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.

 

"West will be defeated by Taliban": Ex ISI Chief

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

"West will be defeated by Taliban": Ex ISI Chief


www.informationclearinghouse.info

West will never beat Taliban, Rudd warned

By Matt Wade Herald Correspondent in Islamabad and agencies

30/01/08 "SMH" -- - A FORMER head of Pakistan's military intelligence says Australia's troop deployment in Afghanistan is doomed to failure and has urged the Government to withdraw its forces as quickly as possible.

Hamid Gul, the retired general who was the director-general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate when it supported Afghan militias against the Soviet occupation of their country, believes Western troops will be forced to leave Afghanistan by the end of next year.

"There comes a time in every war when the scales start tilting," Mr Gul said. "I think the foreign presence in Afghanistan is at a tipping point now. Even if they are able to stretch it out, next year will be the last campaign year of the occupying forces. Then they will go - they will have to go."

Mr Gul said it was not "wise" for Australia to maintain its troop commitment. "Of course it's very difficult to say no to America, but [Australia should] find a way out like Japan … and many others."

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Oh boy...This will be sure to inspire some debate on both sides of the coin.

I don't know where I sit on the afghanistan fence...I do think the highest concentration of taliban are concentrated there, and they need to have the fight taken to them. But the problem is, it's almost the same type of jungle warfare as vietnam. It's very difficult to fight an enemy who doesn't directly engage, but hides, and ambushes, and disguises itself constantly. It makes a clear cut victory a really difficult objective IMHO.

Now, I would like to get peoples thoughts on this from BOTH sides, but people, PLEASE keep the topic on the ISSUE, and not on each other!

www.informationclearinghouse.info
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
The situation in Afghanistan may well prove more difficult that Iraq, in the long run. The Soviets were hampered for years in their efforts to overcome the rebels (and future Taliban regime). Of course, the rebels were well funded and supplied by the U.S.

The key to lasting peace in the region may well lie along the Pakistani border. As long as that border remains insecure, insurgents, money, guns and other supplies will continue to fuel the Taliban efforts.

Pro Western forces are insufficient to successfully patrol the border with Pakistan and the current Pakistani regime is unwilling to do its part in stopping the flow of insurgents.

Unless the Pakistani government can be convinced to step up its border security (something in the current climate which may be political suicide), then I would expect to see a US-led surge, similar to that used in Iraq.

The longer the fighting goes on, the more nations will feel the need to withdraw troops. But I do not see a US withdraw any time in the near future, certainly not by the end of 2009. Not until new Afghani elections are held and a majority government installed, will the US consider reducing its presence in the region.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Well, a few weeks back a report came out that we (the western coalition in Afghanistan) must have a minimal off twice as many soldiers then there are today to defeat the Taliban.

We are 40.000 men strong now currently in Afghanistan but the number off troops needed to defeat the Taliban would be 80.000 at the minimal, so i am not suprised that we are going to lose against the Taliban.

And infact, we ARE going to lose because it is already proven that the NATO nations are NOT going to send more people over there...
The Dutch in Afghanistan enlengthend the mission for another two years but with a slight reduction in manpower. To fill up a gap off 400 men, we needed to litteraly sufocate the living crap out off our colleague NATO nations before they handed out soldiers...

What we got was 300/350 men. Target was 400... So if NATO cant even reach the goal off 400 men extra, how the *&%$ are we going to reach an additional off 40.000 to get the job done???

No, we cant win. The taliban already won and some off them are propably already starting a feast to celebrate their victory...

Osama bin Laden as president off a renewd Taliban Afghanistan is a scenario that comes closer day by day by day...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
yeah we couldn't possibly beat the taliban... because we need them to inspire fear in our populations. even if the taliban was defeated they would live on in the western media.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by tetragrammation]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I can't quite remember why coalition forces were in Afghanistan anyway. Was it something to do with a bogeyman called bin laden? Seems so hazy now... must be all that opium kickin in.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Oh, I don't know about that. It's kinda screwed up there, but a few things are going right.

A key U.S. installation was just finished along the Afghan/Pak border, and bada bing--- within days al-Libi is killed.

I mean, a lot needs to change. The PTB still have the idea that they can purchase tribal loyalty there, and it works to an extent, but its far from perfect.

They are doing some good Psyop there too. Somebody published that Baitullah was fired by Omar, and that Dulladah? was fired, and mysteriously published cell phone numbers of one of the commanders. Thats causing the Taliban some internal breakups.

They are working on "Awakening" councils like in Iraq, and the one that just got started in Pak.

Thats just a quick synopsis.
So, theres lots to be done, but it ain't all bad either.

[edit] Forgot to mention that I wouldn't trust Hamid Gul as far as I could throw the little critter.


[edit on 1/31/08 by makeitso]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Let's not forget that the Taliban is largely a creation of the ISI...

I think this is simply a guy rooting for the home team.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I'm not suprise by peoples comments. People always want quick easy wars. Not slow that last for years. Remember that Bush 41st try to assured the American people about the war in Gulf that it would be quick. And it was. Nowadays we are going to be involved in wars that tend to be stretched to many years that Americans don't seem to conceive of. Only about 500 American troops have been killed and we now got this situation. Who knows what Americans want now. Impose a law that the U.S. govt. must win wars within 90 days?
Can't last no longer than that? U.S. military must not lose no more than 1,000 troops in a war? What the hell?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The fact they hide ammongst civillians and use hit n run tactics I dont even think one should be concerned with beating them but just supressing their ideals as backwards as they are. The Taliban can also credit its birth to CIA involvment in the Russian invasion of Afganistan so I dont think the US is to keen on destroying their tool for fear either as others have mentoined. IMO they are not even to be respected as a conventional army because they fight like cowards and they know if they expose their positions they will be killed so all they can do is cause terror and as much as I hate the US's foreign policy I hate Islamofacists even more.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Are we supposed to stop helping the Freedom Fighters now that the Soviet Union is dissolved? I met some of those guys. They were the most ignorant people I have ever met. We call them Tali ban now? Tali ban me bannana.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
There wouldn't even be a Taliban now had we let the military finish the job instead of diverting all our resources to an invasion of Iraq - a country that hadn't attacked us.

If we had spent even a tiny fraction of what we're spending in Iraq rebuilding Afghanistan, the Taliban would be extinct.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Doesn't freaking matter. Where do you think the Taliban originated from? Thats right Pakistan, which is next door. A place to hide where American troops can't get to. So it doesn't matter if Iraq is diverting manpower and resources, the Taliban will live as long as Pakistan is a sanctuary. Even with a million troops, not one can step a foot across the line.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
You must have missed my first post in the thread:



Let's not forget that the Taliban is largely a creation of the ISI...


However the Taliban no longer serve the Pakistani government's purposes (I believe they were originally supported to counter Iranian influence), I have my doubts if they are getting any official support these days.

Unofficial support from tribesmen in Wazaristan (IE: Pakistan's hicks), no doubt.

And some backdoor support from sympathetic Pakistani officials is also likely, but they're risking their hides in doing so.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I can't quite remember why coalition forces were in Afghanistan anyway. Was it something to do with a bogeyman called bin laden? Seems so hazy now... must be all that opium kickin in.

It was because of control of heroin production.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join