US surge troops withdrawn & Taliban gaining momentum

[Krano]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19671626

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-jets-attack-taliban-343/

[Radikal]

Not saying I support the Taliban, but at least the U.S. knows that they mean business, now more than ever. Even though they're withdrawing from the country, the U.S. will probably leave some presence in Afghanistan, unless a Taliban government returns.

I guess it's a lose-lose situation :(

[Comrade Samuel]

Not saying I support the Taliban, but at least the U.S. knows that they mean business, now more than ever. Even though they're withdrawing from the country, the U.S. will probably leave some presence in Afghanistan, unless a Taliban government returns.

I guess it's a lose-lose situation :(


That's pretty much all U.S intervention in the middle east in a nutshell.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, I had not heard about the jet story. That's crazy, WELL-PLAYED TALIBAN!

(just kidding, those guys are assholes.)

[Le Socialiste]

The U.S. is intent on having a more or less permanent presence in Afghanistan - this is pretty clear. It won't leave the country completely.

[#FF0000]

The U.S. is intent on having a more or less permanent presence in Afghanistan - this is pretty clear. It won't leave the country completely.

I dunno. I imagine they'll eventually be forced to. I don't think you can play the Long Game against an insurgency like that and win.

[jookyle]

I dunno. I imagine they'll eventually be forced to. I don't think you can play the Long Game against an insurgency like that and win.

The United States has military bases all over the world, somewhere between 850 and 1100. Most of these bases have been where they are for decades with some going back to the early days after WWII. Permanent American military presence has been met with opposition in various forms in many of these countries yet the bases remain and, continue to function under extraterritoriality. If these bases have remained I don't see why it's unreasonable to think that the same won't happen in Afganistan.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's true about the USA's bases, but then again US servicemen aren't being gunned down every day in Germany, for example.

Politicians who want to have a big presence continuing in Afghanistan are going to have to explain to people why planting the US military in a country that has cultivated some of the most successful resistance movements (not to mention a nation with a culture that most Americans find unfathomable) in history is a good idea.

[Le Socialiste]

The U.S. has bases throughout the Middle East. While Afghanistan is a particularly sore subject for most Americans, it wouldn't be completely out of the question to have a sustainable presence in the country - despite the Taliban. You can see similar occurrences in Iraq and neighboring Kuwait, where "drawdowns" have left sizable military footprints behind them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, looking at the map of US military bases worldwide, it does not appear that the USA has bases in any country that is either 1) a "failed state" (no base in Somalia, for example), or 2) perceived as hostile to the USA, ie no base in Venezuela, Iran, or even Pakistan. (Except, perhaps, for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

I actually don't really see a way that the USA could stay in Afghanistan without being perceived both at home and abroad as an overt force of occupation. I see no way that the USA could have military bases in Afghanistan the same way they can in, say, Germany or Japan. If I were the USA I'd get the hell out of there and put up some more bases in the neighboring 'stans, from which I could run military missions into Afghanistan whenever the need arised.

[#FF0000]

Yeah Afghanistan is a different beast, especially because of the whole "failed state" thing I think. Everywhere else the US has a base is in a country with a well-established and friendly government. Afghanistan's government might be "friendly" but it certainly isn't especially strong and then there's the added bonus of it's police and security forces gatting up GIs when the mood strikes.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think it was the Taliban who said: "You have the watches, but we have the time."

The Taliban can sustain their guerrilla war for as long as they have to. After 11 years of fighting, the US/NATO forces really haven't done much. In fact, they have put themselves into a pretty shitty position. The chances of them coming out on top of this war are miniscule.

"No nation has ever benefited from prolonged war."
-Sun Tzu

[#FF0000]

I think it was the Taliban who said: "You have the watches, but we have the time."

Guerillas and insurgents say the most baller things sometimes.


The Taliban can sustain their guerrilla war for as long as they have to. After 11 years of fighting, the US/NATO forces really haven't done much. In fact, they have put themselves into a pretty shitty position. The chances of them coming out on top of this war are miniscule.
Does the US even have clearly defined objectives in Afghanistan anymore?

[GPDP]

Does the US even have clearly defined objectives in Afghanistan anymore?

I imagine at this point it's more about saving face and a last ditch effort at maintaining American hegemony in the region. I'm sure the top military brass and their intelligence departments aren't stupid. They see the writing on the wall. But much like with a crisis in capitalism in general, what choice do they have? They can't just go "well, fuck it, we gave it our best shot, let's pack up and go everybody." There's a certain element of hubris and stubbornness that simply will not allow such a response, as well as the fact that the needs of a system often supersede the rational judgments of those who head it.

