Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

2010-08-31 23:49:11
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981

rdx-fx wrote:

See how that works?

Shahter wrote:

all the evidence so far points at how it doesn't work.
Examples?  Evidence?  Anything beyond your simple assertion there?

Shahter wrote:

they won't "look at your history" (which, as always, can be presented in a lot of ways), they aren't interested in you at all, dude.
Yes, they already do.  That is part of the problem, as well as part of the solution. They only have to look as far as Iraq (modern day, or 1991, take your pick)

Shahter wrote:

you invaded their country, that's all that matters to them.
Another gross oversimplification.
No wonder the Soviets never had a chance there.

Which them are you referring to?
Pashtun tribals, Kandahar city dwellers, ethnic minorities, Shia minorities, Sunni moderates?
There is no unified them in Afghanistan.  There are a bunch of semi-autonomous groups.
Many of those groups (if not a majority) were terrified of the Taliban, and considered apostates by their own rulers.
There is no nationalism.  They do not think of themselves as Afghani, they think of themselves in terms of tribal or religious affiliation.

For one last time;
We are not going for European style Empire or Colonialism.
We are not going for Soviet style Puppet State.
We are not even going for some mythical Islamic Democracy.
What we are going for, I have illustrated a few possibilities throughout my posts in this thread.
(short course: the overall eventual stability of the region, not the particular health of any one country)

It is not necessarily that our leadership is that much smarter than the Soviet leadership.
More to the point, we have the example of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan to look at as a shining example of what not to do.
We also have the example of our own experience in Viet Nam to look to as a good example of what not to do, as well.

'Winning' there, Afghanistan will look like the same pile of primitive rocks it has looked like for the last 10,000 years.  But, it will (hopefully) no longer be playing host to international terrorist groups, like Al Quaeda.

We've chased Al Quaeda into Pakistan (our next problem child in the region), and we've handed Iraq over to the Shia, essentially (which is hard for the Iranian government to deal with, but a wonderful thing for the Persian people - again, an overall win-win from our perspective).
Look at a map of that region, overlay the dominant religious sects on that map, and think about what the invasion and overthrow of Afghanistan and Iraq has done to both the power balance, and the religious balance in the region.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-08-31 23:58:24)

2010-09-01 00:02:09
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

rdx-fx wrote:

Examples?  Evidence?  Anything beyond your simple assertion there?
you are still there. you'ce been needing more and more troops ever since you got in. what other evidence do you need?

rdx-fx wrote:

Which them are you referring to?
barbarians, whom insurgents recruit their members from. there will always be enough of those in a place like afghanistan. no matter how many bureaucrats you bribe, no matter how many weapons you give to "legitimate government" and their "law enforcing organisations", there will always be insurgency. and as soon as you leave them on their own somebody else will buy those bureaucrats and it will return to the way it was.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 00:11:09
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981

Shahter wrote:

barbarians, whom insurgents recruit their members from. there will always be enough of those in a place like afghanistan. no matter how many bureaucrats you bribe, no matter how many weapons you give to "legitimate government" and their "law enforcing organisations", there will always be insurgency. and as soon as you leave them on their own somebody else will buy those bureaucrats and it will return to the way it was.
By "barbarians", I'm guessing you mean the Pashtun tribals.
They are the best hope in that region, really.
The Pashtun, for the most part, are much more consistent than the two-faced city dwellers.

"How do you know they're lying to you? - They're speaking Dari. 
How do you guess they might not be lying to you? - they're speaking Pashto, or some variant. 
How do you know they're probably telling the truth? - the kids are around, he shook your hand, whispered it so noone else would hear, looked you in the eyes, and offered you Chai"

Some of them will fall in with the Taliban.
Most of them, in the long run, want everyone to get the hell out of their hills and leave them alone.
The only group they know will actually get out, is the Westerners.

Our best bet in the region is to find those Pashtun tribals that are not friends of Al Quaeda or Taliban, and arm them to the point where anyone that comes along behind us to control them will get their asses handed to them.
We don't want to control that area ourselves - we just don't want anyone else controlling it either. 
(hint: It has a proven track record of (mostly) working, regardless of Pakistani ISI attempts to sabotage the program. Soviet/Afghan campaign ring a bell?)

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-09-01 00:17:56)

2010-09-01 00:26:29
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter wrote:

barbarians, whom insurgents recruit their members from. there will always be enough of those in a place like afghanistan. no matter how many bureaucrats you bribe, no matter how many weapons you give to "legitimate government" and their "law enforcing organisations", there will always be insurgency. and as soon as you leave them on their own somebody else will buy those bureaucrats and it will return to the way it was.
By "barbarians", I'm guessing you mean the Pashtun tribals.
They are the best hope in that region, really.
The Pashtun, for the most part, are much more consistent than the two-faced city dwellers.

