How do we win in Afghanistan?

#26
#26
Grand Vol said:
In Afghanistan? Bombing the hell out of known and identified terrorist targets without collateral damage and Special Operations raids capturing/killing said targets.

No "nation building", no occupation, no "we're gonna export western style democracy and make you like it.

That's a "win" for all concerned.
Click to expand...

I agree unless it is crystal clear who the enemy is, no boots on the ground. Raids and air strikes only.
 
#27
#27
rjd970 said:
The problem is nobody outside of Kabul really views themselves as "Afghan". Its mostly a collection of tribes and warlords with no national unity.
Click to expand...

Disagree slightly here. They do refer to themselves as Afghan, but the level of loyalty for your typical person over there is: Family, Tribe (sometimes the same as family), Religion, Country.
 
#29
#29
Technically we achieved what we set out to do in Afghanistan. Topple the Taliban and capture or kill Bin Laden. Mission accomplished. Sadly the US likes to play the nation building game which hasn't worked in 70 years.

The US won't "win" another war like they used to because our country is too full of sensitive pu@@ies who would faint into the fetal position if they saw/knew what had to be done to win. Look no further than several posters in this thread to understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#30
#30
Grand Vol said:
Disagree slightly here. They do refer to themselves as Afghan, but the level of loyalty for your typical person over there is: Family, Tribe (sometimes the same as family), Religion, Country.
Click to expand...

There is a significant portion of these tribes that don't even recognize national borders. They view themselves as Afghans in as much that they all agree outside invaders are enemy #1. Outside of that it is local conflicts and disputes that date back 100s of years. Even the Taliban didn't have control of the country, because not many even recognize it as a "country".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
rjd970 said:
There is a significant portion of these tribes that don't even recognize national borders. They view themselves as Afghans in as much that they all agree outside invaders are enemy #1. Outside of that it is local conflicts and disputes that date back 100s of years. Even the Taliban didn't have control of the country, because not many even recognize it as a "country".
Click to expand...

Agree to a limited extent, but I think most still identify as Afghan, but hold deeper loyalty to individual tribes/families. I'd say the vast majority of people living in that country could care less about who is in "power" in the central government so long as it doesn't affect their tribe.

I think we're on the same page to an extent, but it's a question of who they are loyal to in the end.
 
#32
#32
jvol1 said:
We've won the battles, but not the war. As soon as we step back, what we've accomplished will rapidly fall apart, as the fundamentalists step back in and reassert control.
Click to expand...

It's unwinnable.... these savages have been waging jihad on one another since the dawn of time..... warlords and what not
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
The frustrating thing about Afghanistan is that is a jewel of southwest Asia. They are loaded down with the resources to be a functioning and even thriving nation. The country itself is really gorgeous, especially in the mountain regions. They just can't seem to get it together. Even the people cultivate a culture of hard work and determination. If its various faction weren't fighting all the time and there was stability, it could be a gold mine for infrastructure development.
 
#36
#36
Check out some old pictures of Kabul in the 1950's. It was a cosmopolitan city with high end department stores.
 
#37
#37
Grand Vol said:
Disagree slightly here. They do refer to themselves as Afghan, but the level of loyalty for your typical person over there is: Family, Tribe (sometimes the same as family), Religion, Country.
Click to expand...

You're right. Although modern Afghanistan has existed since it was "created" by the colonial Russian and British powers the tribal history goes back to before the common era.

From the link above:

..."THE CURSE OF AFGHAN DIVERSITY
Afghanistan's shifting alliances and factions are intertwined with its diversity, though ethnic, linguistic, or tribal variation alone does not entirely explain these internecine struggles. Afghanistan in its modern form was shaped by the nineteenth-century competition between the British, Russian, and Persian empires for supremacy in the region. The 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention that formally ended this "Great Game" finalized Afghanistan's role as a buffer between the Russian Empire's holdings in Central Asia, and the British Empire's holdings in India.

