Dispatches: Fighting the taliban

[Flarty]

So the best and most free based opinion shows is back on British television.

Tonight s episode is about the situation in Afghanistan, and Britain's presence their and how we have been dragged into a war with the Taliban, when we are only supposed to be training Afghanistan volunteers to create their own army force to combat the situation themselves, and suppress the Taliban regime once were gone.

The Afghan volunteers only recieve 6 weeks training,

the shows only been on for 10 minutes and already the journalist and his convoy have come under fire with rpg's and ak47's and the British have just called in an air strike. With one Afghan soldier as a casualty.

In all this chaos why has Bush pulled his troops out and left us with the mess he has created?

Any view points are welcome, This sort of debate is important to me and many like these as im going to university taking a course in International Relations and global development with the goal of going to give aid in such place's.

[rtanger]

Because most of all the US troops are being "redeployed" to Iraq, believe it or not, within the month we will have close to if not over 200,000 soldiers on active duty in Iraq.

At the current moment, I think Afghanistan has been moved down considerably in priority. Talk is rapidly shifting to the mindset that Iraq just might have possibly, somehow, in some unfathomable fashion been a mistake, and Bush has really just one more chance to throw everything we've got at Iraq to try to bring some order into a further disintegrating situation, and prove that in some cosmic sense it was all worth it.

I for one don't much like any of the situation. Our actions are in the process of severely angering an entire segment of the world's radical population, and you can't stand on an anthill and piss on it without expecting to get stung.

[Flarty]

So because Bush Bull****ted his way to war in afghanistan (is he even really bothered about Bin Laden), then concentrated on Iraq (god knows why, my guess would be oil).
Before even finishing the job in Afghanistan, due to political correctness we have to back you up in both fights, buts its all right for us to stretch our forces to breaking points over the 2 conflicts.

Were under manned and under supplied in Afghanistan, ye were doing a better job than the whole soviet union did against them.

On the bright side at least the Afghan military police is getting some of the best training in the world opposed to if america was training them. (no offence but i've spoke to enough to enough squadies who have worked long side American troops, and said the training you must of been given was abysmal).

[hoboman725]

ba-zing!

But seriously, it's not just you UKers askin this stuff, alot of us Americans are pretty pissed about it to. It's cost us already Billions of dollars, plenty of lives. Not to mention what we've force our allies, such as Britain, to go through.

I personally think we invaded Afghanistan for a fairly just cause.

Iraq on the other hand just makes no sense to me. They had no terrorists, or WMDs or make threats to my knowledge against us.

I'm certainly not alone in the US thinking this is wrong

[Flarty]

but that's my question Afghanistan is fair enough, but why leave the job half done? Besides Afghanistan is the worlds biggest supplier of heroin, i think it was more important to put an end to that before galloping of to Iraq to start a new crusade against the Islam infidels as that's probably what bush is really doing

[Kester]

Because the war isn't in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's in Washington. It's all about politics in the Senate. Afghanistan isn't in the news all that much, it's a pretty quiet war.

Iraq however, you cannot avoid as it is in our news daily. That makes it something Washington needs to sort out, as it directly affects votes.

Unfortunately, and quite sickeningly, it has nothing to do with the cause of either of these wars, it is all down to votes.

[Flarty]

yeah or the lives involved?

[rtanger]

The war in Afghanistan was highly supported, and the cause for going over there made sense. There was no bull**** involved when it came to Afghanistan. We found Al Qaeda, we smoked them out and overthrew a vicious regime. However, we dropped the ball by more or less ignoring Afghanistan and moving forward into what has now become the Iraq debacle.

There's no real rhyme or reason why it happened, the easiest answer is that W. Jr. was pressured into finishing the job daddy (Bush Sr.) left unfinished.
The answer that makes the most sense is that it was for control of oil.
Washington won't admit either of these as motivation. What is quite clear is that they lied through their teeth to begin this new war that's going to be the new Vietnam before the decade's out, if they don't hurry up and accept that we've unbalanced an already delicate situation worse than it already was.

You keep asking why Afghanistan was moved way down in priority, and it's because of Iraq. There's no better answer anyone outside of Capitol Hill and the Pentagon can give you, because to be frank, not many of us are sure why we are in Iraq in the first place.

[Flarty]

it isnt a good enough answer, not while were picking up the pieces and helping you police Iraq

[Ares]

On the bright side at least the Afghan military police is getting some of the best training in the world opposed to if america was training them. (no offence but i've spoke to enough to enough squadies who have worked long side American troops, and said the training you must of been given was abysmal).

The US Army is just as good as the UK's. It's the job of every soldier to downplay how good the soldiers from other countries are, because all soldiers are taught that their army is the best of the best, and that everybody else sucks. Want your troops to have good morale? Nothing like making sure they know they're better than anybody else. I'm sure I could find a few US combat veterans from Iraq that could say just the same things about the UK's Army that your mates did about the US.

