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.


U.S. Tries New Tack Against Taliban

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
reply to post by spy66

What a wonderful comment, and point you made.

Trade for something that is real. Once Americans realize their sons and daughters are fighting and dying for something not tradeable, then the poop really will hit the fan. But there is something tradeable, and flourishing with us being there..........hmmmmmmm, but it isn't paper money.

"Your'e outa the woods, you're outa the dark, you're outa the night"

The "Wizard of Oz," anyone, while the characters trounce in a poppy field?

Tell a father or a mother who's lost a child to this crap, about opium fields, and the invisible dollars we don't see, what it is all about, then the poop will really hit the fan.

And what the hell kinda topic is the crap from a news source? Tack? Don't they mean, TACT?

To tell you the truth i was very surprised of what the guy did. My first thought was. Don't you know what that 50 dollar bill is worth. A fifty dollar bill in Afghanistan was a lot of money in 98.

The Odd thing is there was nowhere I could spend that 50 dollar bill in the mountains. There was no shops, stores or even a market. Not even in the Villages we went through.

There was not a Village anywhere in the mountains that had electricity or light. Some Villages had big white satellite dishes on their roofs. But thy where connected to nothing.

They guy that threw away the fifty. All i had to do was to be his friend. He took his left hand and put it on the left side of his chest. As a sign of friendship. When i did the same he picked up my Backpack and started to walk. He took me to the trial i was looking for. When we got to the trail. He pointed to the direction i was to walk. When i left him i felt bad for not being able to pay for the help he had done to get me on the right trail.

But as we parted he looked happy. Maybe because i showed gratitude for the help he had given, by being his friend. That was the award he needed.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:50 AM
reply to post by spy66

Well, that is brilliant, actually. What it symbolizes to me, is that you were a person in need, and this person helped you, without a real reward expected. How many people live this in the western world?

Also, beautifully, it shows how deeds are worked out and rewarded in harmony, and not by something that can be used as toilet paper.

The world lost it, in my opinion, when people started trading things of no value, and people accepted it, instead of barter.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:32 AM
This tactic is nothing new, the countries such as India which suffer from terrorism even before US use this method. It has worked many times. You isolate the hardcore extremist from the moderate people so you can concentrate on them. You don't go around fighting 100k people when you have an option to fight 40k.

USA tried fighting 100k people with it's "Shock n Awe" tactic and look where it has lead USA.

You need to realise, not all who are in Taliban are hardcore religious extremist. Many of them are fighting due to lack of jobs, money and simply because they are forced into it. If you give them a better choice and security they would most likely take it.

In fact to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan this step is in a correct direction. The lesser the enemy the sooner the job completed.

"Better late than never."

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by Blanca Rose

How would you interfere inasomuchas, your real neighbors, not some abroad? What you suggest, is the loss of lives, to interfere with local warloards business? How is this place, the business of the rest of the world? What are these people fighing for, that has them, who share the same space fighting for? Is it Gold? Is it Oil? Hmmm, what makes this country the most money?

I probably agree most that we should fight a no holds barred war, use all our resources, beat the bad guys and get out. I'd hire a Rumsfeldt to oversee and take care of business. But the Taliban are less visible now and rarely present a clear target. The game has changed and apparently so have the strategy and tactics.

Afghanistan was under the power and control of the USSR till it pulled out and left a political vacuum filled by the Taliban and the Northern War lords. Afghanistan became the business of the US as a result of 911 which centered the world's attention on the region. Even Obama saw it necessary for the US to stay involved till the job was done (whatever that meant). Afghanistan was seen by the people of the US as the source of the problem.We all know how the US solves problems like this, we take care of business and war is the means.

What the US and the West wants is stability in the region with no powerful Islamic nation like a (nuclear) Iran controling or no Islamic political force like al-Queda prevailing to do its mischief and terrorism. A Karsia that is more effective and less corrupt would be ideal, even Obama agrees!

