How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. The solution. (continued)

The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces -

  • a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. (dark green)


  • a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans, funded by the US and other NATO counties and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. (light green)


So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally.

Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans.

So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission.


This concludes my OP!
edit on 18-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Win the war on Terror? Here's a question for you.. How do we beat the terrorists we are openly funding and weaponising in Syria?



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
This comes from friends who have served over there... To win a "war" like this you don't need to drop more bombs you have to educate people. They said that the majority of people they meet in Iraq and Afghanistan were very decent people. They wanted the same things anyone wants. The problem they encountered was that decent people were being severely manipulated and corrupted by terror groups.

Religious zealots would simply lie and brainwash people into be willing to kill themselves or convince their sons to for a cause they really didn't believe in. When your world is as small as these peoples are its easy to Be manipulated because you have no frame of reference.

It's not going to happen in 10 years it's going to take generations. Killing more peole and dropping bombs on families is just reinforcing what these terror groups are trying to achieve.
edit on 18-4-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
12 years of slaughtering the innocents, dehumanizing the local populace, destructions of two ancient civilisations 15000 km away from your borders and all you can come up with is these 2 pages of fictional diagrams and nonsenses..? Then damn and shame to all those generals and west point or military academies educated officers!

I tell you what…

Move out in peace, before they move you in shame.

Never forget the Vietnam.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 



Religious zealots would simply lie and brainwash people into be willing to kill themselves or convince their sons to for a cause they really didn't believe in.


This cartoon is spot on...

edit on 19-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
This BBC infographics video is also appropriate for this thread.



Might be slightly outdated, but you get the point.
edit on 19-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


US/NATOs success depends on their relations with Pakistan.

Drone bombing all those civilians and having them shut supply routes isn't exactly a bright plan.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Why are we in Afghanistan again



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
There is only one way to win such a war.

Kill all the men who show any sign of aggression, impregnate the women, and raise a new generation.

That's the way they did it way back then.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Wow i mean no offense to you warfare strategist mind, but sadly u have no idea of having a war on your home front and the casualties that come along with it. Untill you experience that, all you do is being ignorant about others lives.

Do you know the difference between a Pakistani and a Taliban? what about different between a Afghani and a Pakistani?


All i see is a recipe to get more oil for the price of some people you don't care about.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


That's disgusting but it happened and it will happen to many other countries. That's part of how new empires are born and fall.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


indeed, ethnic cleansing and rape has a splendid record in the ending of the causes of war



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


There is no war on terror. Have you not figured that out yet? There is only jackboot bullying and aggression by the fascist usa and its cronies. At the behest a globalist agenda to milk resources and gain geopolitical clout.
If you cant see that you are blind my friend. NO ONE has ever conquered the afghans, and no one will. We are getting our asses handed to us over there, while we murder the civilian population. Its a tragic farce.

edit on 19-4-2013 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



There is only one way to win such a war.
Kill all the men who show any sign of aggression, impregnate the women, and raise a new generation.
That's the way they did it way back then.


Well, a lot of people have a problem with "them" doing as it was done way back then.

If your approach is going to be barbaric, then you are on the same level as "them".

edit on 19-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
irrelefant :
you just cant win.... ask Russia....



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
trouble is
nato is backing alciaduh

Al Qaeda?

Well NATO is supposed to be fighting Al Qaeda, not backing them.
US leads NATO and in 2011 they killed the Al Qaeda leader Bin Laden, right?


Originally posted by Danbones
and the taliban

NATO was supposed to be fighting the Taliban, not backing them, but now the US is in favour of "peace talks" with the Taliban, though there is still some fighting the Taliban going on I believe. It's not really full "backing" as such, is it?


Originally posted by Danbones
and they use them to destabilize and destroy legitimate governments

Well President Reagan's US administration supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Was the Soviet backed government of Afghanistan, "legitimate"? Many would doubt that.

I suppose you could argue that the Taliban was similar to the Majahideen but the Taliban was supported by Pakistan mostly, not by the US.

If you remember the US invaded Afghanistan to kick the Taliban out of government.


