10 years in Afghanistan.....can we admit this war is lost and a failure now? *Poll*
Options
Comments
-
it's also completely aside from the point that i was making. i've never denied it, although i seem to want to take a more nuanced perspective of how Iran relates to the Taliban than you do, since they clearly don't have the best history.
that said, while you'd like me to agree to points you make, i'd still like you to answer this question: did you misread the post or were you intentionally ignoring the argument?
I ignored the argument because I never compared Vietnam to Afghanistan, at least not in this thread. So I never really misread your post. With that being said, there are many similarities between the current war and Vietnam.
The wars causing more problems than solutions in the long run being one of them.
Even you can't deny things are going terribly in Afghanistan. -
you know... when i disputed the comparison, that's when you hit me with the "are you serious with this post?????????" so how exactly am i supposed to presume you're ignoring the argument as opposed to misreading the post, see?kingblaze84 wrote: »I ignored the argument because I never compared Vietnam to Afghanistan, at least not in this thread. -
you know... when i disputed the comparison, that's when you hit me with the "are you serious with this post?????????" so how exactly am i supposed to presume you're ignoring the argument as opposed to misreading the post, see?
I hit you with that because it seemed like you saw no comparison AT ALL between Vietnam and Afghanistan. You have made yourself more clearer now, so I'll let you slide with that.
And you're wrong for saying I am whining by making this thread. You and the two other people. -
made myself more clear NOW? again, let me bold the relevant portion:kingblaze84 wrote: »I hit you with that because it seemed like you saw no comparison AT ALL between Vietnam and Afghanistan. You have made yourself more clearer now, so I'll let you slide with that.
"Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam." this is the post from six days ago that sums it my position; i haven't clarified it, i've simply repeated it.
is that what i said? or is it maybe just the best of an incomplete set of options to choose from?kingblaze84 wrote: »And you're wrong for saying I am whining by making this thread. You and the two other people. -
The U.S. will pull completely out of Afghanistan and Iraq only when Big Oil, the war profiteers, mineral extracters and the Chinese creditors say cease operations.
Didn't they just find vast deposits of minerals and precious metals in Afghanistan ?
Doesn't Iraq have the second largest petroleum supply in the world ?
Conquer and plunder, nothing about spreading democracy. -
The U.S. will pull completely out of Afghanistan and Iraq only when Big Oil, the war profiteers, mineral extracters and the Chinese creditors say cease operations.
Didn't they just find vast deposits of minerals and precious metals in Afghanistan ?
Doesn't Iraq have the second largest petroleum supply in the world ?
Conquer and plunder, nothing about spreading democracy.
Sad but true. The American empire shows no signs of slowing down. What a shame Obama continues to follow George W Bush's imperial foreign policy, even as it bankrupts America.
There are rumors of some administration officials saying privately to reporters we will be there until 2014. I would not be surprised if Obama signed off on that.
The corporations that want Afghanistan's minerals must be paying off Obama good for him to be so willing to bankrupt the country like this. -
made myself more clear NOW? again, let me bold the relevant portion:
"Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam." this is the post from six days ago that sums it my position; i haven't clarified it, i've simply repeated it.
is that what i said? or is it maybe just the best of an incomplete set of options to choose from?
If my set of options was incomplete, what would have been a complete set? -
no one "just" found anythingDidn't they just find vast deposits of minerals and precious metals in Afghanistan ?
a "yes" that didn't feel the need to purport excess military prowess on behalf of the Taliban; a "no" that didn't imply a desire to spend trillions just to do so; a "tie" that acknowledged the stalemate was more political than militarykingblaze84 wrote: »If my set of options was incomplete, what would have been a complete set? -
no one "just" found anything
a "yes" that didn't feel the need to purport excess military prowess on behalf of the Taliban; a "no" that didn't imply a desire to spend trillions just to do so; a "tie" that acknowledged the stalemate was more political than military
So you wanted a fake poll.
