lordmandeep
Banned
I cannot see any sign of success though.
|
|
|
- Thread starter jade_lee
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
The US has 30 000 troops (less than the NYPD) and NATO has another 54 000 in Afghanistan. Combined that's still only half of what the US has in Iraq which is both geographically smaller and less populated.
You are right that we are treading water for now, thanks to the Yanks being distracted by their misguided Iraq adventure but that is slowly winding up and US troops will start pouring into Afghanistan in 2009. This will make all the difference.
The problem NATO has right now is one of bodies. For example, Kandahar Province is slightly smaller than Nova Scotia. Canada has about 2500 personnel there. Of that the battle group is about 600 personnel. So we have about 600 pers to provide security for an area the size of Nova Scotia. So even when we capture ground, there aren't enough Canadians and Afghan Army to hold the line.
And that's what makes the population weary to throw their lot fully behind NATO. There's no use backing the guy who isn't going to be around to protect you when the Taliban come by in the night.
The key to pulling this off is the Afghan Army. Training them will take time. Many recruits are illiterate to begin with. So just providing some basic literacy and social skills to get them through training takes time. Other challenges for example included building an entire ATM and banking infrastructure just to pay them (so that corrupt officials don't dock their pay). But the more the Afghan Army comes on stream the more help we get. Incidentally, they are actually proving to be very very combat capable. And the proposal to double the size of the army to 120 000 will make a huge dent in the security situation.
This is what gives me hope. In the next few years we will see a number of things work for this mission. American attention to this conflict (regardless of who wins the Presidency), more US forces (2-3 brigades in 2009), a larger Afghan Army, etc. will all make a huge difference to the security situation which in turn will allow reconstruction to pick up the pace.
It is a mission which will take time. Nobody can repair the damage of 30 years of war in a few years. But doing that requires real hard headed committment. It requires a commitment to rebuild Afghanistan so that the Afghans can understand life without the Taliban. And it requires a commitment to providing them with security until their own army can do it. I am pretty confident that NATO is well on track to doing this.
Simply look at enemy attacks for confirmation. They cant win conventionally, so now they use IEDs. They can't be sure of public support, so they have started targetting aid workers and killing village elders in a bid to cower the populace into not supporting NATO. That however, can only work for so long. Just like the Anbar Awakening in Iraq, sooner or later the people will rise up against their Pakistani imposed Talib oppressors.
lordmandeep
Banned
I agree that we should be there but if we maintain our present course, it is fruitless.
I have long said we must do more to stop the Taliban in Pakistan or else we will never win this war.
If we take the conflict seriously and fight it properly, I support it.
Do not mistake me as a crazy idiotic idealist who thinks Terrorism will just vanish if we hunker down in Canada.
I have long said we must do more to stop the Taliban in Pakistan or else we will never win this war.
If we take the conflict seriously and fight it properly, I support it.
Do not mistake me as a crazy idiotic idealist who thinks Terrorism will just vanish if we hunker down in Canada.
afransen
Senior Member
Is the new Pakistani administration more likely to deal (or allow the US/NATO to deal) with Taliban forces and support infrastructure in Pakistan territory?
Overall, I'm rather ashamed that so many Canadians think the goal of ensuring that Afghanistan doesn't slip back into chaos and oppression when so much progress has been made, the people desperately want us to stay to finish the job, and an endgame is within sight. I think Afghanistan will go down in history as one of Canada's proudest moments in state building. Much better than the woefully inadequate, piecemeal aid we've been giving to far too many countries in far too difuse a way for too long.
Overall, I'm rather ashamed that so many Canadians think the goal of ensuring that Afghanistan doesn't slip back into chaos and oppression when so much progress has been made, the people desperately want us to stay to finish the job, and an endgame is within sight. I think Afghanistan will go down in history as one of Canada's proudest moments in state building. Much better than the woefully inadequate, piecemeal aid we've been giving to far too many countries in far too difuse a way for too long.
lordmandeep
Banned
The Pakistani government is weak and they are more concerned for the next few years to solidify their own political control.
They likely want things to calm down so there may be a crackdown on the Taliban.
However, they are still weak...
They likely want things to calm down so there may be a crackdown on the Taliban.
However, they are still weak...
kEiThZ
Superstar
I am always amazed at the number of people who have this simplistic view that we should just be peacekeepers. Where were these peaceniks when our guys were getting shot at and were in full combat as peacekeepers in Bosnia? And what do they think we are doing now in Afghanistan? They seem to have no understanding that to keep the peace, you sometimes have to fight for it.
It is incredibly frustrating to explain to most Canadians that to be an effective contributor in the world, we have to do missions which are dangerous. They seem to think that as long as we stay far away from any American involved mission that we will preserve our reputation. jade_lee is a prime example of this type of ignorance. In reality, our reputation becomes non-existent. Canada who?
