Taliban: Afghanistan Will Be 'Graveyard' For U.S.

[leftchick]

reminds me of the definition of insanity. :(



CBS News Interactive: About Afghanistan
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (CBS) ―

http://wcco.com/politics/taliban.afghanistan.united.2.938801.html

A former government minister from the Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan says the United States can throw as many soldiers into the country as it wants, they will just meet the same fate as all previous "foreign invaders."

A day after President Obama announced a massive increase in the U.S. troop presence — an additional 17,000 pairs of boots on the ground, coming soon — the former minister told CBS News he couldn't understand, "why the U.S. relies on figures and the number of troops in a country such as Afghanistan, where the number of foreign invaders has never made any difference, and the winners have always been the freedom fighters."

<snip>

The former government official, who is now a Taliban commander and member of the movement's Military Council, pointed to the drawn-out war Russian forces fought to win control of Afghanistan, only to be turned back by a relentless insurgency.

"The more troops that the U.S. and NATO send, the more they will get deeper stuck in Afghanistan," said the former minister, who spoke to CBS on condition that he not be identified.

<snip>

The compassion of Muslims worldwide toward the Taliban's cause has increased significantly in the wake of "Israel's Zionist attack in Gaza," he said, claiming that donors from many nations have been sending cash to buy cars and explosives, which would be used in bombs aimed at the soon-to-arrive American forces.

[ShortnFiery]

1. UK & USSR to USA = AFGHANISTAN: Where Empires go to Die. n/t

[liberal N proud]

3. My thoughts exactly

I remember how Afghanistan broke Russia

[bdamomma]

2. the Taliban will fight to the death.

we need to get out.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Yes, like those North Vietnamese. By some estimates we killed 2 million, but they did not QUIT.

After all, "the natives" have nowhere to go. They're already living in abject poverty ... it's their terrain and they will hunker down ...

BUT THEY WILL NOT EVER QUIT FIGHTING AND DYING FOR THEIR LAND = NATIONALISM.

We (USA and Coalition Troops) need to "make like a sheep-herder and get the FLOCK out of the Middle East." :thumbsup:

[lunatica]

4. That's my fear too

And the graveyard will include a hundred civilians for every US soldier or Taliban 'freedom fighter'.

I have always been against this war. I was against it on the day after 9/11 because I knew Bush would react by going to war.

People can argue that war is justified if it's defensive. But war is always a defensive reaction to the latest offensive on the part of the antagonist. It's a never ending fulfillment prophecy. It's an eye for an eye that never ends.

[ShortnFiery]

7. I don't see why we can't WARN the nations of the M.E. that if there's an attack on the USA

the R.S.V.P. will return to them in the form of a bombing campaign. THAT WARNING would discourage terrorism. Keeping USA troops in the Middle East ... ANYWHERE within Islamic Nations, encourages terrorism.

It's almost AS IF, the "ruling powers that be in the world" are trying to THIN THE HERD ... all nationalities - just to keep testing their pretty weapons? :shrug:

[Turbineguy]

6. Of course

when they fought the USSR they did get help from the Americans.

Some around here seem to feel differently about the Taliban now than back in the days when they were destroying antiqities and shooting or skinning people.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Is Afghanistan OUR nation? Are we (USA) even in their neighborhood?

I rest my case. :(

[bdamomma]

9. another reason why we are there, it just never stops.

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Pipeline.htm

[leftchick]

10. ah the Caspian Pipeline

the real reason we are now embedded in the mideast. I am sure dick's energy papers included that map in addition to this one.





change? hope? how about an illusion? :(

[RethugAssKicker]

11. Why can't we leave these people alone !

What besides the pipeline do we want?

[pampango]

12. Some thoughts on the article.

"(T)he increase (in Taliban fighters) was not related to the influx of new U.S. troops, but had already been decided due to a change in tactic; moving the fight from the countryside to do battle in settled areas. "The numbers aren't significant, what's important is the new strategy and tactics," he (a former government minister from the Taliban) said."

Afghanistan is a large, rugged, underpopulated country and the Taliban has been successful fighting the US and NATO in the mountains and rural areas. The change in strategy to bring the fight to the cities, while perhaps a logical next step, might be playing into the American military's hands. One thing they have had experience with and some success at in Iraq is urban counter-insurgency. How well that translates to Afghanistan is an open question, but US military planners might be happy to move the fight from the mountains to the cities.

"The former government minister boasted of suicide bombers in waiting. "Bombers are our main assets, and still we have a number of suicide bombers.""

Suicide bombers have been effective against civilians, less so against local government army and police and even less effective against US forces in Iraq, certainly recently with our revised tactics. They didn't drive the Russians out by killing Afghan civilians themselves (and that strategy kind of backfired in Iraq where targeting civilians alienated groups that had initially supported the insurgents), they did it by killing Russian troops. I don't know if they used suicide bombers against Russians, but they haven't been very effective against ours.

"(D)onors from many nations have been sending cash to buy cars and explosives, which would be used in bombs aimed at the soon-to-arrive American forces."

Car bombs have the same checkered history as suicide bombers. (Sometimes, of course, the drivers of the car bombs blow themselves up, too.) They are good at killing civilians, but not so effective against military troops who develop tactics to minimize that risk. Targeting civilians can be useful in the short run, but long term the Taliban runs the risk of alienating the population they need to succeed.

If Obama is smart (and from what I have seen that is certainly the case) and he believes that a "surge" (by whatever name) is necessary in Afghanistan, I expect he knows that any campaign has to be quick followed by a quick withdrawal. The Taliban is not going anywhere. The mountainous terrain and safe haven in Pakistan assure that they will be around long after we are gone.

If Obama is right and can put the Taliban on the defensive and weaken them militarily and politically at least temporarily, he can then try to pressure the Afghan government to make necessary changes, then get out of there. It's a version of the "Vietnam" solution. We withdraw our military, arm/support the government, hope the news drops off the front page, then when the "bad guys" win in six months or a year or two, there won't be too much domestic "Who lost Afghanistan?" fallout. If we try to stay there long term, as the Russians did, we will lose.

One alternative Obama has (which he has apparently rejected) is to pull out of Afghanistan now, have the Taliban retake the country in fairly short order (perhaps threaten them with reprisals if they reestablish terrorist training camps), then hope that people are tired enough of Afghanistan that the repubs get no traction with the "Democrats are weak on defense and lost Afghanistan, blah, blah, blah, blah." My impression is that there is more popular support for fighting in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but I'm sure that Obama is politically savvy enough to know that better than I do.