"How do you know they're lying to you? - They're speaking Dari. 
How do you guess they might not be lying to you? - they're speaking Pashto, or some variant. 
How do you know they're probably telling the truth? - the kids are around, he shook your hand, whispered it so noone else would hear, looked you in the eyes, and offered you Chai"

Some of them will fall in with the Taliban.
Most of them, in the long run, want everyone to get the hell out of their hills and leave them alone.
The only group they know will actually get out, is the Westerners.

Our best bet in the region is to find those Pashtun tribals that are not friends of Al Quaeda or Taliban, and arm them to the point where anyone that comes along behind us to control them will get their asses handed to them.
(hint: It has a proven track record of (mostly) working, regardless of Pakistani ISI attempts to sabotage the program. Soviet/Afghan campaign ring a bell?)
look, dude, stop it with the soviets already - it has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing here. the soviets would have completely crushed all the opposition and - if they wanted - made afghanistan yet another soviet republic if they had the enormous economic might like that of usa today to back their military operations. not only they weren't even close to that, they also had you to back up mujandeen. that is why they failed.

as to those barbarian tribes you speak of - they are just as easily manipulated as any other. you won't be able to control them just as you weren't able to control osama and the likes. as soon as you loosen your grip they'll turn back on each other, resulting in another "taliban" arising and taking them under control.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 00:43:54
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981

Shahter wrote:

look, dude, stop it with the soviets already - it has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing here. the soviets would have completely crushed all the opposition and - if they wanted - made afghanistan yet another soviet republic if they had the enormous economic might like that of usa today to back their military operations. not only they weren't even close to that, they also had you to back up mujandeen. that is why they failed.

as to those barbarian tribes you speak of - they are just as easily manipulated as any other. you won't be able to control them just as you weren't able to control osama and the likes. as soon as you loosen your grip they'll turn back on each other, resulting in another "taliban" arising and taking them under control.
I use the Soviets as a relevant example that you would well understand, not just to poke you.

And your new fondness for the word "dude" comes off as an affectation at best, or insulting at worst.

For the last time.
Overwhelming force is not the best option.  Soviets tried it, and it backfired in a major way.  That is the takeaway lesson there.
Letting the Taliban show themselves for the brutal, tyrannical assholes they really are, is a better option.

We cannot convince the Pashtun to like us, they only want us to leave sooner than later.
What we can do, however, is let the Taliban convince the Pashtun that the Pashtun want the Taliban gone more than they want the US gone.
Then we will have the Pashtun tribals working with us, more than they are working with them, dude.

  wrote:

they also had you to back up mujandeen. that is why they failed.
Exactly.  Identify those Pashtun tribals that, through ethnic or religious reasons, will never play well with the Sunni Fundamentalists - and arm those Pashtun to the point where the Taliban, the Wahabbiists, or Al Quaeda would be slaughtered if they tried to take over.  Same trick, different century.  (oh, and this time, we don't go through the Pakistani ISI).
2010-09-01 01:36:15
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

rdx-fx wrote:

I use the Soviets as a relevant example that you would well understand, not just to poke you.
oh, i understand. well enough. and don't fret, you are welcome "poke" me all you like.

rdx-fx wrote:

For the last time.
Overwhelming force is not the best option.
for the least time: overwhelming force is the only way you were ever able to win a war. i'm sure even a brainwashed american like you should be able to put two and two together and see it.

rdx-fx wrote:

Soviets tried it, and it backfired in a major way.
it did not. it went exactly as planned. soviets were unable to pull it off for lack of resources. simple.

rdx-fx wrote:

Letting the Taliban show themselves for the brutal, tyrannical assholes they really are, is a better option.
oh, ffs, to hell with taliban. who the fuck cares about them? "talibans" are dime a dosen in that region, and instigating the insurgency is just a matter of supporting one "taliban" over another. you wanna babysit them forever?

rdx-fx wrote:

We cannot convince the Pashtun to like us, they only want us to leave sooner than later.
What we can do, however, is let the Taliban convince the Pashtun that the Pashtun want the Taliban gone more than they want the US gone.
Then we will have the Pashtun tribals working with us, more than they are working with them, dude.
for how long?