LMAO.....all my options are the reality of what is going on in Afghanistan. I dare you to prove to me otherwise. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The corporations that want Afghanistan's minerals must be paying off Obama good for him to be so willing to bankrupt the country like this.
oh for ? 's sake
you stay acting like AFGHANISTAN is gonna be THE THING that bankrupts America.
newsflash: if you magically end all U.S involvement in Afghanistan, the budget still looks like this:
okay? I'm tired of watching liberals pretend that they give a flying ? about America "spending too much". Truth is, liberals don't care about gov't spending any more than they care about illegal immigration. Its like when conservatives suddenly started talking about health care.....conservatives don't give a ? about health care, they're just saying it because its good strategy to pretend that they care. Its not a issue they really take seriously. Same with liberals and government spending. Ain't no liberal fiscal hawks, son. Complaining about the cost of the wars is just a tactic to attack the wars with. So all this "THE COST! HE'S GONNA BANKRUPT US WITH AFGHANISTAN!!!" - ? please. You don't oppose the war because it costs too much. You oppose the war because you view it as unjust and unwinnable. Probably also because people are dying over there. (although as I've pointed out, Afghanis were dying in droves before we got there and will continue to after we leave)
Complaining about the cost is a means to an end for you. You're not CMR, you're not laying awake at night worried about rising Medicare costs and ? . -
Swiffness! wrote: »oh for ? 's sake
you stay acting like AFGHANISTAN is gonna be THE THING that bankrupts America.
newsflash: if you magically end all U.S involvement in Afghanistan, the budget still looks like this:
okay? I'm tired of watching liberals pretend that they give a flying ? about America "spending too much". Truth is, liberals don't care about gov't spending any more than they care about illegal immigration. Its like when conservatives suddenly started talking about health care.....conservatives don't give a ? about health care, they're just saying it because its good strategy to pretend that they care. Its not a issue they really take seriously. Same with liberals and government spending. Ain't no liberal fiscal hawks, son. Complaining about the cost of the wars is just a tactic to attack the wars with. So all this "THE COST! HE'S GONNA BANKRUPT US WITH AFGHANISTAN!!!" - ? please. You don't oppose the war because it costs too much. You oppose the war because you view it as unjust and unwinnable. Probably also because people are dying over there. (although as I've pointed out, Afghanis were dying in droves before we got there and will continue to after we leave)
Complaining about the cost is a means to an end for you. You're not CMR, you're not laying awake at night worried about rising Medicare costs and ? .
The war is still very expensive......imagine all the jobs we could save if the war was to be over right NOW. It may not take up a majority of the budget, but the costs still outweigh any benefits. Just today, a commission warned the war is getting too expensive.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101112/pl_nm/us_usa_afghanistan_strategy_4
Report cautions Obama on high cost of Afghan war
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An independent task force cautioned President Barack Obama on Friday about the high cost of the Afghanistan war and said he should consider a narrow military mission if his December review finds the current strategy is not working.
The 25-member task force, led by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former national security adviser Samuel Berger, said it saw "hopeful signs" in Afghanistan, such as improved training of security forces, but other trends were less encouraging.
"The cloudy picture and high costs raise the question of whether the United States should now downsize its ambitions and reduce its military presence in Afghanistan," the task force said in a 98-page report.
"We are mindful of the real threat we face," said the task force, which was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. "But we are also aware of the costs of the present strategy. We cannot accept these costs unless the strategy begins to show signs of progress."
Dan Markey, a South Asia analyst at the council who was project director for the report, said the findings were a "sober reflection of a Washington consensus that is increasingly skeptical and concerned" about the war.
The task force endorsed Obama's efforts to deepen cooperation with Pakistan and called for improved trading ties. It also pressed the administration to send Pakistan a clear message about severing ties to Islamist extremist groups like the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Armitage, speaking at the launch of the report, said it was in Islamabad's interest to distance itself from the groups because another Mumbai-style attack linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba could trigger war between India and Pakistan.
"If we can't be successful in either jawboning, pressuring or stick-and-carroting them into this, then in the long run we're dealing with a very dangerous situation," he said.
