isn't (as history has shown)?

Or should we just go ahead and make it a World War? Invade Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia, and Chechnya, and Algeria, and Pakistan, and Sri Lanka? Start conscripting people to make up the numbers? Start rationing so we can feed the troops? Start building bunkers in case any nuclear-armed players get annoyed with one another?

well lets leave sensationalism aside for one moment and do it the "proper " way you provide enough troops and equipment on the ground to destroy the Talibans military capability getting on baord as many tribal chiefs as possible on the way ( they will join you if they think your serious)meanwhile you invest heavily in Afghan infrastructure, services ,schools ,Hospitals, you give the Afghans a taste of what we take for granted.

you beef up border control enough to keep a lid on Taliban incursion from Pakistan, all the while aiding Pakistan to deal with the Taliban in exactly the same way. Its the only way to do it and it takes commitment. yes we have wasted all these years because no one has taken it seriously enough until now and its make or break.


and when in history has a situation like this been seen in Afghanistan?

And just one more thing Alceste do you honestly believe that if we leave then that's the end of it , that 5 or 10 years in the future we wont be seeing an action replay what do you think is going to happen if Alqueda set up shop in the new Taliban capital of Kabul.

 

[Valjean]

We've been trying to solve our problems militarily for millenia. It just creates more problems and unintended blowback.

So, Englander, why do you think there are terrorists? What are their motives and demands? Have you ever considered addressing the actual casus belli?

Stop poking at a hornet's nest and the hornets will go back in and ignore you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You are all forgetting, that the Taliban/Afghans are far better trained than we are in that form of warfare. They have done it for hundreds of years... for the last two hundred against foreigners, and between times against each other.

This has been acknowledged by both the new American commander as well as the new and previous British ones.

They never ever commit them selves as a battle force that can be defeated by a regular army.

They can not be contained in any robust way, as their borders are immense and porous.

The only way they can be neutralized is by getting them to fight with each other in a super tribal war.

The only times that they were not troublesome in the past, has been during periods of tribal conflict.

 

[kai]

We've been trying to solve our problems militarily for millenia. It just creates more problems and unintended blowback. so you think we have never in all that milenia soved any problems militarily?

So, Englander, why do you think there are terrorists? What are their motives and demands? Have you ever considered addressing the actual casus belli? which terrorists? if you mean Alqueda their motives and demands are in the public domain

Stop poking at a hornet's nest and the hornets will go back in and ignore you.

this particular hornets nest isnt the ignoring kind:

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.
According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.
Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.
Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.

 

[Smoke]

The only way they can be neutralized is by getting them to fight with each other in a super tribal war.

The only times that they were not troublesome in the past, has been during periods of tribal conflict.

Maybe partition is the answer, then. It's certainly been effective elsewhere.

 

[Alceste]

well lets leave sensationalism aside for one moment and do it the "proper " way you provide enough troops and equipment on the ground to destroy the Talibans military capability getting on baord as many tribal chiefs as possible on the way ( they will join you if they think your serious)meanwhile you invest heavily in Afghan infrastructure, services ,schools ,Hospitals, you give the Afghans a taste of what we take for granted.

you beef up border control enough to keep a lid on Taliban incursion from Pakistan, all the while aiding Pakistan to deal with the Taliban in exactly the same way. Its the only way to do it and it takes commitment. yes we have wasted all these years because no one has taken it seriously enough until now and its make or break.


and when in history has a situation like this been seen in Afghanistan?

And just one more thing Alceste do you honestly believe that if we leave then that's the end of it , that 5 or 10 years in the future we wont be seeing an action replay what do you think is going to happen if Alqueda set up shop in the new Taliban capital of Kabul.

OK, fine, but what do you propose to do about al Qaeda? (Remember them?)

 

[Alceste]

this particular hornets nest isnt the ignoring kind:

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.
According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.
Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.
Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.

And what do you propose to do about that?

It's all well and good to say Islamic terrorists are bad guys and should be fought- hopefully even defeated, but you have yet to indicate how an interminable war against Afghanistan's former (and future) government advances this goal.

 

[kai]

Maybe partition is the answer, then. It's certainly been effective elsewhere.

Is that what the Taliban want? They are opposed to nationalism they want an Islamic State

 

[kai]

And what do you propose to do about that?

It's all well and good to say Islamic terrorists are bad guys and should be fought- hopefully even defeated, but you have yet to indicate how an interminable war against Afghanistan's former (and future) government advances this goal.

I have already stated how i would wish to see the war in Afghanistan proceed to a acceptable end . The end of Taliban influence in Afghanistan ends Alqueda's safe haven in Afghanistan. its you that sees it as interminable not I. I do not believe it is impossible just that it needs commitment and a realisation that it is a War.

