View Full Version : War on Taliban can't be won, says army chief
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/05/afghanistan
USAFBronco
10-05-2008, 09:24 AM
Mind posting the article, I can't read it at work >.< :(
elsid13
10-05-2008, 09:26 AM
War on Taliban can't be won, says army chief
British commander in Afghanistan says aim is now to reduce insurgency to low level
The most senior British commander in Afghanistan has said the British public should not expect a "decisive military victory" by coalition troops and has spoken about the possibility of holding security talks with the Taliban.
In an interview published today, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said "we're not going to win this war" and the aim was not total victory but reducing the insurgency to a low level, something which could involve talks with the Taliban.
Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, said the objective was to enlarge the Afghan army so it could take over the security of the country.
While paying tribute to his troops in Helmand province, and describing successes against insurgents, the brigadier
told (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882597.ece) today's Sunday Times: ""We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army."
He went on: "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this. That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."
The Observer reported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/28/afghanistan.defence) last month that the Taliban had already been engaged in secret talks about ending the conflict in Afghanistan in a wide-ranging "peace process" sponsored by Saudi Arabia and supported by Britain.
There have been 120 British military fatalities in Afghanistan since military operations began in the country following the US-led invasion to topple the Taliban in 2001 following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US.
The UK has around 8,000 troops in Afghanistan, mainly concentrated in the volatile southern province of Helmand
kappys
10-05-2008, 09:29 AM
You can't have a war on terror. People are finally figuring it out.
Dudeskey
10-05-2008, 09:52 AM
http://mnftiu.cc/blog/images/war.008.gif
Paladin
10-05-2008, 10:02 AM
Oh, no!!! He says there ought to be some talks with the Taliban? Between whom and whom? Is that the White flag of surrender? Gawd! No! We need our trrops and the Allies there to hit them nogoodniks more and stop all this nonsense about talking to them people that live over therel ya betcha. Golly what will they say next? That they ought to talk with tha Iranian guy and that snot Il?
Say it ain't so, Joe. (wink)
But we should talk about all that good old American oil we got in Alaska......
enjolras
10-05-2008, 10:10 AM
Don't do it without preconditions!!!!
They might drop a word-bomb... or drive word-planes into a word-building.
DenverBrit
10-05-2008, 10:33 AM
You can't have a war on terror. People are finally figuring it out.
That has been known for decades. Ireland and Israel have made that obvious.
But when we have an administration that doesn't read or understand history, negotiating isn't an option.
Rohirrim
10-05-2008, 11:50 AM
The Taliban is basically just another manifestation of religious fundamentalism, this particular strain guided by Mullah Omar, but in reality the product of madrassas which have proliferated in the ME, especially Pakistan. Obama is right on this one: We must compete and win against the message of the madrassas. That's where the fundamentalist extremism is born. That's where the battle should be fought. Otherwise, we just continue the Bush/McCain infinitely futile philosophy of whack-a-mole.
BTW, our home-grown, home schooling fundamentalism isn't doing us any favors either.
Denver Crush
10-05-2008, 11:56 AM
I would argue that neither is our public education system. We are growing generations of consumers, liars, and backstabbers. Perfect for the state of corporatism.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-17-2008, 11:19 PM
25 years later, bombing in Beirut still resonates
http://www.bartcop.com/beirut-barracks-lebanon-best.jpg
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-10-15-beirut-barracks_N.htm)
Excerpt:
Sgt. Stephen Russell was sitting in his guard booth outside a barracks in Beirut. He says he heard something snap behind him and a diesel engine revving.
He turned.
What he saw was the future, coming straight at him, in the form of a 5-ton truck.
It was Oct. 23, 1983, a day Ronald Reagan called the saddest of his presidency, maybe his life.
The truck would shatter the Marines' building with a bomb more powerful than 12,000 pounds of TNT — the biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II, the FBI concluded.
It would kill 241 servicemembers, including 220 Marines — the Corps' bloodiest day since Iwo Jima.
It would drive the U.S. out of Lebanon and lead some, including Osama bin Laden, to conclude that when America gets its nose bloodied, it pulls back.
They hardly ever put the truth in print - I wonder why they did it this time?
The "liberal" media would have you believe Bill Clinton showed the terrorists that America will always run from a fight, but they learned that lesson from Ronald Reagan.
