How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Condoleezza Rice? You mean the woman who made so much money during the war that one of the oil companies named a supertanker after her? The war on terror is nothing but a smoke screen for oil and drugs.

reply to post by homeslice


Perhaps there could be a typo with the result being the 'war on error' is declared. A possible scenario being where the US devotes its full military might to ensuring they don't make any mistakes, typographical or otherwise.

Probably a lot cheaper than the other one.

Return of the Taliban now patrolling with the ANA.

Mission failing.

Return of the Taliban - gunmen take part in joint patrols with Afghanistan forces ahead of 2015 withdrawal
Daily Mirror, Dec 21, 2013. By Chris Hughes

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission ­accomplished” in Afghanistan

Not over yet: Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers and Taliban jointly patrol areas in the Sangin district of southern Helmand province

Swaggering Taliban gunmen have been taking part in joint patrols with Afghan government forces in Helmand’s deadliest town.

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission ­accomplished” in Afghanistan.

And it raised fears the Taliban will take over the country again as international troops prepare to withdraw by 2015.

Last night an Afghan Taliban source in Pakistan confirmed to the Daily Mirror: “Already it is true that our mujahideen have retaken some security posts in Afghanistan and this will continue to happen.”

Agreements between the Afghan National Army and the Taliban are a huge betrayal of brave British soldiers who trained local security forces to secure Afghanistan by themselves.

With our enemy the Taliban now patrolling with the Afghan National Army which the NATO countries have funded with billions of pounds (mostly US dollars actually), anyone who is not in denial can plainly see the fatal flaw of funding an Afghan army over which we have no political control.

Also, we've been funding the Taliban's masters - Pakistan with more billions in aid and Saudi Arabia with even more billions in oil purchases. So the Taliban have been well funded, if indirectly, by us too.

So the Taliban have not been short of money to spend on training up new recruits to replace their fighters we've killed on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

So we've made the war in Afghanistan much more difficult to win because of the incompetent management of the war by our governments which we've seen over the years. The mission can now be seen to be failing and it will take thorough remedial measures to bring the mission back on course.

Part of the solution would to be re-organise the Afghan forces as I have already described to counter green-on-blue attacks by Afghans on our own soldiers.

We should establish a new auxiliary NATO force of Afghans recruited from the Afghan National Army but which would be commanded by our NATO generals and be under our political control.

We should stop funding the ANA.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

We should establish a new auxiliary NATO force of Afghans recruited from the Afghan National Army

Great!
How about you volunteer for this new auxiliary NATO force? And how about you take your loved ones with you to be part of that force?

Or is this game only supposed to have Afghans fighting each other?

but which would be commanded by our NATO generals and be under our political control.

Oh.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

We should stop funding the ANA.

Then maybe the Afghans should stop listening to your ideas.

The plan that worked in Iraq, to get al Qaeda portrayed as the enemy, was helped along by their sheer brutality, punishment strategy and indifference of killing Muslim women and children. The Taliban, while brutal, have a political agenda to gain some power. Many here don't realize that the Taliban, unlike al-aqaeda, wants no more wars with America. The nation building effort that has given the Afghan's a taste of a better future, and actually have an infrastructure for economic development, has given into a strong anti-war effort.

It's going to be tricky but if the Taliban can have some political standing in the government AL-qeada would be their enemy and not be able to run amok in the country inciting insurrection.

A lot of big 'if's' but it could happen.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow


Global Partnership for Afghanistan: Renewing the former “Orchard of Central Asia,” one farmer at a time
Story of developing farming, empowering female farmers.
When you look at Afghanistan there's so much potential, maybe too much ?

spooky24
The plan that worked in Iraq, to get al Qaeda portrayed as the enemy, was helped along by their sheer brutality, punishment strategy and indifference of killing Muslim women and children. The Taliban, while brutal, have a political agenda to gain some power. Many here don't realize that the Taliban, unlike al-aqaeda, wants no more wars with America.

The Taliban want what their masters tell them to want, more or less.

If the Taliban's masters want the Taliban to want more wars with America then the Taliban will want more wars with America.

The Taliban's masters are those who dictate the military policy of Pakistan and those who run Saudi Arabia and other countries which fund the Taliban.

