10 years in Afghanistan.....can we admit this war is lost and a failure now? *Poll*
Options
kingblaze84
Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102606571.html
U.S. military campaign to topple resilient Taliban hasn't succeeded
Gallery
In Afghanistan, "winning" is up for debate
Criticism is rising in Washington about the coherence of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. But troops on the ground have different measures of success.
An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency or put meaningful pressure on its leaders to seek peace, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials citing the latest assessments of the war in Afghanistan.
This Story
*
U.S. military campaign to topple resilient Taliban hasn't succeeded
*
Development aid in key Afghan province lacking in oversight, audit finds
*
U.S. operations in Kandahar push out Taliban
*
Taliban attacks U.N. compound in western Afghanistan
Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.
"The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience," said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to "reestablish and rejuvenate," often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, "I don't see it."
One of the military objectives in targeting mid-level commanders is to compel the Taliban to pursue peace talks with the Afghan government, a nascent effort that NATO officials have helped to facilitate.
The blunt intelligence assessments are consistent across the main spy agencies responsible for analyzing the conflict, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and come at a critical juncture. Officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
ad_icon
The Obama administration's plan to conduct a strategic review of the war in December has touched off maneuvering between U.S. military leaders seeking support for extending the American troop buildup and skeptics looking for arguments to wind down the nation's role.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has touted the success of recent operations and indicated that the military thinks it will be able to show meaningful progress by the December review. He said last week that progress is occurring "more rapidly than was anticipated" but acknowledged that major obstacles remain.
U.S. intelligence officials present a similar, but inverted, view - noting tactical successes but warning that well into a major escalation of the conflict, there is little indication that the direction of the war has changed.
Among the troubling findings is that Taliban commanders who are captured or killed are often replaced in a matter of days. Insurgent groups that have ceded territory in Kandahar and elsewhere seem content to melt away temporarily, leaving behind operatives to carry out assassinations or to intimidate villagers while waiting for an opportunity to return.
U.S. officials said Taliban operatives have adopted a refrain that reflects their focus on President Obama's intent to start withdrawing troops in the middle of next year. Attributing the words to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, officials said, operatives tell one another, "The end is near."
Obama's decision to order an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan divided some of his senior advisers. While no major change in strategy is expected in December, critics could use the latest assessments to argue that the continued investment of American resources and lives is misguided, particularly when the main impediment to progress that analysts cite is beyond American control.
U.S. officials said the two main branches of the insurgency - the Taliban and the Haqqani network - have been able to withstand the American military onslaught largely because they have access to safe havens in Pakistan.
---Billions upon billions have been spent on this war, and yet the Taliban still isn't going anywhere......so have we lost this war or what? I vote yay.
U.S. military campaign to topple resilient Taliban hasn't succeeded
Gallery
In Afghanistan, "winning" is up for debate
Criticism is rising in Washington about the coherence of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. But troops on the ground have different measures of success.
An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency or put meaningful pressure on its leaders to seek peace, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials citing the latest assessments of the war in Afghanistan.
This Story
*
U.S. military campaign to topple resilient Taliban hasn't succeeded
*
Development aid in key Afghan province lacking in oversight, audit finds
*
U.S. operations in Kandahar push out Taliban
*
Taliban attacks U.N. compound in western Afghanistan
Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.
"The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience," said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to "reestablish and rejuvenate," often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, "I don't see it."
One of the military objectives in targeting mid-level commanders is to compel the Taliban to pursue peace talks with the Afghan government, a nascent effort that NATO officials have helped to facilitate.
The blunt intelligence assessments are consistent across the main spy agencies responsible for analyzing the conflict, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and come at a critical juncture. Officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
ad_icon
The Obama administration's plan to conduct a strategic review of the war in December has touched off maneuvering between U.S. military leaders seeking support for extending the American troop buildup and skeptics looking for arguments to wind down the nation's role.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has touted the success of recent operations and indicated that the military thinks it will be able to show meaningful progress by the December review. He said last week that progress is occurring "more rapidly than was anticipated" but acknowledged that major obstacles remain.
