The Cellar
Page 1 of 7 1 234567
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Afghanistan (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19231)

TheMercenary 01-12-2009 11:19 AM
Afghanistan
 
This is a great report by Yon concerning US/UK relations and a snapshot of the condition of the fight with our international brothers in arms.

Red Flag

A missive arrived to me from a well-placed British officer. I know this officer well, and respect his abilities. He has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan. In part, the missive said:

“Please have a look at the attached from the UK Times. Regarding the Rachel Sylvester piece, we have not been able to find any such document/memo although it is possible that an e-mail exists somewhere that refers to such a matter – more likely to be a warning not to dick about regarding what extra troops the UK might be able to find for AFG and raise unrealistic US expectations.”

Rachel Sylvester US doubts about UK military effectiveness 6 Jan 09.pdf

The Special Relationship Times leader 7 Jan 09.pdf
The words imply that the US-UK relationship is fraying. This is untrue as seen from the foxholes I am constantly in. I have embedded with numerous British units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen combat with all of those units. Maybe five or so. The units included 2 Rifles, 4 Rifles, Queen's Royal Lancers, Duke of Lancaster's, 2 Para, and I believe perhaps a couple more though there was much going on and it’s difficult to remember.

What I can say, is that the significant combat I saw with British soldiers made me respect them more with each battle. Yes, it’s true their gear needs serious upgrading. The British government needs to spend billions to upgrade the hardware. But when it comes to the soldier, British soldiers are extremely well-trained, courageous and ready for a big firefight at the drop of a hat. Our brothers and sisters are vastly outnumbered at Helmand Province in Afghanistan. I think about them several times a day and am concerned that they might take serious losses this year.

When the question comes up about what Americans think about our closest ally, I ask MANY American soldiers what they think of the British. There are mixed opinions of course, but the bottom line is that American combat veterans greatly respect British soldiers. The British just need better gear. Another well-placed British Army officer recently told me while I was in Afghanistan that the British have plenty of helicopters. I did not respect those words, though I was told by an important American officer that this British officer is very good. “Don’t bullshit me, sir,” I replied only in my head. “I Don’t like BS.” The British need more helicopters. The American and British soldiers know this. A problem with the British soldiers is similar to a problem with our own Marines. They refuse to complain, so they get leftovers. A retired Australian officer of great significance asked me what I thought of British soldiers. I said something to the effect of, “My opinion is suspect because I greatly respect British soldiers…” If I did not respect British soldiers, I would not keep going into combat with them.

{continues}

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

Aliantha 01-12-2009 03:22 PM
My cousin is hoping to get over there shortly. He already did one stint but he wants to go again. Might not pass the medical this time though. His knees are fucked.

footfootfoot 01-12-2009 08:37 PM
Stanley's Afghan? [/giant rat of sumatra]

Griff 01-12-2009 08:41 PM
merc loves the dick

Bullitt 01-12-2009 10:08 PM
Looks like Yon might be suing Michael Moore.. awesometastic.

TheMercenary 01-12-2009 10:10 PM
Michael Moore is definately a dick. I would love to Yon or anyone take him to the bank and leave the guy homeless on the streets of NY.

classicman 01-13-2009 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt (Post 521765)
Looks like Yon might be suing Michael Moore.. awesometastic.
Link/info please...

Bullitt 01-13-2009 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 521885)
Link/info please...
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/mic...re-lawsuit.htm

classicman 01-13-2009 08:45 PM
Pertinent info from the link
Quote:
During my trip to Washington, D.C., I had a chance to catch up on some matters neglected while I was overseas. My attorney may have to file a lawsuit against Mr. Michael Moore. In May we contacted Mr. Moore, through his counsel, about Mr. Moore’s unauthorized use of my work on his website. He did not respond. My attorney has written again. If Mr. Moore and his counsel continue to ignore our correspondence, we will proceed with a lawsuit.

This lawsuit, though, should not be a distraction from combat reporting; the proceedings should be easy and require almost zero hands-on work from me. But it will be potentially costly. I’ve never sued anyone in my life. Looks like Mr. Moore might be the first. I told one very important person recently about the possible upcoming lawsuit and he said something like, “Someone should drive a stake through that guy’s heart.” It won’t be that bad, but copyright cases are interesting and we have to deal with them often. If you want to help me as I both prepare to return overseas and take on this lawsuit with Mr. Michael Moore, please hit the PayPal button. This lawsuit could be expensive for Mr. Moore, as well. My attorney advises that our position is strong. It is senseless for Mr. Moore to ignore this matter.

TheMercenary 01-16-2009 09:41 AM
This is worth a read. I think it gives insight as to how the general thinks about the immediate challenge ahead.

