Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Party Rooster, Jun 19, 2011.
Great. Just "talking" with our enemies...:icon_cool
Oh noes! It's not like we never talked to the British, Germans, and others we've waged way with. But these savage animals only know how to run head first into a bullet.
Hasn't karzai brought this up every year for the last several years
I suppose it's a good thing to have on record that we tried.
As long as nobody's surprised when it doesn't do shit.
Inherent to peace talks is the assurance that any agreements that would be reached would also be adhered to. Inherent with our wars against the British, Germans, etc. has been an adherence to the Rules Of War (it's at least in part why we pushed for unconditional surrender of the Japanese, who didn't adhere to any Rules Of War).
Terrorists, by definition, don't adhere to the Rules Of War. If they did, they would be properly classified as guerrillas, not terrorists. If the people you're fighting don't follow any set of agreed-upon rules, then any negotiations are just a waste of time.
If you can't trust them to stick to what your agreements, what's the point of talking to them in the first place?
Other than peeling off the less-crazy portion of the Taliban, this is just a waste of time and gives these retards legitimacy.
That is why the only way to win is to wipe the Taliban out completely, which isn't possible because of the disorganization in their structure and Pakistan is no help either. The best thing to do is push the Jihadists into Pakistan's FATA, and have ANA & ANP man bases near the boarder.
that might work, if the ana weren't also the taliban and the anp weren't local scared youngins trying to make some cash to feed their family.
So, in other words, Karzai has finally loaded his bank account up to the point where he's allowing his Taliban underlings to come to the bargaining table. It's about time.
The most loyal fighters are from the Northern Allience, Afghan SOF that work with ISAF SOF, and tribes that have a blood feud with the Taliban.
I've said it for a while, now: IMO there are only two workable strategies for Afghanistan.
Option 1: small hunter-killer teams in the mountains to take out the Taliban, small garrisons of US (or, eventually, ANA) troops in the various villages, 3-4 airmobile (helicopter) battalions around the country ready to support the garrisons if they're seriously attacked (each battalion with an alert company ready to go), and a ton of hearts-and-minds work with engineering battalions, training for the ANA and ANP, so the Afghanis can slowly get their shit together. From invasion to majority pull-out, we're talking 20-25 years, minimum. We'd probably have to leave the airmobile and a fair percentage of the hearts-and-minds people, but the garrisons could be turned over to the ANA in that time.
Which is essentially what the Bush plan was for 7 years. I really don't know what President Obama's Afghanistan Surge is doing, except making a lot of noise. Afghanistan isn't a problem you can throw troops at. At least, not the kind of troops we're sending there.
Option 2: exact same thing as Option 1, except instead of small hunter-killer teams in the mountains we fully mobilize the 10th Mountain, 82nd Rangers, 101st Airborne, the Ranger battalions, and maybe even a MEU or two and go border-to-border with them. All troops activated for the duration, no more of the 1 brigade-in-theater, 2 brigades-refitting game. From invasion to pull-out (same terms as above), it would have taken maybe 5-10 years from invasion to majority pull-out.
Oh, and for the record, Iraq wouldn't have had a major effect on that process, either: the problem would have been having the political will to keep 5-6 divisions worth of troops fully activated and in combat without coming back home for 5-10 years.
yeah sof is capable but they're about 10k pax with a lot of support from us/nato and taliban at 25k+ with deeper pockets and support.
in the end, history repeats itself.
This time Gates is confirming it a bit...