Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Random_Task, Nov 29, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato
    Telegraph Online
  2. Well, it is an option, might save some persons life and end the tragedy that the U.S. have gotten us into.

    I'm not saying that we are not doing a sterling job - but really, has history taught us anything at all?
  3. Riiight. I think such helpful 'advice' has more to do with the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan have never gotten on and is playing more to their internal religious whack-jobs in the north west of country, not to mention all the foreigners camped out there either.
  4. Isn't Kasuri a Pashtan as well???
  5. Some interesting comments from Pakistan's Lieutenant-General Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai:,,2089-2471865.html

    “Bring 50,000 more troops and fight for 10 to 15 years more and you won’t resolve it. The British with their history in Afghanistan should have known that better than anyone else.”

    “It is no longer an insurgency but a war of Pashtun resistance exactly on the model of the first Anglo-Afghan war.”

    “Then too [in 1839-42] initially there were celebrations. The British built their cantonment and brought their wives and sweethearts from Delhi and didn’t realise that in the meantime the Afghans were getting organised to rise up. This is exactly what Afghans are doing today and what they did against the Soviets.”

    “The British should have known better. No country in the world has a better understanding of the Afghan psyche and very little has changed there in the past couple of centuries.”

    Aurakzai said that Nato had failed to achieve any of its objectives. “Why did the coalition come to Afghanistan? To find Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the Taliban; for democracy, reconstruction and development, and [to] leave a stable Afghanistan which wouldn’t be vulnerable to terrorists.

    “All very noble, but tell me which one of those objectives have been achieved? I went to Kabul in September and they are all living in a big bunker with no control over Afghanistan. There’s no law and order. The insurgency has become far worse . . . is that a success?”
  6. Exactly right, What has changed? What have we achieved? Nothing!
  7. So not exactly on the model of the 1st Afghan war at all then; don't think my memsahib would have appreciated it. No doubt there will be some sort of accommodation with the Taliban in time. However, let's not fall into the media trap of expecting all conflict to be resolved in time to suit their deadlines. Sometimes, these things actually take more than the blink of a soundbite. Some wars are worth fighting, even if they take a long time and, brace yourselves for this, even if the outcome is only some way towards your desired endstate.
  8. EAGLE1

    EAGLE1 On ROPs

    When you think about it when all western troops have eventually gone home they 'Pakistan' still have to live with their neighbours, so it is far better for them- in the long run to think about their own situation and maintain a degree of seperation from the occupying forces to maintain a chance of long term negotiations with the Taliban.

    So I understand where they are coming from.
  9. A friend of mine recently came back from a fact finding visit to Kabul. He was quite startled by the lack of clear strategy by NATO. In some ways he was more positive having seen what was happening on the ground but the lack of progress in some areas was startling. Some NATO countries simply are not pulling their weight. There is tension at the heart of the NATO operation and real problems at the heart of the Karzai Govt. The biggest problem of all is what to do with the drugs industry. Have to say, without a clearer strategy and a clear out in the current Govt I think we are running the train into the sand.
  10. It would be an insult to all of the fallen heroes to withdraw now!
  11. .and there was me thinking we were kicked out and reduced down to just about one survivor, because we'd stopped paying off the locals and insulted them in various ways into the bargain.

    The 1st Afghan War isn't a good model at all, no doubt LG Aurakzai has his own reasons for using it , and none of them designed to give comfort.

    Personally, I'm more inclined to think that the 2nd Afghan War is a better model.

    ..and we withdrew then too.
  12. So was this friend military, politician or just looking for a holiday home. If the first two, can we know his name??

    Who on earth goes to AFG on a fact finding mission - a merce... cough security company man???

  13. That facile nonsense has been trotted out so many times by craven politicians of all flavours in support of involvements in conflicts, usually when it is all going wrong for them. That makes such a statement, of itself, invariably a gross insult to those who have fallen.

    Nobody sticks with a conflict to honour casulaties. You are either on the way in, there to stay or trying to find the way out. In the latter instance it is hopefully a managed withdrawal on the back of having restored stability rather than a hopeless scramble leaving a terrible mess behind.

    If that is the best reason put forward to justify continued involvement in any conflict then we are in trouble.
  14. Sven, non-military,unsurprisingly there are lots of non-military westerners in Kabul all doing different things. There are a lot of committed people trying to help Afg get back on its feet, problem is democracy in Afg is a facade designed to impress the West. I have come to the opinion that we are shovelling sh!t up hill. I am not saying Afg is not worth the effort, just that I cannot see a military solution and I cannot see a quick way of eradicating poppy production without causing further diifculties. In short, I cannot see a way out and I think Blair is pushing us in way too deep.