Quote:
Foreign Policy
January 1, 2009
Pg. 48

The General's Next War

The FP interview with Gen. David H. Petraeus


As America’s most famous warrior-scholar looks to export his Big Ideas about fighting wars from Iraq to the arguably even tougher battlefield of Afghanistan, FP’s executive editor, Susan Glasser, spoke with him in the Pentagon days after he took over his new command.

Gen. David Petraeus: In looking at which lessons learned in Iraq might be applicable in Afghanistan, it is important to remember a key principle of counterinsurgency operations: Every case is unique. That is certainly true of Afghanistan (just as it was true, of course, in Iraq). While general concepts that proved important in Iraq may be applicable in Afghanistan—concepts such as the importance of securing and serving the population and the necessity of living among the people to secure them—the application of those ‘big ideas’ has to be adapted to Afghanistan. The ‘operationalization’ will inevitably be different, as Afghanistan has a very different history and very different ‘muscle memory’ in terms of central governance (or lack thereof). It also lacks the natural resources that Iraq has and is more rural. It has very different (and quite extreme) terrain and weather. And it has a smaller amount of educated human capital, due to higher rates of illiteracy, as well as substantial unemployment, an economy whose biggest cash export is illegal, and significant challenges of corruption. Finally, it lacks sufficient levels of basic services like electricity, drinking water, and education—though there has been progress in a number of these areas and many others since 2001.

One cannot adequately address the challenges in Afghanistan without adding Pakistan into the equation. In fact, those seeking to help Afghanistan and Pakistan need to widen the aperture even farther, to encompass at least the Central Asian states, India, Iran, and even China and Russia.

FP: Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that U.S. efforts in Afghanistan were really on the verge of failure. What’s your incoming assessment?

DP: I told [then] Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in September 2005 that Afghanistan would be the longest campaign in the so-called ‘long war.’ That judgment was based on an assessment I conducted in Afghanistan on my way home from my second tour in Iraq. And having been back to Afghanistan twice in recent months, I still see it that way. Progress there will require a sustained, substantial commitment. That commitment needs to be extended to Pakistan as well, though Pakistan does have large, well-developed security institutions and its leaders are determined to employ their own forces in dealing with the significant extremist challenges that threaten their country.

FP: I was rereading an account of an Afghan veteran from Soviet operations there. After every retaliatory strike, he said, ‘Perhaps one mujahideen was killed. The rest were innocent. The survivors hated us and lived with only one idea—revenge.’ Clearly [U.S.] engagement in Afghanistan didn’t start out in the same way as the Soviets’ did, but one of the questions is whether all these occupations wind up similarly after seven years.

DP: A number of people have pointed out the substantial differences between the character of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and that of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, especially in the circumstances that led to the respective involvement, as well as in the relative conduct, of the forces there. Foremost among the differences have been the coalition’s objectives: not just the desire to help the Afghans establish security and preclude establishment of extremist safe havens, but also to support economic development, democratic institutions, the rule of law, infrastructure, and education. To be sure, the coalition faces some of the same challenges that any of the previous forces in Afghanistan have faced: the same extreme terrain and weather, tribal elements that pride themselves on fighting, lack of infrastructure, and so on. In such a situation, it is hugely important to be seen as serving the population, in addition to securing it. And that is why we’re conducting counterinsurgency operations, as opposed to merely counterterrorism operations.

FP: Tell me where you see lessons from Iraq that might not apply in Afghanistan, and things that you will export.

DP: We cannot just take the tactics, techniques, and procedures that worked in Iraq and employ them in Afghanistan. How, for example, do you communicate with the Afghan people? The answer: very differently than the way you communicate with the Iraqi people, given the much lower number of televisions and a rate of illiteracy in the Afghan provinces that runs as high as 70 to 80 percent. Outside Kabul and other big Afghan cities, Afghans don’t watch much television; they don’t have televisions. In Iraq, one flies over fairly remote areas and still sees satellite dishes on many roofs. In Afghanistan, you not only won’t see satellite dishes; you also won’t see electrical lines, and you may not even find a radio. Moreover, you can’t achieve the same effect with leaflets or local newspapers because many Afghans can’t read them. So, how do you communicate with them? The answer is, through tribal elders, via hand-crank radios receiving transmissions from local radio stations, through shura councils, and so on.

FP: What people most want to know, of course, is: Where does this end? The counterinsurgency principles, your own statements in the past, have focused on the idea that such wars end with political solutions—you don’t kill your way out of it.

DP: One of the concepts we embraced in Iraq was recognition that you can’t kill or capture your way out of a complex, industrial-strength insurgency. The challenge in Afghanistan, as it was in Iraq, is to figure out how to reduce substantially the numbers of those who have to be killed or captured. This includes creating the conditions in which one can have successful reconciliation with some of the elements fighting us. Progress in reconciliation is most likely when you are in a position of strength and when there are persuasive reasons for groups to shift from being part of the problem to becoming part of the solution. In Iraq, that was aided by gradual recognition that al Qaeda brought nothing but indiscriminate violence, oppressive practices, and an extremist ideology to which the people really didn’t subscribe. Beyond that, incentives were created to persuade the insurgents that it made more sense to support the new Iraq.