The day to day management of the Taliban; those who tell them what they ought to want to do to please their masters are the Pakistani military intelligence agency the ISI.

Mr Peter Dow

Please watch the SECRET PAKISTAN videos which clearly show that the Taliban are organised and supplied by the Pakistani military intelligence agency the ISI.

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross)

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash)

You have been deceived if you proceed on the assumption that the Taliban or even Al Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist organisations are independent, stand-alone organisations. They are not. These terrorist organisations are sponsored by certain states, certain countries - "state sponsors of terrorism", we call them.

spooky24
The nation building effort that has given the Afghan's a taste of a better future, and actually have an infrastructure for economic development, has given into a strong anti-war effort.

It's going to be tricky but if the Taliban can have some political standing in the government AL-qeada would be their enemy and not be able to run amok in the country inciting insurrection.

A lot of big 'if's' but it could happen.

No, the Taliban will serve the interests of their masters which is to use Afghanistan to lure our forces into the graveyard of empires to bleed them dry as was done to the army of the Soviet Union.

The only possible way to secure Afghanistan is to eliminate the Taliban and that can only be done by making war on the Taliban's masters, primarily the Pakistani military dictators and the Saudi royals.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow


Bomb Bomb Bomb the enemy?


Maybe that strategy seems to be killing too too many innocents, so other ideas like peace talks are needed.

Why would NATO and specifically the US want to encourage "peace talks" with the enemy Taliban? Why not simply crush the enemy?

Because for years of trying more innocents have suffered, you want more of this I presume as you lay it all out with a 4 point plan and all.

Points 3 and 4 are simply brilliant, If the modern US is still able to distance itself from being viewed as having an almost identical ideology as NAZI Germany of WW2 did then those two points would simply end the debate.

But lets bomb some other areas, that might make things right.


The more you fight the more you lose.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

No, let's win the war on terror.

are you really that blind and ignorant of what you are saying.


War is terror, so fighting a war against terror to try and end terror is merry go round of crazy.

You kill every living person with that ideology and you become the terror that others will stand and fight against, the US has been that terror for decades now in many eyes.

A lot of people don't like the slogan "war on terror". I like it because it makes clear that we are making war on the terrorists and those states which sponsor terrorists and we are not waging war on the peaceful people of any country.

So why is there so much collateral damage as they call it?

Just innocent casualties of war, blame the Taliban for their deaths even though its US military weapons and bombs that have been deployed in a foreign country that is killing many of these innocents.

But the war isn't waged on them innocents, just on their neighbor or maybe one of their cousins right?

edit: not finished yet with that post.

That's not my plan. My plan is not to win a "war on half-the-world" but to win the "war on terror".

Yes it is, those 4 points would most likely erupt into the US having to nuke half the world and probably half or more of its citizens to win this war you speak of.

To win the war on terror if you want one fought there is a solution, kill yourself. not you personally but you sure seem to want this killing of terrorist, so those that want this war on terror are the terrorists, so fight yourself and place a dagger in your hearts so the world can have peace and the war on terror can when the ones seeking such a war cease to live.

New US strategic partnership office for Pakistan, Afghanistan
Islamabad, Jan 18 (IANS)

US President Barack Obama has ordered the establishment of a temporary office to be known as Afghanistan and Pakistan Strategic Partnership Office (APSPO).

The new office would help promote further security and stabilisation and transitioning to a normal US diplomatic presence in the two countries, the Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) reported Saturday.

news.yahoo.com...

ESTABLISHMENT OF AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP OFFICE AND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12163

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America ...it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of State ... a temporary organization to be known as the Afghanistan and Pakistan Strategic Partnership Office (APSPO).

Sec. 2. Purpose of the Temporary Organization. The purposes of the APSPO shall be to perform the specific project of supporting executive departments and agencies (agencies) in facilitating a strategic partnership between the U.S. Government and the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, promoting further security and stabilization,

Sec. 3. Functions ...

Sec. 4. Personnel and Administration. The APSPO shall be headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary. The APSPO shall be based in Washington, D.C., Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
...

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 17, 2014.

BARACK OBAMA

www.whitehouse.gov...

Cheers Mr President!

I've prepared some war on terror strategy notes for the new Director of the APSPO, as follows.

