Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Interesting Analysis Aobut Al Qaeda Role in Afghanistan

JJ, I was heavily involved in the CBRN side of things regarding the Telic 1 deployment, I can tell you this from experience. Soldiers were sent to a war supposedly to remove Saddams CBRN capability without nearly enough kit. I am not talking billion pound weapons systems, I am talking basic things like not having fully functional respirators, insufficent filters and inlet valves, insufficient NBC suits and so on. The line being that the kit would be and I quote "Issued in theatre". It was a lie, the kit wasn't there.

Now there can be only 3 possible explanaitions for this.

The required NBC kit wasn't available because the government didn't want to appear like it was prparing for war and held back on any supply contracts.

Or, they knew there was no CBRN threat so there was no NEED to demand the required personal protection equipment.

Or a combination of both.

There is a fourth possibility however, that the government made a calculation that the money saved in not providing the kit, was worth gambling the lives of a few squaddies for.

But Gordon Brown would never starve troops of life saving kit.... would he?????
 
jumpinjarhead said:
DavetheApe said:
-one likes being lied to or played for an idiot.

Cheers, Dave

Tell me about it-I am a Vietnam veteran! I just try to not fall prey the "band wagon" (not saying you have) that oversimplifies and overgeneralizes something as complex as a war to suit one's political or ideological leanings.

While I was no special fan of the evil, cretin, apish, flop-eared (insert your pet pejoration here______________) GWB (and even less so Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and even Franks), it is not especially interesting or productive intellectually to me to continually bewail the run up or execution of the invasion and ill-planned aftermath when the subjects are broader matters of policy and doctrine.


There's nothing that I disagree with there JJ, and if I gave the impression that I am one of the "continual bewailers" then forgive me. Broader matters of policy and doctrine aside, the only question I keep returning to on this subject is a simple one.

How did the invasion of Iraq help in our conflict with radical Islam?

Anyone?
 
InVinoVeritas said:
But Gordon Brown would never starve troops of life saving kit.... would he?????

I feel your pain! Just as the US tried to do Iraq "on the cheap" (I know it is relative) by not deploying enough troops.
 
DavetheApe said:
jumpinjarhead said:
DavetheApe said:
-

How did the invasion of Iraq help in our conflict with radical Islam?

Anyone?


How did it hurt us? Sorry, I'm not going to run around wringing my hands that we offended a bunch of stone aged religious maniacs who already wanted to slit the throats of my family and friends.

That wasn't the 4H Club dancing in the streets and ululating when the Towers came down. Ahh, for the lack of a few CBUs in the right place at the right time. :evil:
 
Yank_Lurker said:
How did it hurt us? Sorry, I'm not going to run around wringing my hands that we offended a bunch of stone aged religious maniacs who already wanted to slit the throats of my family and friends.

That wasn't the 4H Club dancing in the streets and ululating when the Towers came down. Ahh, for the lack of a few CBUs in the right place at the right time. :evil:

Erm by allowing AQ to get a foothold in a country that - like Hussein or not - never had a chance of flourishing under the Ba'ath regime.

You see terrorists interfered with the main focus of the Al Tikriti family, which was to maintain an Iron Grip on power and to siphon as much cash as possible from the people into their bank accounts.

Like it or not, Iraq was never a player for AQ until we invaded. And Iraq CERTAINLY had nothing to do with the twin towers. To say anything else is to swallow the obfuscation that both No. 10 and the White House threw around when it became clear that the only WMD Saddam had were the eggy guffs he was doing in his hole.
 
MrShanklysboots said:
Yank_Lurker said:
How did it hurt us? Sorry, I'm not going to run around wringing my hands that we offended a bunch of stone aged religious maniacs who already wanted to slit the throats of my family and friends.

That wasn't the 4H Club dancing in the streets and ululating when the Towers came down. Ahh, for the lack of a few CBUs in the right place at the right time. :evil:

Erm by allowing AQ to get a foothold in a country that - like Hussein or not - never had a chance of flourishing under the Ba'ath regime.

You see terrorists interfered with the main focus of the Al Tikriti family, which was to maintain an Iron Grip on power and to siphon as much cash as possible from the people into their bank accounts.

Like it or not, Iraq was never a player for AQ until we invaded. And Iraq CERTAINLY had nothing to do with the twin towers. To say anything else is to swallow the obfuscation that both No. 10 and the White House threw around when it became clear that the only WMD Saddam had were the eggy guffs he was doing in his hole.

You're right, I always felt that the AQ angle was somewhat tenuous. Less tenuous were the intelligence reports on Iraqi WMD posession, even in the event they turned out wrong. I recall quite clearly the stupid games the Iraqis played with the inspection teams, right after the cease fire was signed, even. They broke the terms of the cease fire repeatedly and blatantly, and on that basis alone should have--and COULD have--been justifiably invaded.