What they always leave out is that Reagan insisted those Marines be housed on land even after the Joint Chiefs told him ships would be safer because the Lebanon suicide bombers hadn't yet learned how to make a truck fly - so suicide bombs would only work on land, but Reagan insisted.
So we lost 241 Marines that day, because Reagan was too stubborn to trust his generals, but since the media wants their Reagan myth preserved, they leave some important facts out.
Also, they fail to mention that a few years later, Reagan gave these terrorists weapons.
Yes, after they murdered 241 Marines, Reagan and Bush did business with them, just like Bush did business with Saddam, Noriega and the Mullahs in Iran.
History won't remember the global crimes that Reagan and Bush committed, but they'll remember who Monica was because that's important.
BroncoBuff
10-17-2008, 11:43 PM
Thank the heavens somebody in a position of knowledge finally said this. I was beginning to think we might have to dig up Konstantin Chernenko to explain we can't win a guerilla war against native Afghans...
It's Bush's fault. Again. After 9/11 we should have been cautious - should have studied the lessons of the Soviet debacle and planned accordingly. What we needed was a rapid, RAPID surgical strike to get bin-Laden and al-Qaeda ... then we should have been out of there by Spring '03.
alkemical
10-18-2008, 04:42 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=68291
The articles in this thread are about 4th Generation & 5th Generation Warfare.
Paladin
10-18-2008, 05:14 PM
Was Tommy Franks that shortsighted in his thinking? Or did Bush and the DoD Secretary Rumsfeld - that egotistical bustard - screw it up? The problem was that there was no way to get into Afghanistan without violating Pakistan's' Airspace, and the countries to the North were not helping at the time, and Iran sure as h3ll wasn't going to be helpful. So they had to buy off Pakistan. The whole world would not have argued if the US had just flown whatever into Afghanistan straight up.
Delta Force members were withing two thousand yards of Bin Laden on Bora Bora, but were told to back off. That was also a series of screwups.
Otherwise, we just continue the Bush/McCain infinitely futile philosophy of whack-a-mole.
Hilarious! Hilarious!
OMG you made my day dude. I have never heard it put such a way regarding the Bush/McCain military philosophy..........whack-a-mole. I'm dying over here. That was way too funny. And it really does accurately describe their approach. Okay, I have to thank you for that.
Delta Force members were within two thousand yards of Bin Laden on Bora Bora, but were told to back off.
That's okay, apparently McCain knows how to get Bin Laden. ROFL!
25 years later, bombing in Beirut still resonates
http://www.bartcop.com/beirut-barracks-lebanon-best.jpg
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-10-15-beirut-barracks_N.htm)
Excerpt:
Sgt. Stephen Russell was sitting in his guard booth outside a barracks in Beirut. He says he heard something snap behind him and a diesel engine revving.
He turned.
What he saw was the future, coming straight at him, in the form of a 5-ton truck.
It was Oct. 23, 1983, a day Ronald Reagan called the saddest of his presidency, maybe his life.
The truck would shatter the Marines' building with a bomb more powerful than 12,000 pounds of TNT — the biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II, the FBI concluded.
It would kill 241 servicemembers, including 220 Marines — the Corps' bloodiest day since Iwo Jima.
It would drive the U.S. out of Lebanon and lead some, including Osama bin Laden, to conclude that when America gets its nose bloodied, it pulls back.
They hardly ever put the truth in print - I wonder why they did it this time?
The "liberal" media would have you believe Bill Clinton showed the terrorists that America will always run from a fight, but they learned that lesson from Ronald Reagan.
What they always leave out is that Reagan insisted those Marines be housed on land even after the Joint Chiefs told him ships would be safer because the Lebanon suicide bombers hadn't yet learned how to make a truck fly - so suicide bombs would only work on land, but Reagan insisted.
So we lost 241 Marines that day, because Reagan was too stubborn to trust his generals, but since the media wants their Reagan myth preserved, they leave some important facts out.
Also, they fail to mention that a few years later, Reagan gave these terrorists weapons.
Yes, after they murdered 241 Marines, Reagan and Bush did business with them, just like Bush did business with Saddam, Noriega and the Mullahs in Iran.
History won't remember the global crimes that Reagan and Bush committed, but they'll remember who Monica was because that's important.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-18-2008, 05:58 PM
That's okay, apparently McCain knows how to get Bin Laden. ROFL!
:D
As emphatically and unequivocally as he keeps making this statement, you would think he would have shared what he "knows" with the Bush administration by now. ;)