The task force was composed of a broad range of former government officials, military leaders, academics and journalists with expertise in the region. The report was not requested by the Obama administration but the task force did speak to officials involved with the issue.
The group gave a qualified endorsement to Obama's current strategy, an ambitious counterinsurgency-style effort, but only if it is clearly making progress.
MORE LIMITED MISSION
"If the December 2010 review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan concludes that the present strategy is not working, the task force recommends that a shift to a more limited mission at a substantially reduced level of military force would be warranted," the report said.
Some task force members issued dissenting opinions that went further. Robert Grenier, a former longtime CIA agent with experience in the region, said the current strategy is not working and needs an army too costly for Afghans to sustain.
"The U.S. effort ... cannot continue on at this level of material and human resources," he said. "It's very clear that the current approach is not going to be able to succeed on the timeline that we've given it. I think that we've seen enough and that we need to shift, in essence, to plan B."
Grenier said he favored a long-term effort to gradually build a small Afghan army and mentor local militias accountable to local leaders. Those forces could counter the Taliban and be used as a platform for counterterror operations, he said.
The administration's current strategy calls for U.S.-led forces, including nearly 100,000 American troops, to disrupt al Qaeda and its Taliban allies while training Afghan military and police to take over security.
At the same time, foreign civilians are working to help improve Afghan governance in an effort to broaden popular support for the administration.
As the December review approaches, it is clear defense officials believe the war plan is working but needs more time, despite rising casualties and worsening violence.
Administration officials have begun to play down Obama's July 2011 deadline for beginning to hand over security to Afghan forces and withdraw U.S. troops as conditions merit.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week they viewed Afghan President Hamid Karzai's plan to assume full responsibility for the country's security by 2014 as a realistic goal NATO should endorse at its summit this month.
Administration officials have indicated the strategy review is likely to bring only tweaks rather than a wholesale reappraisal of the war effort. -
States are cutting jobs by the thousands, and our infrastructure is crumbling. How about we spend our tax dollars building up ? RIGHT HERE instead of in a nation that hates us more and more by the day?
Here's a website that details further more the costs of this ridiculous, expensive, wasteful war. After reviewing the numbers, than ask yourself again how many jobs we could have created right here with this kind of money.
How much are these corporations paying you off with Obama?
http://costofwar.com/
National Priorities Project
See the Cost of War to your community:
Total Cost of Wars Since 2001
$1,106,484,671,199
Cost of War in Iraq
$741,889,540,752
Cost of War in Afghanistan
$364,595,130,447
CostofWar.com is brought to you by National Priorities Project. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Total Cost of Wars Since 2001
$1,106,484,671,199
Cost of War in Iraq
$741,889,540,752
Cost of War in Afghanistan
$364,595,130,447
CostofWar.com is brought to you by National Priorities Project.
strange
its almost as if Afghanistan has cost half what Iraq has
and of course, the vast majority of that money was spent after Obama was sworn in
and of course, immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan would result in a bigger stimulus package somehow
and of course, its not like Obama is on record as saying exactly 1 year ago: "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."kingblaze84 wrote: »How much are these corporations paying you off with Obama?
this again
in EVERY speech he gave in 08, the foreign policy section always put escalating in Afghanistan front and center
EVERY. DAMN. SPEECH.
And you know what you did when he got to that part of the speech? You cheered like everybody else. "YEAH! AFGHANISTAN IS WHERE AL QAEDA IS! WE GOT DISTRACTED BY IRAQ! LET'S FIGHT THE REAL WAR!"
Yes, YOU.
But now he's being paid off by corporations because he's.....um......doing what you were cheering before?
? outta here with that cynical-ass conspiracy ? . He's waging war in Afghanistan because he doesn't think letting the Taliban reconquer the country without a fight is a good look. He thinks its at least worth a TRY. A try that Bush NEVER DID because he was sooo focused on Iraq....which Obama is gradually pulling troops out of like he promised, in spite of a steep rise in civilian deaths and terror attacks as U.S troops leave. Can we at least give him credit for that?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Because ITS NOT FAST ENOUGH I WANT THE ACTION FIGURE NOW MOMMY -
Swiffness! wrote: »strange
its almost as if Afghanistan has cost half what Iraq has
and of course, the vast majority of that money was spent after Obama was sworn in
and of course, immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan would result in a bigger stimulus package somehow
and of course, its not like Obama is on record as saying exactly 1 year ago: "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."
this again
in EVERY speech he gave in 08, the foreign policy section always put escalating in Afghanistan front and center
EVERY. DAMN. SPEECH.