AfPak Mission briefing notes for the Director of the APSPO

The primary challenge to security in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The struggle is primarily with the Pakistani military intelligence service, the ISI, waging a war to oust our forces, using proxy irregular forces of the Pakistani military, call them "insurgents" or "Taliban", but they serve the imperialist generals and former generals of Pakistan who still dictate the military policy of Pakistan, behind the scenes of the window-dressing of an elected but powerless government.

Watch the BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos which show how the very same Pakistani military, the US gave $10 billion to since 2001, is actually SUPPORTING, RECRUITING, TRAINING, SUPPLYING AND DIRECTING THE TALIBAN.

Part 1 www.youtube.com...

Part 2 www.youtube.com...

Additional re: Saudi Arabia www.youtube.com...

The secondary challenge to US & NATO security in which Afghanistan features, is in the deeper strategic war being waged against us by Al-Qaeda who lured our forces to Afghanistan where they believed they could repeat their success in defeating another super-power some years ago, the Soviet Union, but this time defeating us, the Western super-power led by the US.

Whilst this strategic war is not in the minds of the typical Taliban fighter or their ISI controllers (their simple war aim is merely to oust us from Afghanistan ASAP) the Al-Qaeda plan would be to inflict heavy casualties and dissolve our NATO cohesion first before we are driven out of Afghanistan, a super-power no more.

If Pakistan's secret is revealed now that the Taliban are indeed run by the ISI for the Pakistani military then it follows that the concept of containing or including the Taliban could only be as valid (or as invalid) as the equivalent concept of containing or including the Pakistani military, the masters of the Taliban.

So the investment of US lives and treasure in Afghanistan whilst, yes, increasing the absolute performance of the Afghan military has not done so well in relative terms against the Taliban because the US has, rather foolishly in retrospect, been paying Pakistan billions of dollars in military aid, part of which they have invested in the Taliban and part in more nuclear weapons.

Perhaps most dangerously for our security we have allowed Pakistan to assume they can sponsor terrorists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to attack us yet escape state responsibility for doing so and escape our wider application of the Bush Doctrine to regime-change Pakistan.

We need a new strategy which defeats the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) by applying the Bush Doctrine versus those states which sponsor those terrorists - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Applying the Bush Doctrine versus Afghanistan alone makes as little strategic sense as it would have if we'd applied Cold War doctrine to say Cuba alone but not against the Soviet Union and its Eastern European client communists states!

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

We should apply massive pressure to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, up to and including war if necessary. Something fairly dramatic is needed to show the state sponsors of terrorism that their plan for a secret war against us with no chance of any blow-back has utterly failed and they are looking down the barrel of a real war with us.

AfPak Mission Channel www.youtube.com...
Forum scot.tk...
Twitter twitter.com...
Flickr www.flickr.com...
Blog afpakmission.wordpress.com...

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Taliban fighter or their ISI controllers

No doubt that ISI is involved in things they should not be involved in however the Taliban are not a terrorist organization-they are a form of government-who have learned their lesson about confronting America's military power and their huge advantage in signal intelligence.

Some interesting thoughts nevertheless. You could add to that the need to destabilize Iraq-the ethnic and religious retaliation tit for tat bloodbaths could also strengthen ISI's position.

That could be in the form of a question-Do you think the ISI would befit from another sunni-shia slaughterhouse in Iraq or would that weaken their hand in Afghanistan?

spooky24
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

Taliban fighter or their ISI controllers

No doubt that ISI is involved in things they should not be involved in however the Taliban are not a terrorist organization-they are a form of government-who have learned their lesson about confronting America's military power and their huge advantage in signal intelligence.

The Taliban learn their political lessons from their political leaders, people like the Father of the Taliban, Sami ul Haq.


And the lesson learned by the Taliban is to fight on until we surrender, until our forces leave Afghanistan, until we've learned our lesson not to dare to defend ourselves when attacked like when our civilians were killed on 9/11 or when our forces and civilians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, until we pay Pakistan many more billions of dollars, until we have no power against being dictated to by them.

The military lesson the ISI and the Taliban learned from the Soviets leaving Afghanistan is that they can beat one superpower.

