Article: Leaked report says Taliban will win

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.

**dogma**

Ketara wrote: If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Not necessarily. The Taliban basically got dragged through the mud specifically because of Al-Qaeda, that's reason enough to hold a distaste for them. Further, we will have established an 11 year period in which neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaeda could operate effectively in Afghanistan, that is an accomplishment.

Too many people think about "permanence" in international relations, there is no such thing.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

biccat wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Ultimately, fighting the Afghans is like fighting the Vietnamese; sure, it looks easy 'cause they have old Soviet tech at best, but once you find yourself stuck in yet another
guerrilla war, you'll end up wishing you'd just stayed the feth out of it all and not wasted all the money and lives.

The problem with Afghanistan is the same as the problem in Vietnam - disorganized resistance in a difficult environment that eliminates the advantage of superior military resources.

Exactly so. Hence why every army ever has come to grief in both of those places.

**Sonophos**

biccat wrote:
Sonophos wrote:You will notice that the pipeline treaty that Mr. Kharzi signed 5 minutes after being handed office proposes a nice neat way to avoid pumping oil to Europe and China whilst avoiding Iranian and Russain territory.

You will also note that it crosses areas where troop surges have been targetted.

I would not want to imply a causal link just a little coincidence.

So you're saying that the Afghanistan government is using their geographic position as a strategic resource and defending the commercial value of that resource against sabotage?

Devious bastards.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Ultimately, fighting the Afghans is like fighting the Vietnamese; sure, it looks easy 'cause they have old Soviet tech at best, but once you find yourself stuck in yet another
guerrilla war, you'll end up wishing you'd just stayed the feth out of it all and not wasted all the money and lives.

The problem with Afghanistan is the same as the problem in Vietnam - disorganized resistance in a difficult environment that eliminates the advantage of superior military resources.

Yes the treaty that the Taliban refused to sign two years earlier.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Never thought I'd say (write) this but Donald Rumsfeld was right: Get in, topple the regime, install a puppet, and get the hell out!

That is what we have done, except for the get out bit.

**loki old fart**

Frazzled wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

NATO has prestige. Wow, never knew, nor cared.

EDIT. I'm talking at a specific time and place. If we had dropped tacticals on Tora Bora when Bin laden was trapped, declared victory and then bailed how many Americans, Brits, and Afghanis would be alive today?

HEY Frazzled stop talking sense. It worries me.

**Sonophos**

loki old fart wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

NATO has prestige. Wow, never knew, nor cared.

EDIT. I'm talking at a specific time and place. If we had dropped tacticals on Tora Bora when Bin laden was trapped, declared victory and then bailed how many Americans, Brits, and Afghanis would be alive today?

HEY Frazzled stop talking sense. It worries me.

Nukes are nasty dirty things and dropping them in Afghan would (A) pollute not just Afghanistan but parts of the surrounding countries and (B) set a precedent that you really don't want other nuclear nations to follow.

There are conventional alternatives that were tried like bunker busters and daisy cutters. They didn't work as well a targeted commando strike did.

Honestly! You glibly reach for the largest weapon you have.

**loki old fart**

Sonophos wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

NATO has prestige. Wow, never knew, nor cared.

EDIT. I'm talking at a specific time and place. If we had dropped tacticals on Tora Bora when Bin laden was trapped, declared victory and then bailed how many Americans, Brits, and Afghanis would be alive today?

HEY Frazzled stop talking sense. It worries me.

Nukes are nasty dirty things and dropping them in Afghan would (A) pollute not just Afghanistan but parts of the surrounding countries and (B) set a precedent that you really don't want other nuclear nations to follow.

There are conventional alternatives that were tried like bunker busters and daisy cutters. They didn't work as well a targeted commando strike did.

Honestly! You glibly reach for the largest weapon you have.

I Wasn't been serious on the nuke bit, as you should have guessed. But yes I would have supported cruise missiles or big bombs targeted at training camps, at about 2am local time.

