Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

This war in Afghanistan is ridiculous, and even more so because recent history should have taught us that military might, such as the USSR had for their invasion back in 1979, does not guarantee victory in such an environment and dealing with the tribal system there. The Soviets lost more than 14,000 soldiers in their nine year war in Afghanistan, endured an undignified retreat, and, as far as I can surmise, achieved none of their long term objectives. The objectives of this current war are not clear to me (nor, I believe, to our soldiers, or possibly even our politicians).

The objective is to neutralise the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan and to also build the Afghan Security Forces to such a point where they will be able to control and defend all of Afghanistan from Taliban and Al Qaeda threats.

I dare say that the Obama Administration might achieve a miraculous victory by capturing the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership very soon. I am suspicious that the previous administration did not try hard enough in order to achieve other more sinister objections.

I've read some interesting books about wars in Afghanistan and one of the features of the warlord-led tribal system is the regular and strategic switching of allegiances. So what can appear to be government-loyal tribes and regions can become Taliban sympathisers depending on a variety of factors. The Taliban can in fact melt away and reconvene as it suits them. In my opinion military forces from the West only serve as a focus for Taliban sympathisers to repel the 'invaders'. There may be an idealistic objective to purge Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to make Afghanistan a more stable country, but the very presence of our soldiers is in itself counterproductive if this only serves to make the various tribes combine (under our designation of 'The Taliban') to remove us from their land (as they did to the Soviets back in the 1980's).

Well the Northern Alliance, which is a coalition of various tribal factions such a the United Islamic Front and the Mujahideen, are our allies in this fight. It is the Northern Alliance and Mujahideen that fought so vigorously against the Soviet Union and won. But in the end they were only able to control a small portion of Afghanistan whilst the Taliban controlled the remainder.

I believe the key is to build and establish the Afghan Security Forces to be able to control the country. This is the ultimate desire of the majority of Afghan people as they do not want to live under the Taliban anymore. The Afghan people have an amazing spirit and are willing to fight to the very end, because for them, nothing could be more worse than living under the Taliban's rule.

Our troops presence is a big motivator for various Islamic fundamentalist group but I believe the Afghan people have well and truly had enough and will reclaim their country very soon and live like normal people as opposed to living under the tyranny of crazed clerics.

Most Afghans would prefer our troops presence rather than have the Taliban rule their country and lives once more.

[Raymanoff]

From Obamamania to Obamaphobia didnt take long.

So this guy was right after all

[Talisker]

This war in Afghanistan is ridiculous, and even more so because recent history should have taught us that military might, such as the USSR had for their invasion back in 1979, does not guarantee victory in such an environment and dealing with the tribal system there. The Soviets lost more than 14,000 soldiers in their nine year war in Afghanistan, endured an undignified retreat, and, as far as I can surmise, achieved none of their long term objectives. The objectives of this current war are not clear to me (nor, I believe, to our soldiers, or possibly even our politicians).

The objective is to neutralise the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan and to also build the Afghan Security Forces to such a point where they will be able to control and defend all of Afghanistan from Taliban and Al Qaeda threats.

I dare say that the Obama Administration might achieve a miraculous victory by capturing the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership very soon. I am suspicious that the previous administration did not try hard enough in order to achieve other more sinister objections.

I've read some interesting books about wars in Afghanistan and one of the features of the warlord-led tribal system is the regular and strategic switching of allegiances. So what can appear to be government-loyal tribes and regions can become Taliban sympathisers depending on a variety of factors. The Taliban can in fact melt away and reconvene as it suits them. In my opinion military forces from the West only serve as a focus for Taliban sympathisers to repel the 'invaders'. There may be an idealistic objective to purge Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to make Afghanistan a more stable country, but the very presence of our soldiers is in itself counterproductive if this only serves to make the various tribes combine (under our designation of 'The Taliban') to remove us from their land (as they did to the Soviets back in the 1980's).

Well the Northern Alliance, which is a coalition of various tribal factions such a the United Islamic Front and the Mujahideen, are our allies in this fight. It is the Northern Alliance and Mujahideen that fought so vigorously against the Soviet Union and won. But in the end they were only able to control a small portion of Afghanistan whilst the Taliban controlled the remainder.

I believe the key is to build and establish the Afghan Security Forces to be able to control the country. This is the ultimate desire of the majority of Afghan people as they do not want to live under the Taliban anymore. The Afghan people have an amazing spirit and are willing to fight to the very end, because for them, nothing could be more worse than living under the Taliban's rule.

Our troops presence is a big motivator for various Islamic fundamentalist group but I believe the Afghan people have well and truly had enough and will reclaim their country very soon and live like normal people as opposed to living under the tyranny of crazed clerics.

Most Afghans would prefer our troops presence rather than have the Taliban rule their country and lives once more.