 

[kai]

OK, fine, but what do you propose to do about al Qaeda? (Remember them?)

you do realise that Alqueda are relatively safe in Taliban controlled territory they are part and parcel of the strategy. take away their protectors and you take away their protection. when i speak of Afghanistan and north west Pakistan i am all to aware of the presence of Alqueda. If you mean Alqueda or Alqueda influenced organisations in other countries? then we would have to discuss each situation on its own circumstances.

 

[England my lionheart]

We've been trying to solve our problems militarily for millenia. It just creates more problems and unintended blowback.

Sometimes its necessary

So, Englander, why do you think there are terrorists? What are their motives and demands? Have you ever considered addressing the actual casus belli?

Well there are different types of terrorists,theres your Political terrorist like Bader Meinhoff or you have religious terrorists but basically terrorists are a minority that cannot gain control through democratic means so they resort to violence to force their ideals on people,the casus belli (threat)doesn't come from us.

Stop poking at a hornet's nest and the hornets will go back in and ignore you.

These hornets will never go back to their nests,unchecked the will infest Pakistan

 

[Alceste]

you do realise that Alqueda are relatively safe in Taliban controlled territory they are part and parcel of the strategy. take away their protectors and you take away their protection. when i speak of Afghanistan and north west Pakistan i am all to aware of the presence of Alqueda. If you mean Alqueda or Alqueda influenced organisations in other countries? then we would have to discuss each situation on its own circumstances.

They're safe taking flying lessons in the heart of the USA. They're safe sitting in their palaces in Saudi Arabia. They're safe in Algeria. Everywhere they are, they are safe as long as the US and the UK waste all their resources on perpetual war in the Middle East. Afghanistan is a training ground for international terrorists more now than it has ever been, since any Islamic terrorist, from any country anywhere in the world, can stroll in there, use NATO forces and Afghan police for target practice - even get some military combat training, cash and a weapon from the US - then go back and use what they've learned to try to set up Islamic states wherever they came from.

What you don't seem to realize is that eventually NATO must either leave or establish a permanent Western colony. While they're there they're a potent recruiting tool and very useful for training, funding and arming international terrorists. Once they go, all those violent people they've inspired with anti-American fervour, armed and funded will simply take over the government by force.

There isn't any other way it could go, unless you kill every man, woman and child currently living in Afghanistan and ship in a bunch of WASPS to take their place.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Maybe partition is the answer, then. It's certainly been effective elsewhere.

That is only a short term solution when there is a well defined geographical area.
per Cyprus, israel and Ireland, it has always lead to further long term problems.

 

[Alceste]

I have already stated how i would wish to see the war in Afghanistan proceed to a acceptable end . The end of Taliban influence in Afghanistan ends Alqueda's safe haven in Afghanistan. its you that sees it as interminable not I. I do not believe it is impossible just that it needs commitment and a realisation that it is a War.

How? How is the new regime you envision going to enforce order and prevent the return of Islamic terrorist groups to tribal areas without the permanent presence of NATO combat forces?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

One would love to see an acceptable end with every one happy.
This will never be the case.
We can neither afford the cost to win, nor afford the loss of face to lose..
So we will rationalize any result as a win.

 

[kai]

They're safe taking flying lessons in the heart of the USA. They're safe sitting in their palaces in Saudi Arabia. They're safe in Algeria. Everywhere they are, they are safe as long as the US and the UK waste all their resources on perpetual war in the Middle East. Afghanistan is a training ground for international terrorists more now than it has ever been, since any Islamic terrorist, from any country anywhere in the world, can stroll in there, use NATO forces and Afghan police for target practice - even get some military combat training, cash and a weapon from the US - then go back and use what they've learned to try to set up Islamic states wherever they came from. There not safe in the heart of the US and the UK do you think they exist and carry out their machinations under the protection of a similarliy ideological benefactor/protector. Do you think the security forces in the us and the Uk are idle? or turning a blind eye? what do you propose ? do not engage them at all?

What you don't seem to realize is that eventually NATO must either leave or establish a permanent Western colony. While they're there they're a potent recruiting tool and very useful for training, funding and arming international terrorists. Once they go, all those violent people they've inspired with anti-American fervour, armed and funded will simply take over the government by force. a western colony? i dont think thats going to happen, so i wont comment on that its to farsical

There isn't any other way it could go, unless you kill every man, woman and child currently living in Afghanistan and ship in a bunch of WASPS to take their place.

and that is now bordering on the ridiculous. I dont think you have anything constructive to say Alceste really you tend to veer off with some fanciful and farcical ranting. what exactly do you suggest and how do you see the ramifications of carrying out your plan?