Worse is those who get their information from John Stewart. I once had a friend ask me what our 'exit strategy' was for Afghanistan. It was challenging to get through to her that military forces don't go in with exit strategies. We go in with objectives and we fully pull out when those are achieved.
We are engaging the Pakistani government. As somebody involved in this file, I can assure you of that. They have many challenges though. Chief among them, is that the Army runs the country not the government. And the Army is paranoid about Afghanistan and India getting too close resulting in Indian strategic encirclement of Pakistan. And they are worried they will be left holding the bag when NATO loses patience and pulls out. Just like the end of the anti-soviet jihad. Hence, they hedge their bets by providing a permissive environment for Afghan insurgents. That will all change if they see a commitment to stay the course. In 2009, the US will start re-deploying a battalion a month from Iraq. And most leftist parties in Europe support the war in Afghanistan too, ensuring continued European involvement. This might finally convince them, slowly but surely, that the West intends to finish the job. Bringing them onside is key.
ShonTron
Moderator
John Stewart of the Mississauga News is covering the Afghani and Iraqi missions?
Or were you referring to Jon Stewart?
Or were you referring to Jon Stewart?
kEiThZ
Superstar
my bad...jon stewart...The Daily Show
cuzzin_elias
Banned
What have we achieved? What are our goals (besides getting the fk out of there in 2011)?
Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban, I don't see any sign of success
lordmandeep
Banned
NO!!!
It was more stable...
You and your idealistic friends will just sit here in your little own white castles and let the world burn.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Increase life expectancy, record school enrollments, significantly reduced infant mortality, etc.
Straight from ISAF's website:
ISAF Mandate
ISAF has a peace-enforcement mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Eight UN Security Council Resolutions – 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563, 1623, 1707 and 1776 – relate to ISAF.
However, ISAF is not a UN force. It is a coaliton of the willing deployed under the authority of the UN Security Council. 40 nations throughout the world currently contribute to ISAF.
The NATO mission itself was created in accordance with the Bonn Conference of December 2001 and its tasks are detailed in a Military Technical Agreement of January 2002 between the ISAF Commander and the Afghan Transitional Authority.
In August 2003, upon request of the UN and Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, NATO took command of ISAF.
What does it mean in practice?
In addition to the overall task of assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority and creating a secure environment, in concrete terms, ISAF aims at:
* conducting stability and security operations in coordination with the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF);
* assisting in the development of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and structures, including training the new Afghan National Army (ANA) and National Police (ANP);
* identify reconstruction needs, such as the rehabilitation of schools and medical facilities, restoring water supplies and providing support for other civil-military projects;
* support the Afghan government to Disarm Illegally Armed Groups (DIAG);
* provide support to the Afghan government and internationally-sanctioned counter-narcotics efforts through intelligence-sharing and the conduct of an efficient public information campaign, as well as support to the Afghan National Army Forces conducting counter-narcotics operations. ISAF, however, is not directly involved in the poppy eradication or destruction of processing facilities, or in taking military action against narcotic producers; and
* support humanitarian assistance operations
Are you serious? You really think that the Afghans were better off under the Taliban? The same group that used soccer stadiums for public executions, banned women from working, and blew up millenia old statues and harboured Al Qaeda. The Afghans were better of with them instead of NATO???
Ask any Afghan Canadian if they agree with you. Ask the Afghans themselves for that matter. Or any of the hundreds of NGOs working day and night to stabilize Afghanistan.
But hey to each his own. You prefer the Taliban, a Pakistani imposed theocracy for Afghanistan. I prefer to work towards helping the Afghans create a stable Central Asian democracy that might give them some peace and stability after 3 decades of conflict.
lordmandeep
Banned
really I knew it is a bit insensitive but the destruction of those ancient status was the worst thing they ever did.
The History behind it and the history lost.
It Showed how powerful Buddhism...
Do not forget the Taliban were majorly supported by the US before 9/11.
The History behind it and the history lost.
It Showed how powerful Buddhism...
Do not forget the Taliban were majorly supported by the US before 9/11.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Common misconception. The mujahideen were supported by the West. The Taliban were a Pakistani ISI inspired creation that largely co-opted many of the mujahideen through bribes, targeted assassinations, etc.
The Taliban were only recognized by three countries as the official government of Afghanistan...the UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Their thuggish ways may won a few hearts of the anti-American activists (cuzzin_ellias and jade_lee are good examples here) in the west, but they apparently couldn't even convince many Muslim countries to support them. That says a lot about how much support they have in the world.
lordmandeep
Banned
are you sure the Taliban were heavily courted by Western Oil Companies...
H
Hydrogen
Guest
For what? The lakes of oil in Afghanistan?