[hotelhyatt]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Before U.S. intevention:
Kabul: Taliban
Most of country: Taliban
A few provinces: Northern Alliance

After U.S. interventions;
Kabul: Central government
Most of country: Warlords
A few provinces: Taliban

That's a marked improvement. Did you intentionally ingore al Qa'ida?

[vaalmerruutel]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
It sounds to me that the best plan would be to train the tribes to fight back to regain their lost territory, perhps even to use suicide attacks and other terror tactics. In a fight suited for scorpions, get good at picking and training better scorpions.

[aaafluochugh]

Perhaps we have to kill them all in the end.

Total War.

[Nakforappealp]

I think so, yes...

Because the Bushies don't realize that as long as the Afghans have nothing to live for (no job, no education, no wealth, no future for their children, a feeling of being treated like second class human beings...) they will choose to fanatically protect the only thing they have left: their culture and religion.

But of course, the Bushies come from Texas and if things aren't blown up on a regular basis (and preferably in an increasingly spectacular manner) these people seem to loose interest pretty fast.

[Enjoymms]

Al Qaeda, with 10,000 fighters at most, is a meaningless organization when compared to the Taleban and their dozens of thousands. They have never been truly allied either and were suspicious of each other before the NATO intervention. Actually, it's this intervention that has incited different Afghan factions to join forces.
As for Pakistan, I wouldn't be so quick to blame then. What really happened is that after the Taleban were routed out of power, several officials criticized the shift from a fight for their own homeland (i.e. the virtual Pachtun kingdom) to a pointless guerilla against foreign troops. They ordered their followers to concentrate on the tribal areas of Pakistan - and, in large part, their success was due to the ridiculously weak NATO presence in Afghanistan which allowed them to divert nearly all of their forces from there. This put Musharraf into trouble, as his regime is not all that strong, Pakistan being multiethnic and having several areas vying for autonomy.

[Klissineopar]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Middle_East

Egypt is partly in Asia. Pakistan and Afghanistan are part of the Greater Middle East.

Point, set, match. What, are you Texan too like Slowwy? wiki attributes the usage to W at the G8, and doesnt even provide a cite. And this is the site that had the gall to say Apolyton wasnt notable?

[natahololll]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Al Qaeda, with 10,000 fighters at most, is a meaningless organization when compared to the Taleban and their dozens of thousands. They have never been truly allied either and were suspicious of each other before the NATO intervention. Actually, it's this intervention that has incited different Afghan factions to join forces.
As for Pakistan, I wouldn't be so quick to blame then. What really happened is that after the Taleban were routed out of power, several officials criticized the shift from a fight for their own homeland (i.e. the virtual Pachtun kingdom) to a pointless guerilla against foreign troops. They ordered their followers to concentrate on the tribal areas of Pakistan - and, in large part, their success was due to the ridiculously weak NATO presence in Afghanistan which allowed them to divert nearly all of their forces from there. This put Musharraf into trouble, as his regime is not all that strong, Pakistan being multiethnic and having several areas vying for autonomy.
Youre saying if there were MORE NATO troops in Afghanistan the Taliban would have left Pakistan and headed to Afghanistan to die? Why? You seem to think they have a bunch of fixed positions in Afghanistan that they defend - that this is like not enough western troops letting the Germans shift troops to the USSR. AFAICT its nothing like that at all - they are guerillas, they avoid strength and look for weakness. And from all Ive read AQ and the Taliban were closely linked pre-9/11, AQ being woven into the financial and security structures of the Taliban state. Sure their may have been frictions, as there are often factional struggles within states.

[astonmartinrx371]

Originally posted by Ned
Did you intentionally ingore al Qa'ida? Naw, al Qaeda was there, certainly, but it was there as the "guests" of the Talaban, which was the entity which actually controlled the territory.

[Fosavoa]

As an Indian, I feel tempted to say, 'We told you so! That's what you get for trusting dirties like Pakistan!", but I won't, because this is very bad news for us, too.

[shieclulaweew]

Oerdin, I thing the Sunnis are going to win, not the Shi'ites.

[JanetMorris]

Z, Clearly the Shi'ites will. But what is your reasoning wrt the Sunnis?

[Catieliecutty]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


And in turn, what is your point? that the Afghan war can't be won because either you send in sufficient force and the Taleban hide, or you don't and they take control of the country?
It goes beyond a simple analysis of combat encounters - more troops mean more pressure on the local warlords (on which the Taleban depend greatly), the possibility to oversee the training of an Afghan force, etc. Basically it means taking the lead and putting pressure on them - just because they use guerilla tactics doesn't mean you can't. And this shouldn't be an excuse for leaving the country to itself after the extravagance of the initial promises. What Im saying is the war on the Taliban in the NWFP of Pakistan, specifically in North and South Waziristan, can not be won in AFGHANISTAN. Period. With any strategy. That doesnt mean more troops in Afghanistan would be a mistake since stabilizing Afghanistan is a worthy goal in itself. But it wont solve the NWFP problem. I dont know what will solve the NWFP problem, all the suggested approaches have their issues, whether its pressuring Perv, making alliances with Pervs domestic opponents, giving on Pakistan entirely, etc. But youre not going to solve Waziristan in Kandahar.

[natahololll]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Baathists are a neo-facisitic group, essentially non-religious (except, on occasion and for political purposes, they do exault Islamic and condemn Israel). Their loyalty is to the exaulted leader--who used to be Saddam.

Al Qaeda is a group of religous fanatics whose alpha and omega is the Koran and Islam--as interpreted by their exaulted leader, Osams bin Ladin.

The two can form a temporary alliance of convenience, but in the long one, they will turn on each other and, at most, only one will survive. The Iraqi Baathists had been shifting to Islamist (though not Wahabist) legitimizations of power through the 1990s (See for ex "the mother of all battles Mosque") though they continued to include non-muslims like Tariq Aziz in the leadership. In the wake of the invasion Baathists like al-Douri seem to have moved much closer to AQ and other Wahabist groups - IIUC al-Douri actually became a Wahabist. The situation on the ground in Anbar is acting as chamber for the exchange and recombination of memes, as it were.

[Vjwkvkoy]

They can be but...

Baathist are a-religious secularists
Al Qaeda are religious fanatics who hate secular governments.

But they both hate us more than they hate each other
(gee, i feel so special)

[carinsurancess]

I hate you, you hate me. Let's all become jihadi...
[/Terrorist Barney]

[yespkorg]