Afghan fighting - the latest reports.

Poppycock

Swinger
Come now--aren't we a bit past using such photo ops to be anything more than they are or do you have additional intel to support they are best mates?
But, to be fair, extending from a photo-op to 'best mates' is pushing it a bit.
I was being facetious describing them as 'best mates', I guess allies (or "allies" if you prefer ;)) is the correct term.

I've got no access to intel of anything going on at such a high level, but the acting Afghan defense minister Asadullah Khalid posted this photo of General Miller & Sayyaf just one day before Sayyaf was appointed chairman of the Kabul peace loya jirga that occurred in c.May 2019. That's the basis for my assertion that Secretary Pompeo and Sayyaf are allies, opps, "allies". Do you think that's a reasonable assumption, or have I got ahead of myself again?
Sayyaf Gen Scott miller.jpg


that comparison does not stand up to scrutiny at anything more than a superficial level
Thank-you for adding your opinion:rolleyes:

might constrain OBL and his plans after the strikes on the USA.
What are you talking about? OBL didn't know about the 9/11 attacks till AFTER they'd occurred, so suggesting he had plans for the aftermath 2-days before doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
 
I was being facetious describing them as 'best mates', I guess allies (or "allies" if you prefer ;)) is the correct term.

I've got no access to intel of anything going on at such a high level, but the acting Afghan defense minister Asadullah Khalid posted this photo of General Miller & Sayyaf just one day before Sayyaf was appointed chairman of the Kabul peace loya jirga that occurred in c.May 2019. That's the basis for my assertion that Secretary Pompeo and Sayyaf are allies, opps, "allies". Do you think that's a reasonable assumption, or have I got ahead of myself again?
View attachment 416050


Thank-you for adding your opinion:rolleyes:


What are you talking about? OBL didn't know about the 9/11 attacks till AFTER they'd occurred, so suggesting he had plans for the aftermath 2-days before doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You were quite obsessed by SAYYAF in your old guise
 
I was being facetious describing them as 'best mates', I guess allies (or "allies" if you prefer ;)) is the correct term.

I've got no access to intel of anything going on at such a high level, but the acting Afghan defense minister Asadullah Khalid posted this photo of General Miller & Sayyaf just one day before Sayyaf was appointed chairman of the Kabul peace loya jirga that occurred in c.May 2019. That's the basis for my assertion that Secretary Pompeo and Sayyaf are allies, opps, "allies". Do you think that's a reasonable assumption, or have I got ahead of myself again?
View attachment 416050


Thank-you for adding your opinion:rolleyes:


What are you talking about? OBL didn't know about the 9/11 attacks till AFTER they'd occurred, so suggesting he had plans for the aftermath 2-days before doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Mere coincidence, then?

Yet somehow a "trigger"?

Make your mind up, FFS :thumleft:
 

FEASG

LE
Just as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is said to have triggered the First World War, the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud on this day 18-years ago was the trigger for 9/11 and the subsequent War on Afghanistan
No I don't buy that analogy. While the events of 28 June 1914, were a trigger for WWI, ASM's assassination was just a small local action, and in no way caused 9/11. That was well in to the execution phase already.
 

Poppycock

Swinger
Spot on although I always use quotation marks when referring to muslim nations as "allies."
Thank-you for giving my posts your time & consideration, both of which i genuinely respect. I think we have different positions on some matters but I have now adopted your policy of saying "allies" instead of allies

Interesting input on Sayyaf, thanks for illuminating my darkness. Every day a kollidge day on Arrse.
My pleasure - I think it's a REALLY important matter to get in to the public domain. Thank-you for taking the time to look.
 

Poppycock

Swinger
No I don't buy that analogy. While the events of 28 June 1914, were a trigger for WWI
My analogy was far from perfect so I accept being pulled up on that.
ASM's assassination was just a small local action, and in no way caused 9/11. That was well in to the execution phase already.
My saying ASM's assassination was the 'trigger' for 9/11 was the wrong phrasing too, but I still say it was 100% connected. Perhaps "the greenlight" for 9/11 would be a better description - the purchase of the hijacker's airline tickets ties in with when the assassins/fake journalists were given permission to travel to meet ASM.

Sayyaf hosted the assassins for a couple of weeks before then; it was Sayyaf who vouched for them as journalists and it was Sayyaf who repeatedly urged ASM to give them an interview (info from a New Yorker magazine article & confirmed by other sources).