Originally posted by Danbones
( like the way the US installed Pol Pot


This is what Wikipedia says to that idea


Wikipedia: Pol Pot

Kaing Guek Eav has claimed that US support for the Lon Nol coup contributed to the Khmer Rouge's rise to power.[24] However diplomat Timothy M. Carney disagreed, asserting that Pol Pot won the war due to support from Sihanouk, massive supplies of military aid from North Vietnam, government corruption, the cut-off of U.S. air support after Watergate, and the determination of the Cambodian Communists.[25] Despite Sihanouk's claims, there is no evidence of direct American involvement in the coup.



Originally posted by Danbones
and the Shaw

Do you mean "The Shah of Iran"? Oh yes, he was installed via a coup with the help of the CIA/MI6 under Eisenhower and Churchill in 1953 I think it was. That was a very stupid move strategically which really undermined our democratic allies in Iran and put the Islamists in the driving seat of political change which in turn led to the Islamic revolution and all the blowback against Western interests since then. Installing the Shah of Iran must be the dumbest of Western dumb moves in the 20th Century.


Originally posted by Danbones
and Saddam etc )

No Saddam rose to power via being a Iraq Baath party thug.


Originally posted by Danbones
till the US stops installing Terrorists it will never stop

Well the US needs to up its game, fight it anti-terror wars more strategically, more thoughtfully, if it wants to win the war on terror.
edit on 19-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


Those are the ways that wars are won. They might not end the causes for war, in this case a conflict between cultures and beliefs, but those brutal tactics are the way to end wars. Muhammad used those techniques back in the day to spread Islam in the first place. Muslims are using these same techniques as they grind their way into Africa.

It is not civilized, but wars are not supposed to be civilized.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cleverhans
How about the US and western allies mind their own business by staying out of there and not provoking their anger in the first place?

The thing is, the US and western allies weren't in there, in Afghanistan, but 9/11 happened and that's where Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda had based themselves and that's why they invaded, to get those who did 9/11.

The US was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, after the first gulf war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and that was making some Saudis nervous and maybe that's why they supported Bin Laden attacking the US on 9/11 and then making a big show of being based in Afghanistan precisely to lure the US in there to Afghanistan like a bull charging a red rag and out of Saudi Arabia, because Saudis much preferred the US to be in Afghanistan where the mountainous terrain favours the locals' light infantry and guerrilla warfare rather than the US's heavy armour?

The Saudis knew they could never beat the US armoured divisions on the sands of Arabia but quite fancied the idea of paying Afghans and Pakistanis to fight a guerrilla war in the Afghan / Pakistan mountains against the US and they had plenty of oil money to spend so why not?

The thing is the Kuwaiti royals were kicked out of Kuwait by Saddam and just about every other Arab country was delighted to see the US coming in to Saudi Arabia in the first place to launch gulf war 1 to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

Plus there was this idea called "The Carter Doctrine" which says that the US is in the gulf region to protect its oil supplies and won't let the Soviets (or whoever else comes after them maybe) get hegemony in the gulf region in case it gets its oil supplies cut off.

So I think the US and allies have a fleet based in Bahrain and they are in the gulf region there to stay, though not necessarily in Afghanistan for much longer.
edit on 19-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


The Middle East is running out of the light sweet, and when their oil production drops to the point of irrelevancy, the US will probably end their presence there.

However, I don't think Islam will ever be at peace with the rest of the world.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by homeslice
Yea, lets stop the "war on terror"

No, let's win the war on terror. Just "stopping" without saying who wins might be very bad for you if you lose and the terrorists terrorise you a whole lot more than you'd like.


Originally posted by homeslice
(which is such a ridiculous term by the way)

A lot of people don't like the slogan "war on terror". I like it because it makes clear that we are making war on the terrorists and those states which sponsor terrorists and we are not waging war on the peaceful people of any country.


Originally posted by homeslice
by bombing and terrorizing half the world.

That's not my plan.

My plan is not to win a "war on half-the-world" but to win the "war on terror".


Originally posted by homeslice
Good plan.
edit on 18-4-2013 by homeslice because: (no reason given)

My plan is a good plan yes because it is a plan to win the war on terrorists who are waging war on us.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join