why negociate were winning?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by waterman, Jul 2, 2010.

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. So what is the truth are the talaban winning, i know they can't win face to face fighting as has been published in papers and books. However if they are winning is it worth sending troops to die for? what are your views please.
  2. they have all the time in the world
  3. It depends what both sides consider a win.
  4. The Taliban don't have to win. We have to win, all they have to do is remain.
  5. Winning - if you mean we kill more of them than they kill of us and in the end they don't have many left to fight, winning will probably take half a century or more. Unfortunately this scenario doesn't take into account the fact that they will be breeding during the process and the results of the breeding will be more canon fodder and perpetuation of the fight. If you mean can we win before 2015? No. But we wont lose, we will just give up and leave. If you mean how can we win? It will require an integrated international effort with the killing of Taleban to reduce their effectiveness, the rebuilding and sustaining of a civilisation infrastructure, meaning investment in Schools, roads, water supplies, hospitals, transport infrastructure, border security, agriculture, industry, irrigation, power generation and so on. And the guarding and safekeeping of the assets being installed whilst they are being built and thereafter for a period of time. And Afghastlystan cant be sorted out without: A. Also sorting out Pakistan , or, B. Sealing the border with Pakistan.
  6. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    A mostly empty land would support a people who would quite readily agree to whatever you suggest, lest they wish to share the violent fate of those who begged to differ.

    There is not enough deterrence in our handcuffed actions.

    Edited to add: On the other hand, we could just wave goodbye, pack up and walk away.

    The main tenets of Afghan Pashtuns are:

    1. Hospitality and Asylum to all guests seeking help. (Including those naughty AQ).
    2. Justice: Moses Law, Tooth for a Tooth. (They won't just go away you know).
    3. Defense of 'Zan, Zar and Zameen' i.e Women/Family, Treasury and Property. (See? They ain't so bad etc).
    4. Personal Independence. Pashtuns are fiercely independent and there is a lot of internal competition.

    The Pashtuns and other efnics in Afghanistan like to do things their own way, and have done for many centuries. They aren't simply going to put their hands up to the US et al and say "D'ya know what, we give in, we'll do it like you say we should; and by the way, fill your boots with our natural riches."

    We might be far better to do as the Chinese do, which is to deal with the devil himself if it gets the resources and business deals they want, but most importantly, stay the fcuk out of the internal politics - something the Afghans particularly hate; well, that and invaders of course.

    We in the West should be taking note right now. We have for too long followed our own direct-action doctrine to get what we want, and now we slavishly follow a very similar US doctrine, which has a similar violence, but without the panache. If we looked at Chinese 'expansion', we would note that they've got themselves business deals (and some hugely lucrative ones at that), without using a single bullet, in pretty much every single country of the world, and they've done so without upsetting anyone in power, or the massed ranks of the populace (historic US-style expansionism notwithstanding - a la Dalai Lama etc).

    They don't really prop up odious regimes like the US (and we) have simpy for commercial advantage, they merely do purely business deals, purely for money and leave the politics to the locals.
  7. When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling

    No one wins in Afghanistan, just ask the 44th, or Dr. Brydon.
  8. Politics!



  9. Its not about winning the war in the military sense. It has to be about winning the peace. If that involves allowing former members of the Taliban to return to a peaceful living within their own country then that is the way it must be.

    Too many times have we won the tactical engagements and "won the war" and then****ed it all up by losing the peace.
  10. A poncy Macedonian Greek and his mates did a pretty good job on the Pashtun's* ancestors. That is why they still spit whenever they mention the name of Alexander - he didn't **** about. You got a chance to surrender, if you chose not to do so, fought him and managed to lose, you got pretty much annihilated.

    That is what is needed in Afghastlystan (props to Eodmatt for that one) - a touch of applied ruthlessness, mixed with an open hand to those that want to talk peace to us.

    It won't happen though, our political unelected masters in this country, and a strangely elected closet Muslim in America, want out of there in a big big hurry and are prepared to sacrifice all credibility of their power and influence to do so.


    *btw, what is wrong with calling the blighters Pathans? Surely still the same tribe, aren't they?

  11. Actually, no they didn't, Alexanders remit was much like ours, a limited remit over the main population centres but no security or safety outside those areas and the country in a pretty permanent state of inssurection…

    "I am involved in the land of a 'Leonine' (lion-like) and brave people, where every foot of the ground is like a well of steel, confronting my soldier. You have brought only one son into the world, but Everyone in this land can be called an Alexander."

    Alexander the Great in a letter to his mother describing his time in Afghanistan.
  12. Alexander may have bigged up the Afghans in a note home to mummy, (who he really didn't like much, going by the sources), but he still slaughtered a hell of a lot of them and, from what I remember, he hardly ever lost a battle against them.

    The only reason for a lack of long term success both there and in India was his troops wanted to bugger off home after years on the campaign trail thousands of miles away from civilization. If he had held his ground, reinforced his troops from the locals who were prepared to be his allies, and sorted out his supply routes, India would have been Macedonian.

  13. We haven't lost a single battle and have been killing Talibs since 2001 at a rate and efficiency that would make Alexander green with envy.

    And your point is what preciseley
  14. My point, mmm, is probably this. Commit the necessary amount of troops, adequate numbers of nation buildy types, (troops are not these), find a government that the Afghans as a whole can accept, (even if this means including some members of the Taliban) and allocate enough time to do the job properly.

    Or get the hell out of there as soon as possible because a lack of commitment to do so matched with a cavalier disregard for the lives of our troops means the current actions in Afghanistan are ultimately meaningless.

    Particularly when the current incumbent of the Afghan presidency is a man who wouldn't have been acceptable in the bad days of Tammany Hall in New York City back in the 1860s, as he could have given even Boss Tweed lessons in electoral fraud, rigging and corruption. Plus he ratified a law that not only permits rape, but encourages, it in marriage.


  15. And therein lies the problems…

    Without security on the ground we can't do nation buildy troops, without nation building, the locals see no milage in us being there and resist us.

    All the Talibs have to do is keep enough of an insurgency going to stop the nation building bit and they're quids in. If we deploy enough firepower to supress the Talibs, we kill so many locals and damage so much of their property they see no milage in us being there and side with the Talibs who at least won't bomb them.

    Ditto Governance… the sort of people we want to do buisiness with are either (a) utterly corrupt, or (b) don't give a **** about their own people or a combination of (a) & (b). See Hamid Karzai, the Mayor of Kabul.