How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

[Peter Dow]

Return of the Taliban - gunmen take part in joint patrols with Afghanistan forces ahead of 2015 withdrawal
Daily Mirror, Dec 21, 2013. By Chris Hughes

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission accomplished” in Afghanistan

Not over yet: Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers and Taliban jointly patrol areas in the Sangin district of southern Helmand province

Swaggering Taliban gunmen have been taking part in joint patrols with Afghan government forces in Helmand’s deadliest town.

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission accomplished” in Afghanistan.

And it raised fears the Taliban will take over the country again as international troops prepare to withdraw by 2015.

Last night an Afghan Taliban source in Pakistan confirmed to the Daily Mirror: “Already it is true that our mujahideen have retaken some security posts in Afghanistan and this will continue to happen.”

Agreements between the Afghan National Army and the Taliban are a huge betrayal of brave British soldiers who trained local security forces to secure Afghanistan by themselves.

British troops handed over the policing of Sangin – once dubbed “bomb alley” – to US forces in 2010 after fighting daily battles from 2006 to drive the insurgents out of the town notorious for its opium trade. It was handed over to Afghan security control earlier this year.

A senior military source told the Daily Mirror last night: “Such a public display of co-operation between the Taliban and the ANA is a disgace to the memory of brave British troops who have fought to vanquish the Taliban from communities they treated with brutalism for so many years. There is very little doubt that the Taliban are already making a comeback in various locations throughout Afghanistan, and it is a huge worrry.”

Two members of the town’s community council told local media they had seen Afghan National Army soldiers and Taliban carrying out joint patrols. Taliban men toting weapons and radios were seen parading through a Sangin market place. And tribal elder Ali Shah Khan said: “I saw an ANA car following a Taliban vehicle.”

Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Colonel Richard Kemp said: “If these reports are true, this is a foretaste of what will happen when Nato forces fully withdraw. The Taliban will seize control of huge swathes of the countryside and many towns such as Sangin.

“Government forces and the Taliban will come to accommodations based on money, power or political convenience.”

But he insisted the 446 British troops killed in Afghanistan have not died in vain. He said: “They killed many extremists who would have threatened our country.”

Colonel Kemp said Afghan forces will still need help after the withdrawal of troops, adding: “I would expect US Special Forces and air power to continue to hit terrorist networks.”

Fears of a resurgence emerged in October when senior Taliban commander Qari Nasrullah told the Daily Mirror his #insurgents will make a comeback. Most British troops in Afghanistan have withdrawn to Camp Bastion in Helmand.

With our enemy the Taliban now patrolling with the Afghan National Army which the NATO countries have funded with billions of pounds (mostly US dollars actually), anyone who is not in denial can plainly see the fatal flaw of funding an Afghan army over which we have no political control.

Also, we've been funding the Taliban's masters - Pakistan with more billions in aid and Saudi Arabia with even more billions in oil purchases. So the Taliban have been well funded, if indirectly, by us too.

So the Taliban have not been short of money to spend on training up new recruits to replace their fighters we've killed on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

So we've made the war in Afghanistan much more difficult to win because of the incompetent management of the war by our governments which we've seen over the years. The mission can now be seen to be failing and it will take thorough remedial measures to bring the mission back on course.

Part of the solution would to be re-organise the Afghan forces as I have already described to counter green-on-blue attacks by Afghans on our own soldiers.

We should establish a new auxiliary NATO force of Afghans recruited from the Afghan National Army but which would be commanded by our NATO generals and be under our political control.

We should stop funding the ANA.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What people seem to have forgotten is if the Russians couldn't do it, fighting dirty and using chemical weapons, what makes you think 'clean cut' Americans have a shot? Haven't we avenged ourselves enough at this point? Never gonna eliminate every last terrorist. They're like germs and even if you wipe out 99.99% of them, the ones left will multiply and come back. While it might make good business sense to pursue hopeless wars since it's big money, it's gonna piss people off when they finally realize it was never undertaken with a hope of victory. So everyone who's died so far has died for nothing.

 

[Peter Dow]

What people seem to have forgotten is if the Russians couldn't do it, fighting dirty and using chemical weapons,

Well let's remember who Russia, although then as part of the Soviet Union, dared not fight to win - the state sponsors of the insurgents they faced in Afghanistan - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United States of America and most likely other allies of those countries too. In fact I think even China was on the side of the anti-Soviet Afghan insurgents!