**Jihadin**

Can't leave Afghanistan just yet...I left some skin there....I be damn I want a peice of me left over there...2nd thought...food sucked..

**Frazzled**

Sonophos wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

NATO has prestige. Wow, never knew, nor cared.

EDIT. I'm talking at a specific time and place. If we had dropped tacticals on Tora Bora when Bin laden was trapped, declared victory and then bailed how many Americans, Brits, and Afghanis would be alive today?

HEY Frazzled stop talking sense. It worries me.

Nukes are nasty dirty things and dropping them in Afghan would (A) pollute not just Afghanistan but parts of the surrounding countries and (B) set a precedent that you really don't want other nuclear nations to follow.

There are conventional alternatives that were tried like bunker busters and daisy cutters. They didn't work as well a targeted commando strike did.

Honestly! You glibly reach for the largest weapon you have.

It lets the world know that, if you attack US territory, we won't play footsie, and will nuke you.

**Sonophos**

Frazzled wrote:
Sonophos wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:Well, to paraphrase the chap in question, he said the reason we went into Afghanistan was to deny it to Al Quaeda as a launch pad or base of operations. If we leave and the Taleban take over again, we will have achieved absolutely nothing, and Al Quaeda can come back. All those lives and all that money will just have been wasted.

Nuke them

I'm not exaclty known as a left winger on this board, but isn't that the situation we have in plethora of countries?

I highly doubt nuking locations where Al-Quaeda had been known to be would achieve anything uther than ruining NATO's international prestige beyond repair.

NATO has prestige. Wow, never knew, nor cared.

EDIT. I'm talking at a specific time and place. If we had dropped tacticals on Tora Bora when Bin laden was trapped, declared victory and then bailed how many Americans, Brits, and Afghanis would be alive today?

HEY Frazzled stop talking sense. It worries me.

Nukes are nasty dirty things and dropping them in Afghan would (A) pollute not just Afghanistan but parts of the surrounding countries and (B) set a precedent that you really don't want other nuclear nations to follow.

There are conventional alternatives that were tried like bunker busters and daisy cutters. They didn't work as well a targeted commando strike did.

Honestly! You glibly reach for the largest weapon you have.

It lets the world know that, if you attack US territory, we won't play footsie, and will nuke you.

and so your enemies go for the nuke first option and everyone loses.

Welcome to THE GAME.

Besides Frazz even weiner dogs get radiation burns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Loki, I know you weren't serious. It is very difficult to get English sarcasm over in text alone and I can't find an appropriate tag for it.

**Frazzled**

Our enemies will use the nuke first option if they can.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Frazzled wrote:Our enemies will use the nuke first option if they can.

Because they know that A) they can redeploy to another area of the country by the time you've launched your retaliatory Big One, meaning it will have very little effect on them, and B) they don't give a feth who they target with it as long as those people aren't exactly in line with their beliefs. The US military, on the other hand, usually values the lives of noncombatants who would otherwise be affected by a nuke.
This is, of course, assuming you are still talking about the terrorists. In the case of any established government, there are several reasons not to try and nuke the US, the biggest and most obvious scenario of all being good ol' MAD.

**Sonophos**

Frazzled wrote:Our enemies will use the nuke first option if they can.

Anybody with an AK can rob a hospital and build a dirty bomb.

**Frazzled**

Sonophos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Our enemies will use the nuke first option if they can.

Anybody with an AK can rob a hospital and build a dirty bomb.

And you think they're NOT trying to do that now?

Again, how many would be alive if Bin Laden was radioactive in Tora Bora?
How many would be alive if Clinton had nuked the camps instead cruise missiles?

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Frazzled wrote:
Sonophos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Our enemies will use the nuke first option if they can.

Anybody with an AK can rob a hospital and build a dirty bomb.

And you think they're NOT trying to do that now?

Again, how many would be alive if Bin Laden was radioactive in Tora Bora?
How many would be alive if Clinton had nuked the camps instead cruise missiles?

