This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore JANMB. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
Sure, because he knows that Obama shares a similar faith, that the leftists Dems are currently contemplating not sending additional troops to Afghanistan and may even push to pull out altogether seeing as how they already have forgotten our pledge to "Never Forget" right after the 911 attacks.
If case you are at all interested in a different prospective even though you are gun-ho for war-----
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the senior British commander in Afghanistan, ended his six-month tour in command of 16 Air Assault Brigade. His force saw a great deal of combat and lost 32 killed, but it didn't lose any battles. Regular troops rarely lose battles against guerrillas. But there were no lasting successes either -- which is also typical of wars where foreign troops are fighting local guerrillas.
Carleton-Smith did not say that the foreign forces in Afghanistan will lose the war . He said that they could not deliver a "decisive military victory." The best they might do, over a period of years, would be to reduce the Taliban insurgency "to a manageable level ... that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army."
This will not be news to any professional soldier who knows the conditions in Afghanistan. The question is whether it comes as a surprise to American and British politicians who still promise "victory" in the Afghan war. Because if victory is not possible, then in the end the Afghan government will have to talk to the Taliban and negotiate a peace settlement.
"If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement," Carleton-Smith continued, " then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this. That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."
The truth is that the foreign forces are backing one side in an Afghan civil war. If the war cannot end in a decisive victory for one side or the other, then it must end in a negotiated peace that is acceptable to both sides.
The reason neither side can win is that they are too evenly balanced, and each can hold its own territory indefinitely. The United States allied itself with the main northern ethnic groups, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara, who together account for about 60 per cent of the population, in order to drive the Taliban from power in 2001. But the Taliban were and still are the major political vehicle for the Pashtuns, who are about 40 per cent of the population.
The Pashtuns were traditionally the dominant ethnic group in Afghanistan, but in 2001 they were effectively driven from power by the other ethnic groups and their western allies. That is why they are in revolt: the area where western troops are fighting "the Taliban" are all the areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan where Pashtuns are in the majority, and nowhere else. In practice, the foreigners are fighting Pashtun nationalism. That is why they cannot win.
On the other hand, and for the same reason, the Taliban cannot win a decisive victory either. They never established control over northern Afghanistan even when they ruled in Kabul in 1996-2001, mainly because the other ethnic minorities saw them as an exclusively Pashtun group