[jgztw2es]

We're not prosecuting whatever that is over there like a war. More like an occupation, so it is un-winnable.

[Boripiomi]

I'm wondering why the OP would call a war unwinnable, when his example is that the Taliban brilliantly executed an ambush on unarmed civilians. Wow, how impressive. Amazulu, you and I could have pulled that off.

As to whether the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, it is unwinnable to the extent that as in Vietnam, our war aims and strategy aren't clear. We need some leadership in that regard to establish achievable war aims, and a strategy for achieving said aims.

This is how terrorist warfare is - they look for the easy targets and attack those. Seldom do you get pitched battles between forces as they will be marmelised. I fought in a terrorist war in Rhodesia so know what goes on. If all your operations, in particular non-partisan Aid, require escorts then you have lost - that is why I put that in, not because it was a difficult target.

Homebased terrorist conflict cannot be won by conventional means - show me an example where that is not the case. There has to be a political solution of some kind acceptable to the protagonists and it seems that the Taliban have the people by the balls.

[Maphpseurse]

Homebased terrorist conflict cannot be won by conventional means - show me an example where that is not the case.

Sri Lanka

[Karinochka]

You guys make my teeth hurt with this An Un-winnable War crap.

No war is Un-winnable... not when you have the resources that the USA has today.

We lack only the will to do what is required to win.

What is "required to win"?
The lack of will was evident before the first troops were committed to the invasion, this was evidenced by tax cuts pushed through at the same time the war was promoted. A country that declares war and at the same time reduces the resources available to fight that war tells the enemy, "we are just making a show, not a serious effort, just hang on, we will leave in a relatively short time".

[Cnbaapuy]

This is how terrorist warfare is - they look for the easy targets and attack those.

And this accomplishes what, exactly? The idea of guerilla warfare is that you pick away at the enemy's forces until you can fight them openly. Attacks on civilians don't accomplish much.

If all your operations, in particular non-partisan Aid, require escorts then you have lost - that is why I put that in, not because it was a difficult target.

That's like saying that because all Allied ships needed convoys, they lost the Battle of the Atlantic. Secondly, the target the Taliban hit wasn't worth protecting from a military standpoint. They gained nothing from this massacre.

Homebased terrorist conflict cannot be won by conventional means - show me an example where that is not the case. T

The vast majority of guerilla campaigns lose. This is why they are known as underdogs. If guerilla warfare was superior to conventional warfare, no one would waste time building armies.

[WomanBreast40356]

Sri Lanka

That went 26 years, and it was a civil war, both sides lived on the same island, and the rebel area was considerably smaller than Afghanistan.

I don't believe, I don't think anyone believes, that the US has the will to bankroll an effort of that relative magnitude in Afghanistan for the decades it would take to reach a similar conclusion.

You can't win a war that the people don't care about, and the US people don't care about Afghanistan, not to the point where they are willing to make the sacrifice required to win.

It's not about who kills the most people, the winning side is the side that is still willing to sacrifice to continue the battle, when the losing side has had enough.

And it has always been clear that the US would reach the point where it had had enough long before the Taliban would.

[Slchtjgb]

Point taken about Sri Lanka, but the colonial powers fought dozens of guerilla wars and won almost all of them. The US fought one in the Philippines, and won that one.

Then of course there's the Native Americans. And the Israelis do a pretty good job of whipping the Palestinians whenever they get rowdy. Israelis are safer from violence than people who live in our own capital of DC.

[Alkanyadela]

Point taken about Sri Lanka, but the colonial powers fought dozens of guerilla wars and won almost all of them. The US fought one in the Philippines, and won that one.

Then of course there's the Native Americans. And the Israelis do a pretty good job of whipping the Palestinians whenever they get rowdy. Israelis are safer from violence than people who live in our own capital of DC.

The colonial powers won wars against enemies that did not wear shoes, in an age where communications were limited, and the world was a lot larger, and they only "won" if you take a snap shot on a particular date in history, if you look at the map today, all the empires of the colonial powers are gone.
The Philippines are independent. As far as the native Americans go, the country has been populated with an imported population, so the native American are a small minority, that's not going to happen in Afghanistan.

[lrtoinbert]

The colonial powers won wars against enemies that did not wear shoes, in an age where communications were limited, and the world was a lot larger, and they only "won" if you take a snap shot on a particular date in history, if you look at the map today, all the empires of the colonial powers are gone.

And most of them not through being defeated by guerilla armies. Most colonies were given up willingly, or primarily through pressure on the home front, not because they got booted.

As for the power differential, it's greater today than in colonial times. Taliban AK-47s and 1970s rocket launchers vs. the US military is actually a lot LESS useful than scimitars and horses vs. muskets. It shows in the casualty rates. The colonial powers used to take pretty steep casualties during engagements in those wars. US forces have yet to experience a high casualty event, defined as 100 fatalities in a single battle. Never even came close. Compare that to Vietnam, where US forces regularly lost hundreds dead in battles.

