PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan: a war of containment.



32Bravo
08-12-2009, 03:18 AM
Since the attacks on New York in September 2001 and subsequent attacks on other Western nations, the West has been seeking ways of either taking the fight to the enemy, or of remaining neutral so as not to encourage further retaliatory attacks by terrorist elements. The war in Iraq was, arguably, a knee-jerk reaction to the attacks on New York and also, arguably, a result of a very different agenda than that of defeating terrorism.

At face value, the operations in Afghanistan more closely resemble a war against terror and its support elements. However, the initial operations to drive out the Taliban and, thus, by doing so, denying the terrorists bases from which to strike at the West, seem somewhat redundant. The terrorists have re-located to the states which border Afghanistan from where they can strike against Western forces and retreat into, as and when necessary.

So, should the fight against the Taliban be taken into these safe havens or should Western forces operate solely in Afghanistan? Is the objective to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan and restore order to that country as well as denying them, the terrorists, a base from which to strike at Western cities, or is the objective merely to keep the terrorists’ attention focussed on the troops in Afghanistan and away from ‘our’ shores?

We hear arguments and discussions – at least I do – of how Afghanistan is a graveyard for all invaders including the Russians in more recent times, but is the objective truly to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan? By placing troops in Afghanistan, are not the Western allies offering them up as bait to keep the terrorist fanatics occupied in sacrificing themselves in a Holy War against the enemy on their doorstep - which is remote from Western cities and populations - rather than have those fanatics performing acts of mass destruction in our cities? Therefore, if one accepts this train of thought, which is basically one of containment, should the Western nations accept that there are going to be a continuous stream of casualties among their troops for a very long time to come; until such time that the terrorist organisations can be eradicated from the sanctuaries, bases and training facilities which they have established within the bordering states however that might be accomplished?

Rising Sun*
08-14-2009, 08:19 AM
At face value, the operations in Afghanistan more closely resemble a war against terror and its support elements. However, the initial operations to drive out the Taliban and, thus, by doing so, denying the terrorists bases from which to strike at the West, seem somewhat redundant. The terrorists have re-located to the states which border Afghanistan from where they can strike against Western forces and retreat into, as and when necessary.

So, should the fight against the Taliban be taken into these safe havens or should Western forces operate solely in Afghanistan? Is the objective to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan and restore order to that country as well as denying them, the terrorists, a base from which to strike at Western cities, or is the objective merely to keep the terrorists’ attention focussed on the troops in Afghanistan and away from ‘our’ shores?

We hear arguments and discussions – at least I do – of how Afghanistan is a graveyard for all invaders including the Russians in more recent times, but is the objective truly to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan? By placing troops in Afghanistan, are not the Western allies offering them up as bait to keep the terrorist fanatics occupied in sacrificing themselves in a Holy War against the enemy on their doorstep - which is remote from Western cities and populations - rather than have those fanatics performing acts of mass destruction in our cities? Therefore, if one accepts this train of thought, which is basically one of containment, should the Western nations accept that there are going to be a continuous stream of casualties among their troops for a very long time to come; until such time that the terrorist organisations can be eradicated from the sanctuaries, bases and training facilities which they have established within the bordering states however that might be accomplished?

My view, which I've expressed somewhere else on the forum at least once and probably more often, is that after 9/11 Afghanistan was a viper's nest which had to be cleaned out to get rid of the likes of bin Laden and his adherents.

Iraq was an entirely different issue manipulated by Bush and his neo-cons for American advantage, which it probably achieved by ensuring that oil is still paid for internationally in US$ rather than Euros.

I never saw the point in occupying the unoccupiable in Afghanistan and driving the vipers into other regions such as Pakistan, particularly when Pakistan's ISI has an unhealthy relationship with the Taliban and their ilk.

I'm in favour of crushing raids which destroy the immediate capacity of the likes of bin Laden without wasting lives and effort in a futile occupation. Those raids can be almost completely from the air nowadays, with little or no risk to the attacker.

Get in, get out, spend no or little time on the ground and the next time the bastards look like being a problem then do the same again.

How they run their country and how they fight among each other in the interim ain't our problem.

If they don't want us to launch crushing raids on them then don't sponsor people who attack us. It ain't rocket science: If you don't hurt us, we won't hurt you.

However, if they want to invite us in to help them enjoy whatever benefits they want from us in a country where they, not us, provide the necessary security to do so because they want us there then, by all means, we'll help them.

Which is the exact opposite of the failed 'win hearts and minds' campaigns imposed from Vietnam onwards by foreign forces who aren't supported by many or most of the people in the country we've invaded.

Sooner or later even the dumbest people can work out that every time they host vipers they will come to regret it if it always provokes a crushing raid.

Sure, it's bully boy tactics, but that's what they're using for whatever unspecified purpose it is that they're pursuing, so why should we care when it's a 'them or us' situation?

I just feel sorry for the poor bastards who have the misfortune to get caught up in a crushing raid in the same way as the poor bastards who got caught up in the twin towers, Bali, Madrid and London who had nothing to do with whatever unknown aim it was that their murderers were pursuing.

32Bravo
08-14-2009, 10:19 AM
My view, which I've expressed somewhere else on the forum at least once and probably more often, is that after 9/11 Afghanistan was a viper's nest which had to be cleaned out to get rid of the likes of bin Laden and his adherents.

