Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A certain general thinks the west may not be able to defeat Al-Qaeda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11751888

I think so. Can terrorism and militant islam be defeated? Probably not. Al Qaeda as an organization can certainly be dismantled though. We just gotta get Pakistan to stop using kid gloves with them.

I think pakistan is part of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

I just read the article before coming over here.

The problem is that the west are not seen as liberators, for at least half the population the west are the enemy, an invading force. And like any invaded country a proud fightback is being made.

The same applies to Iraq, an invading army, bent on destruction is being harassed by 'brave freedom fighters'. The population of both Afghanistan and Iraq are not convinced by the mission, and failed promises are eroding any trust even further. We need to face up to the issue that the west are seen as the bad guys.

In this case the invading forces are, pitiful, certainly not awe inspiring or close to achieving any small part of their mission. Air power and technology do not subdue a fighting force, massive numbers of troops and arms brought to bare in occupation are what seal a victory by stifling the ability to move and fight.

Successful wars are fought by bringing your enemy to their knees, destroying their ability to fight and wiping out the desire of the majority to take up arms again.

Aside from Vietnam I will offer another war that has some parallels to Afghanistan: World War 1. Cessation of hostilities in World War One saw Germany undefeated and possessing lands that it had taken at the start of the war. Germany itself had not been invaded or conquered. leading to resentment and ultimately through Allied mishandling of the surrender and following treaties, the rise of disaffection which ultimately led to the rise of the Nazis and WW2.

If we are going to fight a war why not do things properly.

You can't fight a "war" in any conventional military sense against a pan-national, religious and cultural movement which has adherents and sympathizers in many countries.

We may be able to get out of Afghanistan without leaving a terrible mess behind. That will depend partly on how well we can work with Pakistan to stop Al Qaeda and Taliban movement across the North-West Frontier.

The general's other ideas about upstream prevention and spreading democracy and education are bang on the money. If the Arab world could become a nicer place to live, there would be less resentment against the West.

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't fight a "war" in any conventional military sense against a pan-national, religious and cultural movement which has adherents and sympathizers in many countries.

We may be able to get out of Afghanistan without leaving a terrible mess behind. That will depend partly on how well we can work with Pakistan to stop Al Qaeda and Taliban movement across the North-West Frontier.

The general's other ideas about upstream prevention and spreading democracy and education are bang on the money. If the Arab world could become a nicer place to live, there would be less resentment against the West.

You seriously think pakistan is on our side???
Pakistan has had an agenda regards afghanistan, even before the russians invaded.

Umm dude pakistan isnt even doing anything, kind of a bad move to point a finger at a country you likely know nothing about and say they are an enemy. And Al-Qaeda dosent even exsist infact most people in pakistan dont think Osama Binladen and his group are real let alone a legitimate group.

ShadowZetki wrote:Umm dude pakistan isnt even doing anything, kind of a bad move to point a finger at a country you likely know nothing about and say they are an enemy. And Al-Qaeda dosent even exsist infact most people in pakistan dont think Osama Binladen and his group are real let alone a legitimate group.

Ummm.....OK......

ShadowZetki wrote:Umm dude pakistan isnt even doing anything, kind of a bad move to point a finger at a country you likely know nothing about and say they are an enemy. And Al-Qaeda dosent even exsist infact most people in pakistan dont think Osama Binladen and his group are real let alone a legitimate group.

OH really?

Here's a quote from the wiki on masood
"Well-known Afghanistan expert Amin Saikal concludes in his book, which was chosen by The Wall Street Journal as 'One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan': "Pakistan was keen to gear up for a breakthrough in Central Asia.... Islamabad could not possibly expect the new Islamic government leaders, especially Massoud (who had always maintained his independence from Pakistan), to subordinate their own nationalist objectives in order to help Pakistan realize its regional ambitions.... Had it not been for the ISI’s logistic support and supply of a large number of rockets, Hekmatyar’s forces would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul. Yet Hekmatyar’s failure to achieve what was expected of him prompted the ISI leaders to come up with a new surrogate force."

"But Pakistan came along with another plan. Because Hekmatyar had been a failure Pakistan stopped support to him. Hekmatyar consequently was not able to sustain his military movement and subsequently took the long-offered position of prime minister in exchange for finally giving up before fleeing into exile. A publication with the George Washington University describes: "[O]utside forces saw instability in Afghanistan as an opportunity to press their own security and political agendas.... Initially, the Pakistanis supported... Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an incompetent commander from the Mujahideen days... When Hekmatyar failed to deliver for Pakistan, the administration began to support a new movement of religious students known as the Taliban."