[Psy]

I imagine at this point it's more about saving face and a last ditch effort at maintaining American hegemony in the region. I'm sure the top military brass and their intelligence departments aren't stupid. They see the writing on the wall. But much like with a crisis in capitalism in general, what choice do they have? They can't just go "well, fuck it, we gave it our best shot, let's pack up and go everybody." There's a certain element of hubris and stubbornness that simply will not allow such a response, as well as the fact that the needs of a system often supersede the rational judgments of those who head it.
The problem is we are seeing the same military incompetence in the US military that existed during the Vietnam war, where those at the top are more worried about their carrier then pointing out problems with the military bureaucracy. You look at how the US military bureaucracy thinks in Afghanistan it is the same logic that was proven wrong in Vietnam where they think they can pacify through attrition.

[GPDP]

The problem is we are seeing the same military incompetence in the US military that existed during the Vietnam war, where those at the top are more worried about their carrier then pointing out problems with the military bureaucracy. You look at how the US military bureaucracy thinks in Afghanistan it is the same logic that was proven wrong in Vietnam where they think they can pacify through attrition.

At this point they're basically just recycling old strategies over and over. Basically, they have like three strategies total, but they just give them different names each time and call them new. When one doesn't work, they move on to the next, adjust a bit here and there, call it a day, then move on to the next when it inevitably doesn't work.

But just like I said, what choice do they really have? The system demands certain results, and anything else won't cut it. Imperialism wants to have its cake and eat it as well. Of course we know they can't get as far as to eat it, and I'm sure they know it as well, but they are slaves to an irrational machine (though obviously it doesn't excuse them).

[#FF0000]

You look at how the US military bureaucracy thinks in Afghanistan it is the same logic that was proven wrong in Vietnam where they think they can pacify through attrition.

It wasn't just proven wrong in Vietnam, even. There's a long history of this kind of thing. There have been no instances, to my memory, where an insurgency was defeated without the occupying force resorting to flat out genocide.

[Psy]

At this point they're basically just recycling old strategies over and over. Basically, they have like three strategies total, but they just give them different names each time and call them new. When one doesn't work, they move on to the next, adjust a bit here and there, call it a day, then move on to the next when it inevitably doesn't work.

But just like I said, what choice do they really have? The system demands certain results, and anything else won't cut it. Imperialism wants to have its cake and eat it as well. Of course we know they can't get as far as to eat it, and I'm sure they know it as well, but they are slaves to an irrational machine (though obviously it doesn't excuse them).
Well historically insurgencies only really die out after compromises are made to buy out a portion of those militant against ruling state. For example after each uprising in the Warsaw Pact you didn't have the tanks roll in but afterwords the social wage was increased a bit to pacify the workers.

The US did the opposite in Iraq and Afghanistan, they made workers worse off thus giving them more reason to keep fighting.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Afghanistan is a lost proposition for the US ruling class and they know it. Its interesting that Afghanistan has not even ben discussed in the year long US presidential election. A problem is that the US doesn't have any meaningful political rationale for the war/occupation. "Why are we there?" "Ummm..;let me get back to you on this..."

The Afghanistan War is a neocon project which Obama inherited. It doesn't even make sense from the perspective of the US ruling class' strategy of a Sunni bloc arrayed against Shia Iran/Syria. etc.

2014 seems to have been set as an arbitrary benchmark to provide political cover for a US withdrawal (with wiggle room of course).The Democrats are traditionally terrified of being blamed for losing a war. Recent evidence indicates that this was one the major reasons for Lyndon Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War, even though he knew it wouldn't succeed. With Afghanistan a benchmark would provide cover for handing over power to the Taliban and Uzbek forces and would serve to preserve US credibility in the Great Game in the struggle for hegemony over Central Asia.

No matter how it goes, US imperialism lost this round, after much devastation.

[Psy]

It wasn't just proven wrong in Vietnam, even. There's a long history of this kind of thing. There have been no instances, to my memory, where an insurgency was defeated without the occupying force resorting to flat out genocide.
Warsaw Pact counter-insurgency within the Warsaw Pact where they threw much more manpower and armour to smother insurgents along with increasing the social wage to pacify the militancy of workers.

[bcbm]

its been obvious for awhile that the taliban will win in afghanistan. nato could have maybe taken them out early in the game but they didnt understand the situation which allowed them to regroup and expand in pakistan and now they basically have a base they cannot be evicted from. i think they control fairly large portions of afghanistan now as well? its a waste for nato to maintain troops there but they probably will for another decade unless the taliban really puts on the heat.