So the Soviets would have had one hell-of-a world war 3 on their hands if they attacked all the state sponsors of their enemies in Afghanistan.

So the Russians / Soviets confined themselves to a local war, never dared to spread the fighting to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, to the USA and into a super-power world war 3.

what makes you think 'clean cut' Americans have a shot?

So that would be the 'clean cut' Americans who dropped 2 nuclear weapons on Japan to end world war 2? As opposed to the 'fighting dirty' Soviets who never used nuclear weapons in anger?

OK, well it's a fair question.

The difference this time is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are only sponsored by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and maybe the United Arab Emirates and Iran and to a degree by other state elements in other Muslim states such as Egypt.

On the opposition to the Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their sponsors, if we play our cards right and don't fall out with the Russians too much over other matters such as Syria, we have NATO, the West, the Russians and the former Soviet countries to the north of Afghanistan. China I don't think will want to take sides against us either.

This time, the balance of power is overwhelmingly in the favour of those wishing to crush the insurgents who are fighting to expel the occupying power.

But, you know, the Americans are a peace-loving people and would prefer to agree peace no doubt but there's not really a proper peace available. The idea put forward by the likes of US Secretary of State John Kerry - of making peace with the Taliban but not with Al Qaeda is absurd.

Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban have the same masters - the Saudi - Pakistani military - jihadi imperialists, so one can't have peace with one but not the other. Kerry's idea is fatally flawed - the only strategy which will work long term is to prosecute the war on terror on both - the Taliban and Al Qaeda and to do that in a militarily effective way that means waging war against their state sponsors too - something the Soviets never dared do.

Haven't we avenged ourselves enough at this point?

No, we've not even punished Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism - on the contrary we have given Pakistan billions of dollars in military and civilian aid. The lesson Pakistan has learned is "sponsoring terrorism makes us rich beyond our wildest dreams!".

Saudi Arabia's lesson so far is that they can sponsor terrorists to attack the USA, like on 9/11, most of them were Saudis - and America is too weak to do anything about it to them.

Never gonna eliminate every last terrorist. They're like germs and even if you wipe out 99.99% of them, the ones left will multiply and come back. While it might make good business sense to pursue hopeless wars since it's big money, it's gonna piss people off when they finally realize it was never undertaken with a hope of victory. So everyone who's died so far has died for nothing.

The Taliban keep coming back because we haven't stopped Pakistan and Saudi Arabia from sponsoring them, recruiting and supplying new volunteer fighters to replace the ones we've killed on the battlefield.

We can eliminate every last state sponsor of terrorism. It make take a while but it could be done. We need to start with those state sponsors who are killing our soldiers this week in Afghanistan.

State sponsored terrorists are like a country's army but in plain clothes. To defeat the army you have to defeat the country which is sending that army to war against us.

We have no choice but to fight - the alternative is surrender to the jihadists so start bowing down to Mecca now if that's what you have in mind. Oh yes and remember to keep your women at home out of sight. And it goes without saying of course that a global victory for the jihadists will mean the elimination of the state of Israel too.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Wars you cannot win should not be pursued. Paraphrase of Sun Tzu. Haphazzard way we're doing them now makes me wonder what they're teaching at our military academies these days. Or, more likely, if we're repeating historical mistakes as during Vietnam where Washington dictated strategy too much. In effect, tying the hands of field commanders.

If gonna wage war, do it to win, not to stalemate or lose. Is no technological reason for America to suck this much at war. So the only logical conclusion is we're not fighting to win but to benefit business who supply everything used in a war. Longer the war goes on, more money they make from it. It's like the medical industry adage, "A patient cured, is a customer lost." In the case of war, "A war won, is a business opportunity lost."

If not going to wage war to win, don't wage the war. And if you do pursue a war, have realistic goals. Getting rid of the bad guys once and forever so McDonald's spring up isn't a realistic goal. And if we're not going to set up permanent shop in Afganistan and occupy the country, we should withdraw. Doing things half-assed is only resulting in casualties for us, and the military suicide rate is proof they're beginning to notice.