How long have Western troops been engaged in pursuing our objectives in Afghanistan? Are we getting closer to achieving these objectives? I'm not sure we are. The longer our troops are there the more they become a focus for Taliban forces and their various affiliated groups. Quite frequently now we are hearing frustrations from the Afghani government about tactics employed by our forces - too many civilian casualties, so we need to be careful that the majority of Afghans do not become disillusioned with our presence, see us as interfering invaders with no clear purpose in their country, and decide to join ranks with our opponents. As happened in Iraq..........

[Paphitis]

This war in Afghanistan is ridiculous, and even more so because recent history should have taught us that military might, such as the USSR had for their invasion back in 1979, does not guarantee victory in such an environment and dealing with the tribal system there. The Soviets lost more than 14,000 soldiers in their nine year war in Afghanistan, endured an undignified retreat, and, as far as I can surmise, achieved none of their long term objectives. The objectives of this current war are not clear to me (nor, I believe, to our soldiers, or possibly even our politicians).

The objective is to neutralise the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan and to also build the Afghan Security Forces to such a point where they will be able to control and defend all of Afghanistan from Taliban and Al Qaeda threats.

I dare say that the Obama Administration might achieve a miraculous victory by capturing the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership very soon. I am suspicious that the previous administration did not try hard enough in order to achieve other more sinister objections.

I've read some interesting books about wars in Afghanistan and one of the features of the warlord-led tribal system is the regular and strategic switching of allegiances. So what can appear to be government-loyal tribes and regions can become Taliban sympathisers depending on a variety of factors. The Taliban can in fact melt away and reconvene as it suits them. In my opinion military forces from the West only serve as a focus for Taliban sympathisers to repel the 'invaders'. There may be an idealistic objective to purge Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to make Afghanistan a more stable country, but the very presence of our soldiers is in itself counterproductive if this only serves to make the various tribes combine (under our designation of 'The Taliban') to remove us from their land (as they did to the Soviets back in the 1980's).

Well the Northern Alliance, which is a coalition of various tribal factions such a the United Islamic Front and the Mujahideen, are our allies in this fight. It is the Northern Alliance and Mujahideen that fought so vigorously against the Soviet Union and won. But in the end they were only able to control a small portion of Afghanistan whilst the Taliban controlled the remainder.

I believe the key is to build and establish the Afghan Security Forces to be able to control the country. This is the ultimate desire of the majority of Afghan people as they do not want to live under the Taliban anymore. The Afghan people have an amazing spirit and are willing to fight to the very end, because for them, nothing could be more worse than living under the Taliban's rule.

Our troops presence is a big motivator for various Islamic fundamentalist group but I believe the Afghan people have well and truly had enough and will reclaim their country very soon and live like normal people as opposed to living under the tyranny of crazed clerics.

Most Afghans would prefer our troops presence rather than have the Taliban rule their country and lives once more.

How long have Western troops been engaged in pursuing our objectives in Afghanistan? Are we getting closer to achieving these objectives? I'm not sure we are. The longer our troops are there the more they become a focus for Taliban forces and their various affiliated groups. Quite frequently now we are hearing frustrations from the Afghani government about tactics employed by our forces - too many civilian casualties, so we need to be careful that the majority of Afghans do not become disillusioned with our presence, see us as interfering invaders with no clear purpose in their country, and decide to join ranks with our opponents. As happened in Iraq..........

I think the Afghan Government has every right to voice their objections, particularly when innocent civilian lives are lost.

The Taliban forces have mostly fled Afghanistan for West Pakistan, and so the main focus would be to develop the Afghan Security Forces at this point in time.

I hold the opinion that eventually the coalition will enter Pakistan in earnest, once the Pakistani Military swallows some pride and request international assistance.

Let me ask you this, if you were an Afghan, could you tolerate living under a Taliban totalitarian Islamic State, or would you see the west as the lesser of 2 evils and maybe even your saviour?

I know what I would be choosing?

[Talisker]

This war in Afghanistan is ridiculous, and even more so because recent history should have taught us that military might, such as the USSR had for their invasion back in 1979, does not guarantee victory in such an environment and dealing with the tribal system there. The Soviets lost more than 14,000 soldiers in their nine year war in Afghanistan, endured an undignified retreat, and, as far as I can surmise, achieved none of their long term objectives. The objectives of this current war are not clear to me (nor, I believe, to our soldiers, or possibly even our politicians).

The objective is to neutralise the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan and to also build the Afghan Security Forces to such a point where they will be able to control and defend all of Afghanistan from Taliban and Al Qaeda threats.

I dare say that the Obama Administration might achieve a miraculous victory by capturing the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership very soon. I am suspicious that the previous administration did not try hard enough in order to achieve other more sinister objections.