It is an earthquake now but the region will cool down eventually and the world will go on to larger concerns like a revitalized Russia or maybe China.

But for now it's Afghanistan.

[edit on 29/11/09 by plumranch]

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by plumranch

It appears the US is using the same tactic in Afghanistan that worked in Iraq. !) Troup surge 2) Turn the insurgents against al-qaeda.

It didn’t work in Iraq as sectarian violence is at higher levels than at any previous point and only continuing to worsen.

What has changed in Iraq that has reduced American body count which to a certain understandable degree is the only things most Americans use as a gauge of success or failure is that American troops are now more or less confined to their bases most of the time except the predawn hours between midnight and when the sun comes up.

Which one has to see the humor of as we basically have a vampire’s role roaming the streets in the wee hours of the night looking for blood?

Hundreds of Iraqis continue to die each week in sectarian violence in the vacuum left by a weak, fractured and unpopular government having replaced a strong authoritarian regime that was also unpopular but kept disparate factions from warring amongst them selves by providing a stronger common enemy that more greatly threatened the sectarian factions.

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless murderous tyrant and despot that the world could well do without but he was also someone who developed a formula of ruling over a number of disparate groups who were geographically bound together when the British redrew the Middle Eastern maps.

The United States on the other hand had a plan for eliminating him and his dictatorship but no plan for the peaceful governance of Iraq in the aftermath.

Those Iraqis who so benefit and profit in forming a government to our liking that we would prop up militarily for them likewise had no sound plan for running Iraq beyond their own individual sectarian agendas that would work for them and their sect but not well for all of Iraq.

Iraq today is a place as a result of this that is overrun with violence and chaos and injustice as a weak unpopular central government often with its own limited sectarian agenda has not and likely will not be able to restore order to Iraq.

Iraq is not safer or more prosperous for Iraqi citizens today than it was before the invasion except for the fact that there are no longer punitive sanctions that limit the economic growth and there are economic opportunities many of which are provided at the expense of the American taxpayer to rebuild and revitalize the infrastructure we destroyed through two wars and a decade of debilitating sanctions.

In many regards Iraq is less safe for the average Iraqi than before the invasion. Before the invasion they simply had to worry about offending Saddam or the Baath Party. Today they have to worry about a whole host of viral threats from the new Government, to the U.S. Soldiers, to the various sects to Al Qaeda that also looks to profit off of the vacuum.

As despicable as Saddam Hussein was the saying if you build it they shall come rings somewhat true. The British for political purposes of their own lumped a lot of people together in a nation that should likely have nations of their own and not be trying to share one with so many other ethnic and religious groups that are diametrically opposed to one another. Saddam’s brutal regime was a byproduct of that as likely being the only kind of system that would keep such divided people from tearing each other’s throats out.

All the surge did was to secure temporarily a larger portion of a generally unsecured and insecure nation long enough to allow it’s own government to put enough troops of its own on the streets to for U.S. Troops to begin a retreat in a semi-secure environment.

The American body count has gone down with the frequency of American patrols not as a result of the surge working and not as a result of Iraq being safer and more secure.

Americans including our own government seem to have been totally ignorant of the political makeup and reality on the ground before the invasion and the American public is just as ignorant of it today as American Body Count not Iraqi Body Count is used as the American Standard for gauging success.

Americans are just as ignorant of the political makeup and reality on the ground in Afghanistan and no amount of foreign troops no matter how well equipped or trained or how wide their rules of engagement are is going to lead to a general acceptance of Afghanis of the Karzai Government that is rife with corruption, deeply involved in the narcotics trade and runs a small and shrinking portion of the nation through a similar form of nepotism and sectarian favoritism as the puppet regime in Iraq does.

The truth is that who loves these new governments are Americans and Europeans who imagine that the people who live there will be better off for them and love them as well in time.

Nothing could be further from the truth as within a relatively short period of us pulling out of Iraq the government will fall and the nation degrade into full blown civil war and the same holds true in Afghanistan.

