It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Trump announces change of heart on Afghanistan

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

Then we get to fall back on that idea that we can defeat an ideology.


Cultural experts told Cheney/Bush - - you can't fight an ideology.

They thought they could.


Having never been there you know nothing an lb out their idealogy. Reality is a huge amount of the population wants things to change. They want to become a western nation you would laugh going into some of the villages with mud huts and a satellite dish to watch tv. I used to carry candy with me for the local kids you wouldn't believe their reactions some were so happy they would cry. They would literally beg us for help against some local thug who would go into villages and kill people if they didn't pay them. Leaving would just allow these people to be further enslaved to terrorists. My first tour we had to help protect schools because gasp they allowed girls to attend school.

People don't realize the change that's occurs when your there to support them. We helped were we could but later during Obama that help stopped US troops pulled back to FOBS and just waited to be attacked. Didn't take long for the terrorists to figure out to avoid is and knee they were free to do what they wanted.

One more thing Iran was supplying weapons to afganistan rebels and we're paid in opium. This is something not a lot of people knew.
edit on 8/22/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Willtell
With all the technology and military power how is it that the US doesn’t crush the Taliban?


Technology is an interesting thing, it works best when countering other technology around the same level of development. Since the Taliban has little in the way of technology, our tech doesn't do much. Lots of our advantages for example are in electronics warfare... something the terrorists completely blank. Air strikes don't matter much either, since they hide in caves and aren't building infrastructure.

The terrain blanks a lot of our advantage, we've also been traditionally weak to suicide attacks.

Lastly, is the economic difference. Every soldier killed or wounded costs us much more money than it costs them. This creates a financial imbalance that will eventually topple the military.

Assault forces don't do well against decentralized armies. They're great at taking fortified positions, but our enemies mostly don't use those against us.

I was doing some reading earlier and it seems that Trump is open to a diplomatic solution with the Taliban. We leave, they regain power, if they curtail terrorism. He only briefly touched on that in his speech, but it seems to be an option on the table. Of course, to make that happen we probably need to appoint an ambassador to Kabul at some point.


Excellent information, thank you!


All that you say convinces me that the only way to win is a massive force. I know that's not a panacea and would be challenging but that would I think finally win...massive numbers. But as of now the US wont go that way...



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Understood, and that's a valid point.

But you can't help build a nation AND fight at the same time.

Imagine how many troops on the ground it will take to do both of those things at the same time, and for how long.

Because after the war has ended (assuming the terrorists are finally beat) then and only then, can the real rebuilding begin.

So maybe 100,000 troops plus an additional 100,000+ from allied countries for what? Another 5 years ? 10 ? 20 ?

It's 16 years in now...



Ugh, what a nightmare of a disaster we've made for ourselves in the middle east.




edit on 22-8-2017 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Another point. The US knows how to fight a counterinsurgency war. They know this isn’t a traditional war. I think they just don’t want to expend the resources at this point.


Those massive groups of SS: Green Beret’s, Rangers, Seals, Seal Team 6, Marines, JASOC. Regular Army, Marines, Navy... and other special forces… And groups we probably don’t even know.

You’re telling me all these groups can’t beat that ragtag group of Taliban. I just don’t believe it



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: dragonridr

Understood, and that's a valid point.

But you can't help build a nation AND fight at the same time.

Imagine how many troops on the ground it will take to do both of those things at the same time, and for how long.

Because after the war has ended (assuming the terrorists are finally beat) then and only then, can the real rebuilding begin.

So maybe 100,000 troops plus an additional 100,000+ from allied countries for what? Another 5 years ? 10 ? 20 ?

It's 16 years in now...



Ugh, what a nightmare of disaster we've made for ourselves in the middle east.





It's their job to build a nation not ours. But what we can do is take out the threats which can allow them to rebuild. As threats were removed entire areas changed allowing them to feel secure and allowing them to create a new society. If we allowed AL Qaeda to take an area they immediately subjugated the locals. And worse my third tour do to rules of engagement we had to just sit there and watch it happen.under Obama we had to wait until attacked to take action. Even worse we had to wait until they bombed us to even open fire. We could see a guy on a motorcycle heading for us knowing he just blew through several check points. But we had to wait until he got close enough to kill us we literally had to run until he attacked hoping to God he wouldn't blow us up first. This is why I didn't re enlist I wasn't going to die because we could not shoot a terrorist.

