It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why can't the US defeat a rag tag lightly armed resistence force ??

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:21 AM
reply to post by learnatic

History is full of stories of defeat by a smaller force against an imperial one much larger and advanced. However when one fights for his homeland, his family, and his friends it gives him the motivation and endurance he thought he never had. After all when its your homeland being invaded where are you going to go? You have no choice but to keep going until the fight is through or your dead, plus you have home ground advantage. Eventually the opposing force grows tired (and broke) and will leave. At least that's what usually happens. (remember Napoleon, Hitler in Russia, the French in Indochina)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by Danbones

Define "winning".

Until EVERY Afghanistani bows down to the US invasion and occupation of their country?

But I have to agree with the danbones.

Osama (I first typed Obama!) had all but put a stop to opium production, which is a major source of CIA funding.

We cant have that!

Opium Production in Afghanistan Hits Record High.

Not to mention the real reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place:

As an added bonus:

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan.

But who is this so called "enemy" and why do they have a problem with US troops occupying their country?

Most Afghans do not even know about 9/11, according to disturbing poll.

Fact is, the average Afghanistan citizen wants us out.

But our government can NEVER admit to this. Otherwise, we'd have to GTFO.

Only the "Taliaban", "insurgents" or "terrorists" could be against the good ol' of U S of A's attack, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. If one soldier dies (even if its in a helicopter crash), the US can never leave.

Unless we elect a POTUS who isnt a psychopath (Rand Paul) and stop bowing down to the Military Industrial Complex, the US will never give up its global empire.

edit on 15-3-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:31 AM
reply to post by learnatic

It seems so far that the consensus of opinion is that the U.S cannot win the war not that they don't want to win the war. If this is the only or major reason then why bother with all the high teck modern weapons? Is it that the U.S can only win a fight when other side plays by U.S rules and fights the way they do?

I can't imagine that the most effective means of defeating a country like the U.S is to only fight with a rag tag resistence force combined with a strong dose of desire? Surely not?

Nor, can I accept that the U.S cannot win the war? There has to be some reasons other than just the will of the Afgahan people for not being able to defeat Afghan resistence fighters.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:43 AM

I Just got to wondering why it has taken the U.S. and its allies 10 years, or what ever it is, to defeat a rag tag lightly armed resistance movement in Afghanistan.

The CIA trainend them to well

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:55 AM
Halliburton, and a host of other companies are raking in hundreds of billions.....the war will continue apace....

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:06 AM
reply to post by learnatic

In answer to your title question, the reason the the US and it's allies are incapable of wiping out the terrorist organisations against which it has set itself are as follows.

For a start, the small cell structure of the terror networks, means that the big, scary tactics of shock and awe, massive bombardment, use of huge missiles, tanks, and so on, which make them successful when fighting armies, are pretty impotent in this arena. Everything about the way an army moves, thinks, and operates, is totally inappropriate to the task of surgically removing a small number of entrenched, un-uniformed enemy agents.

The tactics they employ to try and wipe the enemy out, are also certain to spawn more agents, through obscene collateral damage numbers, that anger previously non combatant individuals, and make them more likely to take up arms against that which killed their loved ones. Drone strikes are an example of this. This means that for every one or two terror suspects who are turned to rapidly expanding balls of vapour using this method, four or five guys are pretty pissed at loosing a loved one, and will attempt to revenge themselves upon those who did the deed. So we actually have a situation here, where even the methods chosen to wipe out the real hard cases, spawn more terrorists.

Another problem is the fact that a small group of terrorists moves around much easier than a whole battalion of man and machine. Very very rarely, do terrorist forces make themselves known in large numbers. They move and work in small groups, highly mobile, and familiar with their territory. This means that they have a very small footprint until the crap hits the fan, at which point , they know exactly how to make things very difficult for larger concentrations of troops, sent to take them out.