The military lesson the ISI and the Taliban will learn from us if and when we leave Afghanistan is that they can beat all superpowers.

spooky24
Some interesting thoughts nevertheless. You could add to that the need to destabilize Iraq-the ethnic and religious retaliation tit for tat bloodbaths could also strengthen ISI's position.

That could be in the form of a question-Do you think the ISI would befit from another sunni-shia slaughterhouse in Iraq or would that weaken their hand in Afghanistan?

I think I'll take the question because I'm not sure what you mean by "the need". Whose need? Anyway, I'll answer the question.

The ISI are part of the Pakistani military that resents our pressure to move to democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and they have clearly been in an Axis with the Saudis who resent our pressure to move to democracy in Iraq.

The way the ISI and the Saudis resist that pressure is to wreck the countries with new democracies or subvert them and try to take them over and run as much of them as possible as vassal, client or subordinate states. Even if they don't succeed in taking them over then simply burning them to the ground is better from the ISI's or Saudi's point of view than have a successful democracy as a neighbour that the Pakistani or Arab people will take inspiration from and push for democracy in their own country - the last thing the ISI and Saudis want.

So the Saudis are funding Al-Qaeda to wreck Iraqi democracy the same way the ISI is controlling the Taliban to wreck Afghan democracy.

So yes I think the ISI is likely to want Al-Qaeda to control as much of Iraq as they can and destroy the bits of Iraq they can't control but what matters more is how we react to the ISI.

For example, if we send our missiles and air force to bomb the ISI HQ in Islamabad then that will weaken the ISI's hand a lot more than anything which happens in Iraq.

On the other hand if we continue to give billions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan that will strengthen the ISI's hand in Afghanistan again, no matter what happens in Iraq.

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Military Proposal Seeks Shorter Afghan Stay

U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014

WASHINGTON—U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, but then start drawing the force down to nearly zero by the end of President Barack Obama's term, according to senior officials.

The request reflects a far shorter time frame for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan than commanders had previously envisaged after the current international mission ends this year. The new approach is intended to buy the U.S. military time to advise and train the Afghan army but still allow Mr. Obama to leave office saying he ended America's longest war, the officials said.

Military leaders told Mr. Obama that if he rejects the 10,000-troop option, then it would be best to withdraw nearly all military personnel at the end of this year because a smaller troop presence wouldn't offer adequate protection to U.S. personnel, said officials involved in the discussions.

Regarding the Pentagon's proposal for a MINIMUM of 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

One does require more troops to keep an airbridge (that is to say a military base supplied only by air, with airfields, runways etc) open vs all foes.

20,000 French troops proved to be insufficient when in 1954 they were guarding one airbridge military base at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam when the French base was overrun by the Viet Minh.


Wikipedia: Battle of Dien Bien Phu

If you have only one large base then fewer troops are required. You need to occupy a big area to defend the landing and takeoff fight paths vs enemy ground-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft gun-fire.

The area occupied by the French at Dien Bien Phu proved to be too small at only 2 x 5 miles.

Occupying a base area of at least 20 x 20 miles would be better, more practical to defend.



One does need to defend a large perimeter to keep the enemy guns out of range of the base's runways.

Typically 1000 guards are required to defend one 1 base in routine circumstances to defend the perimeter defences alone.

If the Taliban are surged massively, perhaps supported by regular troops of Pakistan, Iran or even Afghanistan, and the enemy army brings artillery to bear and concentrates a sustained attack on one base, as did the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu then the base would need 10,000 guards to defend the base and win the battle.

Fewer troops are required if engineers build impenetrable wide perimeter defences, meaning vehicle barriers anti-tank minefields, infantry barriers, barbed wire, anti-personnel mine-fields - to a mine field thickness of 2 miles all around the base, and that could be 40 miles or more of a perimeter circumference to build - and the perimeter watched over 24/7 by guards in hardened machine gun positions.


Perimeter defences for a military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow

For Afghanistan, if I only had 10,000 troops to deploy then I wouldn't have enough for the proposed 9 bases.

Since each base would require 1000 guards in routine circumstances then 9 bases would require 9 x 1000 = 9000 troops just to guard the 9 bases, which would only leave me 1000 troops for operations outside the bases.