 

[Peter Dow]

Wars you cannot win should not be pursued. Paraphrase of Sun Tzu. Haphazzard way we're doing them now makes me wonder what they're teaching at our military academies these days. Or, more likely, if we're repeating historical mistakes as during Vietnam where Washington dictated strategy too much. In effect, tying the hands of field commanders.

If gonna wage war, do it to win, not to stalemate or lose. Is no technological reason for America to suck this much at war.

This isn't a war for our field commanders to win on their own, if you are thinking of the NATO-ISAF army generals deployed to Afghanistan. They aren't in a position to order up acts of war such as strategic bombing of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, seize control of satellites, impose sanctions, issue international arrest warrants for Pakistani Taliban political leaders and media spokesman, generals or former generals or order up raids to get them like the raid to get Bin Laden.

These are all strategic targets with whom the various NATO countries are currently affording political status and have political and financial deals with. There's a lot of trading with the enemy going on still. So there needs to be a political lead before the military can follow that up and currently the politicians aren't leading in that direction.

Well no doubt field commanders can have an input into suggesting some of those but they imply a different overall strategy which needs to be set at a much higher command level than field commander.

For example, we know that President Obama watched the raid to get Bin Laden live from the White House. He ordered that getting Bin Laden be made a priority and from the highest command position - commander in chief - then all the military and intelligence resources are available and whilst there may well have been a role in that operation for field commanders in Afghanistan, such a raid wasn't something that they could have got off the ground on their own.

Now, even though field commanders can't win this war at their level, there are many military basics that they could have followed had they the military education which could have reduced the casualties our forces have taken, for example, to road-side bombs.

So field generals can't win the war at their level given the poor political and defence leadership but maybe they could not lose it so badly, or achieve a better stalemate perhaps?

So the only logical conclusion is we're not fighting to win but to benefit business who supply everything used in a war. Longer the war goes on, more money they make from it. It's like the medical industry adage, "A patient cured, is a customer lost." In the case of war, "A war won, is a business opportunity lost."

Well I've heard that said but I don't really believe it. For every business opportunity got by money spent on war there is another business opportunity lost in some other sector of the economy where the money can't be spent because it has been spent on the war.

I think it is more the scope of the war which is required to put down the state sponsors of terrorism is more than our politicians can contemplate comfortably. They just don't want to risk war with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, like the Soviets didn't want to risk war on those countries.

So our politicians are applying their blind eyes to the state sponsors of terrorism and hoping somehow to finish up this local war in Afghanistan and resume business as usual with those states.

If not going to wage war to win, don't wage the war. And if you do pursue a war, have realistic goals. Getting rid of the bad guys once and forever so McDonald's spring up isn't a realistic goal. And if we're not going to set up permanent shop in Afganistan and occupy the country, we should withdraw. Doing things half-assed is only resulting in casualties for us, and the military suicide rate is proof they're beginning to notice.

Regime change is realistic. It just takes the political will and a good strategy to carry it through to an efficient win.

It's not about building McDonalds in Afghanistan. My strategy involves realistic goals which have a profound effect on the balance of power in our favour in this war on terror.

For example, one such realistic goal is that we should insist that the satellites we have put in space are not used against us but are used exclusively in our interests. Likewise, anybody else's satellite that is broadcasting terror propaganda could be jammed or destroyed quite easily but not by field commanders in Afghanistan.

This is about expecting much more from our most senior military commanders and Defence Secretaries and most senior civilian government officials back in the Pentagon, Washington, NATO HQ in Belgium and the MOD in London and not expecting the win to come from our field commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, though I can suggest improvements there as well.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Send in a troop of naked gay men!

 

[Politico]

You can't beat the Taliban.

 

[Peter Dow]

You can't beat the Taliban.

You, Politico, can't beat the Taliban.

He, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel, can't beat the Taliban.

She, Queen Elizabeth, can't beat the Taliban.

I, Peter Dow, can beat the Taliban if put in charge of running the global war on terror, accepting of course that I would have to answer to the NATO countries political leaders, though with my limited diplomatic skills I'd be a lot more tolerable for my political masters if I was taking my orders and reporting back to them through an immediate boss whom I really respected such as Condoleezza Rice.

So, perhaps a suitable appointment for me to do so would be say Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR), with Condi as my boss as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

What would also work well would be Condi as NATO Secretary General, the civilian political leader of NATO through whom the NATO supreme commanders report to the NATO council of government leaders, though the NATO Secretary General is by tradition and convention a European and SACEUR an American which is why I suggested Condi for SACEUR.

