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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jan 22, 2007.

?
  1. Absolutely

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. He is right but 1 year is too optimistic

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Rather agree

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Rather disagree

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Disagree. Money is not the main problem in Afghanistan

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

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. http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1995865,00.html

    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.
     
  5. He must know something we dont.
     
  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?
     
  7. Anyone else thinks that he means a really, reallly big bomb?
     
  8. 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. Tytus_Barnowl

    Tytus_Barnowl On ROPs

    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. 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. 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.
     
  14. Oh - and if they ever get their hands on a gross or so of Stingers (or, more likely, their A7 Grail equivalent) then we're truly screwed!
     
  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.