The challenge in Afghanistan, of course, is figuring out how to create the conditions that enable reconciliation, recognizing that these likely will differ somewhat from those created in Iraq.

FP: Do you think that does involve speaking with warlords, people like [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar, who up to now have been absolute non-starters?

DP: Any such outreach has to be an Afghan initiative, not the coalition’s. In Iraq, frankly, it was necessary for the coalition to take the lead in some areas where there was no Iraqi government or security presence.

FP: Do you think there is something qualitatively or quantitatively new and different about the insurgencies that U.S. forces have encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan?

DP: We looked at this issue closely when we were drafting the counterinsurgency manual. And we concluded that some aspects of contemporary extremist tactics are, indeed, new. If you look, as we did, at what [French military officer] David Galula faced in Algeria, you find, obviously, that he and his colleagues did not have to deal with a transnational extremist network enabled by access to the Internet. Today, extremist media cells recruit, exhort, train, share expertise, and generate resources in cyberspace. The incidence of very lethal suicide bombers and massive car bombs is vastly higher today. It seems as if suicide car bombs have become the precision-guided munition of modern insurgents and extremists. And while there has been a religious component in many insurgencies, the extremist nature of the particular enemy we face seems unprecedented in recent memory.

TheMercenary 01-16-2009 09:41 AM
Quote:
FP: The counterinsurgency manual, an object of huge praise, is seen as a key moment in the rethink that put the war in Iraq on a different course. But it has not been uncontroversial. There are people on the left who see it as a form of neocolonialism; conservatives are skeptical of anything they see as nation-building, while others believe that by organizing to fight this kind of war, the United States risks not being prepared for a more conventional conflict in the future. How much of an intellectual debate have these principles stirred up? What do you say to these critics?

DP: It’s important to recognize the most important overarching doctrinal concept that our Army, in particular, has adopted—the concept of ‘full spectrum operations.’ This concept holds that all military operations are some mix of offensive, defensive, and stability and support operations. In other words, you’ve always got to be thinking not just about the conventional forms of combat—offensive and defensive operations—but also about the stability and support component. Otherwise, successes in conventional combat may be undermined by unpreparedness for the operations often required in their wake.

The debate about this has been a healthy one, but we have to be wary of arguments that imply we have to choose—or should choose—between either stability-operations-focused or conventional-combat-focused training and forces. It is not only possible to be prepared for some mix; it is necessary.

A wonderful essay that I read as a graduate student captures the essence of my view on this. The essay discussed the different schools of international relations theory, and it concluded that ‘the truth is not to be found in any one of these schools of thought, but rather in the debate among them.’ That is probably the case in this particular discussion. We would do well to avoid notions that we can pick and choose the kinds of wars in which we want to be involved and prepare only for them.

FP: You said [that] even in 2005 when you were in Afghanistan, you reported to Secretary Rumsfeld that this could be the longest part of the long war.

DP: I didn’t say it could be. I said it would be. My assessment was that Afghanistan was going to be the longest campaign of the long war. And I think that assessment has been confirmed by events in Afghanistan in recent months.

FP: Just how long did you have in mind?

DP: Those are predictions one doesn’t hazard.

TheMercenary 01-19-2009 09:43 AM
Good things come to those who wait, they will probably blaim it on the CIA. Wait, that sort of makes sense.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2146286.ece

TheMercenary 02-05-2009 10:46 PM
Exclusive: Gates Delays Troop Decision
Email
Share February 05, 2009 6:30 PM

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: ABC News has learned that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has deferred a much-anticipated decision on sending additional troops into Afghanistan until President Obama decides what force levels he wants.

The news comes after an anticipated Pentagon proposal to send three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan -- or 17,000 troops, as reported by ABC News last week -- was presented to Gates for his approval this afternoon.

An element of the Pentagon troop proposal anticipated a large Marine brigade to be followed by two Army Brigade Combat Teams, including a Stryker Brigade. The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, favors using the armored vehicles as a way of extending his troops' presence to remote regions of Afghanistan.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...ive-gates.html

xoxoxoBruce 02-07-2009 06:03 AM
for several years, Mike Yon detailed at some length what we had to do to win in Afghanistan. It appears he has changed his mind.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/afg...-come-true.htm

TheMercenary 02-09-2009 04:15 PM
Not so much about Afgan, but in related news:

Al-Qaeda Reportedly Suffers WMD Mishap
Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2009

An apparent mishap during efforts to develop a biological or chemical weapon forced a branch of al-Qaeda to shutter a base in Algeria, a high-level U.S. intelligence official told the Washington Times on
reports that the accident had killed 40 terrorist operatives were accurate, but rejected the claim in the London Sun tabloid that the cause of death was bubonic plague.