Given Sayyaf's connection to KSM, the 1993 WTC bomber, etc, it's inconceivable to me that he wasn't involved in 9/11. By getting rid of ASM 2-days before, that forced the US/NATO alliance into a partnership with Dostum's elements of the Northern Alliance rather than the 'moderate' ASM, which in turn has allowed Sayyaf to operate unhindered in the background whilst his enemies the Taliban were kicked about by everyone else. Then 12yrs later he emerges as a candidate for President; can you imagine if he'd won? A Saudi sponsored Wahhabi in charge of the ANDSF we'd funded and trained?

Anyway, his ambitions seems to have gone tit up and last I heard he'd had a heart attack (about June/July) and went to Delhi, India of all places for treatment (photo below). Maybe something similar to Dostum's 'medical treatment' in Turkey whilst his kidnap/rape/torture allegations died down? i.e. a diplomatically enforced exile

I can only hope that's the last Afghanistan has seen of him.

If anyone has any updates / other info I'd appreciate hearing them.
abdul rasul sayyaf hospital.jpg


*Other opinions are and I am sure will be available :grin:
 
Last edited:
My analogy was far from perfect so I accept being pulled up on that.

My saying ASM's assassination was the 'trigger' for 9/11 was the wrong phrasing too, but I still say it was 100% connected. Perhaps "the greenlight" for 9/11 would be a better description - the purchase of the hijacker's airline tickets ties in with when the assassins/fake journalists were given permission to travel to meet ASM.

Sayyaf hosted the assassins for a couple of weeks before then; it was Sayyaf who vouched for them as journalists and it was Sayyaf who repeatedly urged ASM to give them an interview (info from a New Yorker magazine article & confirmed by other sources).

Given Sayyaf's connection to KSM, the 1993 WTC bomber, etc, it's inconceivable to me that he wasn't involved in 9/11. By getting rid of ASM 2-days before, that forced the US/NATO alliance into a partnership with Dostum's elements of the Northern Alliance rather than the 'moderate' ASM, which in turn has allowed Sayyaf to operate unhindered in the background whilst his enemies the Taliban were kicked about by everyone else. Then 12yrs later he emerges as a candidate for President; can you imagine if he'd won? A Saudi sponsored Wahhabi in charge of the ANDSF we'd funded and trained?

Anyway, his ambitions seems to have gone tit up and last I heard he'd had a heart attack (about June/July) and went to Delhi, India of all places for treatment (photo below). Maybe something similar to Dostum's 'medical treatment' in Turkey whilst his kidnap/rape/torture allegations died down? i.e. a diplomatically enforced exile

I can only hope that's the last Afghanistan has seen of him.

If anyone has any updates / other info I'd appreciate hearing them. I do have an odd personal connection to Sayyaf, or at least just one degree of separation from him - i.e. he was the mentor of an old (and brief) acquaintance of mine.
View attachment 416280

*Other opinions are and I am sure will be available :grin:
Why don’t you post everything from your blog about Sayyaf here? After all, you met AQ in Yemen in ‘97 apparently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would be interested to hear opinions of serving or soldiers who have toured to Afghanistan in the past. Given the events of what’s happened over the past month or so with the car bomb killing civilians as well as an American soldier and peace talks breaking down with the Taliban, would you say it’s likely to restart? I’m aware of regiments currently deployed there but interested to know if you think more personnel will be deployed and it possibly changing into a war fighting role?

Genuinely interested in this topic so please keep sarky comments to a minimum
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I would be interested to hear opinions of serving or soldiers who have toured to Afghanistan in the past. Given the events of what’s happened over the past month or so with the car bomb killing civilians as well as an American soldier and peace talks breaking down with the Taliban, would you say it’s likely to restart? I’m aware of regiments currently deployed there but interested to know if you think more personnel will be deployed and it possibly changing into a war fighting role?
I think some kind of continuing CT and mentoring role will have to be maintained, but it's hard to see the USA finding the political will to escalate troop numbers to the point where they can make a serious difference.

Arguably this leaves us in the worst of all possible worlds. The two coherent courses of action are: 1. Decide we (as in: the US with some NATO support) want to stay until the job is done and therefore invest the troops required to actually do that. It'll probably need current force levels to be at least doubled and will take another decade at least. 2. Pull out, accept that the Taliban will take over in the relatively near future and just take the hit on the loss of face that will involve. POTUS just has to hope the human rights violations aren't so bad that it will require another invasion in a few years.