The resulting Kingdom of Afghanistan was and remains ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse. Today, Pushtuns are the largest ethnic group within the country, but they represent only 38 percent of the population. An almost equal number of Pushtuns live across the border in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province. Ethnic Tajiks comprise one-quarter of the population. The Hazaras, who generally inhabit the center of the country, represent another 19 percent. Other groups -- such as the Aimaks, Turkmen, Baluch, Uzbek, and others comprise the rest.(3)

Linguistic divisions parallel, and in some cases, overlap ethnic divisions. In addition to Dari (the Afghan dialect of Persian that is the lingua franca of half the population) and the Pushtun's own Pashtu, approximately ten percent of the population speaks Turkic languages like Uzbek or Turkmen. Several dozen more regional languages exist.(4)

Tribal divisions further compound the Afghan vortex. The Pushtuns are divided among the Durrani, Ghilzai, Waziri, Khattak, Afridi, Mohmand, Yusufzai, Shinwari, and numerous smaller tribes. In turn, each of these tribes is divided into subtribes. For example, the Durrani are divided into seven sub-groups: the Popalzai, Barakzai, Alizai, Nurzai, Ishakzai, Achakzai, and Alikozai. These, in turn, are divided into numerous clans.(5) Zahir Shah, ruler of Afghanistan between 1933 and 1973, belongs to the Muhammadzai clan of the Barakzai subtribe of the Durrani tribe. Such clan, subtribal, and tribal divisions contribute already intense rivalries and divisions.

Religious diversity further complicated internal Afghan politics and relations with neighbors. Once home to thriving Hindu, Sikh, and Jewish communities as recently as the mid-twentieth century, Afghanistan today is overwhelmingly Muslim."...
 
#38
#38
With the way warfare is today we won't see 'winning' wars the way we used to unless 1 thing is changed. The rules of engagement. Those are of some of the shadiest, most crippling, things a person can have in their mind on top of the whole, you know, trying to stay alive bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#40
#40
rtb1983 said:
With the way warfare is today we won't see 'winning' wars the way we used to unless 1 thing is changed. The rules of engagement. Those are of some of the shadiest, most crippling, things a person can have in their mind on top of the whole, you know, trying to stay alive bit.
Click to expand...

The rules of engagement were changed about 5 months ago. We are now allowed to use MK-19's in populated areas and .50 cal Incendiary rounds. The Air Forces ROE has changed too. They now average 50- 60 air strikes a day. The question now is manpower. TF-SouthWest is expected to request more Marines to be sent to Helmond. They are stretch pretty thin there. Also thinking at the top has changed. No more settling for tactical victories. It's now strategic victories or nothing at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#41
#41
carlos86 said:
The rules of engagement were changed about 5 months ago. We are now allowed to use MK-19's in populated areas and .50 cal Incendiary rounds. The Air Forces ROE has changed too. They now average 50- 60 air strikes a day. The question now is manpower. TF-SouthWest is expected to request more Marines to be sent to Helmond. They are stretch pretty thin there. Also thinking at the top has changed. No more settling for tactical victories. It's now strategic victories or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Omg yes :rock:

two of my favorite weapons
 
#42
#42
FLVOL_79 said:
Omg yes :rock:

two of my favorite weapons
Click to expand...

WATM-wall.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#43
#43
carlos86 said:
The rules of engagement were changed about 5 months ago. We are now allowed to use MK-19's in populated areas and .50 cal Incendiary rounds. The Air Forces ROE has changed too. They now average 50- 60 air strikes a day. The question now is manpower. TF-SouthWest is expected to request more Marines to be sent to Helmond. They are stretch pretty thin there. Also thinking at the top has changed. No more settling for tactical victories. It's now strategic victories or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Glad to read that. I'm sure quite a bit has changed since I got out a few years ago. I'm still under the belief that the burp of an A-10 should serve as the Middle East's alarm clock every morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
carlos86 said:
The rules of engagement were changed about 5 months ago. We are now allowed to use MK-19's in populated areas and .50 cal Incendiary rounds. The Air Forces ROE has changed too. They now average 50- 60 air strikes a day. The question now is manpower. TF-SouthWest is expected to request more Marines to be sent to Helmond. They are stretch pretty thin there. Also thinking at the top has changed. No more settling for tactical victories. It's now strategic victories or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

I talked to a Sergeant over the weekend. He says lots of things have changed and for the better.
 
#46
#46
Even with all of these positive changes to the ROE, it's still Afghanistan.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top