An early January message between al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and top al-Qaeda officials in Pakistan indicated that a system to prevent the release of a chemical or biological agent had failed, the official said.

"We don't know if this is biological or chemical," the official added.

Al-Qaeda's efforts to develop a biological weapon date back at least to the late 1990s, according to U.S. and Western analysts. The network's program "was extensive, well organized and operated two years before the Sept. 11" strikes, a U.S. commission on unconventional weapons said in a 2005 report.

Another panel of experts said last month that "terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon" (see GSN, Jan. 13).

"This is something that al-Qaeda still aspires to do, and the infrastructure to develop it does not have to be that sophisticated," said Roger Cressey, a former high-level counterterrorism official at the National Security Council (Eli Lake, Washington Times, Jan. 19).

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090121_4538.php

ZenGum 02-09-2009 05:09 PM
IMHO Afghanistan cannot be secured unless the Northwest Territory Tribal Area of Pakistan is brought under effective control. As it is the Pakistani government does not and cannot control it, nor will they allow foreign forces to take control there (else they lose their claim to it); thus leaving it as a permanent safe-haven for baddies.

My preferrred option is for Pakistan to cede all areas it cannot control and maybe join them on to Afghanistan. I don't see that happening, though, governments and nations do not just give up territory, no matter how troublesome it is.

Of course, this is only one necessary condition for a stable Afghanistan. There are many more.

TheMercenary 02-09-2009 05:32 PM
With the right troops and forces the area could be severely hampered in their ability to move freely into Afghanistan. But the Russians and British tried it as well without much success. Now the president of Afghanistan says he wants to bring the Taliban into the negotiation process, which I think will only give them a foot back in the door for an eventual take over. Until then I guess we just get to continue to rot there as we try to convince ourselves and the rest of the world we are trying to do the right thing. Who knows.

TheMercenary 02-09-2009 06:01 PM
Quote:
WASHINGTON – New steps are urgently needed to broaden and accelerate work to keep
nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them out of terrorist hands, according
to Securing the Bomb, 2007, a report released today.
“With al-Qaeda’s central command reconstituting in the mountains of Pakistan, we
urgently need a stepped-up global campaign to secure every nuclear weapon and every
significant cache of potential nuclear bomb material worldwide to stringent standards,”
said Dr. Matthew Bunn of Harvard University’s Managing the Atom Project, the report’s
author. “We need to make sure these stocks are locked down before thieves and terrorists
can get to them – and that they stay that way for the long haul.”
http://www.nti.org/c_press/release_stb07.pdf

xoxoxoBruce 02-10-2009 02:15 PM
Another warning from Mike Yon.
Some excerpts
Quote:
While Russia takes American money and gains influence over our Afghan efforts, we will continue to spend lives and tens of billions of dollars per year on Afghanistan in an attempt to civilize what amounts to Jurassic Park.
~~~~~~
The sum of many factors leaves me with a bad feeling about all this. The Iraq war, even during the worst times, never seemed like such a bog. Yet there is something about our commitment in Afghanistan that feels wrong, as if a bear trap is hidden under the sand.
~~~~~~~
Predicting the trajectory of a war is fraught with peril, like predicting next season’s hurricanes. Anything can happen, and often what changes the course of a war has little or nothing to do with the war. For instance, a failing global economy, or supervention of some chain of events perhaps still unimagined could cause the Af-Pak war to become less relevant. Caveats behind us, it seems that 2009 will see the sharpest fighting so far. That much has been clear for some time, and 2009 is now within our headlights. We can already resolve from the fog much of what is likely coming this year. Imagining what is beyond the headlights, my guess is that 2010 might bring the sharpest fighting of the entire war. My guess is that 2010-11 will likely be crucial years in this process, and that many allies will be making decisions during those years whether to stick it out or to punch out. By the fall of 2010, we should be able to resolve whether our renewed efforts under President Obama are working or failing.

TheMercenary 02-10-2009 06:32 PM
Yon rocks.