Unfortunately the US seems to have gone for option 3, which is to keep the fight going with enough force numbers to allow for a slow development of Afghan civil institutions but not enough to make a huge difference, therefore maintaining an awkward stalemate with the Taliban and no obvious route to a conclusion.
 
I think some kind of continuing CT and mentoring role will have to be maintained, but it's hard to see the USA finding the political will to escalate troop numbers to the point where they can make a serious difference.

Arguably this leaves us in the worst of all possible worlds. The two coherent courses of action are: 1. Decide we (as in: the US with some NATO support) want to stay until the job is done and therefore invest the troops required to actually do that. It'll probably need current force levels to be at least doubled and will take another decade at least. 2. Pull out, accept that the Taliban will take over in the relatively near future and just take the hit on the loss of face that will involve. POTUS just has to hope the human rights violations aren't so bad that it will require another invasion in a few years.

Unfortunately the US seems to have gone for option 3, which is to keep the fight going with enough force numbers to allow for a slow development of Afghan civil institutions but not enough to make a huge difference, therefore maintaining an awkward stalemate with the Taliban and no obvious route to a conclusion.
Interesting read! Thanks for the response always interested to see what is Afghanistan!
 
Having done 5 years as a NATO Technical Officer in Afghanistan and located on a US base, then i concur with the Option 3. The past 18 months the US has actually gone back to a lot of the smaller FOB's that were closed or handed over to the ANSF. Token amounts admittedly and not in the numbers that were in those same bases 5 years ago. But this is all so the areas in question can have more, lets call it overwatch, for the beleaguered Afghan Army in the vicinity. Its still Afghan led, more so than before and certainly when it used to be joint UK/Afghan "missions". But they suffer heavy casualties and this means areas are going back to the control of the Insurgents. Dont get to hung up on Taliban as the big players. ISIS in the North are around and if there is the only common enemy for Taliban and ISAF, its ISIS. But there is no appetite for large increased troop numbers and its still costing financially. Seeing certain parts of the US mission that i was involved with and how much it was costing would shock you and even Bank of US of A is going to start bitching about expenditure out there long term.
 
Having done 5 years as a NATO Technical Officer in Afghanistan and located on a US base, then i concur with the Option 3. The past 18 months the US has actually gone back to a lot of the smaller FOB's that were closed or handed over to the ANSF. Token amounts admittedly and not in the numbers that were in those same bases 5 years ago. But this is all so the areas in question can have more, lets call it overwatch, for the beleaguered Afghan Army in the vicinity. Its still Afghan led, more so than before and certainly when it used to be joint UK/Afghan "missions". But they suffer heavy casualties and this means areas are going back to the control of the Insurgents. Dont get to hung up on Taliban as the big players. ISIS in the North are around and if there is the only common enemy for Taliban and ISAF, its ISIS. But there is no appetite for large increased troop numbers and its still costing financially. Seeing certain parts of the US mission that i was involved with and how much it was costing would shock you and even Bank of US of A is going to start bitching about expenditure out there long term.
Interesting. Didn’t realise the Taliban were against ISIS. Obviously it’s just SF that are engaging with ISIS on that region? Got my PRAC in a week and looking for a career in intelligence of all goes well - touch wood.

Cheers
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Interesting. Didn’t realise the Taliban were against ISIS.
Yep. ISIS-KP (Khorasan Province) have a big presence in a couple of places, most significantly Nangahar province. They fight the Taliban and the Taliban fight them, which makes for an interesting three-way conflict when you add the ANDSF/US mil to the mix.
 

Poppycock

Swinger
The armchair generals can speculate all they want (I do), but when US secretary of state Mike Pompeo calls out the Afghan government & our Afghan "allies" for their endemic corruption on TWITTER and says he stands against anyone involved, then something is changing.

His tweet from 19 Sept 2019:

Screen Shot 2019-09-20 at 19.49.40.png


Backed up by previous statements by President Trump (i.e. cancel Afghan aid to fund the US/Mexico border wall) and I think it's pretty much all over save for the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the profiteers.

One day our bit in Helmand might be remembered as 'The Fourth Anglo/Afghan War' or perhaps 'The Last Nail for the Coffin of Empire'
 
I don’t believe corruption in Afghanistan is news to anybody. It’s ranked 177th with only Syria, S Sudan and Somalia being worse:

Afghanistan has seen the end of many empires, not least the Soviet Union. Britain’s Empire ended decades before the Soviet one.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top