I've decided not to fly off the handle on British Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith (even though he has a hyphenated name) and how he says the war with the Taliban cannot be won, but have decided to dissect his comments and add some of my own. The article is found here over at Times Online and here are some of Carleton-Smith's comments:
Okay, I'll give him this one in that I think he's right ...that there won't be some day off in the future where the Taliban are simply and utterly defeated and they are gone and all violence is over.
I agree with much of this but I will disagree with "We're not going to win this war." It's my contention that if the Taliban are reduced to some rag tag outfits operating in the hinterlands and are effectively controlled by Afghan army troops and security police, then yes, we will have won this war.
This is where ALL agreement with Carleton-Smith ends for me. This is nothing but hogwash. The only time the Taliban will be prepared to sit on the other side of the table is when the West decides they give up and will kneel to islam. The Taliban don't want a fucking "deal." The Taliban want Afghanistan back...lock, stock and poppyseed. They aren't in this war for a piece of the government, nor a resolution of their demands...this is not a bunch of political insurgents, they are after complete and utter control over the land of Afghanistan and will settle for nothing less.
We are dealing with a couple of things going on in this War in Afghanistan that deserve pointing out. First off, we are dealing with a war conducted on the one side by NATO and Afghan troops - and inherent to that is some real obstacles to strategy and deployment. If this fighting force in Afghanistan was under one leadership solely, like the offensive in Iraq is under American control, it would be more effective. We have British, Canadian and U.S. troops in the south, we have Germans in the north, we have Italians and Dutch in the west and we have Afghan troops trying to train from all of these different armies. To say this is disjointed, would be an understatement. I'm not sure how you correct this but you have to look it in the eye and realize that is a problem.
The second issue with this War is the fact that the enemy, the Taliban, has gone outside of the region to quadruple its fighting forces. They have hired in jihadists from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Arab lands and Pakistan. They have painted this as the "Jihad Center of the World" and that magnet is drawing in untold numbers of assassins. And you have to remember that these new jihadists are there to die - they came to die, not to take over Afghanistan - they are there to fulfill martyrdom.
So, to the British Brigadier, I say this: yes, you are correct that the victory in Afghanistan will not look anything like the military victories you read about in officer training school. But it can indeed be won. A new military strategy in Afghanistan is way over due and if the right plan is put into place, if the tactical implementation of that strategy can be honed among NATO and Afghan forces, then the Taliban can be shut off from supplies...they can be segregated from their planning meetings and their leaders can be reduced. It was done in Iraq and it can be done in Afghanistan.
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect a “decisive military victory” but should be prepared for a possible deal with the Taliban.
His assessment followed the leaking of a memo from a French diplomat who claimed that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British ambassador in Kabul, had told him the current strategy was “doomed to fail”.
Okay, I'll give him this one in that I think he's right ...that there won't be some day off in the future where the Taliban are simply and utterly defeated and they are gone and all violence is over.
He said: “We’re not going to win this war. It’s about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.”
The brigadier added: “We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency . . . I don’t think we should expect that when we go there won’t be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world. That would be unrealistic and probably incredible.”
I agree with much of this but I will disagree with "We're not going to win this war." It's my contention that if the Taliban are reduced to some rag tag outfits operating in the hinterlands and are effectively controlled by Afghan army troops and security police, then yes, we will have won this war.
“We want to change the nature of the debate from one where disputes are settled through the barrel of the gun to one where it is done through negotiations,” Carleton-Smith said.
“If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that’s precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this. That shouldn’t make people uncomfortable.”
This is where ALL agreement with Carleton-Smith ends for me. This is nothing but hogwash. The only time the Taliban will be prepared to sit on the other side of the table is when the West decides they give up and will kneel to islam. The Taliban don't want a fucking "deal." The Taliban want Afghanistan back...lock, stock and poppyseed. They aren't in this war for a piece of the government, nor a resolution of their demands...this is not a bunch of political insurgents, they are after complete and utter control over the land of Afghanistan and will settle for nothing less.
We are dealing with a couple of things going on in this War in Afghanistan that deserve pointing out. First off, we are dealing with a war conducted on the one side by NATO and Afghan troops - and inherent to that is some real obstacles to strategy and deployment. If this fighting force in Afghanistan was under one leadership solely, like the offensive in Iraq is under American control, it would be more effective. We have British, Canadian and U.S. troops in the south, we have Germans in the north, we have Italians and Dutch in the west and we have Afghan troops trying to train from all of these different armies. To say this is disjointed, would be an understatement. I'm not sure how you correct this but you have to look it in the eye and realize that is a problem.
The second issue with this War is the fact that the enemy, the Taliban, has gone outside of the region to quadruple its fighting forces. They have hired in jihadists from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Arab lands and Pakistan. They have painted this as the "Jihad Center of the World" and that magnet is drawing in untold numbers of assassins. And you have to remember that these new jihadists are there to die - they came to die, not to take over Afghanistan - they are there to fulfill martyrdom.
So, to the British Brigadier, I say this: yes, you are correct that the victory in Afghanistan will not look anything like the military victories you read about in officer training school. But it can indeed be won. A new military strategy in Afghanistan is way over due and if the right plan is put into place, if the tactical implementation of that strategy can be honed among NATO and Afghan forces, then the Taliban can be shut off from supplies...they can be segregated from their planning meetings and their leaders can be reduced. It was done in Iraq and it can be done in Afghanistan.
2 comments:
The government of Afghanistan prior to the invasion of that country was trying to do just that – ”…sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement,…precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.” to come back many years later, after the world has witnessed the attempt to ethnically cleanse and the successful changing of the government to one that the occupation forces feel more comfortable with - of course, for the natural resources of that region. 5pillar.wordpress.com
5pillar,
You mention the "government" of Afghanistan prior to the "invasion"....well, you apparently are referring to the islamic fascist "government" of the Taliban as that is who was in power before they were rightfully removed from their seats of decadence in Kabul.
Also, you seem focused on "ethnically cleansed" - I would guess from that statement that you were sympathetic to the Taliban's rule over the Afghans that included the suppression and honor killings of Afghan women, the denial of education to Afghan children and the denial of human rights under the Taliban rule.
Let me ask you a question. If the Afghan people were polled right now, would the majority wish a return to Taliban rule or the rule of their present government?
:Holger Danske
Post a Comment