tw 02-10-2009 10:42 PM
Urbane Guerrilla repeatedly praised Thomas Barnett's book. Ironically Barnett preaches concept that were contrary to the neocon agenda. Found in Barnett's books are concepts similar to George Sr's new world order. A concept that neocons feared as if the UN would conquer and occupy America (a worst case fear expressed by neocons such as the Michigan Militia). Also expressed are William Edwards Deming's concepts of 14 points and seven deadly sins. Concepts of quality that define leadership and "85% of all problems are directly traceable to ..."
Quote:
In his new book he delivers “the seven deadly sins of Bush-Cheney” (lust, greed, pride, etc.), as well as a “12-step recovery program for American grand strategy
The need for Phase Four planning that George Jr's administration so ridiculed (see A Quite Transformation).
Quote:
"Stabilization and reconstruction missions must become a core competency of both the Departments of Defense and State. The military services need to reshape and rebalance their forces to provide a stabilization and reconstruction capability."
To be introduced to and appreciate Barnett and his book "The Pentagon’s New Map", see the NY Times of 10 Feb 2009 entitled U.S. as Parent to Countries in Their Teens .
Quote:
Mr. Barnett suggests … “we’re playing against ‘younger’ versions of ourselves in many instances.” He counsels a kind of parental Zen patience.
which obviously contradicts UG’s solution by aggression. Barnett is not easy to read. His concepts are challenging. However
Quote:
it is hard to disagree with his nonfoxy observation that “the world desperately wants America back.”
We did not do this in Afghanistan. The consequences are now called “the Long War”. Should you think Iraq was difficult, well, welcome to Afghanistan. Gen Shinseki accurately noted how many troops were necessary for victory in Iraq - a number rejected by an administration without respect for the military – a number based upon the number of civilians – 25 million. And that in a nation with geography ideal for the American military.

Afghanistan is a nation of 24 million, and now with a decidedly negative opinion of Americans. We did not do the phase four planning as Barnett defined. So now we must refight the war all over again AND overcome the negative impression created by no phase four planning. The majority clearly no longer trust Americans - as demonstrated in polls limited mostly to the big cities where support should be strongest.

We did exactly what Barnett and fundamental military doctrine both say do not do. As most everyone who must deal with this nut says (Petraeus, Holbrook, Odiero, etc), if you thought Iraq was tough, wait till you see what we have created in Afghanistan. A problem made worse by trying to force democracy on them rather than using ‘Zen’.

Aliantha 02-10-2009 10:46 PM
The west has been trying to 'civilize' Afghanistan for hundreds of years.

It's just not going to happen in the way that some would want.

TheMercenary 02-15-2009 03:44 PM
Well done Dems, just what we need to instill confidence in our new leadership!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1099409.story

classicman 02-15-2009 04:15 PM
I'm not sure what you mean Merc.

tw 02-15-2009 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 534898)
Article demonstrates how badly America (NATO) has been losing the war in Afghanistan. American aircraft are at excessive risk if based in Afghanistan. The Predator can be based only in the remaining air base in Central Asia or must be based in Pakistan. Because America has so harmed relations with most every nation, even that last Central Asian air base will be closed. So where does the Predator fly from. Pakistan. Afghanistan is so reconquered by the Taliban - is now so dangerous everywhere - that Predator cannot be based there.

Every so often, someone will naively suggest that Afghanistan is not that bad. No. It is worse. Since our leaders had near zero military knowledge, the Taliban have retaken most of Afghanistan. Everywhere in Afghanistan is too dangerous to base Predator. Central Asian nations, all once very friendly to America, will no longer let America have bases. Eight years of extremist American leadership destroying relations with everyone.

Even during Nam, America never so soured relations with every American ally. History lessons from the last eight years on what not to do.

xoxoxoBruce 02-15-2009 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw (Post 534927)
Because America has so harmed relations with most every nation, even that last Central Asian air base will be closed.
The Russian promises of debt relief and billions of dollars in aid to Kyrgyzstan probably had more to do with the closing of the Manas Air Base.

tw 02-15-2009 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 534933)
The Russian promises of debt relief and billions of dollars in aid to Kyrgyzstan probably had more to do with the closing of the Manas Air Base.
Why have relations with Russia been so soured these past eight years. Unilaterally terminating treaties, high handed political treatment, and repeated gaffs by George Jr's administration about USSR and cold war attitudes all made Russia friendlier?

classicman 02-15-2009 04:41 PM
C'mon Bruce - don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

classicman 02-15-2009 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw (Post 534936)
Why have relations with Russia been so soured these past eight years.
Um, cuz they're Russians??

tw 02-15-2009 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 534942)
Um, cuz they're Russians??
Why not just call them nigers. That is what you wanted to say. That was the wacko extremist position. Those same people in George Sr's administration (ie Cheney) absolutely refused to believe the Cold War was over. Why do you parrot their same hate?

They are Soviets. Therefore they will always be enemies? People who also describes some American as nigers. Its just not politically correct to post what you really mean?

xoxoxoBruce 02-15-2009 05:05 PM
Soviets? Since the USSR no longer exists I think Soviets is passé.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 534942)
Um, cuz they're Russians??
We didn't beat 'em, we bankrupted 'em. Now the oil/gas business has refilled the coffers, Putin wants to return Russia to their place as a World power, an influential player. With NATO, which use to be the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, pushing far from the North Atlantic, I can understand Russia's concern.

classicman 02-15-2009 05:10 PM
It was a joke tom - Geez - go get yer frickin tinfoil hat back wouldja?

tw 02-15-2009 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 534969)
It was a joke tom - Geez - go get yer frickin tinfoil hat back wouldja?
Maybe you should go to clown school?

classicman 02-15-2009 07:02 PM
Why? You got that spot all sewn up.