Condi and I can beat the Taliban.

 

[Politico]

In order to get your head out of your ass you have too pull not push.

 

[Peter Dow]

For Immediate Release January 17, 2014
Executive Order -- Establishment of Afghanistan and Pakistan Strategic Partnership Office and Amendment to Executive Order 12163

EXECUTIVE ORDER

-------

ESTABLISHMENT OF AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP OFFICE AND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12163

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 202 of the Revised Statutes (22 U.S.C. 2656) and section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of State, in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, a temporary organization to be known as the Afghanistan and Pakistan Strategic Partnership Office (APSPO).

Sec. 2. Purpose of the Temporary Organization. The purposes of the APSPO shall be to perform the specific project of supporting executive departments and agencies (agencies) in facilitating a strategic partnership between the U.S. Government and the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, promoting further security and stabilization, and transitioning to a normalized diplomatic presence in both countries.

Sec. 3. Functions of the Temporary Organization. In carrying out the purposes set forth in section 2 of this order, the APSPO shall:

(a) support agencies in transitioning to a strategic partnership with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the economic, diplomatic, cultural, technology, and security fields, particularly in the areas of program management, rule of law, and program oversight;

(b) coordinate the final drawdown of the Department of State's civilian field operations and staff in Afghanistan;

(c) coordinate and oversee the administration of certain State Department assistance funds; and

(d) perform such other functions related to the specific project set forth in section 2 of this order as the Secretary of State (Secretary) may assign.

Sec. 4. Personnel and Administration. The APSPO shall be headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary. The APSPO shall be based in Washington, D.C., Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
...

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 17, 2014.

BARACK OBAMA

Cheers Mr President!

I've prepared some war on terror strategy notes for the new Director of the APSPO, as follows.

AfPak Mission briefing notes for the Director of the APSPO

The primary challenge to security in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The struggle is primarily with the Pakistani military intelligence service, the ISI, waging a war to oust our forces, using proxy irregular forces of the Pakistani military, call them "insurgents" or "Taliban", but they serve the imperialist generals and former generals of Pakistan who still dictate the military policy of Pakistan, behind the scenes of the window-dressing of an elected but powerless government.

Watch the BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos which show how the very same Pakistani military, the US gave $10 billion to since 2001, is actually SUPPORTING, RECRUITING, TRAINING, SUPPLYING AND DIRECTING THE TALIBAN.

The BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos

Part 1 - 1 hour​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube[/ame]

Part 2 - 1 hour​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE]Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube[/ame]

The next video is not part of the "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos but it does mention the role of Saudi Arabia in funding terrorism in Pakistan so it's worth including for that reason.

Bonus video - Saudi Arabia is to blame too​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dcwrucnAk]America's 'allies' Saudi & Pakistan: 'enemies' more like! - YouTube[/ame]

The secondary challenge to US & NATO security in which Afghanistan features, is in the deeper strategic war being waged against us by Al-Qaeda who lured our forces to Afghanistan where they believed they could repeat their success in defeating another super-power some years ago, the Soviet Union, but this time defeating us, the Western super-power led by the US.

Whilst this strategic war is not in the minds of the typical Taliban fighter or their ISI controllers (their simple war aim is merely to oust us from Afghanistan ASAP) the Al-Qaeda plan would be to inflict heavy casualties and dissolve our NATO cohesion first before we are driven out of Afghanistan, a super-power no more.

If Pakistan's secret is revealed now that the Taliban are indeed run by the ISI for the Pakistani military then it follows that the concept of containing or including the Taliban could only be as valid (or as invalid) as the equivalent concept of containing or including the Pakistani military, the masters of the Taliban.

So the investment of US lives and treasure in Afghanistan whilst, yes, increasing the absolute performance of the Afghan military has not done so well in relative terms against the Taliban because the US has, rather foolishly in retrospect, been paying Pakistan billions of dollars in military aid, part of which they have invested in the Taliban and part in more nuclear weapons.

Perhaps most dangerously for our security we have allowed Pakistan to assume they can sponsor terrorists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to attack us yet escape state responsibility for doing so and escape our wider application of the Bush Doctrine to regime-change Pakistan.

We need a new strategy which defeats the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) by applying the Bush Doctrine versus those states which sponsor those terrorists - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Applying the Bush Doctrine versus Afghanistan alone makes as little strategic sense as it would have if we'd applied Cold War doctrine to say Cuba alone but not against the Soviet Union and its Eastern European client communists states!

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

We should apply massive pressure to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, up to and including war if necessary. Something fairly dramatic is needed to show the state sponsors of terrorism that their plan for a secret war against us with no chance of any blow-back has utterly failed and they are looking down the barrel of a real war with us.



AfPak Mission Channel AfPak Mission - YouTube
Forum For Freedom Forums
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr Flickr: AfPak Mission's Photostream
Blog AfPak Mission

 

[Peter Dow]

Top general to ask Obama to keep more troops in Afghanistan - latimes.com

Los Angeles Times
Top general to ask Obama to keep more troops in Afghanistan
Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commands all international forces in Afghanistan, wants 10,000 U.S. troops to remain past 2014.

By David S. Cloud
January 24, 2014, 6:28 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. commander in Afghanistan is planning to go to the White House on Monday to argue for keeping about 10,000 troops in the country after this year, a subject that has exposed a fissure between some of President Obama's top advisors and the Pentagon.

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commands all international forces in Afghanistan, is recommending that U.S. troops stay to help train Afghan forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations against Taliban insurgents and Al Qaeda-linked militants. All other U.S. troops will be withdrawn this year.

To make the deployment more attractive to a skeptical White House, Dunford says the 10,000 should pull out by 2017, when Obama leaves office, according to two officials, who confirmed a Wall Street Journal report. The Pentagon previously had favored deploying the troops for a decade.

But Vice President Joe Biden and other key White House aides favor leaving only 1,000 to 2,000 troops, said the officials, who spoke anonymously to discuss internal deliberations. Pentagon officials say a force that size is too small to protect itself while also conducting operations.

Biden argues that the insurgency has been contained after 13 years of war and that Afghan security forces are strong enough to preserve security in urban and other key areas. He also says a stable Afghanistan is no longer critical to halting terrorist attacks against the United States, one official said.

The Dunford plan has won support from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the officials said.

Biden's proposal is backed by Antony Blinken, the deputy national security advisor, and Douglas Lute, a retired Army general who now is U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Obama's national security advisor, Susan Rice, is a "wild card" who has not made clear which option she favors, one official said.

Taking sides on post-2014 troop levels, I'm for the 10,000 US troops + allies option outlined here as the Dunford plan supported by Hagel, Kerry, Brennan, Dempsey as barely enough for a sustainable military presence in Afghanistan against all foes.

I oppose the Biden 1,000 to 2,000 troops plan supported by Blinken & Lute for the reason stated by the Pentagon - it's too few troops for force protection.

2,000 troops is not enough troops to keep even one airbridge military base defended and the troops supplied by air against a sustained attack.

Potentially, it is 2,000 casualties or prisoners of war who would be at the mercy of a hostile army.

If it is only 2,000 troops then you'd better have plenty of helicopters to fly them all out in one night because they may have to leave Afghanistan in a hurry!

I do support Dunford's notion of concentrating the 10,000 in 2 main air bases and Bagram and Kandahar are his expected choices.

2 main air bases is far preferable to spreading them out in the "9 bases" proposal floated in earlier reports. The troops spread out in 9 bases would be too vulnerable.

The "2,000 to 3,000 troops from allied countries near Mazar-i-Sharif in the north, led by a German contingent, and Herat in the west, under Italian command" sounds reasonable and sustainable so long as the level of hostilities is routine.

Ideally, it would be preferable to keep not only Bagram, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat open but Bastion air base too but that would require either a British contingent or more US troops than just the 10,000.

As a British republican and loyal friend and ally of the US, if I was commanding British forces I'd offer a 1/5th proportional contribution to whatever US troops at 10,000 or above - so I'd offer 2,000 British troops as 1/5th of 10,000 US troops.

It is my understanding that shamefully UK Prime Minister David Cameron is intent on withdrawing all British forces at the end of 2014.

Once again this is a cautionary example to our American friends that royalists do not have the staying power and resolve of republicans and so the UK royals should not be as popular in the US as they seem to be.

The Queen and her governments are not as dependable a friend to the US as many Americans seem to think they are. The UK royalists are nowhere nearly as loyal to the US as British republicans like myself are.

Where I differ from Hagel and Kerry is that I don't think a signed BSA is an absolute requirement and if sufficient forces were available, an occupation option should be offered to the President, with objectives much the same as Dunford's plan for 10,000 but configured to resist even determined opposition from all foes attempting to expel our occupying forces.

I think it is important not to surrender our war on terror objectives to any Afghan President. If we tuck tail and run from Karzai or his successor then I don't see that as too different from running from the Taliban and their Pakistani ISI masters and we certainly don't want to be seen to be doing that!

Showing weakness in retreating from the enemy will only invite more aggression against us, more terrorism, more blackmail and extortion from Pakistan.

For the plan to occupy bases versus all foes then more investment is needed to secure the airbridges required to keep the troops supplied.

20,000 French troops proved to be insufficient when in 1954 they were guarding one airbridge military base at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam when the French base was overrun by the Viet Minh.
Battle of Dien Bien Phu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The base needs to occupy a big area to defend the landing and takeoff fight paths vs enemy ground-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft gun-fire.

The area occupied by the French at Dien Bien Phu proved to be too small at only 2 x 5 miles.

Occupying a base area of at least 20 x 20 miles would be better, more practical to defend.

Military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow

One does need to defend a large perimeter to keep the enemy guns out of range of the base's runways.

Typically 1000 guards are required to defend one 1 base in routine circumstances to defend the perimeter defences alone.

If the Taliban are surged massively, perhaps supported by regular troops of Pakistan, Iran or even Afghanistan, and the enemy army brings artillery to bear and concentrates a sustained attack on one base, as did the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu then the base would need 10,000 guards to defend the base and win the battle.

Fewer troops are required if engineers build impenetrable wide perimeter defences, meaning vehicle barriers anti-tank minefields, infantry barriers, barbed wire, anti-personnel mine-fields - to a mine field thickness of 2 miles all around the base, and that could be 40 miles or more of a perimeter circumference to build - and the perimeter watched over 24/7 by guards in hardened machine gun positions.

Perimeter defences for a military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow

Gun tower for the perimeter defences of a military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow

 

[Peter Dow]

Afghanistan - NATO occupied bases and national sovereignty

The Afghan nation is not militarily capable of successfully defending the territorial integrity of its internationally recognised claim to sole jurisdiction over all the land of Afghanistan.

In other words, the Afghans can't stop the Taliban, an enemy force sponsored by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and others from invading Afghanistan and waging war against the Afghan nation with the secret aim to establish a vassal state for the Pakistani military empire.

Although Afghans tried to defend their country versus the Taliban before we invaded, they were not successful and the Taliban state of Afghanistan was established.

Even now, before we have fully drawn-down our forces to much below the level they were at before the surge ordered by President Obama, we see the Taliban operating unchallenged in parts of Afghanistan.

No shame on Afghans for failing to exclude an enemy presence in Afghanistan because it is a difficult, perhaps impossible country to secure the borders of - except perhaps in the depth of winter when many mountain border crossings become impassable.

Therefore while I do propose that NATO occupy airbases in Afghanistan - and to do so securely by fortifying versus the threat of siege so that the airbases can be supplied entirely by air - for the purposes of fighting enemy terrorists and their state sponsors in the region, the net effect of such a limited military occupation would be significantly to defend and to enhance the exercise of Afghan national sovereignty and sole jurisdiction over significant parts of Afghanistan that would be in severe jeopardy of being lost entirely to the Taliban should we withdraw all our forces or deploy only a trivial force level in an insecure way as mere potential hostages for the Taliban.

In other words, the writ of the national government of Afghanistan will run over more of Afghanistan with us there as occupiers of a limited number of bases, perhaps 4, than us not there at all.

Lest we forget, we are in a state of war against state sponsored terrorism and in times of war then legal technicalities of sole jurisdiction of national government sometimes have to be infringed upon.

We have our own national sovereignty of the NATO and allied nations to put first (which is threatened by terrorists sponsored by states in the region) before questions of Afghan national sovereignty though no democrat such as myself would ever be insensitive to such important matters.

I propose that we sign BSAs and SOFAs with any and all representatives of the people of Afghanistan who wish us to maintain our military presence in parts of Afghanistan. I would seek above all the signature of candidates for the Afghan presidency.

One such signature would be sufficient to justify our continuing presence, more would be better but I do not think it would be necessary to either have BSAs or SOFAs signed with either the elected president of Afghanistan or by the speaker of the parliament of Afghanistan.

Sure that would be nice to have the representatives of a majority of Afghan votes signing a BSA & SOFA. That would be worthwhile but not so necessary as to compel us to make foolish compromises with our security - to agree foolishly not to launch counter-terrorism raids from our bases against targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to agree foolishly not to fortify our airbases versus the threat of siege so that our supplies could be blocked and our forces held to ransom and so on.

Greedy rulers like Karzai and those of Pakistani seek a stranglehold on our forces to exert leverage, to blackmail and to extort money and power from us, making us weaker while they grow stronger at our expense. That would end if my approach is adopted by NATO.

So as far as I am concerned there is no "Karzai veto" or "Afghan president veto" or "Afghan parliament veto".

The power of a national veto can be lost in war and it was lost as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan are concerned on 9/11.

Now at least we can be honest about our limited but necessary infringements upon Afghan territory which contrasts with the dishonesty of the secret infringements of the Pakistani military which sponsors the Taliban precisely to remove Afghan national authority over all of Afghanistan.

One somewhat similar example to think of is the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This military base is on the island of Cuba but it does not significantly infringe upon Cuban national sovereignty - which is much more threatened daily by the Castro dictatorship than by the base.

If the Afghans and Pakistanis can cease state sponsoring of terrorism then they have as little to fear from NATO Afghan airbases as do the Cuban people from the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

Likewise as the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay is not a hostage to the Castros then the Castros are not able to get rich with a veto over the US Naval Base operations, are not able to blackmail and to extort ever more for permission to remain.

So it would be with NATO Afghan bases. We would be there without fear or favour; offering friendship and support to all who would be our real friends but resolute in confronting our enemies.

 

[Peter Dow]

Obama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals
Bloomberg Politics
By Gopal Ratnam and David Lerman Feb 4, 2014 7:54 PM GM
Obama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals - Bloomberg

The Obama administration is considering its options to withdraw some or all U.S. forces from Afghanistan as time runs out for a new security agreement, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

“They’re planning for all options,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after a closed-door briefing today with defense officials at the Capitol. “They have to.”

...

‘Drop-Dead Date’

Several senators today said they’ve concluded that Karzai will never sign the agreement and are looking past him toward a successor. Levin said waiting for the next president would give the U.S. and NATO allies enough time to plan for a limited military presence after this year.

“Really, the drop-dead date is the next president,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.

American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'

What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead following the 'Drop-Dead Date'.

Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?

That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.

How could this be?

Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.

Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.

Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.

Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "Drop-Dead Date" policy are heading Americans into.

So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.

Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.

Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.

Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "Drop Dead Date" policy had gone in to operation.

Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "Drop Dead Date" policy.

Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "Drop Dead Date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "Drop Dead Date".

Why?

Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan after a "drop dead date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars and then go home.

The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in American with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.

The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.

I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.

But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.

We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.

We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.

Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.

We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped responsibility for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape responsibility for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.

So don't use the phrase "Drop dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.

Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.

That's the way to win the war on terror.
A 'Drop-Dead date' is the way to lose.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Will always have terrorists. Only way therefore to win such a war is to declare victory and quit fighting it.

Arab terrorists have legit grievances only an ignorant fool would eny. US foreign policy installed the friendly-to-US leaders who thene xploited their people causing them to unite and fight back, including against the backers of those who're oppressing them. That's what much of this is all about. During the Cold War, we installed friendly dictators in our proxy war with the Soviets. Afterwords, they continued to exploit and rip off their people and now their people are fihgting back and overthrowing those dictators (via terrorism, and more recently the Arab Spring uprisings.)

But acting like this isn't our own fault and terrorists just don't like us for no good reason is only a good way to ensure it contunes and never goes away. Only when we quit using other countries like chess pieces will we quit hurting those nations' people who then rise up and come over here to kick our ass.

 

[Peter Dow]

Will always have terrorists. Only way therefore to win such a war is to declare victory and quit fighting it.

There is only one nuclear weapons state which also sponsors the terrorists which attacked the US on 9/11.