And you know what you did when he got to that part of the speech? You cheered like everybody else. "YEAH! AFGHANISTAN IS WHERE AL QAEDA IS! WE GOT DISTRACTED BY IRAQ! LET'S FIGHT THE REAL WAR!"
Yes, YOU.
But now he's being paid off by corporations because he's.....um......doing what you were cheering before?
? outta here with that cynical-ass conspiracy ? . He's waging war in Afghanistan because he doesn't think letting the Taliban reconquer the country without a fight is a good look. He thinks its at least worth a TRY. A try that Bush NEVER DID because he was sooo focused on Iraq....which Obama is gradually pulling troops out of like he promised, in spite of a steep rise in civilian deaths and terror attacks as U.S troops leave. Can we at least give him credit for that?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Because ITS NOT FAST ENOUGH I WANT THE ACTION FIGURE NOW MOMMY
LOL.....I shouldnt lurk in threads when I dont have time to respond, but I will say this.....
I'll be back = )
I have a lot going on now, with several women vying for my attention at a party right now (I'm using my friend's Iphone) but in a rush, I'll say that I expected Obama to use good JUDGEMENT when it came to conducting this war.
Continuing a war after 9 and a half years when 60 % + of all Americans don't want this war anymore is NOT good judgement. As I said, I'll be back. -
clearly it would not have been a fake poll; it would simply not have had descriptors biased towards your opinion.kingblaze84 wrote: »...all my options are the reality of what is going on in Afghanistan. I dare you to prove to me otherwise.
you have "yes" based around the fact that the Taliban is "kicking American ass," but the yes does not have to be based around that if you think the issue is a social or political one, and as always on this topic, show proof the Taliban is actually doing that. melting away in the face of American/NATO forces and not getting wiped out is not "kicking American ass."
you have "no" worded as if to imply that anyone who disagrees with you wants to spend the money just to spend it. frankly, you can think the war is not lost AND that a ton of money has been wasted at the same time.
you have the "tie" option worded, again, as if the issue is the military prowess of the Taliban and not the social/political problems of fixing the country.
but hey, you put the "stop whining" option in there, so i suppose you might have to take this complaint up with the threadstarter...
why are you posting this at all if you're actually at a party making time with a bunch of women? wouldn't anyone just not read the forum and/or not post until later in that circumstance?kingblaze84 wrote: »I have a lot going on now, with several women vying for my attention at a party right now (I'm using my friend's Iphone) but in a rush- -
It is clear that Americans and his allies are just wasting their money , lives and time their. The cannot get any thing form their if they really went their for war. if they have political reasons for this war then I cannot say any thing about it.
-
When HeySlick is the one correcting your grammar.....that counts as a L.
-
So does that mean your a loser as well? That's almost funny IE I pass along knowledge gotten from you and yours & then your smart ass criticizes me for it. Can you say HYPOCRITE? mister rogers?
this dude called me Mister Rogers
lmao
i guess that's an insult in your book
-
Swiffness! wrote: »strange
its almost as if Afghanistan has cost half what Iraq has
and of course, the vast majority of that money was spent after Obama was sworn in
and of course, immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan would result in a bigger stimulus package somehow
and of course, its not like Obama is on record as saying exactly 1 year ago: "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."
this again
in EVERY speech he gave in 08, the foreign policy section always put escalating in Afghanistan front and center
EVERY. DAMN. SPEECH.
And you know what you did when he got to that part of the speech? You cheered like everybody else. "YEAH! AFGHANISTAN IS WHERE AL QAEDA IS! WE GOT DISTRACTED BY IRAQ! LET'S FIGHT THE REAL WAR!"
Yes, YOU.
But now he's being paid off by corporations because he's.....um......doing what you were cheering before?
? outta here with that cynical-ass conspiracy ? . He's waging war in Afghanistan because he doesn't think letting the Taliban reconquer the country without a fight is a good look. He thinks its at least worth a TRY. A try that Bush NEVER DID because he was sooo focused on Iraq....which Obama is gradually pulling troops out of like he promised, in spite of a steep rise in civilian deaths and terror attacks as U.S troops leave. Can we at least give him credit for that?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Because ITS NOT FAST ENOUGH I WANT THE ACTION FIGURE NOW MOMMY
I don't give Obama credit for Afghanistan yet. I'll give him credit when he begins withdrawing our troops from this never ending hellhole known as Afghanistan. It's very obvious Obama is not a good studier of history. The British, Mongols, the Greeks, and the Russians all failed miserably trying to conquer Afghanistan.
If Obama is SERIOUS about ending the terror threat from abroad, he will begin by changing our foreign policy towards the Middle East. Not giving Israel so much ? aid and ending our massive support of dictatorships all over the Middle East would be a good start. Obama fears Taliban rule, but it is not his job to play the world's babysitter. Playing that role is NOT giving him peace or helping him politically.
There are rumors Obama is quietly considering American troops staying in Afghanistan as long as 2014.....if he does that, I'm staying home in 2012. Obama is a smart man, but when it comes to foreign policy, the man seems like a complete ? idiot. And why the ? are we still in Iraq after all this time? I always heard Obama say Iraq was a dumb war.....what a shame he's continuing it.......and he wonders why his approval ratings are so low right now. -
clearly it would not have been a fake poll; it would simply not have had descriptors biased towards your opinion.
you have "yes" based around the fact that the Taliban is "kicking American ass," but the yes does not have to be based around that if you think the issue is a social or political one, and as always on this topic, show proof the Taliban is actually doing that. melting away in the face of American/NATO forces and not getting wiped out is not "kicking American ass."
you have "no" worded as if to imply that anyone who disagrees with you wants to spend the money just to spend it. frankly, you can think the war is not lost AND that a ton of money has been wasted at the same time.
you have the "tie" option worded, again, as if the issue is the military prowess of the Taliban and not the social/political problems of fixing the country.
but hey, you put the "stop whining" option in there, so i suppose you might have to take this complaint up with the threadstarter...
why are you posting this at all if you're actually at a party making time with a bunch of women? wouldn't anyone just not read the forum and/or not post until later in that circumstance?
The Taliban may not be winning most of its individual battles but YES, they are still kicking American ass. American positions are being abandoned all the time over there. The major battles for Kandahar and other major cities have fallen absolutely flat this year. It's an embarassment of epic proportions a third world enemy is having American troops on the ropes for so long. Numbers of dead enemies don't mean anything if the presence of the enemy is growing more and more by the day, NOT DECREASING.
The Taliban are winning the BATTLE of hearts and minds in Afghanistan, NOT the imperial American forces. America's best allies are abandoning America in droves in the land where empires die, no coincidence. The writing is on the wall, Americans are losing there and losing BAD. Here's a fun link for you.....
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1895496,00.html
When Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office recently said it was holding peace talks with the Taliban, the Taliban countered with a press release. A spokesman for the militants dismissed Karzai's announcement as a propaganda ploy to suggest a schism within the Taliban's ranks. Not only was that not true, the press release that was subsequently sent to journalists announced the start of the Taliban's spring offensive, dubbed "Operation Victory." It was the latest exchange in a critical second front in the Afghan war — a war of words that U.S. and Kabul government officials privately concede they are losing.
--Even the president of Pakistan acknowledges America is losing this war, LOL......what a ? ? joke this war is now.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/3/zardari-taliban-winning-war-afghan-support/
The U.S.-led international coalition is losing the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan because it has failed to win over the Afghan people, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said in a grim assessment of the war this week.