Is there absolutely no levity in your life?

Live a little - Sheesh.

TheMercenary 02-20-2009 01:25 PM
I wonder where they will move to? How about Georgia? That would piss the Russians off.

Kyrgyzstan issues eviction notice to key US base

Quote:
BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan (AP) - The United States was on the verge of being kicked out of its only military outpost in Russia's historic backyard after Kyrgyzstan Friday gave U.S. forces six months to vacate an air base that serves as a key supply hub for troops in Afghanistan.
The Manas base, created shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, at first served as a symbol of what seemed like a budding strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia.

But as relations between the two countries soured in recent years, the base came to represent the renewed competition between the two former Cold War rivals.

Maj. Damien Pickart, a spokesman for the U.S. base, said he expected military officials to begin preparations for leaving.

"If they tell us that our time is up—which they've done today—then we'll start the necessary preparations to move operations," he added. "I don't know if it will take the full six months," he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

sugarpop 02-24-2009 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 534961)
Soviets? Since the USSR no longer exists I think Soviets is passé.

We didn't beat 'em, we bankrupted 'em. Now the oil/gas business has refilled the coffers, Putin wants to return Russia to their place as a World power, an influential player. With NATO, which use to be the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, pushing far from the North Atlantic, I can understand Russia's concern.
ummm, excsuse me, but they bankrupted themselves.

tw 06-23-2009 11:33 AM
From the NY Times of 23 Jun 2009 - or what happens when your government is not trying to make enemies of everyone:
Quote:
Kyrgyzstan Allows Limited U.S. Access
Kyrgyzstan, which four months ago said it would close an American air base central to the NATO mission in Afghanistan, appeared Tuesday to partially reverse its decision. ...

Kyrgyz officials said the United States could use the base in Central Asia as a transit center to supply NATO forces in Afghanistan. Official details of the agreement were not immediately available, but it appeared that the United States had sharply increased the rent that it paid to avoid complete closure.

In February, President Kurmanbek Bakiyev gave the United States six months to vacate the airbase, which has been used since 2001 as a refueling stop and transit hub for about 15,000 troops and 500 tons of cargo a month headed for Afghanistan.

classicman 06-23-2009 12:37 PM
Quote:
Under the plan approved Tuesday by a Kyrgyz parliamentary committee, the United States will more than triple the rent that it pays to use the Manas airbase.

Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Kadyrbek Sarbayev has told lawmakers the U.S. will pay the Kyrgyz government $60 million a year for rent. The previous rent was just under $17.5 million. Sarbayev says the U.S. has also agreed to pay at least $36 million for airport improvements, $30 million for new navigational equipment and more than $40 million for economic development and anti-drug trafficking measures.

The deal appears to place new restrictions on U.S. activities at the base, only shipping of non-military supplies.
Hell of a deal -
Triple the rent
+36 million in improvements
+30 million for equiptment
+40 million for "economic development"
AND More restrictions - "only shipping of non-military supplies."

What a deal! I'm thrilled - Who was the sharp tack who negotiated that? The primary purpose of that base was to supply the troops in Afghanistan.

TheMercenary 06-23-2009 01:28 PM
Well I guess they figured out that we really needed to have access and we obviously will pay whatever they want for it. Hell, Obama can just order them to print some more money to pay the costs.

tw 06-23-2009 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 576794)
[b][u][
What a deal! I'm thrilled - Who was the sharp tack who negotiated that?
Who was the mental midget (and his wacko extremist supporters) who turned every K'stan nation so adversarial against us? In 2001, every K'stan nation was a strong American supporter. Who is the idiot who converted an American military victory into a years of Taliban victories?

Considering the prices they were demanding (something below $1billion), this new price tag is a fire sale. But then we are again paying the price for wackos whose brain is so minuscule as to encourage these problems. Same wackos even voted for George Jr because they love pissing off the entire world.

We are paying for debts incurred by those with the lowest intelligence - wacko extremists. This bill is just another example of a mess created four plus years ago - as even defined in an open letter to the American public by that nation's former Ambassador to America and Canada. He basically blames our new adversarial relationship on American extremism that even encouraged corruption in his nation.

We still have massive bills to pay thanks to wackos. Even Mission Accomplished was left off the budget so that costs would not be apparent. Just another example of what happens when enemies of the American military screw us by subverting what the military did in 2002. Same wackos even all but protected bin Laden - because a political agenda is more important than reality.

A long list of debts will come due over the next 10 years. This airport rental is obviously a good deal considering how much wackos wanted to piss off the world. We so pissed off every K’stan nation that this remains our last airbase. They can charge all they want - free market principles. Welcome to but another increased debt directly traceable to wackos previously in the White House. Welcome to a war we must fight all over again because wackos (with so much contempt for the military) subverted those 2002 victories.

Aliantha 06-23-2009 07:07 PM
My cousin is over there now and will be for an extended period of time.