Full text here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

Also pakistani military inteligence isn't supporting terrorism in kashmir

wikipedia? Okay I think wikipedia probably isnt the best thing to state a compelling argument just saying. The main thing is you do realise the Taliban were funded and supported by the US during the cold war, so the Taliban are the Afghan militia. Long story short the US kinda created the Taliban to gain grounds in the cold war as part of containment (anti-communist actions examples being vietnam, korean war, ect.) so way to know history

ShadowZetki wrote:wikipedia? Okay I think wikipedia probably isnt the best thing to state a compelling argument just saying. The main thing is you do realise the Taliban were funded and supported by the US during the cold war, so the Taliban are the Afghan militia. Long story short the US kinda created the Taliban to gain grounds in the cold war as part of containment (anti-communist actions examples being vietnam, korean war, ect.) so way to know history

That was a joke right?

Actually no, it was no joke. During the soviet invasion of Afghanistan fleeing refugees went towards pakistan where the US government armed and funded those who would later return as rebels against the soviets and left behind a program worth millions in the hands of pakistan to train them, that + the other rising warlords banding together to fight a Jihad (holy war which means to reclaim lost lands) against the soviets, thus you get the Taliban

-Edit- Sorry I meant the Pakistani Intelligence Service but still pakistan regardless

ShadowZetki wrote:Actually no, it was no joke. During the soviet invasion of Afghanistan fleeing refugees went towards pakistan where the US government armed and funded those who would later return as rebels against the soviets and left behind a program worth millions in the hands of pakistan to train them, that + the other rising warlords banding together to fight a Jihad (holy war which means to reclaim lost lands) against the soviets, thus you get the Taliban

-Edit- Sorry I meant the Pakistani Intelligence Service but still pakistan regardless

Actually the Taliban have been around and recorded as a group in Afghanistan since 1882 and the Battle of Maiwand. You are thinking of the mujahideen as the US armed group who fought the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Taliban rose to power as a political group following the withdrawal of Soviet troops and subsequent power vacuum.

Right sorry about that, but didnt the mujahideen eventually join the taliban? Or did they fight eachother? sorry it's like 4:49 AM here right now Im tired but I cant sleep (Insomnia) so I'm having alittle trouble getting all of what I'm saying together but hey points for trying right?

In anycase back to the relative subject I dont think the we are going to win the war in the middle east, for the most part Guerrilla fighters are extremely hard to fight, Iraq wants the US out, and as far as Ive seen the civilian and coalition casualties are much higher than the Guerrilla fighters casualties.

ShadowZetki wrote:Right sorry about that, but didnt the mujahideen eventually join the taliban? Or did they fight eachother? sorry it's like 4:49 AM here right now Im tired but I cant sleep (Insomnia) so I'm having alittle trouble getting all of what I'm saying together but hey points for trying right?

Well I am not entirely versed on the entire Afghan history but much like any splinter group, some elements joined the Taliban, some became local tribal warlords, others moved on to other conflicts. What you have to appreciate about the Taliban is that they are ideologically right at the extreme end of the spectrum and not exactly universally loved (it's one of the reasons Afghanistan had seen such an exodus of population before the US invasion). Only because the Soviet withdrawal was messy allowed the sort of political and power vacuum to arise that the Taliban seized the opportunity. Precisely because they were so hard-line allowed them to hold onto power with an iron fist.

Have you actually read that link I posted for you. I know theres a lot of words, and not many pictures.

It was all but sorted, and pakistan destabilised it again. Masood had more of a popular following than the taliban ever did.
The pakistani's were pushing their own agenda there, and still are.

Don't know if you can watch this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w57w7/Reporters_14_11_2010/
04.10 is what you need to see

The pakistani have eyes on kashmir aswell

loki old fart wrote:Have you actually read that link I posted for you. I know theres a lot of words, and not many pictures.

It was all but sorted, and pakistan destabilised it again. Masood had more of a popular following than the taliban ever did.
The pakistani's were pushing their own agenda there, and still are.

Don't know if you can watch this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w57w7/Reporters_14_11_2010/
04.10 is what you need to see

Yes I have and I replied saying that wikipedia isnt a very good source, I fail to see what impact alot of words and not many pictures has to do with anything unless you are politely saying I'm incapable of reading it. Unfortunately that link is not avaliable to me sorry In anycase there is an interesting saying I once heard from my father (not sure where he got it from) he told me the first casualties of war are the truth, simply food for thought.