With only 10,000 troops I'd establish no more than 5 bases which would need 5 x 1000 = 5000 troops to guard the bases and leave 5000 troops for operations outside the bases, an average of 2000 troops per base.

In the event of a sustained assault as per Dien Bein Phu, if I could fly in reinforcement troops from reserves outside Afghanistan to the base under attack, I would fly in an additional 8000 troops to each base that came under a sustained attack.

If there were no troops available to fly in to reinforce the attacked bases then I would abandon some of the 5 bases, if necessary all but one, redeploying the troops from abandoned bases so that I had enough troops to defend the fewer remaining bases.



AfPak Mission Channel AfPak Mission - YouTube
Forum For Freedom Forums
Twitter AfPak Mission (AfPakMission) on Twitter
Flickr Flickr: AfPak Mission's Photostream
Blog AfPak Mission

Pakistan jets bomb Taliban positions in North Waziristan

It looks like Dr Frankenstein of Pakistan has run out of patience with his monster.


BBC: Pakistan jets bomb Taliban positions in North Waziristan (YouTube)

Washington Post:
Deadly Pakistani airstrikes target militants believed responsible for recent attacks
By Haq Nawaz Khan and Tim Craig, Published: January 21

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s military launched airstrikes in its restive tribal areas on Tuesday, killing 40 suspected militants, in an attempt to combat terrorist attacks that are escalating across the country.

...

The strikes, among the heaviest bombardments of the tribal areas in several years, were conducted in the aftermath of a suicide bombing Sunday that killed 20 Pakistani soldiers. ...

The military airstrikes began late Monday over a troubled area of North Waziristan, a hotbed for Pakistani and foreign militants near the Afghan border. According to local officials and the Reuters news service, it was the first time the military had carried out airstrikes in North Waziristan since a cease-fire deal with local Taliban leaders in 2007.

It's good diplomacy to give some praise when Pakistan hits the Taliban (note this is praise this is not the $10 billion which the Pentagon has foolishly given to Pakistan since 2001) so I made up this tribute video.


NATO tribute to Pakistan Air Force: "Don't Stop Me Now!" (YouTube)

A friend of NATO, the AfPak Mission presents a tribute to the Pakistan Air Force in recognition of air strikes against the Taliban, enemy of mankind, from January 2014 - "Don't stop me now!"

No peace with the Taliban.
The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.

Now one swallow does not make a summer but this latest action by Pakistan is very much a step in the right direction along the way we want Pakistan to go.

Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan

Fight to win,

Retreat,

Surrender

Obama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals
Bloomberg Politics
By Gopal Ratnam and David Lerman Feb 4, 2014 7:54 PM GM
www.bloomberg.com...

The Obama administration is considering its options to withdraw some or all U.S. forces from Afghanistan as time runs out for a new security agreement, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

“They’re planning for all options,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after a closed-door briefing today with defense officials at the Capitol. “They have to.”

1. Fight to win

This is the option I strongly recommend to the president and my AfPak Mission content suggests how that win could be had most efficiently.

The AfPak Mission

The AfPak Mission

The AfPak Mission on the internet is about war on terror military and security strategy for NATO and allied countries with ground forces in action in Afghanistan and air and airborne forces including drones and special force raids in action over Pakistan.

The AfPak Mission helps implementation of the Bush Doctrine versus state sponsors of terror and is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice.

The AfPak Mission approach to the Taliban is uncompromising.

• There should be no peace with the Taliban.
  
• The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.
  
• Arrest all Taliban political leaders and media spokesmen.
  
• Capture or kill all Taliban fighters.

The AfPak Mission identifies useful content across multiple websites.

On YouTube, the AfPak Mission channel presents playlists of useful videos.

The AfPak Mission forum offers structured on-line written discussion facilities and the forum is the rallying and reference centre of the AfPak Mission, linking to all other AfPak Mission content on the internet.

The AfPak Mission has a Twitter, a Flickr and a wordpress Blog too.
You are invited to subscribe to the channel, register with the forum and follow on twitter, flickr and the blog.

2. Retreat
Retreating from Afghanistan is giving the Taliban what they want but it won't be enough of a surrender to satisfy Al-Qaeda who'll still be fighting us.

Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'

Obama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals

‘Drop-Dead Date’

Several senators today said they’ve concluded that Karzai will never sign the agreement and are looking past him toward a successor. Levin said waiting for the next president would give the U.S. and NATO allies enough time to plan for a limited military presence after this year.

“Really, the drop-dead date is the next president,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.

American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'

What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead after the 'drop-dead date'.

Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?

That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.

How could this be?

Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.

Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.

Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.

Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "drop-dead date" policy are heading Americans into.

So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.

Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.

Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.

Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "drop-dead date" policy had gone in to operation.

Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "drop-dead date" policy.

Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "drop-dead date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "drop-dead date".

Why?

Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan, retreat, after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars to Pakistan and then go home.

The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.

The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.

I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.

But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.

We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.

We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.

Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating, that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and that we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.

We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped accountability for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape accountability for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.

So don't use the phrase "drop-dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.

Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.

That's the way to win the war on terror.

Retreating after a 'drop-dead date' is not the way to win.

3. Surrender
Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda

U.S. to Curb Pakistan Drone Program
Wall Street Journal. Feb. 5, 2014 8:32 p.m. ET

The Obama administration will narrow its controversial drone program in Pakistan to target a short list of high-level terrorists, and aim to end it during the prime minister's current term, senior U.S. officials have told their Pakistani counterparts.

The downsizing of the covert Central Intelligence Agency program reflects Pakistani objections to the strikes and logistical constraints on the spy agency at the end of this year, when...

The CIA has long added new targets to a longer "kill list" on a rolling basis as old targets are hit.

Now, U.S. officials say, the "kill list" is not self-replenishing, a change long sought by Islamabad. "By taking one off, we're not automatically putting one on," a senior U.S. official said. As a result, the number of targets on the list are decreasing as the CIA's drones focus on a more limited number of high-level targets that "will enable us to conclude the program," the official said.

And so here's what the newspaper headlines of the next few years could look something like if Obama turns his going soft on Al-Qaeda into a full surrender ...

US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list'

US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.

US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.

Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.

Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.

Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.

US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".

Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.

US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.

Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.

Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.

Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes he can?

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow


You forgot an option.... Obama can play Frogger in traffic until we suffer an outright defeat in Afghanistan...which is what I believe we are going to watch happen at this point.

I pray to God our troops know when to turn their radios and comms OFF and ignore Washington or outside command and save their own asses....because Washington is likely to be about as helpful when that time comes as they were to Ambassador Stevens in Libya. Obama and Kerry will look sad and say the right things when we have a U.S. base overrun and annihilated, but it'll happen at this rate and nothing of substance is or will be done to prevent it.

I hope we don't lose too many good men in the end of this mess ...as it's not even being ended well. Just half assing all over the place until the Taliban slam the door in our face with body bags.

I hate to be gloomy....but Afghanistan is where empires go to die. It's always been and perhaps, may always be. We arrogantly thought WE could be the exception to history ...and we proved that history isn't so easy to beat after all.

Time to leave.....and failing that, again, I hope the troops know when to shut off comms and bug out on their own. They'll be left to die in that place, otherwise. ...and I'll be VERY HAPPY to be proven wrong on this.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

You forgot an option.... Obama can play Frogger in traffic

I've satirically depicted Obama giving his recent "State of the Union" speech as a host of "Blockbusters" - an old TV game show, with US & British versions, in which the object of the game is to guess a word beginning with a particular letter from a clue.

What "P" is a country which hosts terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans and are targeted by US drones, gets billions of US taxpayer dollars in aid yet can afford to buy more and more nuclear weapons, but despite the threat and danger to the US from this country, it wasn't even named by the President in his State of the Union speech in 2014?

So I think that's funnier and more politically educational than to imagine Obama playing frogger in traffic.

But by that do you mean, there's an option for the president to give no further orders at all - simply to leave all decisions to his VIce-President, Joe Biden, the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel and to the generals?

The president is not ill is he? Then why would he suddenly stop giving any orders at all then?

Even if the president does that, not much, then the same range of options are available to the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense and the generals - fight to win, retreat or surrender.

Wrabbit2000
until we suffer an outright defeat in Afghanistan...which is what I believe we are going to watch happen at this point.

You seem to be describing an outcome rather than a policy option.