He has some interesting stories to tell after his first trip. I'm sure there'll be more after this one.

classicman 06-23-2009 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw (Post 576888)
Blah blah blah
So its a great deal - gotcha. :eyebrow:

By the way, I think you set a new ponal record for the number of times you got wacko extremists in one post. :thumbsup:

tw 06-23-2009 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 576914)
By the way, I think you set a new ponal record for the number of times you got wacko extremists in one post.
I have always had a bad habit of being too politically correct.

sugarpop 06-23-2009 09:21 PM
I think we need to get the fuck outta both Iraq and Afghanistan.

classicman 06-23-2009 10:30 PM
ponal = personal

Redux 06-23-2009 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw (Post 576888)
Who was the mental midget (and his wacko extremist supporters) who turned every K'stan nation so adversarial against us? In 2001, every K'stan nation was a strong American supporter. Who is the idiot who converted an American military victory into a years of Taliban victories?

Considering the prices they were demanding (something below $1billion), this new price tag is a fire sale. But then we are again paying the price for wackos whose brain is so minuscule as to encourage these problems. Same wackos even voted for George Jr because they love pissing off the entire world.
Far less than the $1+ billion in additional foreign aid (buried in war supplemental bills rather than the normal foreign aid appropriations process) in 2003-05 to non-'stan countries (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Djibouti, the Philippines, and Colombia) to "encourage" them to become part of the "coalition of the willing of the invasion of Iraq....not as active participants putting their own troops at risk, more like "you can stay on the sidelines, just be our cheerleaders."

tw 06-24-2009 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 576952)
I think we need to get the fuck outta both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which means both wars do not meet the criteria for war and the resulting victory.

1) Smoking gun:
Iraq - Saddam's WMDs and intentions to attack America.
Afghanistan - WTC and Pentagon.

2) Strategic Objective:
Iraq - kill Saddam so that he does not attack America.
Afghanistan - remove bin Laden and his allies; making that land hostile to him.

3) Exit strategy defined by the Strategic Objective:
Iraq - stay there forever with military based to dominate the region
Afghanistan - phase four planning.

Not one reasons exists to justify "Mission Accomplished". Every reason exists to be in Afghanistan. Afghanistan would have been a success (according to military doctrine) had our leaders bothered to understand and execute critical points two and three.

We have no choice in Afghanistan just as we had no choice in Kuwait (despite the ignorant naysayers Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc who were finally corrected by Thatcher and Scowcroft). Reason why we must sacrifice so many good Americans in Afghanistan - our leaders were wacko and extremist. So we must fight that war all over again. The second war is always longer and more difficult when a nation screws it up the first time. Another debt we must now pay due to no fundamental military knowledge combined with excessive mental midgetism.

classicman 06-24-2009 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw (Post 577089)
excessive mental midgetism.
Damned engineers!

xoxoxoBruce 07-14-2009 02:30 AM
Mike Yon looks at the quiet side of Afghanistan, where they haven't seen any war for 40 years... lots of pictures.

Searching for Kuchi & Finding Lizards

TheMercenary 07-17-2009 08:27 AM
Well someone must be doing something right. This PDF was released by Secrecy News, a site I frequent. Fairly telling. I just hope it continues...

Quote:
Al Qaida: Western Spies Multiply “Like Locusts”
July 13th, 2009
From the point of view of an al Qaida military leader, Western intelligence agents are now ubiquitous in the lands of Islam, and their operations have been extraordinarily effective. The Western spies are unfailingly lethal, leaving a trail of dead Islamist fighters behind them. Worst of all, they have managed to recruit innumerable Muslims to assist their war efforts.

“The spies… were sent to penetrate the ranks of the Muslims generally, and the mujahidin specifically, and [they] spread all over the lands like locusts,” wrote Abu Yahya al-Libi, an al Qaida field commander in Afghanistan, in a new book called “Guidance on the Ruling of the Muslim Spy” (pdf).

“The spies are busy day and night carrying out their duties in an organized and secret manner… How many heroic leaders have been kidnapped at their hands? How many major mujahidin were surprised to be imprisoned or traced? Even the military and financial supply roads of the mujahidin, which are far from the enemy’s surveillance, were found by the spies.”

Al Qaida operations have been severely impeded by the intelligence war against them, al-Libi said. “As soon as the mujahidin get secretly into an area on a dark night, they are confronted by the Cross forces and their helpers. Many are killed or captured.”

Western spies are found under every conceivable cover, al-Libi wrote. “They have among them old hunchbacked men who cannot even walk, strong young men, weak women inside their house, young girls, and even children who did not reach puberty yet. The spy might be a doctor, nurse, engineer, student, preacher, scholar, runner, or a taxi driver. The spy can be anyone….”
continues:

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009...tml?pfstyle=wp

Undertoad 07-17-2009 10:14 AM
Sounds like paranoia, becoming confused about how the enemy knows things. They don't understand most of the technologies involved. So they don't know how they're watched from the skies, how information is harvested and processed, maps of associations built, etc. But they have to blame somebody. Innocents will suffer; like the numbers of Gazans killed for being Israeli "sympathizers".

