Afghan "train, advise and assist" 1984 style

[Loren Pechtel]

Globalresearch.ca is conspiracy crap.

That being said, Afghanistan is an impossible war for the same reason Vietnam was--our opponents have major outside backing.

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

 

[funinspace]

Globalresearch.ca is conspiracy crap.

Not that I really care that you think so, but their "crap" provided real sources from the NY Times and quotes of CIA crap head Mike Pompeo himself...

That being said, Afghanistan is an impossible war for the same reason Vietnam was--our opponents have major outside backing.

That is certainly one of the reasons...

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

I don't think I want to know what your version of "win in Afghanistan" is...

 

[J842P]

Globalresearch.ca is conspiracy crap.

That being said, Afghanistan is an impossible war for the same reason Vietnam was--our opponents have major outside backing.

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

You put too much emphasis on the outside backing, sure it helps, but the major reason why such a war is un-winnable is because it would require old-school-style murder people into submission tactics: kill all males over a certain age, rape and impregnate all the women with soldiers to breed out their ethnic group. At the very least it would involve assigning all males as valid military targets. Modern countries are rarely are willing to do that. Although, what we did in Vietnam came close. Furthermore, the Vietnamese saw this and the Afghans see this in much broader terms. They are willing to keep having children with the idea in mind that they will die for a cause i.e., in Vietnam we thought we were fighting Communism, the Vietnamese thought they were fighting a 1000-year war for independence. The Vietnamese were right, we were wrong.

Fundamentally, the American polity isn't willing to pay the price of thousands of young men nor are they willing to practically empty the coffers to wage a perpetual war over Vietnam or Afghanistan. The Vietnamese and Afghani's are willing. That is why the Vietnamese won, and why the Afghani's will win.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not that I really care that you think so, but their "crap" provided real sources from the NY Times and quotes of CIA crap head Mike Pompeo himself...

That being said, Afghanistan is an impossible war for the same reason Vietnam was--our opponents have major outside backing.

That is certainly one of the reasons...

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

I don't think I want to know what your version of "win in Afghanistan" is...

I don't, either. I'm just saying what it would take--to remove Pakistan as a backer of the Taliban.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not that I really care that you think so, but their "crap" provided real sources from the NY Times and quotes of CIA crap head Mike Pompeo himself...


That is certainly one of the reasons...

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

I don't think I want to know what your version of "win in Afghanistan" is...

I don't, either. I'm just saying what it would take--to remove Pakistan as a backer of the Taliban.

Pakistan Proper doesn't support the Taliban. They kind of invented it and when it got out of hand, they shifted it to Afghanistan to get it away from them. Right now, if Pakistan presses too hard on the Taliban, they'll be getting killed. The big problem with Afghanistan isn't outside forces. It is a small hardly united nation consisting of a lot of uneducated people that are scrimping away to survive. They are at risk of local war lords and Taliban factions that'll kill them if they don't cooperate with them, and they have no way to be protected. Add the weather and rough terrain and this is simply unwinnable without a massive occupying force.

We can't just "fix it". That'd imply it was in some workable format at some previous point in time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not that I really care that you think so, but their "crap" provided real sources from the NY Times and quotes of CIA crap head Mike Pompeo himself...


That is certainly one of the reasons...

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

I don't think I want to know what your version of "win in Afghanistan" is...

I don't, either. I'm just saying what it would take--to remove Pakistan as a backer of the Taliban.

Pakistan Proper doesn't support the Taliban. They kind of invented it and when it got out of hand, they shifted it to Afghanistan to get it away from them. Right now, if Pakistan presses too hard on the Taliban, they'll be getting killed. The big problem with Afghanistan isn't outside forces. It is a small hardly united nation consisting of a lot of uneducated people that are scrimping away to survive. They are at risk of local war lords and Taliban factions that'll kill them if they don't cooperate with them, and they have no way to be protected. Add the weather and rough terrain and this is simply unwinnable without a massive occupying force.

We can't just "fix it". That'd imply it was in some workable format at some previous point in time.