[hoboman725]

it isnt a good enough answer, not while were picking up the pieces and helping you police Iraq
what more can we give you?...Its not like we know. Hell, we're not the ones making these seemingly bad decisions.

[rtanger]

What the Hell kind of answer do you want?
I've already told you, you're going to have to ask someone on the Hill, because the general public is pretty much left to grasp at straws.
This isn't even a debate, as far as I can tell.

Also- All of us in this thread are guilty about saying "we" this and "we" that, but none of us are actually anywhere near a battleground, and have no understanding of the realities of the situation.
Again, where's the debate to be had here?

[Flarty]

yeah because no one is even debating it with me probably because no one has payed attention to the Afghan conflict since it begun, or since u.s troops have pulled out, no one here has commented on how British troops are attacking the wrong regions when they should be concentrating on cutting off supply lines between the Taliban and the Pakistan border, once they cut this off they can stop the Taliban moving heroin out of the country, and stop bringing arms in, or no one has commented about how under supplied and under manned the British army is over there.
No one has commented nothing on the actual conflict, or suggested ideas of how it should be resolved quickly and least painfully.

This is not a debate because you seem like you want to forget about Afghanistan as quick as your government does. No offence intended by that, that's just the impression i am getting here.

Thats why your answers ain't good enough, because all your saying is "because of Iraq", that is not debating the topic with me

@ ARES: fair comment

[rtanger]

Well, that might change things. You never asked anywhere what we thought of British forces, you asked plain and simple-



In all this chaos why has Bush pulled his troops out and left us with the mess he has created?



Now, I'm no master debater(heh), but nowhere in your post leading up to this question did you anywhere ask for input on British soldiers. You asked about our comments on US soldiers, and why they were pulled out, and our thoughts on that issue.

We answered. It, quite simply, is because of Iraq. The largest bulk of our active forces have been redeployed to Iraq.

When all you say to follow-up is argue that point and say "That's not good enough," what the heck answer do you expect back? Now, before this can continue, this debate needs straightened out. Is it about the Afghanistan conflict as a whole? The British Army? The US Army? None of the above?

There's no debate here because I'm not entirely sure you know what you want to debate.

[Flarty]

Ok, maybe the title plus the below comment, maybe you can figure it out rtranger.

Any view points are welcome,

and yes i did ask why american troops were pulled out, because its one question i wanted answered in this debate,

And any view points are welcome means you can even be pro-taliban in this topic.

[Kester]

The US Army is just as good as the UK's. It's the job of every soldier to downplay how good the soldiers from other countries are, because all soldiers are taught that their army is the best of the best, and that everybody else sucks. Want your troops to have good morale? Nothing like making sure they know they're better than anybody else. I'm sure I could find a few US combat veterans from Iraq that could say just the same things about the UK's Army that your mates did about the US.
It's is wildly known that the US army isn't as disciplined as they used to be. They have the highest friendly fire rates of any of the coalition forces. They are also one of the armies that no one wants to fight along side.

I don't mean to slate your country, but your army is full of egotistical hot heads.

[klaymore]

personally I think it is a good idea to redeploy a lot of troops to Iraq to help mop up the last of the insurgents so we cal pull out.

slowly trickling out of a country has never worked well

[Kester]

I agree that putting more troops into Iraq is actually the best, currently feasible, idea for Iraq. However, taking them from Afghanistan is totally irresponsible.

[klaymore]

didn't they already do that once before? and immediately activity shot up over there.

we need to stop messing around with surgical tactics a just getrdone

[Ares]

No one has commented nothing on the actual conflict, or suggested ideas of how it should be resolved quickly and least painfully.


Ending an insurgency based on religious principles quickly and painlessly would be a feat along the same lines as taking a fanatically devout Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, and Jew, and having them reach an agreement that all of their religions are, more or less, correct.

My suggestion though would be to continuously do lightning assaults on the known training camps and Taliban strongholds with special forces. Instead of establishing a presence there, just continuously execute devistating strikes. While the SAS/Delta Force are keeping the pressure on the Taliban, have Green Berrets or the British Equivilent drop into the contested areas, and start turning some of the more moderately led villages towards the Coalition cause, while training, supplying, and possibly supporting them.

[Flarty]

Lol its a shame ares because that is the basic plan, but it isnt happening because we don't have the presence over there unfortunately, that's why i think we should concentrate on the Pakistani border, once them supply lines are cut off, the taliban have no where to take their opium/heroin to sell, thus they would not have the funds to continue fighting, and making it more difficult to get hold of weapons.
Sounds good in theory,

We actually call our Royal Marine Commando's "the green berets", they are hard basterds, even their recruiting advertising campaign is "99% need not apply".