Meanwhile in Afghanistan

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
Well, so what if Iraq is a bust.
I mean there's still Afghanistan right?

Fighting a strengthening Taleban
By Alastair Leithead
BBC News, Afghanistan

Taleban fighters are able to attack, then melt away into communities Southern Afghanistan was the birthplace of the Taleban and over the past few months it seems the remnants of the former government are still determined to fight.

The attacks have taken the form of confrontations, like that seen in Helmand and Kandahar over the last 24 hours; suicide attacks - there were two on Thursday - or roadside bombs targeting military convoys.

There is no doubt the strength of the insurgents has been increasing and the thousands of British and international troops moving into the south of the country will have their hands full.

Just over the Pakistan border, north of Quetta and in Miram Shah - in fact throughout the border tribal belt beyond the control of any government - the Taleban and al-Qaeda have been growing in strength.

They move with impunity across the border into Afghanistan and have cells throughout the south and east of the country.

The 2001 war was designed to destroy al-Qaeda and drive out the Taleban, but they were driven only as far as Pakistan. They are now returning and destabilising an already dangerous and lawless part of Afghanistan.

'Floating voters'

The Taleban fighters are still feared in villages across wide swathes of the country.

Even if they are not supported they are tolerated, and by attacking and then melting back into the population, they are a difficult enemy to fight for the coalition and Nato forces.

The British know they have a challenge on their hands in order to help bring security to a part of the country which has been out of government control since the war.

The way one high-level British commander described it was "trying to win the support of the floating voters", those who want to see stability and will support whichever side seems to be in the best position to provide it.

With opium poppy crops being eradicated and with little sign of development coming from the central government, the suggestion is that rural people could side with the insurgents.

But the Nato-led forces, which will be taking control of the southern region in the coming weeks, believe the extra troops will bring greater security, allowing reconstruction teams to move straight in behind them and provide the help and development people want.

There is great opportunity, but if the Taleban and other insurgents prevent the security situation from improving, Nato and the coalition's job becomes so much more difficult.

And then there is the issue of commitment.

Iraq factor

At the moment the Canadians, the British, the Dutch, and of course the Americans, are highly committed in terms of force numbers and the job in hand.

But the Canadian parliament only just approved an extension to their mission beyond next year - by the tiniest of majorities.

The rise in attacks come as Nato boosts its troops in the country
The deaths of nine nationals already this year - including the first female soldier to die in combat since the end of World War II - has shaken the resolve at home.

If the casualty figures for Canadian, or other international forces, continues to rise, then individual countries may face tough decisions.

It is a long journey and the promises have been made, but it can be argued that had Iraq not come along so soon after the invasion of Afghanistan, the country would be far more stable and better off now.

And if thousands of troops had moved into the south two years ago, would they be facing as tough an enemy as it appears they will be taking on today?
Click to expand...


[/quote]
 
This is like Vietnam all over again, guerilla wars like this one can't be 'won'... in order to be able to efficiently fight the talebans they need the support of the population and the only way they can obtain that support is by stabilizing the area and developing it at least a bit wich they can't do without managing to hold the talebans at bay... and thus you have a nice little vicious circle that is almost impossible to break...
There is great opportunity, but if the Taleban and other insurgents prevent the security situation from improving, Nato and the coalition's job becomes so much more difficult.
Click to expand...
That's funny, if the talebans are good at something it's creating chaos and spreading fear.
 
I just learned we're (Poland) sending commandos there, and quote an army Colonel, "to kill, not dig trenches". They were there in 2001, now they're at it again.

Poor Taliban. I'm the first to talk shit about our regular army, but certainly wouldn't want GROM rangers riding my ass...

I wonder if anyone tags along?
 
We're hearing quite a lot about Afghanistan in the news over hear, especially since it seems to us (Mr BBC says so) that NATO have just sent Britain in with practically nobody to help us and no one listens when we ask for help (of course my view on that is prolly biased due to the fact I'm a Brit). Everyone got pissed after one of our RAF planes fell out the sky and killed fourteen servicemen (largest at anyone time so far in Afghanistan for the Brits, IIRC). On the plus side all this has basically assured everyone not to vote Labour. :)
 
Dude101 said:
It makes me upset that our so called Allies are not there for us, we were the first to step up for ww2. Its these liberal goverments they like to bury their heads in the sand. Alot of it is dirty politics i.e. blame the yanks for their own problems, so there people dont support sending troops.
Click to expand...
Or they are smart enough to know that their allies are getting into the war that they are unable win.
 
Dude101 said:
It makes me upset that our so called Allies are not there for us, we were the first to step up for ww2. Its these liberal goverments they like to bury their heads in the sand.
Click to expand...

Dude. It took you guys two days to even declare war on Germany after the first WWII shots were fired, not to mention two years before that to realize Hitler was a threat.



So get a clue.
 
Dude101 said:
The liberal pacifiers gave away parts of europe to pacify the nazis, because liberals like to take for granted others freedom, when theirs is not at threat.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that there were any liberal governments in pre-WWII Europe...
 
I wouldn't call failure to defend other people's freedom and indepence very liberal.

Anyway, the problem with present conflict is that the coalition is falling apart due to the incompetence of it's leader. People aren't very happy to fight alongside someone who is (or appears to be) an incompetent liar.
 
If you know your interpretation is not necessarily the truth, then please get your facts...

st019.jpg


Because for now, your facts are...

images


Poland got fucked in the butt big time by our western "allies". Thank you very much for NOT giving our veterans combatant rights, so that, for example, gen. Stanisław Maczek, a commander who did not lose a battle in the II World War, had to work as a bartender for the remainder of his life. All because the G. B. rulers denied him veteran rights and benefits.
 
This is like Vietnam all over again, guerilla wars like this one can't be 'won'... in order to be able to efficiently fight the talebans they need the support of the population and the only way they can obtain that support is by stabilizing the area and developing it at least a bit wich they can't do without managing to hold the talebans at bay... and thus you have a nice little vicious circle that is almost impossible to break...
Click to expand...

IMO the western allies are going to win every battle, but always lose these wars until they figure out how to fight them effectively.

The way we are fighting now is similar to how we fought at the beginning of WW1. We were using outdated techniques (ordering large numbers of soldiers to charge machine guns) and wondering why we weren't getting anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top