The assertion that Iraq could have been cheaply contained is beside the point. The sanctions regime was crumbling, the coalition players were losing their will to continue it, and had Saddam not been taken down in 2003, by 2005 or 2006 it would have been back to Business As Usual. There was no chance of the embargo continuing much longer. The Germans, French and Russians had too much money owed them by Saddam. The Arabs wanted Iraq opened for business again. It was either decisively to end the problem of Saddam, or let him go back to building nuke reactors and sarin warheads.
 

alib

LE
That article is largely accurate about Pakistan but presents an unbalanced view on Iran's links with AQ, I'll use that lazy label here for the various groupsicles of Saudi and Egyptian lead Takfiri terrorists.

Its also exaggerating AQ's importance to the Taliban, an essentially nativist movement and deeply rooted in very local centuries old traditions. The article is full of interesting details but the tilt smacks of cherry picking agitprop.

That's not to say Qom does not have such relationships just that here it's greatly overstated in proportion to that of Pakistan and for that matter Saudi.

Saudi is portrayed as an innocent injured party rather than an aggressive actor sponsoring radical Islam world over and the historical root of the whole damn Takfiri problem. It is Saudi gold that has long funded the Deobandi schools that provides the ideological base for the Taliban. Bin Laden himself started his Jihadi career as a bag man for Saudi Intelligence, he may have gone rogue but there is mountainous evidence of Riyahd collusion with the broader Takfiri Jihad and a great deal of Saudi funding still finds its way to the Taliban. The article is correct Mullah Omar's Taliban remains Lahore's creature as do some Taliban warlords.

AQ proper's frequently stated aim is the destruction of the near enemy i.e. the despotic rulers of the Sunni Arab world. This is a goal Qom shares. It's particularly keen to see the fall of the haughty House of Saud. The Iranians are not the preening, fastidious sort of men who "don't talk to evil", despite the vast theological gulf and AQ's monstrous predations upon their Shi'a brethren in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi they are prepared to hold them close.

In Iraq various Shi'a militia's certainly have a similar level of Iranian support to that the ISI provides to parts of the Taliban, funding, basing, training, arms, occasionally command and control.

There is even some evidence of past Iranian collaboration with anti-Baathist elements in the al Anbar Sunni insurgency. A entirely logical move on their part. Though again the Saudi hand in that bloody affair has been unreported. When your grand Imams publicly howl for the blood of the Iraqi Shi'a and so many of your nationals suddenly develop a vocation for being human ordinance in Shi'a markets it's hard to maintain the pretense of innocence, even if so many DC may fawn over the oily buggers as faithful friends. Riyahd remains a bitter foe of Shi'a hegemony in Iraq while Qom is an eager to maintain it.

After the fall of Kabul most of AQ were shepherded by the ISI along with Omar's mob into the safety of FATA. According to Ahmed Rashid DC, gullible as always with Pakistan, opened up an air corridor out of Kandahar to facilitate part of this flit, naively believing that it was just a throng of defeated ISI handlers. Some prominent individuals followed the drug lines into Iran and were captured or offered shelter doubtless in return for fealty.

I heard in 05 Iranian intelligence lost patience and locked most of them up. It's been described by some commentators as one of the worst blows inflicted on AQ.

The Afghan Arabs played a relatively minor role in the war against the Soviets. It was the tribal Lashkars that did most of the fighting. The Looming Tower offers an almost comical account of the hapless Bin Ladin's early efforts at warrior leadership. The Afghan's thought them a bunch of useless clowns. Bin Laden's valuable contribution was Saudi gold, training, logistical support. The evidence of a large part for AQ in this show is actually slight, they are a player but compared to the ISI and their chum Mullah Omar this is a minor one.

Elements in the Taliban certainly esteem Ayman al-Zawahiri, some have even championed his "Far Enemy" ideology. Given the Taliban's very parochial preoccupations this is disturbing.

And of course all those wealthy Gulf Kingship donors are going to be much more generous if they think their lovely Bedu boys of 055 Brigade are thrashing the infidel in Afghanistan just like in the good old days. A far easier pitch than supporting Pashtun mountain men that the mark regards as little better than monkeys. In reality in terms of AQ's strength we are probably talking about a few hundred men mostly of Palestinian levels of military effectiveness with a useful core of specialists.

We should not delude ourselves about the nature of the Taliban and AQ. AQ is a dependent of Mullah Omar's Taliban and now is largely operating in FATA. It's in FATA that Takfiri seek training for strikes against the West. AQ for the Taliban is a useful ally. They are both a golden goose that regularly lays billions in aid to Islamabad.

I've recently noticed a creeping realization amongst the deeply xenophobic Taliban that what is left of AQ may have become a strategic liability. Goats and camels that must be closely watched. Pashtun allegiances are nearly as agile as Persian ones, anyone who has followed the career of Warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar would realize this, we would do well to exploit that.
 

Latest Threads

Top