To put it bluntly, all the technology, fighting vehicles, air superiority, naval prowess, and fancy weapons, and even vast numbers of troops, will NEVER succeed in totally destroying the terror networks, because these tools are too large, too noisy, too easy to see coming, and are ranged against a target which is too small, too comfortable on its home turf, and too good at concealment, to make it possible to take them out using these means.

But these methods should never have been deployed against such a foe in the first place if you ask me. From day one, the only sort of force that should have been sent to counter the terrorist threat from Afghanistan, and indeed across the borders there, should have been a plethora of small, self contained units of assassins, with no records, no insignia, nothing to link one unit to another, and a single mission, that being the silent, deniable, and collateral light removal of terrorist cells from the face of the planet. This would have the advantage of actually being able to get the job done, rather than having no hope of doing so at all, and be capable of doing the job without blowing up twenty innocent people for every mad bomber dropped.

That the US and UK government saw necessary to drop troops on the ground, rather than send in such small teams of operators as I describe, means that they never intended to win any kind of victory out there.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:10 AM
I think you'll find that defeating a rag tag lightly armed resistance force becomes more difficult when they attack your forces one minute and the next they are just one of the nice, friendly local villagers. They don't wear uniforms and it's difficult to identify them so they can shoot and scoot.

I'm paraphrasing here but, as a previous poster said, if the taliban turned up en masse for a big fight with NATO forces then they would get their backsides kicked all over the place.

When your opponent melts into the local population, you have a lot of difficulty fighting him.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:20 AM
Perpetual war makes a lot of money for people who profit from war. Why would you want 'the other side' to lose?

Perpetual crime makes a lot of money for people who profit from crime. Why would you want crime 'stopped'?

Perpetual stupidity makes a lot of 'cattle' willing to fight for the status quo!

It's a win - win situation for 'big money' and big business and keeps the cattle 'pre-occupied' with a manufactured reality full of distractions and false hoods.

The majority of people on this planet are good people just manipulated and mis-informed and willing to 'fight' for a 'good' cause that is only 'good' for the pockets it lines.

Until that FACT is understood there will be war but the awakening has begun and is unstoppable.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:22 AM
A riddle . What do the Vietnam war and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have in common....

Answer - They were both meant to be SUSTAINED and NEVER WON....

Big business doesn't make money on two week wars...Thats why America can't / won't be allowed to, win.
edit on AM6Sat20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:25 AM

I Just got to wondering why it has taken the U.S. and its allies 10 years, or what ever it is, to defeat a rag tag lightly armed resistance movement in Afghanistan. These people are armed with not much else than small arms and rely on motorbikes to get around...
What do you think?

We've got this squeamish thing about intentionally killing civilians, and we have a sad, outdated thing about blowing up places that might have civilians mixed in with combatants, especially when those places are religious or historical. You can only kill people in approved ways, at that.

If we went all Terran Empire on them, it would be a massacre.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:33 AM
theyre fighting for their families and homes against an oppressive foriegn invader that murders for profit with impunity around the world.

They have more to lose than the murderers following the orders of corrupt leaders , banks and corporations that profit from death.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:34 AM

Also don't forget they think blowing themselves up and taking a bunch of people with them is the way to heaven and 72 virgins.

So they're told, but killing innocents is against the Qur'an and God. Those people went to hell.

The reason it has lasted so long is because they have had a non-ending wave of support. Not because people like their policies, or agree with what they do, but because they are the only people standing up to this invading force that has swept across the land!

Imagine living in iraq or afghanistan, you live in a little hut, no tv or much electricity. All of a sudden you see explosions on the horizon, then all these FOREIGNERS come into your farm, into your village and start shooting people up, pulling people who are suspected taliban out of houses, they come in big tanks and bring war with them. Imagine they take your father and your brother, imagine your house is destroyed, your family killed by a bomb they dropped. Then someone comes to your door, puts a gun in your hand and says "We're going to kick these guys back out of OUR country"

Honestly, what would you do?