If we get villages to feel safe and attack training areas instead of just watching them train to kill people would make a huge difference. What I can't say strongly enough is we allowed terrorists to retake afganistan. The war was over in 2001 we had won. Then well politicians started getting involved. And general bush and general Obama sucked.
edit on 8/22/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

If war is hell, guerrilla warfare is hell tenfold.

History has shown us that guerrilla warfare can carry on for decades and then some.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
And to anybody would believes fission weapons are a solution for success, they would be quite ineffective. The Taliban virtually have secret cave cities within those vast isolated stretches of mountains, they go very very deep. They would mostly survive as mutants all sick and #, but they will keep on fighting. The only effective targets in Afghanistan for a fission weapon is Kabul and a handful of other under developed urban centers. Some of them are already free and clear of the Taliban, so that won't help nothing.

Nope, this land will require a mass of robotized ground drones with stealth UAV surveillance. Russians are probably providing them with logistical mapping support of our forces.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



The war was over in 2001 we had won.


I disagree.

We haven't won a damn thing against these wackjobs, otherwise they wouldn't keep coming back and crawling out from under the woodwork.

How do you fight an enemy that vehemently believes they have nothing to lose ?

Us on the other hand ?

We have entire modern developed societies to lose.

Cities, economies, millions upon millions of civilians, infrastucture.... the list goes on and on.

We have everything to lose.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
This is a very strange war. The Taliban doesn’t have big countries behind them supposedly like N Vietnam did in Russia and China…




The country has borders with a pile of countries that don't like the US/NATO/the "West" very much. Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, a few of the other 'Stans. All would happily provide weapons and material support to the Taliban. I had friends tell me that while fighting in Helmund and Kandahar that they knew Pakistan and Iran were bringing weapons in and providing the routes for foreign terrorists to get into the country.

The Taliban had plenty of support from countries that were happy to see dead western soldiers all over the country.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:53 AM
link   
And do you know what makes the guerrilla warfare tactics of these (nothing to lose) terrorists even worse ?

They literally have the entire planet to hide in and conduct their under-the-radar strategies.

They can spread out quietly like rats blending into the environment anywhere and everywhere across the globe and pick us all off one by one by one.

Who we fight and run out of Afghanistan today, shows up in Mongolia the next day, France the day after that, Lithuania the day after that, Tahiti the day after that...



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
And do you know what makes the guerrilla warfare tactics of these (nothing to lose) terrorists even worse ?

They literally have the entire planet to hide in and conduct their under-the-radar strategies.

They can spread out quietly like rats blending into the environment anywhere and everywhere across the globe and pick us all off one by one by one.

Who we fight and run out of Afghanistan today, shows up in Mongolia the next day, France the day after that, Lithuania the day after that, Tahiti the day after that...







That's not entirely true. Terrorists need areas to train and need support which can be destroyed. As far as nothing to lose that just isn't true they have everything to lose the people in charge don't want to die. They don't care if someone under them does but they don't like to be targeted they want to be able to live in places like Pakistan with their familes and friends. Or hide in caves sending people to die but they get to go home and spend time with the wife and kids. However destroy their ability to attack and nor wanting to lose their power they will negotiate in an attempt to retain some of his power. If you truly let lose the power of the military results would be quick. My third tour was in the reserves I didn't want to go and could have gotten out of it. But decided because I had two tours all ready my unit needed me to help save their lives. Since I had more combat experience then most of my unit. BUT I think the main reason oddly was I remembered the pakistani from my first two tours. And I saw them suffer we went in destroyed the taliban. On 2001 they were running and no one wanted to be associated with them. What happened is the idea of nation building changed the rules. Then Obama went further and said they had to kill us first before we could kill them. In 2001 if the US just trained military and provided security and stopped trying to govern this would be over long ago. A military can't build a nation it's contrary to their training. And when you do things like that it leads to huge problems which gives the enemy a chance to return as your focus changes. Militany doesn't make great guards not what they do they kill the enemy. After 2001 that power was removed and it didn't take long for terrorists to figure that out.