The president, the commander in chief (or any of his subordinate commanders in the command hierarchy) isn't just a spectator in these events.

In war, the commander is always the critical actor. What the commander does, the orders he gives, the policy options he picks, will decide more than any other factor what happens to our forces in Afghanistan, whether the war ends in victory, defeat or somewhere in between.

Wrabbit2000

I pray to God our troops know when to turn their radios and comms OFF and ignore Washington or outside command and save their own asses....because Washington is likely to be about as helpful when that time comes as they were to Ambassador Stevens in Libya. Obama and Kerry will look sad and say the right things when we have a U.S. base overrun and annihilated, but it'll happen at this rate and nothing of substance is or will be done to prevent it.

I hope we don't lose too many good men in the end of this mess ...as it's not even being ended well. Just half assing all over the place until the Taliban slam the door in our face with body bags.

I hate to be gloomy....but Afghanistan is where empires go to die. It's always been and perhaps, may always be. We arrogantly thought WE could be the exception to history ...and we proved that history isn't so easy to beat after all.

Time to leave.....and failing that, again, I hope the troops know when to shut off comms and bug out on their own. They'll be left to die in that place, otherwise. ...and I'll be VERY HAPPY to be proven wrong on this.

That's very poor advice. An army on the battle-field is always much stronger and and its troops much safer so long as it acts as an army under a unified command.

If soldiers on the battle-field, in a war zone, stop following the orders of their commanders and instead just do their own thing, desert, disperse in an every-man-for-himself panic and rout then that's when they'll be in most danger, that's when they'll get captured or killed.

The army that always acts as an army, that sticks together, always does much, much better than routed troops.

So really your advice to our troops is the most foolish they could possibly receive. If an individual soldier or marine no longer wishes to follow orders then the time to choose to do that, if they must, is when they are home on leave and simply go AWOL then. Flee to Canada maybe. That's not good advice, so I would not give it, but it is not the worst possible advice which you just gave!

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

You seem to be describing an outcome rather than a policy option.

Policy leads to outcome and outcome in this case? We've already seen play out once before in Southeast Asia. Here, again, we're making secret deals and secret neogitations with an enemy we're still actively hunting and killing across the battlefield at the same time. Did they learn absolutely nothing? Obama was too young and distracted at that age ...but he at least has Kerry who should see the parallels here clearer than anyone. After all, the wheel spinning without much cause is what he so strongly protested in the 70's. Different times I guess..and this doesn't count to the bunch of them now.

In war, the commander is always the critical actor. What the commander does, the orders he gives, the policy options he picks, will decide more than any other factor what happens to our forces in Afghanistan, whether the war ends in victory, defeat or somewhere in between.

Commander at what level? Prior to watching the United States leave men to die without even TRYING to scramble assistance...I would never have questioned the ultimate good will and intent behind US actions to cover and save it's own people. Now? I don't give two bits for trusting that a base being over-run will warrant dramatic and heroic measures to stop. I think it'll be looked at in politics of how much cost vs. how much loss and whether it's ultimately worth it. (Even Johnson never got THAT damn cold...but I don't doubt we see men capable of it now)

That's very poor advice. An army on the battle-field is always much stronger and and its troops much safer so long as it acts as an army under a unified command.

If that Unified command has the same BASIC values and goals as the men under them, yes. I absolutely agree and it's what has given America it's true strength over other military forces in battle before. It isn't heart, it isn't weapons systems alone and it's not clever tactics. It's the unquestioned belief in the unified chain of command and the sense that whatever is being ordered has SOME reason that is necessary, even if not obvious at that moment for everyone.

That trust...has been good and truly shattered now, in my humble opinion. It may never be fully restored....and lets see how Afghanistan ACTUALLY ends before assuming the best of intentions, is what I say.

I have blood family over there or due to rotate over there if Americans stay, by the way. This is ANYTHING but mental musing for me and is a very personal interest for intensely personal reasons. I really believe deeply what I'm saying on this one.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow



Youre overlooking something. We ( the forces of the countries involved... and there are several countries) DONT want to "win" the war on terror. That BS was sold to the public so they would support it. There are things happening that are much more lucrative than "winning" anything as you think of "winning".