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:52 AM

There is only reason I can think of and that the U.S does not want its invasion to be a military success for reasons best known to them. Any other reasons I think off only stem from this one reason.

reply to post by learnatic

I think you answered your own question. If they cleaned house, they would have no reason to have an occupation in the middle east and have access and control the flow of oil in that area. Iraq still has a small contingent force occupying it for the same reason, even thought it was a fact they were never involved in 9/11, and no WMD's were ever found. Our forces should have been pulled out of Iraq the minute it was realized WMD's we're not there! The U.S. has no right to invade or occupy a sovereign country. Yet the U.S. will condemn Russia for doing the same thing in the Ukraine.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link conspiracy here. Fighting in Afghanistan, or any other nation that does not have a central government/military is like digging in mud. You might be winning, but no one will notice. Ground isn't taken, units aren't destroyed, flags aren't raised on mountain tops. NATO/US has never lost any engagement in Afghanistan or Iraq. You are hit by an IED...maybe some small arms fire. If the bad guys hang around, they are schwacked in a short period of time. Problem is, the same thing happens the next day...and the day after...and the day after. That $25 IED took out a $1 million vehicle. The news only reports NATO deaths (or civilian) never the enemy. The home front gets tired of it, and demands the troops come home. That's the problem, as Americans we expect the enemy to surrender, sign a piece of paper and the troops come home the a huge parade. In actions like this, that never happens. And if you look at history, the US has fought far more of this types of 'wars' then the big ones like WW1 and WW2. There are no winners. As far as I see it, in Afghanistan NATO did what it set out to do...set up a 'democratically' elected government...and pushed them in the right direction. The rest is on them. And of course companies want to make money...they did in WW1 and WW2 also...but it's the elected officials that decide where the military fights and when. Before you say they are in the MIC pocket...of course they are, but 'we' elect them!

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:14 AM

It's really hard to defeat an enemy when they

1. Dress like the locals
2. Stand behind the locals
3. Avoid confrontation, preferring to use IEDs.
4. Use tactics like strapping bombs to children
5. Have no regard for the locals - the vast majority of deaths in Afghanistan have come from the hands of the Taliban

er., that's it.


posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:44 AM
reply to post by learnatic

What is the winning situation?...some nice PR thing with some 5* general signing a peace accord with a member of the Taliban?

The only way to probably 'win' would be to wage a total war scenario where every man/woman/child is considered a hostile and can be killed on sight but i doubt theres much desire to become an army of baby killers

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by NthOther

I was pointing out history, not making a comment as to what is right or wrong.
The US should have realised nobody can win in Afghanistan.....except big business

Maybe thats is a conspiracy in itself, the US knew they would lose?

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 09:13 AM
Because genocide and scortched earth are looked down upon and would be required to beat an undeveloped opponent such as described.
We can do,oh sure we can easily. It would take soldiers without any emotional capability and the world would hate you.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by gladtobehere

Wait till US forces are gone for a year. Totally, 100% gone.

Then ask those same people how they enjoy life? Judging by the theological hell they suffered for a few years under the Taliban, (and what they'll have back within a year of our leaving), I believe they'll be missing us sooner than even they can imagine. Especially since the Talibans first order of business will be to find and erase anyone who was helpful or cooperative with our side. I'll be HAPPY we're gone and we're years too late to leave, in my view.'s been 13-14 years since they saw what being shot for walking through a school house doorway as a female is like to experience....and folks always remember how they want to on things.

Nice folks, those Taliban..... I've got color vids of their favorite sport, executing people by point blank head shots in their stadium before the war. They made a public spectacle of it, running regularly.

The US may be bad by the hopeless mix of politics with war fighting to make a swamp fit for a sci-fi planet....but what they're getting next is worse.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 09:16 AM
Ask Russia too.

People who don't want to be defeated won't be.

They know how important their country is the economic and geopolitical world. And in their view they're fighting, as divided as they may be internally, to preserve their nation and their way of life from what comes with the kind of occupation in store for them should they succumb. Can't really blame them for that. You'd do the very same thing. Or would you?

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in