I've read some interesting books about wars in Afghanistan and one of the features of the warlord-led tribal system is the regular and strategic switching of allegiances. So what can appear to be government-loyal tribes and regions can become Taliban sympathisers depending on a variety of factors. The Taliban can in fact melt away and reconvene as it suits them. In my opinion military forces from the West only serve as a focus for Taliban sympathisers to repel the 'invaders'. There may be an idealistic objective to purge Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to make Afghanistan a more stable country, but the very presence of our soldiers is in itself counterproductive if this only serves to make the various tribes combine (under our designation of 'The Taliban') to remove us from their land (as they did to the Soviets back in the 1980's).

Well the Northern Alliance, which is a coalition of various tribal factions such a the United Islamic Front and the Mujahideen, are our allies in this fight. It is the Northern Alliance and Mujahideen that fought so vigorously against the Soviet Union and won. But in the end they were only able to control a small portion of Afghanistan whilst the Taliban controlled the remainder.

I believe the key is to build and establish the Afghan Security Forces to be able to control the country. This is the ultimate desire of the majority of Afghan people as they do not want to live under the Taliban anymore. The Afghan people have an amazing spirit and are willing to fight to the very end, because for them, nothing could be more worse than living under the Taliban's rule.

Our troops presence is a big motivator for various Islamic fundamentalist group but I believe the Afghan people have well and truly had enough and will reclaim their country very soon and live like normal people as opposed to living under the tyranny of crazed clerics.

Most Afghans would prefer our troops presence rather than have the Taliban rule their country and lives once more.

How long have Western troops been engaged in pursuing our objectives in Afghanistan? Are we getting closer to achieving these objectives? I'm not sure we are. The longer our troops are there the more they become a focus for Taliban forces and their various affiliated groups. Quite frequently now we are hearing frustrations from the Afghani government about tactics employed by our forces - too many civilian casualties, so we need to be careful that the majority of Afghans do not become disillusioned with our presence, see us as interfering invaders with no clear purpose in their country, and decide to join ranks with our opponents. As happened in Iraq..........

I think the Afghan Government has every right to voice their objections, particularly when innocent civilian lives are lost.

The Taliban forces have mostly fled Afghanistan for West Pakistan, and so the main focus would be to develop the Afghan Security Forces at this point in time.

I hold the opinion that eventually the coalition will enter Pakistan in earnest, once the Pakistani Military swallows some pride and request international assistance.

Let me ask you this, if you were an Afghan, could you tolerate living under a Taliban totalitarian Islamic State, or would you see the west as the lesser of 2 evils and maybe even your saviour?

I know what I would be choosing?

If the answer to your question was so simple then why are the Afghani's not welcoming us with open arms, shunning the Taliban and associates, etc, and aiding us in achieving a quick and straightforward victory? I just returned this week from my first visit to Saudi Arabia (for work purposes), and to me at least life would appear to be intolerable for women in that society. But there doesn't seem to be much they can do about it. So, perhaps in Afghanistan the different sections of society see different reasons to support the Taliban (albeit on a fluctuating basis), and oftentimes they may not have much choice in the matter. A variety of factors - religion, opium harvest and trade, tribal affiliations, food and water supplies, anti-Western propaganda, the fact that half their family may have been killed by one side or the other..........

[Get Real!]

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument

[miltiades]

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument

Why are you so pathetically obsessed with anything anti American !!
Did that Americaniko daxtylo touche some sensitive parts of your body creating an avalanche of crap . Get a life Plonker America IS the Greatest nation on this planet , after Cyprus !!

[Get Real!]

Why are you so pathetically obsessed with anything anti American !!
Did that Americaniko daxtylo touche some sensitive parts of your body creating an avalanche of crap . Get a life Plonker America IS the Greatest nation on this planet , after Cyprus !!

International Humanitarian Law does indeed seem “anti-American” since Americans are the world’s biggest violators of it.

[Paphitis]

This war in Afghanistan is ridiculous, and even more so because recent history should have taught us that military might, such as the USSR had for their invasion back in 1979, does not guarantee victory in such an environment and dealing with the tribal system there. The Soviets lost more than 14,000 soldiers in their nine year war in Afghanistan, endured an undignified retreat, and, as far as I can surmise, achieved none of their long term objectives. The objectives of this current war are not clear to me (nor, I believe, to our soldiers, or possibly even our politicians).

The objective is to neutralise the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan and to also build the Afghan Security Forces to such a point where they will be able to control and defend all of Afghanistan from Taliban and Al Qaeda threats.

I dare say that the Obama Administration might achieve a miraculous victory by capturing the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership very soon. I am suspicious that the previous administration did not try hard enough in order to achieve other more sinister objections.