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter  wrote:

they also had you to back up mujandeen. that is why they failed.
Exactly.  Identify those Pashtun tribals that, through ethnic or religious reasons, will never play well with the Sunni Fundamentalists - and arm those Pashtun to the point where the Taliban, the Wahabbiists, or Al Quaeda would be slaughtered if they tried to take over.  Same trick, different century.  (oh, and this time, we don't go through the Pakistani ISI).
/sigh... look. this could work, really, it could, the problem is making that shit last. in the region where for fifty bucks you can buy half the capital city anybody would be able to fuck the whole situation up again - and they will as soon as you leave.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 04:40:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6800|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

For the last time.
Overwhelming force is not the best option.
for the least time: overwhelming force is the only way you were ever able to win a war. i'm sure even a brainwashed american like you should be able to put two and two together and see it.

rdx-fx wrote:

Soviets tried it, and it backfired in a major way.
it did not. it went exactly as planned. soviets were unable to pull it off for lack of resources. simple.
These two statements show you simply do not understand the concepts of insurgency and counterinsurgency. You are approaching this from the mindset of "we had to burn down the village in order to save it".

It doesn't fucking work. One of the paradoxes of counterinsurgency operations (see below) is that "tactical success guarantees nothing".

This is not Westphalian warfare. This is counterinsurgency warfare. Clausewitzian principles of overwhelming force do not apply, and are in fact counterproductive. This has been proven out multiple times in multiple conflicts across multiple cultures and varying types of insurgencies. What does work is taking a counterintuitive approach (from the traditional military mindset) and focusing on providing the host nation and population with what they need to provide themselves with security, rule of law, and those other needs Maslow points to. When people can provide those for themselves with legitimate governance, the insurgency has no inroad with the people, who are the center of gravity of the conflict.

SOURCE

Paradoxes of Counterinsurgency Operations wrote:

Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be

Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is

The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk must be accepted

Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction

Some of the best weapons for counterinsurgents do not shoot

The host nation doing something tolerably is normally better than us doing it well

If a tactic works this week, it might not work next week; if it works in this province, it might not work in the next

Tactical success guarantees nothing

Many important decisions are not made by generals
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-09-01 04:51:20
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

For the last time.
Overwhelming force is not the best option.
for the least time: overwhelming force is the only way you were ever able to win a war. i'm sure even a brainwashed american like you should be able to put two and two together and see it.

rdx-fx wrote:

Soviets tried it, and it backfired in a major way.
it did not. it went exactly as planned. soviets were unable to pull it off for lack of resources. simple.
These two statements show you simply do not understand the concepts of insurgency and counterinsurgency. You are approaching this from the mindset of "we had to burn down the village in order to save it".

It doesn't fucking work.
orly? how then did soviets manage to subdue and control all those asian republics, like uzbekistan, tajikistan and all the other fucking -stan's? those were exactly like afghanistan - shitholes populated by barbarians stuck in the stone age and tearing at each others throats before soviets came and imposed order on them, and they are quickly falling back now that they are left to themselves.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 05:04:02
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6860
yeah, man, and i mean the soviets weren't barbarians or anything, what with forced labour-genocide and mass graves!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-09-01 05:08:22
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

Uzique wrote:

yeah, man, and i mean the soviets weren't barbarians or anything, what with forced labour-genocide and mass graves!
what does it have to do with anything? FEOS said soviet's methods didn't work, i answered, and your point is..?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 05:10:51
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6860
i just took objection to your supercilious tone... that's the worldview of a former totalitarian state, behind tons of atrocities.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-09-01 05:18:25
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

Uzique wrote:

i just took objection to your supercilious tone... that's the worldview of a former totalitarian state, behind tons of atrocities.
i dont' share your "world views". dealing with people stuck in the stone age requires  methods fitting for the stone age.
now, you've point or gtfo.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-09-01 05:18:51)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 05:27:36
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6860
isn't mass famine and forced labour a little... pre-renaissance, though?

isn't half of russia still living in peasant-poverty?

you're not really in any position to be looking down at other people for 'backwardsness'.

the -stans don't subscribe to the 'new' post-empire 'nation' model- so what? they're tribal, and that's entirely their right.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-09-01 05:37:27
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

Uzique wrote:

isn't mass famine and forced labour a little... pre-renaissance, though?
no. when europe was in the same state as russia at the soviet time they'd been doing the same things. plus, they had - surprise! - colonies, where they all been rocking so hard that all the stalins gulags and repressions look like a childs play in comparison.

Uzique wrote:

isn't half of russia still living in peasant-poverty?
no

Uzique wrote:

you're not really in any position to be looking down at other people for 'backwardsness'.
and i don't.