In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde during a visit to Paris, Mr. Zardari said the coalition "underestimated the situation on the ground and was not conscious of the scale of the problem."
"The international community, to which Pakistan belongs, is losing the war against the Taliban. This is above all because we have lost the battle to conquer the heart and soul," Mr. Zardari said.
The interview was published in Wednesday's editions of Le Monde but was posted online on Tuesday.
"The success of the insurgents has been to know how to wait. They have time on their side," Mr. Zardari said. "The whole approach seems wrong to me. The population does not associate the presence of the coalition with a better future."
He said the Taliban had no chance of regaining power in Afghanistan, but contended that the militants' "grip is strengthening."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs rejected Mr. Zardari's assessment.
"I don't think [President Obama] would agree … with President Zardari's conclusion that the war is lost," Mr. Gibbs said.
He said the "hearts and minds of those in Afghanistan and Pakistan are obviously a key part of out strategy."
" think it is safe to say that the actions and the efforts that the coalition, international forces and American forces, have taken over the last several months have very much the hearts and minds of the Afghan people at the forefront," he added.
--The president of Pakistan is wrong on one count though.....the Taliban has an EXCELLENT chance of taking over the country again someday. They just have to wait for American forces to leave, and than it's a wrap. Karzai is powerless on his own against the Taliban......and Obama looks ever more helpless himself......smh.....stop being dumb Obama. -
the fact that they're not winning the battles is why it's not accurate to say they're "kicking American ass." are positions abandoned (although this "all the time" part sounds more like your personal opinion than a supported position) because the Taliban is militarily chasing guys out of them? no.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Taliban may not be winning most of its individual battles but YES, they are still kicking American ass. American positions are being abandoned all the time over there.
wow, it's almost like this is something more social and political than military... oh, wait, that's why i said "the yes does not have to be based around that if you think the issue is a social or political one."kingblaze84 wrote: »The Taliban are winning the BATTLE of hearts and minds in Afghanistan-
wait, to support your claim of the Taliban's military prowess you're giving me an article from May 2009 that talks about the Taliban winning the propaganda war?kingblaze84 wrote: »Here's a fun link for you.....
and even then it's framed as a problem with winning over the people. this still leaves me waiting for all this proof of Taliban military might i thought was coming.kingblaze84 wrote: »Even the president of Pakistan acknowledges America is losing this war- -
Karzai is currently popping ? talmbout it's time for US forces to pull out
I think that's great..............we can redeploy forces and then Obama can start sending soldiers to Haiti so they can actually do something useful
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_afghanistan#mwpphu-container -
blakfyahking wrote: »Karzai is currently popping ? talmbout it's time for US forces to pull out
I think that's great..............we can redeploy forces and then Obama can start sending soldiers to Haiti so they can actually do something useful
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_afghanistan#mwpphu-container
Yep, even Karzai is saying NATO should cut the amount of troops that are in Afghanistan. Why do you think Obama is so ? stubborn and stupid on this issue? -
the fact that they're not winning the battles is why it's not accurate to say they're "kicking American ass." are positions abandoned (although this "all the time" part sounds more like your personal opinion than a supported position) because the Taliban is militarily chasing guys out of them? no.
wow, it's almost like this is something more social and political than military... oh, wait, that's why i said "the yes does not have to be based around that if you think the issue is a social or political one."
wait, to support your claim of the Taliban's military prowess you're giving me an article from May 2009 that talks about the Taliban winning the propaganda war?
and even then it's framed as a problem with winning over the people. this still leaves me waiting for all this proof of Taliban military might i thought was coming.
Our major offensives into Kandahar has failed so far, and we've tried TWICE now at least to take the city. This major offensive was supposed to be a sign that Americans are finally starting to make some ? progress, and of course, because the Taliban is kicking our ass, we failed.
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/world/article/690930--kandahar-cordon-fails-to-keep-insurgents-out
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - A security cordon set up around Kandahar city has failed to keep out insurgents, who are filtering back in as coalition forces escalate operations in the province's rural areas.