U.S. intelligence officials present a similar, but inverted, view - noting tactical successes but warning that well into a major escalation of the conflict, there is little indication that the direction of the war has changed.
Among the troubling findings is that Taliban commanders who are captured or killed are often replaced in a matter of days. Insurgent groups that have ceded territory in Kandahar and elsewhere seem content to melt away temporarily, leaving behind operatives to carry out assassinations or to intimidate villagers while waiting for an opportunity to return.
U.S. officials said Taliban operatives have adopted a refrain that reflects their focus on President Obama's intent to start withdrawing troops in the middle of next year. Attributing the words to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, officials said, operatives tell one another, "The end is near."
Obama's decision to order an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan divided some of his senior advisers. While no major change in strategy is expected in December, critics could use the latest assessments to argue that the continued investment of American resources and lives is misguided, particularly when the main impediment to progress that analysts cite is beyond American control.
U.S. officials said the two main branches of the insurgency - the Taliban and the Haqqani network - have been able to withstand the American military onslaught largely because they have access to safe havens in Pakistan.
---Billions upon billions have been spent on this war, and yet the Taliban still isn't going anywhere......so have we lost this war or what? I vote yay.
Comments
-
And some of us wonder why Obama's Democrats are gonna lose badly in November........Republicans are disgusting, vile cretins but they can't be any more brain dead than Democrats are for continuing this losing, never ending war. 13 trillion in the hole and we're still fighting with no end in sight. LMAO......
? it......let the Republicans win in November. Democrats know this war is bankrupting the country, and Republicans want to bankrupt us as well by making the tax cuts permanent and continuing the wars just as long as Obama is.
As far as I'm concerned, both Democrats and Republicans want us to go bankrupt. Both parties also love to support Israel, despite the fact our support of Israel is fueling terrorism all over the Arab/Muslim world.
I'm voting 3rd party in November, with the exception of NY's governor race.......Democrats make me sick to my stomach these days. ? them and ? Republicans, I'll laugh when Republicans take over Congress in November. -
It won't officially be a loss until we withdraw without finding Osama.
We have broken up terror cells within the country and have installed a new leader who should oppose having them there in the future.
But we didn't get Osama and that was supposed to be the prime objective. -
We lost the day we invaded. Afghanistan is the empire killer. Besides, look at that place? How you gonna stabilize the region by invading and occupying. Even if we stay there, some local warlord will take over a region every time you go to take a ? .
-
ThaChozenWun wrote: »It won't officially be a loss until we withdraw without finding Osama.
We have broken up terror cells within the country and have installed a new leader who should oppose having them there in the future.
But we didn't get Osama and that was supposed to be the prime objective.
We're never gonna find Osama Bin Chillin'.
All the terror cells we've "broken up" still find a way to ? American troops all over Afghanistan.
They're still getting plenty of money and aid from Pakistani citizens and government officials (from all over the Muslim world really), so those " broken up" terror cells get recruits the same day American troops ? many of their members.
If you believe Osama Bin Chillin' is gonna get captured anytime soon, I got a news report for you to believe........
America's 13 trillion dollar debt will be paid for by space aliens from the planet Kalkallala. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
America's 13 trillion dollar debt will be paid for by space aliens from the planet Kalkallala.
Word? That's great news. -
shootemwon wrote: »We lost the day we invaded. Afghanistan is the empire killer. Besides, look at that place? How you gonna stabilize the region by invading and occupying. Even if we stay there, some local warlord will take over a region every time you go to take a ? .
You're pretty much right. I think Bush had no choice politically but to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, but he stayed waaaaaaay too long.
After Karzai was put in, and the Taliban dismantled, we should have left and supplied aid and special forces when needed.
Taking a lesson from the Russians, the British, Alexander the Great, and Genghis Khan's armies' losing efforts to occupy Afghanistan successfully would have given the morons in charge of the Pentagon a good reason to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible. The Afghans are a proud people, and will never submit to the authority of an American empire that is brutalizing its Arab neighbors all over the Middle East.
Obama needs to wake up and smell the poppy fields......we're getting our ? manhandled like Brock against Velasquez. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Word? That's great news.
It is. I heard it on CNN 2 days ago.
Kalkallala is a planet where roads are paved with gold, and alien women have 3 ? .
I gotta check it out sometime. -
Please, nobody spit that stupid-ass "Afghanistan will have peace, as soon as that mean ol' U.S leaves" ? .
I'm begging you. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Please, nobody spit that stupid-ass "Afghanistan will have peace, as soon as that mean ol' U.S leaves" ? .
I'm begging you.
Not quite, but, our presence there at this point isn't making things safer but does give terrorist groups a good recruiting tool. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »It is. I heard it on CNN 2 days ago.
Kalkallala is a planet where roads are paved with gold, and alien women have 3 ? .
I gotta check it out sometime.
Nice, I would visit but my OS pass been suspended for a year...
But I think the only reason we stayed this long is so we don't look like ? . It would be the wrong message to send Al-Queda and the middle east if you just abandon the mission and let them think they were too strong.. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »All the terror cells we've "broken up" still find a way to ? American troops all over Afghanistan.
terror cells ? civilians
guerrillas ? troops -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Nice, I would visit but my OS pass been suspended for a year...
But I think the only reason we stayed this long is so we don't look like ? . It would be the wrong message to send Al-Queda and the middle east if you just abandon the mission and let them think they were too strong..
Which is why we never should have occupied the Afghanistan in the first place. Our first big mistake was acting like The Taliban and Al-Qaeda were one in the same. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Please, nobody spit that stupid-ass "Afghanistan will have peace, as soon as that mean ol' U.S leaves" ? .
I'm begging you.
I'm either really high right now, or this post didn't make much sense to me. Can you please make yourself more clear here?
You're begging me for what? Afghanistan may not have much peace when the USA leaves its people alone, but I'm pretty sure American troops would be at more ease......
American troops have a high suicide rate right now, no doubt because many of them are scared shitless thinking about what a terrifying enemy the Taliban and its vast supporters all throughout Afghanistan are. -
Swiffness! wrote: »terror cells ? civilians
guerrillas ? troops
According to Obama and the Pentagon, terror cells are killing American troops.
Forgive me for being gullible. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »American troops have a high suicide rate right now, no doubt because many of them are scared shitless thinking about what a terrifying enemy the Taliban and its vast supporters all throughout Afghanistan are.
Or because they just had a night of incredible ? and passion with Ahmed, the local goat herder, and are now worried about getting fired. -
shootemwon wrote: »Which is why we never should have occupied the Afghanistan in the first place. Our first big mistake was acting like The Taliban and Al-Qaeda were one in the same.
Well that was the governments way of getting a war on terror. To combine the two, you can watch news footage and see Taliban repeatedly brought to attention when Bin Laden was mentioned. Ain't too many people in the states can tell you that Bin Laden ? with Al-Queda while the Taliban were a separate group. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »American troops have a high suicide rate right now, no doubt because many of them are scared shitless thinking about what a terrifying enemy the Taliban and its vast supporters all throughout Afghanistan are.
Nothing to do with the Taliban.
Soldiers always have a high suicide rate when they experience war, you see some ? that really would ? a normal person up. You may be immune after you see a few dead bodies but once you leave that environment it will come back and take its toll. -
shootemwon wrote: »our presence there at this point isn't making things safer but does give terrorist groups a good recruiting tool.
vastly different from saying "Afghanistan will have peace, as soon as that mean ol' U.S leaves"
I get annoyed when I hear anti-war folks talk about bringing "peace" to Afghanistan. Like ummmm ya'll mean peace for the exiting U.S troops, right? Because that Civil War will keep on raging well after that happens. That's what gets me. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Well that was the governments way of getting a war on terror. To combine the two, you can watch news footage and see Taliban repeatedly brought to attention when Bin Laden was mentioned. Ain't too many people in the states can tell you that Bin Laden ? with Al-Queda while the Taliban were a separate group.
Obviously Americans didn't know the difference and for the most part they probably still don't. But the Bush administration wasn't shy about saying publicly that they would voluntarily neglect to make the distinction between the two. -
The war was never intended to be won; only sustained.
The point is to surround the Middle East and block China from gaining access to the oil. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Nice, I would visit but my OS pass been suspended for a year...
But I think the only reason we stayed this long is so we don't look like ? . It would be the wrong message to send Al-Queda and the middle east if you just abandon the mission and let them think they were too strong..
What's an OS pass? The weed I'm blazing as I'm typing this is really, really strong, so maybe I'm a little out of it right now.
I'm still brilliant enough to realize though that looking tough is not always the smart thing to do, especially when we're losing more than we're gaining in Afghanistan.
And for the record, our main mission there to capture Osama Bin Chillin' is bound to failure because he is loved dearly all throughout the Middle East. He has higher approval ratings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan than Obama does.........the smart thing to do right now is to be humble, change our foreign policy, and walk away while Karzai is still the president of Afghanistan. We're in a disaster right now foreign policy wise, and it's bankrupting us like crazy. China is smiling brightly looking at us wasting money......cuz they know we're gonna ask them for more money eventually.
I got bad news for you my friend.....those space aliens aren't gonna bail us out.
I made them up last night while watching Total Recall = ( -
shootemwon wrote: »Obviously Americans didn't know the difference and for the most part they probably still don't. But the Bush administration wasn't shy about saying publicly that they would voluntarily neglect to make the distinction between the two.
Well, they did govern Afghanistan at the time and knowingly housed Bin Laden and Al-Queda there. Back then I was a sophomore in highschool so I didn't really know to much about it outside of what the TV said, but weren't they refusing to allow us to send Spec Ops in after Bin Laden? -
Swiffness! wrote: »vastly different from saying "Afghanistan will have peace, as soon as that mean ol' U.S leaves"
I get annoyed when I hear anti-war folks talk about bringing "peace" to Afghanistan. Like ummmm ya'll mean peace for the exiting U.S troops, right? Because that Civil War will keep on raging well after that happens. That's what gets me.
Yeah, ? is gonna be wack over there no matter what. It's kind of like if you go over to your homies house to chill and after 10 minutes his girl walks in with a temper tantrum and suddenly they're in some heated ? with each other. So you're sittin on the couch with the two of them screaming at each other and you might as well leave cause you can't really help and you stand to gain nothing by being here right now. -
Great convo I see going on in here, I'll be back later, I got some stuff to take care of...........
Maybe some heads in here can change my mind. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »What's an OS pass? The weed I'm blazing as I'm typing this is really, really strong, so maybe I'm a little out of it right now.
I'm still brilliant enough to realize though that looking tough is not always the smart thing to do, especially when we're losing more than we're gaining in Afghanistan.
And for the record, our main mission there to capture Osama Bin Chillin' is bound to failure because he is loved dearly all throughout the Middle East. He has higher approval ratings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan than Obama does.........the smart thing to do right now is to be humble, change our foreign policy, and walk away while Karzai is still the president of Afghanistan. We're in a disaster right now foreign policy wise, and it's bankrupting us like crazy. China is smiling brightly looking at us wasting money......cuz they know we're gonna ask them for more money eventually.
I got bad news for you my friend.....those space aliens aren't gonna bail us out.
I made them up last night while watching Total Recall = (
Outer Space Pass
And we would have to leave troops in Afghanistan for support. Karzai would be overthrown with the quickness and the Taliban would be back governing the country. Just walking away also gives a bad look to the United States in the eyes of Afghans. Right now IMO it's more of a protect and rebuild phase to gain support from the people there who aren't insurgents.