Uzique wrote:

the -stans don't subscribe to the 'new' post-empire 'nation' model- so what? they're tribal, and that's entirely their right.
of course. now, if they stayed within their tribes and consumed all the opium they produce themselves i wouldn't have a problem. soviets, as well as taliban btw, did a pretty good job and controlling those shitholes. enlightened and civilized west - not so well. why's that?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 05:42:44
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6860
subjugation is not 'control' any more than fucking annexing a country and attaching it to your empire is 'control'.

jesus. soviet 'success' is not the first thing that comes to mind when i think of afghanistan and tribal warfare...

also i have noo idea what point you're trying to make about opium, but it's totally irrelevant.

afghanistan wouldn't be a narco-state if nobody in russia, the west and the rest of the world WANTED the opium. simple as that.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-01 05:44:18)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-09-01 05:57:26
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

Uzique wrote:

subjugation is not 'control' any more than fucking annexing a country and attaching it to your empire is 'control'.
when somebody manages to keep those nations quiet and peaceful for as long as soviets did - come back to me, we'll discuss this further.

also i have noo idea what point you're trying to make about opium, but it's totally irrelevant.
i'm just saying that they would have a "right to be tribal" if nobody had to pay for that with their lives and jobs. you might be surprised, but we have the same illegal immigrant problem here with people from -stan's as they have in usa with mexicans - and russia is a place were "half the population still lives in peasant-poverty".

afghanistan wouldn't be a narco-state if nobody in russia, the west and the rest of the world WANTED the opium. simple as that.
been over this countless times. taliban managed to bring opium production almost to a standstill, even though everybody "wanted the opium".


anyway, you'll have to forgive me for not caring for the "rights to be tribal" of these people. when neandertals are given freedon to do whatever they desire they always start eating each other - and their neighbours too. and the only people able to prevent them from that happen to be the likes of soviets and taliban. when somebody manages to do it any other way - i may just change my opinion.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 07:10:23
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7156|UK
You think its possible to beat these people with brute force? What experience does Russia even have in these matters, fuck all thats how much. You still haven't dealt with your own terrorism issues.



OrangeHound:  Removed flame.
2010-09-01 07:22:18
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7165|Moscow, Russia

Vilham wrote:

you think its possible to beat these people with brute force.
i don't think it's possible, i know that - it's been demonstrated to be possible by ussr.

Vilham wrote:

What experience does Russia even have in these matters, fuck all thats how much.
chechnia has been subdued for the most part. that's quite an experience, you know, certainly more that usa & co managed to do in afghanistan.

Vilham wrote:

You still haven't dealt with your own terrorism issues.
russia hasn't. ussr on the other hand had it pretty much sorted using the mothods i described here.

p.s. oh, and go look for a moron in a mirror.
p.p.s. i love ya too, eleven bravo.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-01 07:36:54
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6860
shahter i cannot believe you are recommending and positively condoning soviet foreign policy as a 'desirable' method.

the USSR was a shithole and the iron curtain was not a marvellous policy, im sorry.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-09-01 07:53:19
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7156|UK
O you mean the USSR, that empire that completely failed and collapsed entirely because they entirely failed to get the support of the countries they were occupying. Yeah great job they did.

Lol, Chechnya is far from subdued and its only taken 20 years for you to get where you are today. If I remember there was a separatist/terrorist attack there not long ago.

Uzique has pretty much summed up why your last point is so retarded.
2010-09-01 07:55:45
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5648|foggy bottom
in the USSR they dont even mention the US when ww2 history was being taught.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-09-01 08:03:34
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6860

Vilham wrote:

O you mean the USSR, that empire that completely failed and collapsed entirely because they entirely failed to get the support of the countries they were occupying. Yeah great job they did.

Lol, Chechnya is far from subdued and its only taken 20 years for you to get where you are today. If I remember there was a separatist/terrorist attack there not long ago.

Uzique has pretty much summed up why your last point is so retarded.
chechnyans, georgians and all the other former-USSR states werent too hard to control by soviet-authorities...

they were just natural barbarians
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-09-01 12:42:08
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981
In Soviet Russia, Pashtun Insurgent defeats YOU
2010-09-01 13:09:32
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6850

eleven bravo wrote:

in the USSR they dont even mention the US when ww2 history was being taught.
Sounds like US history then, only Soviet battle even mentioned in our book was Stalingrad.
2010-09-01 13:18:40
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981

eleven bravo wrote:

in the USSR they dont even mention the US when ww2 history was being taught.

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

Sounds like US history then, only Soviet battle even mentioned in our book was Stalingrad.
If you're interested,

Absolute War : Soviet Russia in the Second World War - Chris Bellamy

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard