[Closed] MOD admits Afghanistan is unwinable

History would suggest this before even the Russians 😐

Yes we knew this, the government knew this but Bliar commited us and you can't just pull out and leave vacuums of power, tis when even more weird dangerous people take over - look at Libya and Iraq. You only have to be on the gound for five mins and know it would not be achievable to "hold" the territory with western forces - it's the size of France FFS.. Best bet has been and will be to work with the indiginous (sp) populace and get them to work with the tribal leaders/war lords - we've been doing that for about 6 years now paying them very large sums of money to boot.

Time to get our troops home - enough is enough!

WAY too many body bags.

O/T- When should I post the forks off? (to avoid missing them for a weekend)

I too share the boiling of piss. Too many lives lost and changed.

At least the pharmaceutical corporations are happier now their opium isn't being torched 😐

Alexander the Great said that Afghanistan was 'Easy to march into, but hard to march out of'

It's really not rocket science.

Very hard to beat an enemy on their own soil. Pretty much impossible to beat that enemy when, unlike you, they are more than happy to die for their cause, and are motivated by having the higher moral ground.

Best bet has been and will be to work with the indiginous (sp) populace and get them to work with the tribal leaders/war lords

All well an good when talking about British Forces, but with US forces, the manage to alienate everyone they come into contact with.

An EOD friend of mine is convinced that the answer to Afghanistan is to give them satellite TV! 😉 Scraping a subsistence existence in Helmand is so incredibly boring that going off to join the taliban is a far more appealing (though shorter) life - the only other career option is opium farming but we keep messing that up for them. Also, in their local dialect they also have no word for 'country', their country is their group of villages, so political machinations are of zero interest.

Yes - you would have thought that the existence of a first, second and third Afghan war prior to Herrick might have been a giveaway

In the words of the Princess Bride - [i]'never get involved in a land war in Asia' [/i]

(with more than a hat tip to Lord Montgomery of Alamein, Hansard 30th May, 1962)

Perhaps the focus should be on the struggle at home: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/02/lone-voice-against-terror/

The history was pointed out to the great peace maker and war criminal Blair but he was happy to get others killed.

...and even harder when you don't know who your enemy is!

I wish this country would stop thinking it can right all wrongs in the world even in the places where there are resources we want!

Tucker we've been just as bad at times i can assure you (especially when your mission breif is, "go cause some touble" in those hills that have never bothered us before where no western feet have been for 70 years), it's just there are more Yanks that do it. Don't get me wrong, some very good rights have been done in the coutry and you get to see at least some progress in certian areas, especially around education.

Oddly enough, the comment from guru's friend is correct - give them Sat TV and they will be glued to the ****er day and night. Kandahar was and is still trying to be what we would see as very westernised, bright lights, ice cream parlours (oddly very good as well), sweet shops etc and the majority of people like this kind of "progress", it's the religious extremists that do not.

Has anyone ever clearly defined what to win was? It seemed to shift about and change as the years have gone by.

We should have got out after the Taliban were removed from power and it was established that the AQ C&C infrastructure based there was destroyed and leadership killed or disbanded. Past that we have little interest in the place, its not like we need to safe guard the NW frontier anymore. If the ****stani's had a problem let them sort it out and if the ****stani's fell to a Taliban type of government leave it to the Indians, they wouldn't have dicked about like we did.

Ref he "Win" thing, We've never officially been at war so you cannot "Win", the mission objective was to topple Alqueda and the Taliban and reduce the scope for Terrorist activities and control the opium supply around the world. It all went a little pair shaped, thats all.

To be at "War" and to "Win of Lose", you need to decalre war an another state, with that brings a whole different law about rules of engagement, mission objective etc.. As we were "invited" by the previous government to intervene we have to stick to the mantra that we are their to stabilise only.

" It is a wretched country where the natives stop killing each other long enough only to turn on any foreigner with pure hatred. Then they go back to the unforgotten blood feud."

British report into the Afghan wars, bit over 100 years ago.

Anyone read [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thousand-Splendid-Suns-Khaled-Hosseini/dp/0747582971 ]"A thousand splendid suns"[/url]

You can't win a war in Afghanistan - but is leaving the population to the whim of warlords any better?

Or was the aim is to stabilise Afghanistan, limit the influence of the ****stan Taliban movement and ensure they don't become part of an Iranian led coalition?

In these enlightened times, we forget what war should entail...the wholesale slaughter of the 'them' what oppose 'us'.

Too much fannying about worrying about the innocent and not using the full capability of the arsenal at our disposal to kill every last mummy-boinking one of them.

The point of going in was never to 'win', it was just to make Blair feel food about himself and sit at the top table next to Bush et al.

Very hard to beat an enemy on their own soil. Pretty much impossible to beat that enemy when, unlike you, they are more than happy to die for their cause, and are motivated by having the higher moral ground.

