Interesting Analysis Aobut Al Qaeda Role in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Oct 9, 2009.

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. Very interesting and timely piece that makes a good case that Al Qaeda is still an important player in Afghanistan. This is contrary to many of the pundits this week who are saying Al Qaeda is on the wane in that conflict.

  2. Very interesting read. I don't think it will do much to change the peoples view on this war against terrorism sadly. Which is a shame. If they could identify the potential end result if we don't win in Afghanistan/NW Pakistan the pressure to bring our troops home would no doubt drop. If the Al Qaeda and her allies win then we won't have a safe haven anywere even back home.

    I did not realise the problem was so broad and that so many different branches all twisting together make up this very big problem. It goes to show this war will take many many years to complete. But it is a war we must win or face losing everything.

  3. Too late. Our Messiah (PBUH) has determined that the Taleban aren't all that bad, after all.

    New White House spin: Taliban not really an enemy, has role in Afghanistan’s future

    We're saved.

    Mmmm, mmmm, mmmmm. Barack Hussein Obama.
  4. Afg is a MAJOR bone of contention for AQ, one of their basic ideologies is that they defeated The Soviets (Which they use as a rallying call) and that they will defeat the West in Afg too.

    As bad as the situation is (Due mainly to mismanagement by the politicians and NOT the military) it would merely embolden them if we withdrew prematurely.

    Victory in Afghanistan doesn't have to mean completely defeating AQ there, it is enought to ensure that they NEVER win.

    The consequences of a perceived AQ success in Afg would be extremly serious and mean even more lives lost further down the line.

    It should be THE international priority to ensure that this does not happen in my humble opinion.
  5. The priority of the CinC US forces is landing Olympic games in his home town, making sure the commander US forces in Afg keeps his mouth shut, and receiving visits from the head of the SEIU on a weekly basis, not actually conferring with combatant commanders regularly on how to win in Afghan. So sorry. Please call again when there are adults in the White House.
  6. can't be just me who sees similarities between POTUS & Gordon Brown in that they're happy to spend shitloads on all sorts of things, but very tight when it comes to providing what the military needs in Afghanistan?
  7. We aren't going to fight to win, we aren't going to withdraw, we're just going to putter around and avoid defeat. I think we've all seen this movie before, and we know how it turns out.

    Positively Johnsonian in his strategies.
  8. All this brought to you by the same team that produced the claims of "weapons of mass destruction" and AQ involvement in Iraq. Call me a cynic but.... :roll:
  9. The trouble was their lies and war of mass distraction drew valuable rescources away from what should have been the main effort.
    Basic military principle not to fight on two fronts if you can avoid it.

    Additionally, no one belives them when they cry wolf now even when the big bad guy is huffing and puffing outside the house of straw.
  10. *sigh* I believe the subject was Afghan.

    Yes, I'm just *sure* that had we not invaded Iraq in 2003, that ever-so-strong coalition would still be maintaining the embargo and the no fly zones, containing Iraq. The French would never have pulled out, the sanctions regime wouldn't have crumbled, and Saddam wouldn't now be merrily pumping out new chem weapons and assembling a new nuclear program, after yet again declaring "victory" over the weak-willed nations of the Coalition.

    Sure. Oh, and if anyone is interested in buying a bridge over the Mississippi...
  11. No doubt you wrote this before the elevation of our new "Leader for Life" Barack Obama Dada was rightly recognized as the first LEADER OF THE WORLD by the totally apolitical Nobel committee. He is now in good company with the likes of Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Cofi Anan, Al Gore (creator of the internet) and ElBaradei.
  12. Erm....I guess it depends on how you define "team" as the players have certainly changed. I also find it amusing how the term "lies" is bandied about in this context without any proof.

    While it appears true that there were intelligence failures by virtually every western nation in assessing Iraq's then-current WMD capability (as of 2003), to extrapolate this into some sort of huge international conspiracy (lead by the arch villain and nefarious GWB) to "lie" about the need to remove Hussein (Saddam not to be confused with the new LEADER OF THE WORLD) is laughable, at least when done by the great unwashed who have no clue about the inherent limitations of intelligence collection and assessment. When, however, this is repeated by many posters on ARRSE who presumably have some military experience (I use this term broadly and increasingly, advisedly), it begins to look a bit more like common partisanship or ideological bias since they should know that very rarely is intelligence 100% accurate such that errors are to be expected and not further exacerbated by re-casting them as "lies" to suit one's political or ideological argument.
  13. JJ, our government leant on the intelligence agencies to make their findings meet the political agenda, instead of influencing policy, policy influenced intelligence.

    People were severley pressurised and the death of Dr David Kelly is a prime example of this.

    Notwithstanding any intelligence failings, the government made a decision to go to war, it then withheld mobilistaion and the issuing of VITAL equipment from the forces in order to appease its own party supporters.

    Soldiers died unnecesarily due to party polical considerations.

    Had we finished the job in 1991 as we should have, then things would have ben so different.

    As it stands I believe we could have contained Saddam, sorted out Afg and then dalt with the other threats. As it is we now have an Iranian hedgemony in the region AND an unstable Afghanistan as well as Somalia bubbling away.

    Shooting the crocodile closest to the canoe has to be the way forward.

  14. This has sadly been so at least in the US for the last century or so. I just think the allegation of "lying" is over-used to suit the accuser's argument. I prefer to reserve such charges for situations where is is actually proven (and admitted) as in the despicable way the Kennedy and Johnson administrations lied (read McNamara's confessional book for instance) in connection with the Vietnam debacle.

    The attitude that gives rise to this behavior is rooted in "progressivism" whereby political rulers amass centralized national political power primarily for selfish reasons but they cloak it all in rationalizations such as "we know what is best" for the great unwashed that are themselves created and manipulated by lies and other artifices. This political and ideological movement is really the root of many of the excesses we have seen in the last 125 years whether called fascism, marxism, stalinism or whatever.
  15. Our political leaders have lied from day one, promising kit and not providing, smearing Generals in fact the UK governments failings are plain for the eye to see.

    The most important duty a government has, is make the decision to go to war. We know our government lied about it to us. If they will lie about THAT, then they will lie about anything and once trust is gone, it can never be regained and that is the real issue here. How can we, the British people, ever trust our leadership again?

    I would be more suprised if they ever broke the habit of a lifetime and told the truth.

    Their dishonesty regarding Iraq has led directly to a mistrust of the reaons for Afghanistan, whatever the merits of the mission.