TheMercenary 07-26-2009 07:23 PM
A new series of pictures.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/200..._part_two.html

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 10:01 AM
I found this little tidbit buried in another news story from the Times in the UK.

Quote:
In a statement to the US Senate intelligence committee, obtained by the Secrecy News blog last week under freedom of information rules, Blair said Iran was covertly supplying weapons to the Taliban while publicly supporting the Afghan government.

“Shipments typically include small arms, mines, rocket-propelled grenades [RPGs], rockets, mortars and plastic explosives,” said Blair. He added: “Taliban commanders have publicly credited Iranian support for successful operations against coalition forces.”

British military intelligence sources were more cautious. “It is an undefined amount of explosives that has come in from Iran,” said one source. “But, yes, there is concern that some of the mines and explosives the Americans are talking about may have been used in the Taliban bombs.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6788799.ece

This type of news should be exploited more often to expose the involvement of Iran in the region.

TheMercenary 09-04-2009 05:24 PM
This is a troubling development. I am watching an interview on PBS Leher Hour now.

US taxpayers sponsor the Taliban

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/t...ng-the-taliban

DanaC 09-04-2009 05:27 PM
Yeah. But Blair's a lying war-mongering little shit. So don't necessarily believe a word he says.

ZenGum 09-06-2009 11:18 PM
I am more concerned about the extremely dodgy election they just had.

Many poeple were too scared of retaliation by the talleban to vote, showing that in many places the rule of law is definitiely not estalished.

Many people who wanted to vote complain that their ballot papers never arrived. Yet those areas have recorded full returns with big turnouts, and almost all voting for Karzai.

There are many serious "irregularities" of this sort that materially affect the result.

Karzai will probably continue to be president, but his percieved legitimacy has evaporated.

This will further undermine the authority of the Afghan government, and worse, the constitution; people will be more inclined to flout central authority, and less inclined to risk their lives serving its armies.

This is very bad. Almost 8 years on, and we are at least as far from a viable exit strategy as we have ever been.

So what are we going to do? Walk away and let the talleban continue thier shennanigans, and probably end up in control, if not of the whole country, then of some "tribal regions" like in Pakistan? Or are we going to stay there and bleed indefinitely, continuing to piss off the locals with the occasional regrettable collateral damage incidents?

Anyone got any better ideas? How many troops would it take to "surge" Afghanistan, and for how long?

xoxoxoBruce 09-06-2009 11:33 PM
Rule of law? Authority of the Afghan government? Afghanistan has never had either of those things, ever. It's the Word's most primitive country, bar none.
They don't even have roads where most Afghans live, so how do you govern people you can't even reach?

ZenGum 09-06-2009 11:40 PM
Exactly. We (I know, using "we", it is a little grandiose t be including Australia, but we came a long for the ride) went in despite this, and I am still wondering how, when, and even if, we are going to get out again.

Afghanistan eats armies. So far we have been getting off lightly.

DanaC 09-07-2009 04:11 AM
The Afghan people have the Taliban on one side and our bombs and troops on the other. Meanwhile we're helping prop up a government which is essentially criminal and no more enlightened than the Taliban we're fighting.

We shouldn't be there. At all. We are doing no good whatsoever. We're sending boys to die for nothing.

TheMercenary 09-07-2009 07:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 593065)
I am more concerned about the extremely dodgy election they just had.

Many poeple were too scared of retaliation by the talleban to vote, showing that in many places the rule of law is definitiely not estalished.

Many people who wanted to vote complain that their ballot papers never arrived. Yet those areas have recorded full returns with big turnouts, and almost all voting for Karzai.

There are many serious "irregularities" of this sort that materially affect the result.

Karzai will probably continue to be president, but his percieved legitimacy has evaporated.

This will further undermine the authority of the Afghan government, and worse, the constitution; people will be more inclined to flout central authority, and less inclined to risk their lives serving its armies.

This is very bad. Almost 8 years on, and we are at least as far from a viable exit strategy as we have ever been.

So what are we going to do? Walk away and let the talleban continue thier shennanigans, and probably end up in control, if not of the whole country, then of some "tribal regions" like in Pakistan? Or are we going to stay there and bleed indefinitely, continuing to piss off the locals with the occasional regrettable collateral damage incidents?

Anyone got any better ideas? How many troops would it take to "surge" Afghanistan, and for how long?
I agree with much of what you said. A Western style democracy is doomed to failure in Afghanistan. I think we need to stop the ramp up of troops and move back to a Special Forces style of intervention.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26 PM.
Page 1 of 7 1 234567
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.