While it got away from them it still gets a lot of support from the Pakistani intelligence agency.

And Afghanistan was a reasonably workable place before the Russians started meddling.

 

[bilby]

Not that I really care that you think so, but their "crap" provided real sources from the NY Times and quotes of CIA crap head Mike Pompeo himself...


That is certainly one of the reasons...

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

I don't think I want to know what your version of "win in Afghanistan" is...

I don't, either. I'm just saying what it would take--to remove Pakistan as a backer of the Taliban.

Pakistan Proper doesn't support the Taliban. They kind of invented it and when it got out of hand, they shifted it to Afghanistan to get it away from them. Right now, if Pakistan presses too hard on the Taliban, they'll be getting killed. The big problem with Afghanistan isn't outside forces. It is a small hardly united nation consisting of a lot of uneducated people that are scrimping away to survive. They are at risk of local war lords and Taliban factions that'll kill them if they don't cooperate with them, and they have no way to be protected. Add the weather and rough terrain and this is simply unwinnable without a massive occupying force.

We can't just "fix it". That'd imply it was in some workable format at some previous point in time.

While it got away from them it still gets a lot of support from the Pakistani intelligence agency.

And Afghanistan was a reasonably workable place before the Russians started meddling.

Afghanistan has NEVER been a "reasonably workable place".

(And the Russians might say the same thing about British meddling. They would still be wrong, though).

 

[barbos]

Not that I really care that you think so, but their "crap" provided real sources from the NY Times and quotes of CIA crap head Mike Pompeo himself...


That is certainly one of the reasons...

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

I don't think I want to know what your version of "win in Afghanistan" is...

I don't, either. I'm just saying what it would take--to remove Pakistan as a backer of the Taliban.

Pakistan Proper doesn't support the Taliban. They kind of invented it and when it got out of hand, they shifted it to Afghanistan to get it away from them. Right now, if Pakistan presses too hard on the Taliban, they'll be getting killed. The big problem with Afghanistan isn't outside forces. It is a small hardly united nation consisting of a lot of uneducated people that are scrimping away to survive. They are at risk of local war lords and Taliban factions that'll kill them if they don't cooperate with them, and they have no way to be protected. Add the weather and rough terrain and this is simply unwinnable without a massive occupying force.

We can't just "fix it". That'd imply it was in some workable format at some previous point in time.

While it got away from them it still gets a lot of support from the Pakistani intelligence agency.

And Afghanistan was a reasonably workable place before the Russians started meddling.

I did not know Jimmy Carter and Ronald Raygun were russians.
But yeah it was a reasonably workable and would probably have stayed that way even after soviet invasion if it were not these two "russians"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Afghanistan has NEVER been a "reasonably workable place".

(And the Russians might say the same thing about British meddling. They would still be wrong, though).

I was there in 1975. Backwards but a functioning society, not a battleground.

- - - Updated - - -

Not that I really care that you think so, but their "crap" provided real sources from the NY Times and quotes of CIA crap head Mike Pompeo himself...


That is certainly one of the reasons...

The only way to win in Afghanistan would be a mushroom cloud on Islamabad and that might not be enough.

I don't think I want to know what your version of "win in Afghanistan" is...

I don't, either. I'm just saying what it would take--to remove Pakistan as a backer of the Taliban.

Pakistan Proper doesn't support the Taliban. They kind of invented it and when it got out of hand, they shifted it to Afghanistan to get it away from them. Right now, if Pakistan presses too hard on the Taliban, they'll be getting killed. The big problem with Afghanistan isn't outside forces. It is a small hardly united nation consisting of a lot of uneducated people that are scrimping away to survive. They are at risk of local war lords and Taliban factions that'll kill them if they don't cooperate with them, and they have no way to be protected. Add the weather and rough terrain and this is simply unwinnable without a massive occupying force.

We can't just "fix it". That'd imply it was in some workable format at some previous point in time.

While it got away from them it still gets a lot of support from the Pakistani intelligence agency.