The cordon was erected under the command of the Canadian military as part of the initial phase of the ongoing offensive to stabilize Kandahar, and consisted of a series of checkpoints around the city.
It passed to U.S. command in recent months, and American military officials now acknowledge it has not provided the desired level of security inside the city.
"We recognize it is not where we would like it to be in terms of the conditions setting," said Lt.-Col. Vic Garcia, deputy commander of the American task force responsible for Kandahar city. "We're taking measure to adjust."
Both American and Canadian military commanders have trumpeted recent success against the Taliban in many of Kandahar's rural areas. But violence in the city itself has failed to abate.
The Taliban have launched an assassination campaign against anyone associated with the Afghan government, sending a wave of terror through the city.
In the past two months, they have managed to ? _ among others _ two members of the religious council, a deputy mayor, an education official and a prison officer.
"The ring really hasn't shut closed in any way, shape, or form," said Peter Dimitroff, a security consultant for NGOs in southern Afghanistan.
According to figures calculated by Dimitroff, there were 18 IED strikes in Kandahar city during the last 12 days of October alone. The strikes, he said, were distributed across several city districts.
"There's been no area of Kandahar that's been shut down by a security cordon," he said. Insurgent groups "can still strike anywhere where they want to at any time."
The idea of erecting a security cordon around the city was unveiled by Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard shortly after he took command of the Canadian mission in Kandahar last November.
Calling it a "ring of stability," Menard envisioned the creation of a safe zone inside the urban area that would allow for a surge of reconstruction projects.
That was to provide a springboard for subsequent phases of Hamkari, which sought to tackle insurgent strongholds first in Arghandab district, then in Zhari and Panjwaii.
But as troops cleared village after village during the summer, insurgents have been able to regroup in the city.
"There is definitely a squirting situation going on," said Garcia. "It's akin to squeezing the balloon."
The result, he added, has been a shift in the type of violence seen by coalition forces. Insurgents are less likely to engage foreign militaries, and instead have concentrated their efforts on softer targets, including Afghan police and government officials.
NATO officials have attempted to dismiss the recent wave of violence as largely criminal activity. The former commander for southern Afghanistan, British Maj.-Gen. Nick Carter, compared Kandahar city to Moscow in the early 1990s.
But civilian observers say they are struck by the lack of random violence, suggesting disciplined insurgent groups have established themselves in the city.
"There is no desire to get involved in a prolonged engagement with ISAF," said Dimitroff.
"That speaks to the sense that we suspect there is a very-low level of foreign fighters here in Kandahar city because they're harder to control. There are great command and control structures here."
The U.S. military has decided the flaws of the security cordon are serious enough that a new approach is needed. Part of the problem, said Garcia, was the ease with which insurgents found ways to detour checkpoints.
"We're not saying the checkpoints don't serve a purpose whatsoever, they do," he said. "But we have to mix it up a little bit and keep them guessing."
----The Taliban has the upper hand, whether you want to believe it or not. Obama, stop being stubborn ? . End this war. NOW. Obama's foreign policy is that of a ? mixed in with that of a ? . -
let me highlight a couple of reasons from your article that indicate your continued use of "kicking our ass" is inaccurate:kingblaze84 wrote: »Our major offensives into Kandahar has failed so far, and we've tried TWICE now at least to take the city. This major offensive was supposed to be a sign that Americans are finally starting to make some ? progress, and of course, because the Taliban is kicking our ass, we failed.
"filtering back in as coalition forces escalate operations in the province's rural areas."
"troops cleared village after village during the summer"
"insurgents are less likely to engage foreign militaries, and instead have concentrated their efforts on softer targets, including Afghan police and government officials."
"insurgents found ways to detour checkpoints."
i know you want to keep repeating "kicking our ass" because you're unwilling to acknowledge any aspect of your argument isn't correct, but the fact is, if they were kicking our ass, they wouldn't be avoiding fights and going after Afghan officials, they'd simply be fighting the US forces straight on. do you not remember when the Taliban was successfully fighting in Afghanistan in the 1990s? they weren't detouring around checkpoints to chase after government officials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw_GnjE-des