I've read some interesting books about wars in Afghanistan and one of the features of the warlord-led tribal system is the regular and strategic switching of allegiances. So what can appear to be government-loyal tribes and regions can become Taliban sympathisers depending on a variety of factors. The Taliban can in fact melt away and reconvene as it suits them. In my opinion military forces from the West only serve as a focus for Taliban sympathisers to repel the 'invaders'. There may be an idealistic objective to purge Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to make Afghanistan a more stable country, but the very presence of our soldiers is in itself counterproductive if this only serves to make the various tribes combine (under our designation of 'The Taliban') to remove us from their land (as they did to the Soviets back in the 1980's).

Well the Northern Alliance, which is a coalition of various tribal factions such a the United Islamic Front and the Mujahideen, are our allies in this fight. It is the Northern Alliance and Mujahideen that fought so vigorously against the Soviet Union and won. But in the end they were only able to control a small portion of Afghanistan whilst the Taliban controlled the remainder.

I believe the key is to build and establish the Afghan Security Forces to be able to control the country. This is the ultimate desire of the majority of Afghan people as they do not want to live under the Taliban anymore. The Afghan people have an amazing spirit and are willing to fight to the very end, because for them, nothing could be more worse than living under the Taliban's rule.

Our troops presence is a big motivator for various Islamic fundamentalist group but I believe the Afghan people have well and truly had enough and will reclaim their country very soon and live like normal people as opposed to living under the tyranny of crazed clerics.

Most Afghans would prefer our troops presence rather than have the Taliban rule their country and lives once more.

How long have Western troops been engaged in pursuing our objectives in Afghanistan? Are we getting closer to achieving these objectives? I'm not sure we are. The longer our troops are there the more they become a focus for Taliban forces and their various affiliated groups. Quite frequently now we are hearing frustrations from the Afghani government about tactics employed by our forces - too many civilian casualties, so we need to be careful that the majority of Afghans do not become disillusioned with our presence, see us as interfering invaders with no clear purpose in their country, and decide to join ranks with our opponents. As happened in Iraq..........

I think the Afghan Government has every right to voice their objections, particularly when innocent civilian lives are lost.

The Taliban forces have mostly fled Afghanistan for West Pakistan, and so the main focus would be to develop the Afghan Security Forces at this point in time.

I hold the opinion that eventually the coalition will enter Pakistan in earnest, once the Pakistani Military swallows some pride and request international assistance.

Let me ask you this, if you were an Afghan, could you tolerate living under a Taliban totalitarian Islamic State, or would you see the west as the lesser of 2 evils and maybe even your saviour?

I know what I would be choosing?

If the answer to your question was so simple then why are the Afghani's not welcoming us with open arms, shunning the Taliban and associates, etc, and aiding us in achieving a quick and straightforward victory? I just returned this week from my first visit to Saudi Arabia (for work purposes), and to me at least life would appear to be intolerable for women in that society. But there doesn't seem to be much they can do about it. So, perhaps in Afghanistan the different sections of society see different reasons to support the Taliban (albeit on a fluctuating basis), and oftentimes they may not have much choice in the matter. A variety of factors - religion, opium harvest and trade, tribal affiliations, food and water supplies, anti-Western propaganda, the fact that half their family may have been killed by one side or the other..........

For the average Afghan it is unfortunately a case of survival. The Afghans are probably in no position to express openly their support, out of fear for their lives. They know, that when coalition troops leave the area they will need to deal with Taliban sympathisers and even the Taliban itself.

There can never be a straightforward victory against the Taliban, even if we did have the support of all Afghans, because the enemy is invisible. The Soviet Union was unable to defeat the Northern Alliance, and the Taliban is by no means finished yet as they have managed to infiltrate and control parts of Pakistan.

Recently, Australia has taken in a massive number of Afghan refugees and it does appear that in a democratic, and free society they are more willing to declare the Taliban as public enemy number one. This may not have been the case in Afghanistan, because doing so could have jeopardised their lives.

[Talisker]

Paphitis, looks like we're agreeing on the realities of the situation for Afghanis in their current predicament (and unfortuantely one that has lasted a very long time). I argued yesterday that our military intervention could be counterproductive. There is an interesting article in the Observer today, about someone called Rory Stewart, currently working to safeguard traditional skills in Afghanistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... nal-skills

Within the article is the following which supports my view, and this from someone living and working in Afghanistan, and with experience of similar in Iraq.
Stewart argues that, just as the west is gearing up to perhaps double the number of troops in Afghanistan, we should be doing the opposite and getting the troops out. We are not doing any good, Stewart says. More troops means more fighting, which means more civilian casualties and violence and more people hating us and what we stand for. We need an Afghan solution for an Afghan problem. It is not a view that has made him very popular.