Armed Forces too weak to defeat the Taliban.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by vvaannmmaann, Jul 17, 2011.

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. Define defeat?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. A badly titled but interesting article, hits the nail on the head really but anyone who served on the earlier Herrick tours has known this all along.
     
  3. Someone who has lost their feet, as in Dinggerr! :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. In the early Herricks we didn't have the manpower or equipment to hold the ground in theater or the political will and public support at home to do what we needed to achieve "victory" against the Taliban. This is hardly anything new, it's been said on this site for the last 4 or 5 years.
     
  5. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    We wern't supposed to defeat the Taliban were we?
    "In and out in three years without firing a shot"

    He applies similer tactics to Celtic's European Campaigns
     
    • Like Like x 4
  6. [QUOTE Armed Forces too weak to defeat the Taliban [/QUOTE]

    100% Agreed. That's why we along with all the other allied nations will return home defeated.

    Mikhail Gorbachev told us this 10 years ago, and their can be no dispute whatsoever now that he was right.

    Face facts .... We have lost this particular War.

    This is a prime example of how a low tech force can beat a Multi national ultra modern super power hi tech force.

    This is the only valid lesson that is to be learnt out of this 10 year campaign.

    Will we put this down to experience ?? ... I very much doubt it.
     
  7. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    No.

    The Taliban can't defeat the coaltion. What is can do, is outlast it.

    Simple equation (eaving aside all rights and wrongs): If you are (1) a hardcore Taliban chap; and (2) a hardcore UK or US soldier:
    Who will be prepared to hold out longer?
    Who will be prepared to sustain the heavier casualties?

    The answer is clear.

    Or is it? There is this. The US Army has remained in Korea since 1953, gradually handing over defensive functions to the ROK Army. Today, Korea is the greatest national success story of recent history. If - MASSIVE IF - we have the guts and the vision to see this thing through, we may, just may, see an econonic miracle in Afghanistan.

    And for all you cynics who say, "It can never happen" I say this:
    Compared to Afghanistan, South Korea was the ultimate basket case in political, economic and social terms. If the Koreans could do it - why could the Afghans not do it?

    There is far too much cynicism and defeatism in the UK (and probably the US) today.

    We need to man up and stand up for what we believe. If that is free market economics, democratic politics and liberal society, let's fight for it.

    Is this not worth fighting for?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Because the RoK was/is a secular country with a clearly defined and maintained Border with it's enemy?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Afghanistan is a backwards nation, they have little interest in becoming a forward thinking, modern "western" nation. They are happy in their mud huts tending to their crops and livestock and we should leave them to it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    Werewolf

    Secular? Tell that to the 20,000 Christians who were beheaed in the Han River in the late 19th century.

    Clearly defined border?

    Tell that to the British soldiers who found themselves facing annihilation as the army of the world's fifth most populous nation stormed three miles behind their positions on 5th November, 1950 at the battle of Pakchon. (From the Chinese perspecive: A battle of annihilation.)

    For centuries those borders were in dispute, and China (a far more formidable enemy than Pakistan, I think you will agree) took a strong interst in the affairs of the peninsula.

    Also, for the 1950s, 60s, there was a guerilla struggle underway in South Korea, with the guerillas ranks supplmenmted by North Korean special forces. That struggle was mastered: the last partisan surrendered in 1973.
     
  11. X59

    X59 On ROPs

    100% Agreed. That's why we along with all the other allied nations will return home defeated.

    Mikhail Gorbachev told us this 10 years ago, and their can be no dispute whatsoever now that he was right.

    Face facts .... We have lost this particular War.

    This is a prime example of how a low tech force can beat a Multi national ultra modern super power hi tech force.

    This is the only valid lesson that is to be learnt out of this 10 year campaign.

    Will we put this down to experience ?? ... I very much doubt it.[/QUOTE]

    When we failed to clearly select and maintain the aim of the campaign, we could only ever expect defeat.

    If you don't know what winning is, defeat is all that remains.
     
  12. Which is why I posed it as a question rather than a statement.

    I would still venture to suggest, however, that by the time of the Korean War, South Korea was a secular and more advanced society than Afghanistan today. After the Ceasefire, while there was as you point terrorist attacks on the South backed by NK Special Forces, at least the majority of threats came from a single direction.

    IMHO, one cannot use the outcome of the Korean War to predict what will happen in Afghanistan. There are just too many differences between the nations.
     
  13. No, not in a million years.
     
  14. I think more importantly, define "Taliban". Defeating an entity that isn't cleary defined even to itself is like pushing water uphill.