I've always looked at the 'insurgents' in all this in a similar way to French Resistance forces of WW2..
We are after all rolling across vast swathes of the middle east invading and occupying and exterminating

I always try to imagine the boot being on the foot and the sort of resistance us Brits might put up if we were to encounter an occupying force on home soil..

@teethgrinder 😆 Probably why you won't see the Taliban/AlQueda taking on China any time soon

Now Iraq is about to go tits up again and France is pushing the UK to get involved in Syria. Really really bad move. The Syrian opposition actively kills each others factions with alot of 'foreign' fighters in its ranks.

Barge pole..

Personally no war can be WON imo.

The more difficult question is the one of "do we have a responsibility to other humans to "help" them avoid suffering and persicution"?

i.e. We know for example human rights and especially those of women in the middle east is poor. Our western society deems this to be unacceptable. Do we therefore have a moral responsibility to try to reduce that suffering? Tricky question that, and i have no answer for it.

Past events in East Germany, Russia, and now starting in China, Syria, Lybia show that it requires the native population of a country to want change to make it happen, you can't force it on them. Take Russia for example, where the "cold war" with the West went on for 40 years, and in the end was won by its population wanting MTV, Laptops, mobile phones and a more comfortable style of life, not by politicians, wars or propaganda.

As the world becomes yet more connected, and age old powers of localised coercion are broken, i think eventually societies like Afganistan WILL mature (history suggests this is case). If we, as a modern society, have a right or moral obligation to interfere in this long, slow, and often cruel evolution i don't know........

Try reading Rory Stewart MPs book 'The places inbetween' about his solo walk across Afghanistan in 2002/3. The place sounds an absolute hell-hole.

The admission basically admits the 300+ lives of serviceman were wasted. ****ing harsh but bloody true.

Try reading Rory Stewart MPs

Knows his Middle East shit does Rory. But they wouldn't listen.

I always try to imagine the boot being on the foot and the sort of resistance us Brits might put up if we were to encounter an occupying force on home soil.

Exactly.

Now let's imagine you were indifferent to an invading force here (many in the Middle East couldn't give a shit who's in power, they just want to be left alone to go about their business). Then they kill/rape your wife/sister/daughter/mother/son. Oh look, you and the rest of your family have just become the most ardent supporters of destroying that invading force in any way possible. And you didn't even dislike them before.

aside from the fact it is very difficult to define 'a win', It is pretty difficult, using soldiers who are pretty keen to do a good job, but still get home to their wives/kids, to fight against an enemy who are lining up to die for their cause.

when you throw all the other influences into the mix (****stan/middle east/etc) it looks like this was always going to end in tears...

In these enlightened times, we forget what war should entail...the wholesale slaughter of the 'them' what oppose 'us'.

Too much fannying about worrying about the innocent and not using the full capability of the arsenal at our disposal to kill every last mummy-boinking one of them.

It would appear you don't have the faintest idea who we are actually fighting, and who the enemies are.

The good news is that the Conservatives have said they'll pull out of the EU Human Rights gig if they win the next election. As the UK only stopped capital punishment for murder, I believe that Blair could then be hanged for Treason.

How can you fight a war when the enemy have the right to shoot then down weapons, get into a taxi and drive off and our troops have to accept they cannot finish the job off?

Fighting by different rules of engagement makes there job even harder!

I think the presence in Afghanistan is mainly to try and stop ****stan turning into the same kind of mess, which really would be a bit of a problem.

How can you fight a war when the enemy have the right to shoot then down weapons, get into a taxi and drive off and our troops have to accept they cannot finish the job off?

Fighting by different rules of engagement makes there job even harder!

Utterly bonkers-plus you can spot men running across fields carrying guns, possibly outflanking you yet you can't shoot to kill unless you've had rounds fired upon you first. They must really shake their heads in amazement.

This was filmed and shown on UK news at the start of the conflict!

In these enlightened times, we forget what war should entail...the wholesale slaughter of the 'them' what oppose 'us'.

Too much fannying about worrying about the innocent and not using the full capability of the arsenal at our disposal to kill every last mummy-boinking one of them.

Eh, the Russians didn't give a damn about civilian casualties and we did a damn sight better job at the whole sale slaughter of insurgents that them.

Don't underestimate the power of 21st century FLIR linked to a 30mm chain gun.

Glad people like you arn't in control of military ops......the quote about making others die for their country isn't applicable here...those people effectively don't exist......there's no conventional army to kill.... the idea of counter insurgency isn't to eradicate an opposing enemy.....because you're chasing ghosts most of the time.....it's to make the conditions in whatever country and the people who inhabit it opposed to the insurgency..... insurgencies do not work if they don't have the support of the people.

The problem is that AQ often operate from and find shelter just over the border in ****stan....which is out of our remit.