If we kill terrorists and create sage areas they will build a society.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




That's not entirely true. Terrorists need areas to train and need support which can be destroyed.


the one thing afghanistan has over europe and north america is roads, the thing they need learn to drive on and use their newfangled weapon 'a car', someone obviously pointed out destroying roads in afghanistan immediately puts an end to the wahhabi terror threat.
wahhabi, something the taliban and even al qaeda don't like but, i'm sure we can change their minds.

its as if we need more wahhabi terrorists, well done trump.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
I say bring in 300,000 troops and get it done


Yeah cause. Troop surge worked so well in Iraq....



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:13 AM
link   
More Neocon/Neoliberal legislature "Make Change You Can Believe In Great Again"




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Annee

They beat communism...that's an ideology


They beat Nazism...that's an ideology



They beat nations, nations following ideology.

Communism cannot die, no ideology can.

Because even if you scrub every book, cut out tongues that utter words, destroy every monument and testament dedicated to an ideal and a school of thought... It'll be once more rediscovered.

It's inevitable, our history is full of eery repeats and "renaissance" and that includes ideology.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Nothing has changed with Afghanistan.

All the coalition did was drive them under ground or head elsewhere, it just so happens that this also made them better connected, it's easy to comprehend that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Many people hate the US... Most criminal organisations will deal in drugs too.

Another thing about that opium too, it's the livelihood of many Afghans, you keep burning their crops day in day out, then you might just get more people willing and inclined to be extreme.

US and coalition troops have never had it easy in Afghanistan. You can't keep burning their livelihood, you can't keep killing them. Not without offering them real replacement.

Us the public are partly to blame for this, we played hardball, the propaganda machine said no negotiations will be held with terrorist scum, we then demanded our troops be returned and tied the hands of another leader.

The taliban are scum, but they are/were scum that existed in nations and regions that had little to no government authority. Most were just members of their society, loosely associated with the grander entity that is the taliban.

How we're the yakuza defeated?

The answer is they weren't, they were marginalised and their necessity negated as much as possible. Drugs, prostitution and other aspects of organised crime still exists in Japan but it's controlled and highly frowned upon by their society.

Consider the Yakuza when considering the taliban.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Your post may have been tongue in cheek or you might be being sincere... Either way I happen to agree with it. We can show Afghanistan a greater way.

China fast approaches from the East, it's veins will stretch over many nations, they already do.

As an ideology, the west will keep losing whilst others provide reinforcements upon the real battlefield. A fight we all fight.

Betterment.

Provide Afghans with a better life, empower them to better themselves.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Annee

They beat communism...that's an ideology


They beat Nazism...that's an ideology



They didn't beat communism. There's communist countries today. What we did in the cold war was fight the SPREAD of Communism. Not try and defeat the actual ideology. Simultaneously, the USSR was fighting the SPREAD of Capitalism/Democracy.

The ideology of Nazism wasn't destroyed either, 9% of Americans identify with white supremacists, and we've had many rallies over the past two weeks promoting that very thing.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
All that you say convinces me that the only way to win is a massive force. I know that's not a panacea and would be challenging but that would I think finally win...massive numbers. But as of now the US wont go that way...


That could do it. But it would require a lot of people, a lot of time, and a lot of casualties on both sides.

It would do some good in the world when it's accomplished, but I think the counter argument to that is that you have to consider the resources and what good could be done in the world if those resources were used elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
So maybe 100,000 troops plus an additional 100,000+ from allied countries for what? Another 5 years ? 10 ? 20 ?

It's 16 years in now...


If it follows the Iraq timetable, probably 20 years. We're 16 years into Afghanistan but effectively starting over at day 1. So if things go well, we would be looking at 2040. More likely 2050.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Annee

They beat communism...that's an ideology


They beat Nazism...that's an ideology



They didn't beat communism. There's communist countries today. What we did in the cold war was fight the SPREAD of Communism. Not try and defeat the actual ideology. Simultaneously, the USSR was fighting the SPREAD of Capitalism/Democracy.

The ideology of Nazism wasn't destroyed either, 9% of Americans identify with white supremacists, and we've had many rallies over the past two weeks promoting that very thing.

You’re not going to totally destroy any ideology.

The Japanese is another example that even if you can’t totally destroy an ideology you can defang it and prevent what the Nazis, Japanese imperial empire and communist threatened to do, and that is take over the world.

The jihadists can also eventually be defanged though the catering to Saudi will make that harder


Also, imo, the west in this case is using jihadism through false flags, so this is a special case…




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join