The Taliban was in charge at the time of our invasion but was battling two other powerful entities for control and would have likely fallen in due course had we left well enough alone.

The only thing our persecution of the Taliban has done is make it more appealing to Afghanis.

Western values might be great for Westerners and some Easterners might even find greater value in them than there own but ramming them down people’s throats with the barrel of a gun is not exactly the way to convince people who don’t see value in them to begin with to start.

The War in Afghanistan the so called War on Terror is all about exploiting a tiny, impoverished nation and people for their natural resources and to enrich the military industrial complex. The only thing another surge of troops is going to do is just make it easier for that exploitation to continue and make the military industrial complex richer.

Simply put no people who wish not to be conquered by foreign interlopers ever have been. They will fight on forever for their own way of life and beliefs no matter how good or bad that way of life and beliefs are for one simple reason and that is that is what they believe. Had the believed differently they would have turned their nation into a gigantic strip mall already with 7-Elevens and McDonalds from one end to the other.

These foolish wars are bankrupting America to the point we might never economically recover and stripping us of our own rights and morality in a way that does not serve America well. If these wars aren’t serving Iraqis or Afghanis or Americans well why the heck are we continuing to fight them and to what end?

Vanity, ego and pride are far deadlier things when not checked than any terrorist’s weapon.

[edit on 29/11/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Star for you mate and I agree with everything you have said, it's very true except these few things:

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless murderous tyrant and despot that the world could well do without

Yes he was ruthless and may have been responsible for murder of people but he also had a good side of him which wanted nothing more than safe and goodwill for Iraq and Iraqi's. The MSM played a major role in demonising him in pre-Iraq war invasion. You should sometimes research about the person he really was and the small and little deeds he did for his people.

The only thing another surge of troops is going to do is just make it easier for that exploitation to continue and make the military industrial complex richer.

No I do not agree, the troop surge is NOW required because USA has obligation towards Iraq and Afghanistan to restore it back as it was and undo the damage caused by Bush regime.

These foolish wars are bankrupting America to the point we might never economically recover and stripping us of our own rights and morality in a way that does not serve America well. If these wars aren’t serving Iraqis or Afghanis or Americans well why the heck are we continuing to fight them and to what end?

I agree these wars are taking the toll on the economy and American citizens but again now USA has "obligation" to restore it back and that is what currently Obama is trying to do. He is doing what should have been done in first place, separate the hardcore the same time increase troop and concentrate on only the "hardcore extremist".

This plan did not work in Iraq because of the govt. Bush has installed there and in Afghanistan. Do not forget these govt. are now known as "democratically elected govt" allover the world so removing them would be a grave mistake by USA/UK etc so Obama has no choice but "have" to work with them to restore whatever he can try too.

If Obama is successful in removing the hardcore extremist in majority then in better environment people would not be atleast afraid to vote for their own choice of govt. Now under the guise of hardcore extremist the corrupt govt. terrorise people and manipulate the votes. But once the "guise/veil" is taken off they won;t be as much successful in getting elected again and again.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The new tactics do not mention sectarian violence. The inference was that a strategy similar but not necessarily the same as Iraq would follow.

My assessment of the Afghanistan strategy was that the US wins when Arab factors fight between themselves (as they always have) and not against the West.

I was wondering if you had an overall solution for Afghanistan favorable to the West?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

Then what the hell happened in Iraq? Where are all those attacks by those insurgents? Were they just doing it for the money? Or were they not really that religious? Or perhaps it was all CIA and there was never an insurgency but an excuse to keep American troops in Iraq.

Wouldn't surprise me about Afghanistan either, especially considering how the Taliban use bribes on warlords to win, perhaps we are learning from the Taliban.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The new tactics do not mention sectarian violence. The inference was that a strategy similar but not necessarily the same as Iraq would follow.

My assessment of the Afghanistan strategy was that the US wins when Arab factors fight between themselves (as they always have) and not against the West.

I was wondering if you had an overall solution for Afghanistan favorable to the West?