Ah thankyou filbert I'm not too advanced on Afghan history too so I tend to get things mixedup from time to time, but hey it happens to everyone

And your father was right.
One has to remember history is written by the victors.

But that wiki is right as I remember it.
And sorry about suggesting you couldn't read, But your post read like you hadn't bothered to read the links

loki old fart wrote:And your father was right.
One has to remember history is written by the victors.

But that wiki is right as I remember it.
And sorry about suggesting you couldn't read, But your post read like you hadn't bothered to read the links

Unfortunately my father is also a prick,
There were somethings in that wiki that are compelling I'm just saying wikipedia isnt always the best place (trolls edit it all the time) but still other sources are saying the samething, I do however think pakistan isnt the only country funding the taliban something I tend to notice is that there usualy isnt just one. Ah dont worry about it, it's all good.

ShadowZetki wrote:

loki old fart wrote:And your father was right.
One has to remember history is written by the victors.

But that wiki is right as I remember it.
And sorry about suggesting you couldn't read, But your post read like you hadn't bothered to read the links

Unfortunately my father is also a prick,
There were somethings in that wiki that are compelling I'm just saying wikipedia isnt always the best place (trolls edit it all the time) but still other sources are saying the samething, I do however think pakistan isnt the only country funding the taliban something I tend to notice is that there usualy isnt just one. Ah dont worry about it, it's all good.

Yup so is mine Strange that isn't it

Yeah strange and unfortunate

al-Qaeda CAN be defeated. . . but only with the help of communist female FPS gamers.

rubiksnoob wrote:al-Qaeda CAN be defeated. . . but only with the help of communist female FPS gamers.

Yeh thanks for that

loki old fart wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:al-Qaeda CAN be defeated. . . but only with the help of communist female FPS gamers.

Yeh thanks for that

Antime, it's what i'm here for.

rubiksnoob wrote:al-Qaeda CAN be defeated. . . but only with the help of communist female FPS gamers.

Dude, you are killing me with this stuff lately.

OT, so the Al Qaedas can't be defeated? We haven't even broken out our secret weapon?

ShadowZetki wrote:wikipedia? Okay I think wikipedia probably isnt the best thing to state a compelling argument just saying. The main thing is you do realise the Taliban were funded and supported by the US during the cold war, so the Taliban are the Afghan militia. Long story short the US kinda created the Taliban to gain grounds in the cold war as part of containment (anti-communist actions examples being vietnam, korean war, ect.) so way to know history

Al Qaeda doesn't exist? Well, you are wrong. I've spent nearly a year in the Afghanistan theater aiding the fight against them. I'm friends with Fighter Pilots who have dropped bombs on them in Iraq. I've supported missions that are working against them in Africa. They are a real organization. We've all but dismantled them in Iraq, and we've made major grounds against them in Afghanistan recently. Their growing on the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula, and Africa, and we need to start working against them there as well. But they are a real organization, and they can be defeated.

The Taliban was not funded or created by the US. They didn't exist until after the Soviets left Afghanistan, at which point US funding dried up. They became an organization in 1994. The took over the nation in 1996. The people who founded the Taliban where trained in schools in Pakistan. They received support in conquering Afghanistan from Osama Bin Laden, whom we have never supported.

Furthermore, US support was primarily dictated by Pakistan. We forked the money over, Israel and Egypt used it to get the weapons, and Pakistan determined who the weapons went to. So claiming that WE were responsible for arming and training these people is disingenous at best.

ShadowZetki wrote:Right sorry about that, but didnt the mujahideen eventually join the taliban? Or did they fight eachother? sorry it's like 4:49 AM here right now Im tired but I cant sleep (Insomnia) so I'm having alittle trouble getting all of what I'm saying together but hey points for trying right?

In anycase back to the relative subject I dont think the we are going to win the war in the middle east, for the most part Guerrilla fighters are extremely hard to fight, Iraq wants the US out, and as far as Ive seen the civilian and coalition casualties are much higher than the Guerrilla fighters casualties.

Fun fact, there LOTS of mujahadeen as the word just means freedom fighters.