And Afghanistan was a reasonably workable place before the Russians started meddling.

I did not know Jimmy Carter and Ronald Raygun were russians.
But yeah it was a reasonably workable and would probably have stayed that way even after soviet invasion if it were not these two "russians"

It turned into a war zone when the Russians occupied it. We just made the war a lot bloodier for your troops, we didn't cause the war.

 

[barbos]

It turned into a war zone when the Russians occupied it. We just made the war a lot bloodier for your troops, we didn't cause the war.

Incorrect, it turned into a war zone when Russian forces opponents got major outside backing, all according to major outside backers plan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It turned into a war zone when the Russians occupied it. We just made the war a lot bloodier for your troops, we didn't cause the war.

Incorrect, it turned into a war zone when Russian forces opponents got major outside backing, all according to major outside backers plan.

Our backing simply made the war zone more bloody. Your puppet government and then occupation is what made it a war zone.

 

[barbos]

Incorrect, it turned into a war zone when Russian forces opponents got major outside backing, all according to major outside backers plan.

Our backing simply made the war zone more bloody. Your puppet government and then occupation is what made it a war zone.

No. puppet government would have been OK if US kept from meddling.
Brzezinski admitted it, get over it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Our backing simply made the war zone more bloody. Your puppet government and then occupation is what made it a war zone.

No. puppet government would have been OK if US kept from meddling.
Brzezinski admitted it, get over it.

We didn't create the resistance. We just gave them better weapons.

 

[J842P]

No. puppet government would have been OK if US kept from meddling.
Brzezinski admitted it, get over it.

We didn't create the resistance. We just gave them better weapons.

Oh Loren. At first, your typical thesis is that these "resistance" groups are only ever effective with outside backing, but when the outside backing is from the US, then it isn't a big deal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We didn't create the resistance. We just gave them better weapons.

Oh Loren. At first, your typical thesis is that these "resistance" groups are only ever effective with outside backing, but when the outside backing is from the US, then it isn't a big deal.

No contradiction--had we not helped the Russians would have wiped them out. What I have said is that a sustained insurgency or terrorist movement needs outside backing. They can't afford to keep operating otherwise.

 

[barbos]

No. puppet government would have been OK if US kept from meddling.
Brzezinski admitted it, get over it.

We didn't create the resistance. We just gave them better weapons.

Russia did not create Trump, they just gave (allegedly) him some help.

 

[barbos]

Oh Loren. At first, your typical thesis is that these "resistance" groups are only ever effective with outside backing, but when the outside backing is from the US, then it isn't a big deal.

No contradiction--had we not helped the Russians would have wiped them out.

Don't you wish you had not and they did?

 

[funinspace]

Meanwhile, getting back to the 21st century....<HINT: the - your dick has more STD sores than mine does, is getting old; Besides there is a General World History section...>

Hide the bad news by classifying more information in the regular DoD reports on the Afghan effort:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...military-withholds-key-measures-of-afghan-war

But it's now going to be significantly harder for the public to understand how the U.S.-supported Afghan forces are faring in the fight against the Taliban.

Very basic information such as the number of Afghan troops that have died, the exact size of the force, how many people are joining, and the readiness of their equipment has previously been made available in quarterly reports from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR — a military agency set up by Congress that audits U.S. spending in Afghanistan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We didn't create the resistance. We just gave them better weapons.

Russia did not create Trump, they just gave (allegedly) him some help.

And that's supposed to be a rebuttal of what?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No contradiction--had we not helped the Russians would have wiped them out.

Don't you wish you had not and they did?

The problems in Afghanistan do not stem from our intervention. When your system fell apart and you pulled out the insurgents we were backing became the government of Afghanistan and for a little while things were improving. However, there were some Islamist types who didn't approve of the moderateness of the government that arose and took up arms against it with the backing of the Pakistani ISI. Those are the ones that we went in to administer an ass-whooping to in response to 9/11.

The side we backed earlier had been reduced to what was known as the Northern Alliance by the time we went in--and they were our allies in the war.