Gen.Richards: we need one more year to defeat Taliban

Do you agree with gen Richards?

  • Absolutely

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He is right but 1 year is too optimistic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather disagree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Disagree. Money is not the main problem in Afghanistan

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1995865,00.html

The head of Nato forces in Afghanistan warns today that the military effort needs more money and more troops for a year-long push that he believes will defeat the Taliban.
...
"...We should and can win in Afghanistan but we need to put more military effort into the country ... We must apply ourselves more energetically for one more year in order to win."
...
Gen Richards said he thought the defeat of Taliban forces in a battle last September in which 1,000 of their fighters had been killed had changed the tide of the conflict.
From my point of view to defeat Taliban the West first of all needs a supports of the Afghans, especially Pushtun tribes. Without it (as an example of Iraq shows) NATO won't reach the goal no matter how many would be spent on the war.
 
#2
It also needs the full support of other NATO nations to get involved and get their "hands dirty", and the full support from the Governments that got us involved in the first place.
 
#3
Richards has not detailed how much more 'men and money' this would entail. But he's being pretty optimistic in any event. Of course it also depends on precisely what he means by 'defeating' the Taliban...
 
#4
The taliban/afghans have been fighting invaders for centuries, and they are in for the long haul against us.

One year will not do it.

Unless we get the afghans to source their income from other products than Opium, we will never get them onside and we could be fighting them for years and years.

The talibanis will find willing partners and refuge in Afghanistan for as long as we don't have the local population onside.
 
#6
DEFEAT = To diminish the effectiveness of the enemy to the extent that he is unable to participate further in the battle or at least cannot fulfil his intention.

Therefore if we can prevent them for fulfiling their intention, they are defeated.

What are their intentions again?
 
#8
CrapSpy said:
DEFEAT = To diminish the effectiveness of the enemy to the extent that he is unable to participate further in the battle or at least cannot fulfil his intention.

Therefore if we can prevent them for fulfiling their intention, they are defeated.

What are their intentions again?
Getting the brits the hell out of afghan so the can go back to smoking opium in peace....

Seriously though, since when have the afghanis ever ever EVER been defeated?!?! We've tried once and been thrashed (only one survivor from the retreat to kabul in 1800-whatever), the russians tried for a decade, and were thrashed.

Afghanistan will not be pacified unless we get every man and his dog in NATO behind the idea, and start buying opium off them instead of destroying it.

My £0.02

Duck
 
#9
:D

Absolutely right. How do we know they are defeated if we don't fully understand or appreciate their intentions?
 
#10
I view this alongside Nixon's "end the war in Vietnam". The Taleban are already hopping over the Pakistan border to regroup so without a clear coalition between the Afghan and Pakistan armies focussed on this problem there will always be that festering sore. This is just the military standpoint but what about the civil?
Afghanistan needs to unite against the opium production problem. The world needs to help them develop different markets and must start planning NOW.
We're not the Taleban "defeated" in 2001/2002?
Can't agree that this is possible inside 1 year, but it would be nice to see the men getting the resources to try.
TB
 
#11
CrapSpy said:
:D

Absolutely right. How do we know they are defeated if we don't fully understand or appreciate their intentions?
I think their intentions are to keep johnny foreigner out of their country, out of their opium fields and out of their business.

If we are in their country, in their poppy fields and trying to democratize their sh1t, we are going to stay fighting for a long time.

I think we could pull out most of our troops, watch things really closely and then drop the occasional VERY BIG BOMB to remind them that we are slightly disapproving of their choices.

If we had a select bunch of dudes camping in the hills, we could quite effectively martyrise a large bunch of cnuts that fancy crossing the borders without a huge commitment in troops.
 
#12
Giblets said:
CrapSpy said:
:D

Absolutely right. How do we know they are defeated if we don't fully understand or appreciate their intentions?
I think their intentions are to keep johnny foreigner out of their country, out of their opium fields and out of their business.
So all we have to do is remain involved for as long as the Taleban are in existence in order to defeat them? Oops.
 
#13
If the roles were reversed and the Afghan army/airforce were running round the UK bombing villages and killing civilians along with our 'terrorists', all with the intent of imposing their way of life on us would we happily accept it?
No, of course we wouldn't and it seems improbable that they will.

So, can we impose ourselves on them without the support, or at least acquiescence, of much of their general public?
Well, it was tried in Aden, Vietnam, Kenya etc. etc. and, arguably parts of NI without much success! But we can live in hope I suppose.
 
#15
Most of the Taleban aren't in Afganistan any more most of them are in Pakistan, until we cross the border and give them a good hiding in Waziristan, (which the Pakistani army left to them) (wimps), they will just continue to multiply.
 
#16
With Pakistan having both the bomb and a potential 2 million trojan recruits already in the UK I thinks there's little chance of crossing that border (officially anyway).
 
#17
#18
Hereward said:
The Taliban is still backed by Pakistan's ISI intelligence service: http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml

Taliban leader 'under Pakistani protection': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/18/wtali118.xml

An impossible situation, IMO.
Good point. The article also makes it clear who was responsible for creating the smack problem in Europe and why it is not high on the UK and US list of priorities to get this one sorted out. I wonder if the smack on sale in the UK at this time is going towards paying for some of the military expenditure on this little expedition.

How much responsibility does the US administration take for 9/11 considering that it was they and Pakistan that created the environment (deliberately) in Afghanistan where such ideals were fomented?

If Pakistan is still funding and providing support for sme of the Islamic groups that are fighting against UK and US soldiers, are they not part of the axis of evil and sponsors of terrorism? Should Pakistan not have bombs dropped on it too?
 
#19
I could be wrong, but did'nt Alexander the Great conquer Stan by the simple expedient of killing every man, woman and child who looked at him or his soldiers in the wrong way?

Unfortunately, I'm fairly certain that's against the Humn Rights Act nowadays.

Fcuking lawyers - won't let us have ANY fun...
 
#20
And we only need one more nail to hold this jelly on the ceiling.

msr
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top