Granted the ROE in Afghanistan has been ridiculous...

Would be nice to think that the hard work and sacrifice will of had a positive effect for the afghans but can't help think that as soon as we're out it will all go to shit.
As for roe if you see some one with a gun and think they are moving to flank or take a fire position you can shoot them as they are presenting a danger to yours and others lives if they have downed weapons and are fleeing you can't shoot them.

Granted the ROE in [s]Afghanistan[/s] everywhere has been ridiculous...

We played at it really. As mentioned, the ROE essentially handcuffed the soldiers. A mountainous and porous border, a population who didn't consider themselves governed, and the lack of manpower to gain and hold ground made it nigh on impossible.

Frightening how politicians can take us into these situations (not just Afganistan) without very clear and specific strategic objectives, an indentifiable end-game and a post-conflict adjustment plan. Given none of this is laid out in advance, no wonder none of them are ever held accountable at the end of it. 🙁

Those Afghan/mujahadean/taliban fighters have got pretty good at repelling invaders....

Frightening how politicians can take us into these situations (not just Afganistan) without very clear and specific strategic objectives, an indentifiable end-game and a post-conflict adjustment plan. Given none of this is laid out in advance, no wonder none of them are ever held accountable at the end of it.

It's because they're not soldiers, who won't listen to the advice of their top brass due to their ideologies/egos and the brass for the sake of their jobs then have to run with what their puppet masters tell them to do.

Politicians are civilians who expect the army to serve them - quite rightly so but then we come to one of the main dilemma's in democracy.....we're governed by professional politicians...human resources/public relations types.....with no real understanding of the subjects that they make decisions about.

.it's to make the conditions in whatever country and the people who inhabit it opposed to the insurgency..... insurgencies do not work if they don't have the support of the people.

This in spades. We are leaving too soon. We'll be back there again in our lifetimes.

The cost in human life,human suffering and cash in these flawed adventures is astronmical.
I'm sure it would be far cheaper and more effective in every respect just to offer all comers a large cash grant and passage to another country and then let the remainder just get on with it with the threat of ultimate force if they start f88cking about outside the borders.

The good news is that the Conservatives have said they'll pull out of the EU Human Rights gig if they win the next election. As the UK only stopped capital punishment for murder, I believe that Blair could then be hanged for Treason.

Teamhurtmore (for me) a series of stupid events led to WWI. The mother of all waste.

Nahhhh ... use it as a training ground. Stay there.

bwaarp - Member
Glad people like you arn't in control of military ops......the quote about making others die for their country isn't applicable here...those people effectively don't exist......there's no conventional army to kill.... the idea of counter insurgency isn't to eradicate an opposing enemy.....because you're chasing ghosts most of the time.....it's to make the conditions in whatever country and the people who inhabit it opposed to the insurgency..... insurgencies do not work if they don't have the support of the people.

Has counterinsurgency actually worked anywhere in the 60 years it's been in and out of favour?

Malaya?
Now they had the right tactics.......

wrecker - Member

Malaya?
Now they had the right tactics.......

1. It worked there because there was a limited supply of proxy foreign forces. I doubt many of the proxy forces managed to swim across South China Sea.

2. There was no PC in those days but just plain old proper war.

3. They starved off supply by encircling the communities. No one going in and no one going out ...

If they really want to win the war they need do the above again ... which is rather impossible because of the mountains.

In Afghanistan you get constant supply of proxy fighters from all over (landlocked surrounded by "similar" kind of people) ... just like the West supplying proxy fighters against Soviet Union in the good old days of cold war.

Look at the Korean war where the real fight was actually with the Chinese rather than the Korean. Similarly in Vietnam.

Yes, why not the talibs or AQ try their luck with the the land of Dear Leaders? Reason is simple because it is the land of the pork. Yes, pork taste good. Bacon is nice. They are afraid that they might end up loving pork. Human Rights? You Will eat pork!

😈

Syria surprises me. The uk and France are prepared to arm AQ as the lesser of two evils vs Iran/Russia.
Fair reply chewkw, but that wasn't the question, was it? Malaya was, as you said a no bollocks all out war. If the politicos want victory, the instructions are written although some don't have the stomach for it.

wrecker - Member

If the politicos want victory, the instructions are written although some don't have the stomach for it.

Because they are contradicting themselves with Human Rights. How can they go into war with Human Rights? War is about eliminating and exterminating until one side bow as simple as that.

Has counterinsurgency actually worked anywhere in the 60 years it's been in and out of favour?

Colombia, Ireland, Uganda, Turkey, Algeria, Peru and Chechnya to name a few.

I agree. They should rip up the ROE and go at it. It's a bit more than that though, they need to saturate the area with boots so that they can take ground and keep it. Try to stem the flow from pak. Dominate the local areas. The tribes will back whoever they think will win. They may say thanks for the school or whatever, but they're too wise to back a losing side. They've seen it all before. Blair sent our military to war, the least they could do is let them fight one on equal terms.