Classic assumption that nukes are an answer as opposed to a semi-solution that then opens up a whole storm of other problems. Nukes would have been just as ineffective when removing mountain camps as cruise missiles, simply because of the terrain involved.
In fact, it may have cost even more lives in the long run, as wars that otherwise would have been left alone were started because of a (hypothetical) US nuking policy.

**Frazzled**

I know, I'm just a bad seed.

**Seaward**

You wouldn't have needed to nuke Tora Bora. Delta was begging to go in, but, if they're to be believed, nobody was listening to them because Iraq was the big show back then.

The Bush Doctrine is that we'll go in and beat the snot out of terrorists or anybody harboring terrorists. Apparently, we never quite thought through what exactly that commits us to. The Obama "Special Operations forces and drones" Doctrine makes a little more sense in the context of actually trying to achieve our goals. Can we prop up Afghanistan indefinitely? No. We can sure as hell slip into it and blow gak up when we need to, though.

**Frazzled**

Er, the timeline's way off. Tora Bora occurred in 2001.

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

However, not off on other points:
A former Delta Force commander, using the pen name "Dalton Fury", who was present at Tora Bora has written that bin Laden escaped into Pakistan on or around December 16, 2001. Fury gives three reasons for why he believes bin Laden was able to escape: (1) the US mistakenly thought that Pakistan was effectively guarding the border area, (2) NATO allies refused to allow the use of air-dropped GATOR mines, which would have helped seal bin Laden and his forces inside the Tora Bora area, and (3) over-reliance on native Afghan military forces as the main force deployed against bin Laden and his fighters. Fury states that the Afghan forces would usually leave the battlefield in the evenings to break their Ramadan fasts, thereby allowing the al-Qaeda forces a chance to regroup, reposition, or escape.[5]

Fury, in an interview on 60 Minutes, stated that his Delta Force team and CIA Paramilitary Officers traveled to Tora Bora after the CIA pinpointed bin Laden's location in that area. Fury's team proposed an operation in which they would assault bin Laden's suspected position from the rear, over the 14,000 foot high mountain separating Tora Bora from Pakistan. But, Fury's proposal was denied by unidentified officials at higher headquarters for unknown reasons. Fury then proposed the dropping of GATOR mines in the passes leading away from Tora Bora, but this was also denied. Forced to approach the al-Qaeda forces from the front, at one point Fury reports that his team was within 2,000 meters of bin Laden's suspected position, but withdrew because of uncertainty over the number of al-Qaeda fighters guarding bin Laden and a lack of support from allied Afghan troops.[6]

A short time later, the Afghan military forces declared a cease fire with al-Qaeda. When Fury's team prepared to advance again on the al-Qaeda forces anyway, Afghan soldiers drew their weapons on the US soldiers. After 12 hours of negotiations, the Afghans stood down, but this had allowed bin Laden and his bodyguards time to relocate. Fury reports that bin Laden, in his radio calls which began in the afternoon of December 13, was clearly under duress, reportedly saying to his fighters, "the time is now, arm your women and children against the infidel". Then, after a few hours of enduring massive and accurate aerial bombing, he broke radio silence again to say "Our prayers were not answered. Times are dire and bad. We did not get support from the apostate nations who call themselves our Muslim brothers. Things might have been different". Fury describes that Bin Laden's final words to his fighters on that night were "I'm sorry for getting you involved in this battle, if you can no longer resist, you may surrender with my blessing".[7]

A short time later, what was believed to be bin Laden and his bodyguards were observed entering a cave. Fury's team called down several bombing attacks on the cave, and believed that they had killed bin Laden. Six months later, US and Canadian forces returned and checked several caves in the area, finding remains of al-Qaeda fighters, but not of bin Laden. Fury believes that bin Laden was injured in the shoulder by shrapnel during the bombing of the cave, but was then hidden, given medical care, and assisted out of the area into Pakistan by sympathetic local Afghans.[6]

I think the lesson there is, unless they are Brits, Canucks, or Aussies, don't trust allies to get the job done.