The Phillipines are independent because we chose to make them independent.

Also, we don't need much space to create a stable Afghan government. A year or two of relative peace is sufficient. I think we'd gladly take the 35 years of peace between the defeat of Aguinaldo and the setting up of a functioning Filipino government.

[Saduyre9de]

And this accomplishes what, exactly? The idea of guerilla warfare is that you pick away at the enemy's forces until you can fight them openly. Attacks on civilians don't accomplish much.

By expending an inordinate proportion of your resources guarding essential facilities - and this unit would have been considered essential from the psyac point of view - that it becomes difficult to operate conventionally. Attacks against civilians most certainly help, they get increasingly pissed off and eventually will go with the side who threatens the most - cutting off lips, brutalisation you name it - merely to stop the harassment. Whoever wields the bigger stick wins. It is not possible to guard every civilian. The terrorist is lightly armed, moves rapidly, is indistinguishable from the civilian, knows the territory. You must start thinking like a 3rd world peasant - not a sophisticated 1st world technocrat.

I originally thought the USA would pull this one off with their spy planes, drones, satellites plus the incredible technology they have. Intelligence is the key in terror warfare and clearly we are not getting it from the indiginous population

[zenihan]

Actually no, I don't. But that's not the point and you know this.

You 'only' need kill 'enough' demonstrating a will to do so... the remaining will surrender. Then you will have won.

One wins a war when the other side no long can or will fight.

i know that you know this Tann... I'm just not so sure that Obama does.

I just doubt that you can kill enough, mostly because religion is involved in this war. Hey, some of those Moslems actually believe their religion is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And some will even blow themselves up to kill a few of the enemy. Now, given this, if you want to win this war, you have to kill every single Taliban and radical Muslim in order to pull it off. If one is left alive, have no doubt he will recruit others, and we have to start all over.

Afganistan is not a Nation in the way we generally think. It is different areas, with tribal socieities. If they were a European styled Nation, we could win it. As it stands today, I just don't think our Nation building will accomplish anything. If the inhabitants, have not succumbed to being a real Nation after all of their history, a few troops from the US isn;t gonna change much.

I think having troops there only makes things worse. What we may have to do is to watch this place after we leave, and use intel to know where to send missles to to disrupt future terror training camps. Much cheaper.

[Meenepek]

By expending an inordinate proportion of your resources guarding essential facilities - and this unit would have been considered essential from the psyac point of view

And we avoid getting drawn into that trap by not protecting them. And we win a propaganda victory from the atrocity. Which with luck, means the Taliban will stop, since they seem pretty embarrassed by this one. They didn't expect the condemnation that came down on their heads.

[Elitiachirl]

means the Taliban will stop,

You are dreaming aren't you??

[ToifvT5S]

The colonial powers won wars against enemies that did not wear shoes, in an age where communications were limited, and the world was a lot larger, and they only "won" if you take a snap shot on a particular date in history, if you look at the map today, all the empires of the colonial powers are gone.

And most of them not through being defeated by guerilla armies. Most colonies were given up willingly, or primarily through pressure on the home front, not because they got booted.

As for the power differential, it's greater today than in colonial times. Taliban AK-47s and 1970s rocket launchers vs. the US military is actually a lot LESS useful than scimitars and horses vs. muskets. It shows in the casualty rates. The colonial powers used to take pretty steep casualties during engagements in those wars. US forces have yet to experience a high casualty event, defined as 100 fatalities in a single battle. Never even came close. Compare that to Vietnam, where US forces regularly lost hundreds dead in battles.

The Phillipines are independent because we chose to make them independent.

Also, we don't need much space to create a stable Afghan government. A year or two of relative peace is sufficient. I think we'd gladly take the 35 years of peace between the defeat of Aguinaldo and the setting up of a functioning Filipino government.

The empire gave up their colonies because it cost more to maintain the colonies than the empires were realizing in revenue, because the guerrilla armies or the non violent pacifist opposition made the maintenance of the colony financially untenable. Self financed colonies can remain colonies forever if they provide net revenue to the empire, once the cost of maintaining a colony exceeds the revenue, for the foreseeable future, what is the point ?

The Philippines are independent because the Japanese drove the US out, and the Philippine insurgency made a deal with the US, that they would ally with them to drive the Japanese out, in exchange for independence.
I don't see the benefit the US gained by killing 50,000 Filipinos, if the US had imply allowed the Philippines self determination after the Spanish American war, I think everyone would have been better off.
The US military would not have that massive stain on it's honor, waterboarding would not have come to the US as a method of extracting confessions from criminal suspects.