Iraq was an entirely different issue manipulated by Bush and his neo-cons for American advantage, which it probably achieved by ensuring that oil is still paid for internationally in US$ rather than Euros.

I never saw the point in occupying the unoccupiable in Afghanistan and driving the vipers into other regions such as Pakistan, particularly when Pakistan's ISI has an unhealthy relationship with the Taliban and their ilk.

I'm in favour of crushing raids which destroy the immediate capacity of the likes of bin Laden without wasting lives and effort in a futile occupation. Those raids can be almost completely from the air nowadays, with little or no risk to the attacker.

Get in, get out, spend no or little time on the ground and the next time the bastards look like being a problem then do the same again.

How they run their country and how they fight among each other in the interim ain't our problem.

If they don't want us to launch crushing raids on them then don't sponsor people who attack us. It ain't rocket science: If you don't hurt us, we won't hurt you.

However, if they want to invite us in to help them enjoy whatever benefits they want from us in a country where they, not us, provide the necessary security to do so because they want us there then, by all means, we'll help them.

Which is the exact opposite of the failed 'win hearts and minds' campaigns imposed from Vietnam onwards by foreign forces who aren't supported by many or most of the people in the country we've invaded.

Sooner or later even the dumbest people can work out that every time they host vipers they will come to regret it if it always provokes a crushing raid.

Sure, it's bully boy tactics, but that's what they're using for whatever unspecified purpose it is that they're pursuing, so why should we care when it's a 'them or us' situation?

I just feel sorry for the poor bastards who have the misfortune to get caught up in a crushing raid in the same way as the poor bastards who got caught up in the twin towers, Bali, Madrid and London who had nothing to do with whatever unknown aim it was that their murderers were pursuing.


Well, you might have something there.
RN future capability.
Here's a bit of RN promotion for their Queen Elizabwth class carriers which are expected to come into service around 2012. Note the Joint Strike Fighter and Merlin aircrafts.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3608975/9955765

HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hms%20albion&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-Address&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIE_en-GB&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#

HMS Ocean
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hms%20ocean&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-Address&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIE_en-GB&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#

32Bravo
08-14-2009, 10:22 AM
It's my belief that our boys are kept there to keep the bad guys occupied.

I'm not certain the 'Iron Fist' treatment works - certainly doesn't deter the Palestinians. Hearts and Minds?...it isn't done properly and in situations where allies can't agree on a joint policy, usually on account of cultural differences and differing domestic demands, it never will.

The main culprits, as far as I'm concerned, are the Iranians and Syrians, and it is those countries that are not being bombed to kingdom come.

Rising Sun*
08-14-2009, 07:35 PM
The main culprits, as far as I'm concerned, are the Iranians and Syrians, and it is those countries that are not being bombed to kingdom come.

And Saudi Arabia. Which is immune because of oil and Mecca.

32Bravo
08-15-2009, 07:58 AM
And Saudi Arabia. Which is immune because of oil and Mecca.

Now that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Pandora's Box comes to mind.

Rising Sun*
08-15-2009, 10:21 AM
Pandora's Box comes to mind.

Which is why nobody will open it.

Although there is a Saudi parallel with its contents, being a store of all the evils of mankind with, one hopes, hope at the bottom of the jar.

Yeah, right, for a misogynistic, patriarchal, medieval society fixated on a rigid interpretation of an ancient religious text! :evil:

Give me a communist or fascist any day. At least they're relatively rational, and less disposed to exterminate everyone who doesn't fully agree with them. :(

Rising Sun*
08-15-2009, 10:50 AM
P.S.

One of the things I love about the many Saudi students, most of whom are in their early to mid twenties and exclusively male, who come to Australia to study is how when they're here they're more or less clean shaven; into the grog; and love ****ing any woman they can get into.

But when they attend the local mosque or go home they suddenly look just like their passport photos with all the Arab gear on their crafty little heads.

Which agrees with everything I've heard from airline staff flying out of there and their conduct in London and its gambling, drinking and ****ing palaces.

In their favour, I have to say that the rich Saudi young men here are usually fairly responsible and reasonably generous in providing financial support for the sheilas they've knocked up and the kid they've produced, at least until they get out of Australia, although it's a drop in the ocean given their financial resources. Once they've left us the well often dries up.

Still, you can't expect a good Saudi boy to go back to the birthplace of Islam and admit (to a dad who probably did the same) that he's been ****ing himself stupid with infidels and, worse, bred with one of those infidel sluts. We really need to free ourselves of narrow cultural conceptions and learn to see things from the perspective of minorities in our society.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

32Bravo
08-15-2009, 11:22 AM
When at the Army languages school in Beconsfield, many moons ago, I met a number of young, Saudi Army officers. They behaved much as you describe. Lots of cash to throw about and very dapper. The girls were much impressed. But once I showed up, they only got my rejects. ;)

32Bravo
08-18-2009, 04:06 AM
The head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, says that although the UK mission in Afghanistan is "difficult and dangerous, we must succeed and we will succeed".

Speaking from the new Army recovery centre in Edinburgh, he told the BBC that troops were trying to persuade the people of Afghanistan of the importance of voting for an elected government and defeating the Taliban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8205306.stm

"...and it's particularly about the people for the people of this country!"

Panther's Claw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8172556.stm

News Footage
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=operation%20PANTHER'S%20CLAW&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-Address&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIE_en-GB&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#