**Sonophos**

Frazzled wrote:I know, I'm just a bad seed.

Bad Frazzle!

**Seaward**

Frazzled wrote:Er, the timeline's way off.

I hadn't read that before, only gathered scattered accounts. Way it was told to me is that they were winding down to gear up for going in to Iraq, already creating the various joint task forces. Wikipedia's version sounds a little more credible.

**Frazzled**

Well much of your point is still valid. They were there.

Although playing Tunnel Rat with Al Qaeda doesn't sound attractive. Mustard gas anyone?

**Sonophos**

Frazzled wrote:Er, the timeline's way off. Tora Bora occurred in 2001.

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

I think the lesson there is, unless they are Brits, Canucks, or Aussies, don't trust allies to get the job done.

It would have been the Brits banning the use of GATOR mines due to our embargo on mines and cluster bombs. This was caused by Princess Diana's pressure campaign a couple of years before she died.

**biccat**

Frazzled wrote:Again, how many would be alive if Bin Laden was radioactive in Tora Bora?
How many would be alive if Clinton had nuked the camps instead cruise missiles?

How many would be alive if Clinton had taken Bin Laden when he was offered him in the '90s?

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Again, how many would be alive if Bin Laden was radioactive in Tora Bora?
How many would be alive if Clinton had nuked the camps instead cruise missiles?

How many would be alive if Clinton had taken Bin Laden when he was offered him in the '90s?

I think I said that, but agreed.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Sonophos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I know, I'm just a bad seed.

Bad Frazzle!

Awwwwww, no.
You're just a funny guy. Tell you what, we'll settle this with a pint, should the opportunity ever arise.

**biccat**

Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Again, how many would be alive if Bin Laden was radioactive in Tora Bora?
How many would be alive if Clinton had nuked the camps instead cruise missiles?

How many would be alive if Clinton had taken Bin Laden when he was offered him in the '90s?

I think I said that, but agreed.

I don't think you would have to nuke him if he were handled over peacefully.

Although it might have been a good idea, just to be safe.

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Again, how many would be alive if Bin Laden was radioactive in Tora Bora?
How many would be alive if Clinton had nuked the camps instead cruise missiles?

How many would be alive if Clinton had taken Bin Laden when he was offered him in the '90s?

I think I said that, but agreed.

I don't think you would have to nuke him if he were handled over peacefully.

Although it might have been a good idea, just to be safe.

Thats after the first World Trade Center bombings correct?

Yea, putting him on an island and recording him tied next to a nuke, yea I'd do something like that. Thats why a Frazzled Presidential administration, would be an enlightened administration.

**Wee_Tam**

Yak9UT wrote:You can't win a uncoventional war in coventional means.

Spot on

i have said this for years, to only way to win a guerilla war, is to fight guerilla tactics. The SAS did in Bourneo, and Aden, and both were highly successful campaigns.

has nothing been learned from Vietnam?

**Pacific**

There is a pretty good documentary recently released about Afghanistan called 'Restrepo'.

Rather than any commentary, the journalist embedded with the US unit (in one of the most dangerous areas of the country) simply recorded everything. As you can imagine, it makes pretty harrowing viewing, and you really feel for the soldiers and their situation.

One thing that does show through however is their frustration. Right at the beginning of the documentary the commander of the unit, upon meeting with the 'tribal elders' of some village, commented that "One of the hardest things we have to do here is to get these people to give up the members of the family and their friends who are fighting with or working for the Taliban."

Well, quite...

**Huffy**

Wee_Tam wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:You can't win a uncoventional war in coventional means.

Spot on

i have said this for years, to only way to win a guerilla war, is to fight guerilla tactics. The SAS did in Bourneo, and Aden, and both were highly successful campaigns.

has nothing been learned from Vietnam?

What are you talking about? We won in Vietnam...anyone who says otherwise is a dirty commie-socialist!