[PRengine]

Examples of indigenous fighters overcoming an occupational force,
Scots v Romans. (Hadrians wall)
French resistance v Germans
Eritrea v Ethiopia
Afghanistan v English
Afghanistan v Russia
Afghanistan v America



With terrorist warfare - enemy melting and disappearing is just what happens when countries are invaded and occupied by a vastly superior military power. It is often portrayed , falsely imo , that such tactics are cowardly. I think they are the tactics used by almost everyone who has found themselves in that position........... we applaud it when this resistance to occupation is against one of the current national enemies..........as it was with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan or the German invasion of France............but we despise it when it is ourselves who are occupiers. Brave fighters of occupation morph into faceless cowards hiding behind the rest......................few mentions that the people themselves neither support their own occupation nor disagree with the tactics used by those who are actively fighting the occupiers with a view to oust them.

[drislerfottor]

You are dreaming aren't you??

And if they don't, it makes no difference. We are not going to leave, nor take military losses, if they ambush unarmed civilian convoys. All they accomplish is to give us propaganda to use against them.

It is often portrayed , falsely imo , that such tactics are cowardly.

Guerilla warfare isn't cowardly. targeting civilians is cowardly. The reason the Iraqis and Afghan insurgencies will fail is because unlike successful insurgencies, they spend more time fighting their own people than the occupiers. The insurgencies aren't strong enough to dominate tens of millions of people, and they won't get strong enough with those kinds of tactics. Sowing fear can work, it did for the Viet Cong, but if it's not coupled with serious blows against the occupying force, it doesn't exactly give the impression among the populace that the insurgents are going to be the eventual victors and thus the people better make sure they are on the right side.

As of yet, neither the Iraqi, nor the Afghan resistance, has even inflicted one serious military setback. We used to claim that we never lost a battle against the Viet Cong, but that's false. and many of our victories were very, very costly, and for no discernable objective.

Without a victory to hang their hats on, they'll never be able to recruit in large enough numbers to drive us out.

[Xzmwskxn]

you are right but this war has been dragged out longer than it should have been
it should have ended at least 3 years after 9/11 i mean if we were really mad we should've ended Al Qaeda and freed the Middle East by now from terrorism. this war has been the longest war i believe 105 months which tops Veitnam i believe there is another reason that this war was started

[FliveGell]

You are dreaming aren't you??

And if they don't, it makes no difference. We are not going to leave, nor take military losses, if they ambush unarmed civilian convoys. All they accomplish is to give us propaganda to use against them.

It is often portrayed , falsely imo , that such tactics are cowardly.

Guerilla warfare isn't cowardly. targeting civilians is cowardly. The reason the Iraqis and Afghan insurgencies will fail is because unlike successful insurgencies, they spend more time fighting their own people than the occupiers. The insurgencies aren't strong enough to dominate tens of millions of people, and they won't get strong enough with those kinds of tactics. Sowing fear can work, it did for the Viet Cong, but if it's not coupled with serious blows against the occupying force, it doesn't exactly give the impression among the populace that the insurgents are going to be the eventual victors and thus the people better make sure they are on the right side.

As of yet, neither the Iraqi, nor the Afghan resistance, has even inflicted one serious military setback. We used to claim that we never lost a battle against the Viet Cong, but that's false. and many of our victories were very, very costly, and for no discernable objective.

Without a victory to hang their hats on, they'll never be able to recruit in large enough numbers to drive us out.

They don't intend to drive us out, they intend to annoy us until we leave.

We get jack shit from Afghanistan, it costs a friggin fortune to operate there, and we can't win. Outside the cities the Taliban rules and we have been there for longer than any other war in our history. What are we going to do to turn that around?
So how long do we stay in a shit hole with no value, before we just pack it in, hand everything over to the Afghan Army, and get out quick before they lose so we can say "it wasn't us". Obama already started that clock ticking.

[lollypop]

it should have ended at least 3 years after 9/11 i mean if we were really mad we should've ended Al Qaeda and freed the Middle East by now from terrorism. this war has been the longest war i believe 105 months which tops Veitnam i believe there is another reason that this war was started

No, just good old fashioned incompetence. We're still going to win though, we've got the right focus in place and the right leadership team. And despite what the President is telling his base, I think he intends to win this war.

They don't intend to drive us out, they intend to annoy us until we leave.


Not gonna happen. These douchebags sheltered and supported Al Qaeda while they were planning and executing the 9/11 attacks, and remain allied with them to this day. It'll take a hell of a lot more than annoyance to drive us out. At the very LEAST, they'll have to do as much damage to us as they did to the Soviets, and so far they aren't even close to being that strong.

So how long do we stay in a shit hole with no value

As long as the people who attacked us and their allies are there, as long as it takes. If we leave, we just get attacked again and go back. So why leave when the war isn't won? This isn't Iraq. This isn't an elective war. This is a war we either win, or we accept attacks on the US.

[DeronBoltonRen]

As of yet, neither the Iraqi, nor the Afghan resistance, has even inflicted one serious military setback.

They don't have to. In Rhodesia we never came close to losing a pitched battle because there were none. All they have to do is kill the odd soldier as they are doing and you have to expend huge resources to find a few terrorists.

Listen, I hope you do win but I can't see it happening. A change in strategy is needed.