ShadowZetki wrote:Umm dude pakistan isnt even doing anything, kind of a bad move to point a finger at a country you likely know nothing about and say they are an enemy. And Al-Qaeda dosent even exsist infact most people in pakistan dont think Osama Binladen and his group are real let alone a legitimate group.

Say what?

That entire post is wrong.

I mean, sure, the Pakistani state isn't supporting Al-Qaeda, but it would be foolish to conclude that Islamism isn't a huge issue for Pakistan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kragura wrote:
Fun fact, there LOTS of mujahadeen as the word just means freedom fighters.

No it doesn't. It means, in the general context, "strugglers" or "Jihad participants" in a specific context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Al Qaeda doesn't exist? Well, you are wrong. I've spent nearly a year in the Afghanistan theater aiding the fight against them. I'm friends with Fighter Pilots who have dropped bombs on them in Iraq. I've supported missions that are working against them in Africa. They are a real organization. We've all but dismantled them in Iraq, and we've made major grounds against them in Afghanistan recently. Their growing on the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula, and Africa, and we need to start working against them there as well.

You're conflating militant Muslims with Al-Qaeda. The majority of the terrorist activity in Iraq wasn't tied in any meaningful way to Al-Qaeda.

djones520 wrote:
But they are a real organization, and they can be defeated.

Not if you define Al-Qaeda as broadly as you're doing here, which is what most people do.

djones520 wrote:
The Taliban was not funded or created by the US.

That's probably not true. The CIA and the ISI took a very active role in supporting the Afghan war against Soviet occupation.

djones520 wrote:
Furthermore, US support was primarily dictated by Pakistan. We forked the money over, Israel and Egypt used it to get the weapons, and Pakistan determined who the weapons went to. So claiming that WE were responsible for arming and training these people is disingenous at best.

You just said that we didn't fund the Taliban, and now you're saying that we did, even if indirectly, you can't make both claims.

I think that yes, AQ can be defeated. We've defeated terrorist organisations in the past with far less sophisticated capabilities than we have now. We've also done a lot in the last decade to severely limit AQ's operations - an organisation that can co-ordinate the capture of multiple planes and fly them into key targets is very different to the organisation that can't get a reliable bomb onto a single plane.

The second, and hardest part of the plan, is to isolate AQ from their supporter base. We've not done anywhere near as well there, but that's the kind of process that take a long, long time.

ShadowZetki wrote:Umm dude pakistan isnt even doing anything

The problem here is in considering Pakistan a single decision making entity undertaking a single course of action. It's a very splintered nation.

ShadowZetki wrote:wikipedia? Okay I think wikipedia probably isnt the best thing to state a compelling argument just saying. The main thing is you do realise the Taliban were funded and supported by the US during the cold war, so the Taliban are the Afghan militia. Long story short the US kinda created the Taliban to gain grounds in the cold war as part of containment (anti-communist actions examples being vietnam, korean war, ect.) so way to know history

Nah, the guys we supported more or less ended up as the Norther Alliance. The Taliban were more or less the guys funded by Pakistan.

dogma wrote:

You're conflating militant Muslims with Al-Qaeda. The majority of the terrorist activity in Iraq wasn't tied in any meaningful way to Al-Qaeda.

No I'm not.

Pakistan
Scope Worldwide
Area of Operation Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United States, United Kingdom, Indonesia, Philippines, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Chechnya

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/al-qaeda.htm

Al Qaeda's terror network in North Africa is growing more active and attracting new recruits, threatening to further destabilize the continent's already vulnerable Sahara region, according to U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/01/al-qaeda-growing-strength-north-africa/

CIA: Al Qaeda in Yemen Now Biggest Threat

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/25/politics/washingtonpost/main6803849.shtml

It is a tricky organization, and it's going to take a lot of effort to destroy, but it can be done.

dogma wrote:

That's probably not true. The CIA and the ISI took a very active role in supporting the Afghan war against Soviet occupation.

It is true. Reread what I wrote. The Taliban wasn't even formed until 1994. The people that formed it were trained in Pakistan.

dogma wrote:

You just said that we didn't fund the Taliban, and now you're saying that we did, even if indirectly, you can't make both claims.

No I didn't. What that was in reference to was that the people who eventually became the Northern Alliance received very little support from our funds, because Pakistan was more comfortable supporting the southern fighters, which eventually backed the Taliban after they took over Afghanistan. WE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TALIBAN. It's pretty clear. Saying we did is like saying the Soviets did becaues the Taliban used the weapons that the Soviets left behind.