War is about eliminating and exterminating until one side bow as simple as that.

Counterinsurgency isn't, note the statistics for the tactic "crush them"

bwaarp - Member

War is about eliminating and exterminating until one side bow as simple as that.

Counterinsurgency isn't, note the statistics for the tactic "crush them

You need all the tactics but most importantly get rid of the Human Rights if you are going to use any of those tactics.

Nope, none of the tactics outlined in that document require the removal of hoooman wights. In fact they probably support the idea of human rights, see the tactic "legitimacy (government)" and "legitimacy (force)" - things that a lack of respect for basic human rights tend to ignore.

As Che once put it....

Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote... the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.

15 Good COIN Practices

The COIN force adhered to several
strategic communication principles

The COIN force signi?cantly reduced
tangible insurgent support.

The government established or
maintained legitimacy in the area of
con?ict

The government was at least a partial
democracy.

COIN force intelligence was adequate
to support effective engagement or
disruption of insurgents.

The COIN force was of suf?cient strength
to force the insurgents to ?ght as
guerrillas.

The government/state was competent

The COIN force avoided excessive
collateral damage, disproportionate
use of force, or other illegitimate
applications of force.

The COIN force sought to engage and
establish positive relations with the
population in the area of con?ict

Short-term investments, improvements in
infrastructure or development, or property
reform occurred in the area of con?ict
controlled or claimed by the COIN force

The majority of the population in the
area of con?ict supported or favored the
COIN force.

The COIN force established and then
expanded secure areas.

The COIN force had and used
uncontested air dominance.

The COIN force provided or ensured the
provision of basic services in areas that it
controlled or claimed to control.

The perception of security was created
or maintained among the population
in areas that the COIN force claimed to
control.

.
.
.
.
.

Bad Coin Practices (I've ticked the ones that cover 'Stan with an X)

The COIN force used both collective
punishment and escalating repression.

X - The primary COIN force was an external
occupier.

X - COIN force or government actions
contributed to substantial new
grievances claimed by the insurgents.

X http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14883253 - Militias worked at cross-purposes with
the COIN force or government.

The COIN force resettled or removed
civilian populations for population
control.

X (to an extent) - COIN force collateral damage was
perceived by the population in the area
of con?ict as worse than the insurgents’. (When yanks drop 2000lb JDAM's into weddings on a more than irregular basis it tends to do this kind of thing)

X (to an extent) - In the area of con?ict, the COIN force was
perceived as worse than the insurgents.

The COIN force failed to adapt
to changes in adversary strategy,
operations, or tactics.

The COIN force engaged in more
coercion or intimidation than the
insurgents.

X (maybe more willing to die anyway) - The insurgent force was individually
superior to the COIN force by being
either more professional or better
motivated.

The COIN force or its allies relied on
looting for sustainment.

X - The COIN force and government had
different goals or levels of commitment.

But things like facts and logic won't alter your right wing Daily Mail views will they Chewkw, just like they didn't in the last thread we met in.

bwaarp - Member
Has counterinsurgency actually worked anywhere in the 60 years it's been in and out of favour?
Colombia, Ireland, Uganda, Turkey, Algeria, Peru and Chechnya to name a few.

Sorry can you give more detail...I though Colombia was still fighting the war against insurgents, and how did it work in Algeria, it was granted independence? Don't know about the others will have a look.

I only ask because of this pretty comprehensive (to my layman's eyes) take down of Counterinsurgency theory:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2012/06/how_to_kill_a_rational_peasant.html ]How to Kill a Rational Peasant[/url]

So am interested to hear differing views.

Colombia was still fighting the war against insurgents

It's worked in so far as they've contained FARC and brought them to the negotiating table.

As for Algeria you got the wrong time frame - read the document because I don't feel like getting done for copyright issues.

The good news is that the Conservatives have said they'll pull out of the EU Human Rights gig if they win the next election. As the UK only stopped capital punishment for murder, I believe that Blair could then be hanged for Treason.

The two things are separate issues.

Cold you explain?

I was (am) under the impression the death penalty still stands for those offenses other than murder (for which the death sentence was dropped), but is not used because it's against the Human Rights Act.

I was (am) under the impression the death penalty still stands for those offenses other than murder (for which the death sentence was dropped), but is not used because it's against the Human Rights Act.

No that law was actually repealed. They'd have to legislate for it again.

" It is a wretched country where the natives stop killing each other long enough only to turn on any foreigner with pure hatred. Then they go back to the unforgotten blood feud."

British report into the Afghan wars, bit over 100 years ago.

and what ? you've requoted it on here because you think this obviously racist, myopic, colonial worldview holds true today ?

real bright spark aren't you.