The Afghanis have never been that way in the presence of foreign invaders or occupiers. They simply put their own differences aside which have always been there and always will be there long enough to work together or at least not against one another in getting those forces out of the picture so they can go back to their own intertribal warfare undisturbed.

This is actually Afghanistan’s true form of government and how each individual faction maintains its own very tribal and regional ways. They whittle away at one another in typically feudal ways as an alternative to a centralized government that can dictate to all of them. As soon as one tribal influence gains enough strength it can attempt to establish a central authority they attack it. The Taliban might have lasted another year, year and a half in control of a Central Government.

Then a new one would have taken its place for 3 to 5 years until another tribal, regional group supplanted it. That’s how they are.

The West’s problem is not a tactical one it’s one of greed. They covet the resources of one of the last untamed placed on the planet and want to attach it to the grid and rape it in the process of those resources and ensure a lion’s share of the wealth from them.

Our forces basically are security guards for a transnational oil pipeline built for Royal Dutch Shell to keep Russia from controlling or profiting off the flow of oil out of Kazakhstan and to guard Chinese mining operations of huge copper deposits the Chinese purchased the right to mine from the Karzai Government and for the CIA and DEA to ensure and manage the huge flow of Afghani Opium and Heroin to limit the power and profits of Golden Triangle Asian producers and the Chinese Triads portion of that lucrative market out of Hong Kong.

As long as we have these goals and commitments we will never leave Afghanistan and will attempt a slow war of attrition aimed at eliminating entire generations of tribal elements while trying to seed a new national status quo that if the American people can stomach the cost in blood and dollars will take 25 to 40 years to reshape a nation cast in our own inherently corrupt image versus the long standing inherently corrupt image.

The thinking behind the whole war on terror is to use terror on entire nations and populations in an ongoing role to terrorize them out of their own customs, traditions and perspectives to instill in them ours using a combination of extermination, education, and policing to bind them to our control grid.

The War on Terror doesn’t have traditional terrain goals of defeating a dangerous belligerent force and allowing the people to then select a new government that reflects their own culture, thinking and ways minus a belligerent force bent on foreign conquest.

The War on Terror is much more about genocide and reeducation of targeted nations and robbing them of their natural resources as an ongoing enterprise.

As long as those are the West’s goals and those truly are the West’s goals they are employing the right strategy to achieve them. The problem is that the Western Governments can’t actually openly declare that those are the goals to their own populaces let alone the world at large. Instead they try to play off the exceedingly slow and costly pace of that endeavor as simply bad strategy that they are working on correcting. Eight years into the war they still have people hoodwinked with that and how could they not as in reality Afghanistan is a small poor under developed nation and we practically single handedly defeat the Nazis in Europe the combined Fascist Forces in Italy and Africa and the Japanese in the Pacific in under 5! So yeah it’s easy to imagine we are still there because of bad strategy when they keep selling the new plans that keep extending out based as strategy corrections.

What also makes sense though too is what is really happening which is a slow murderous war and rape of attrition to stamp out an entire culture and time honored traditions and ways of life.

It’s a very ugly picture when you get the picture and as a result it’s an easy sale for any prettier one the government offers up.

Their strategy is in fact working fine for their true goals and purposes.

It really is just about will the people of the West keep supporting it as it becomes more and more apparent what the goals and purposes really are? Or will we even have a choice in our own nations that are becoming increasingly authoritarian police states in their own rights?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:19 AM
Guy on CNN (Brig. General) says that America has to wake up to the fact that it will be 5-10 years before we can get out of there.

Wow... some crazy stuff...

[edit on 30-11-2009 by HunkaHunka]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by spy66
You dont even have to travel to Afghanistan to see that money is of no interest to people. In the mountains of Morocco i encountered the same thing. Paper money had no value. Only usable items had a value.

It is the same anywhere in the world, including North Amerika. Survival is much more important than paper money. Afghans have been living off the land forever, does NATO really think they can really win over idealism with cash? How sad this world is.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in