There didn't used to be any such nuclear-weapons, terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

There used to be no such states at all. None. Not one. That was the status quo before.

Now there is one such state - Pakistan.

The Bush Doctrine advises regime-change against state sponsors of terrorism and if we applied it to Pakistan then Pakistan would be regime-changed out of its terrorist-sponsoring habits (and perhaps out of its nuclear weapons while we are at it).

Then once more there would be no such nuclear-weapons, terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

So the war on terror aim I propose is a reasonable and realistic aim - to restore the status quo of no such nuclear-weapons terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

My aim is not as you would paint it, trying to rid the world of the age-old problem of terrorism - which agreed would be much too ambitious.

So don't misrepresent my aims if you please.

 

[protectionist]

Will always have terrorists. Only way therefore to win such a war is to declare victory and quit fighting it.

There is only one nuclear weapons state which also sponsors the terrorists which attacked the US on 9/11.

There didn't used to be any such nuclear-weapons, terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

There used to be no such states at all. None. Not one. That was the status quo before.

Now there is one such state - Pakistan.

The Bush Doctrine advises regime-change against state sponsors of terrorism and if we applied it to Pakistan then Pakistan would be regime-changed out of its terrorist-sponsoring habits (and perhaps out of its nuclear weapons while we are at it).

Then once more there would be no such nuclear-weapons, terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

So the war on terror aim I propose is a reasonable and realistic aim - to restore the status quo of no such nuclear-weapons terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

My aim is not as you would paint it, trying to rid the world of the age-old problem of terrorism - which agreed would be much too ambitious.

So don't misrepresent my aims if you please.

I would not say that regime change in Pakistan is enough. Regimes are too changeable, and can change in less than a week.

Currently there are 2 main reasons for US troops to be in Afghanistan (which has nothing to do with "winning")

1. To keep al Qaeda from using the non-nation as a place to operate training camps (bomb-making schools)

2. To be in a close enough proximity to Pakistans 100+ nuclear warheads, such that, in the event the Pakistani govt were to fall, the US troops could move quickly enough into Pakistan to secure those nukes, lest they fall into the hands of al Qaeda, Taliban, or other assorted Islamist lunatics.
Frankly, if I had my way, we would move quickly into Pakistan NOW, and grab those warheads, and remove them, and bring them back to the US, or some other safe place, well away from the centers of power of Islamist loons.
Then, once the nuclear threat is off the table, we could dictate to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (if they haven't already received nukes from Pakistan), Iran, et al, on OUR terms, not theirs.

Note: it's been reported that in order to shield their nuke warheads from Islamist crazies (who have mounted attacks to get them), Pakistan is now keeping the nukes away from a central location, by driving them around the country in ordinary (UPS type) cargo vans, through ordinary streets. This might work if govt communications are secure. If communication intercepted however, it would place the nukes at a very high level of INsecurity, and open to attack.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/pakistan-nukes-delivery-vans/

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/afghan-pullout-seen-as-new-threat-for-us/2162851

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Pakistans_nuclear_weapons_vulnerable_to_theft_report_999.html

 

[Peter Dow]

Will always have terrorists. Only way therefore to win such a war is to declare victory and quit fighting it.

There is only one nuclear weapons state which also sponsors the terrorists which attacked the US on 9/11.

There didn't used to be any such nuclear-weapons, terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

There used to be no such states at all. None. Not one. That was the status quo before.

Now there is one such state - Pakistan.

The Bush Doctrine advises regime-change against state sponsors of terrorism and if we applied it to Pakistan then Pakistan would be regime-changed out of its terrorist-sponsoring habits (and perhaps out of its nuclear weapons while we are at it).

Then once more there would be no such nuclear-weapons, terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

So the war on terror aim I propose is a reasonable and realistic aim - to restore the status quo of no such nuclear-weapons terrorist-sponsoring enemy states.

My aim is not as you would paint it, trying to rid the world of the age-old problem of terrorism - which agreed would be much too ambitious.

So don't misrepresent my aims if you please.

I would not say that regime change in Pakistan is enough.

It could be enough depending on the nature of the change - if it was deep rooted enough, not just a superficial change and in the direction of a much more responsible regime that didn't sponsor terrorism, that knew the price it would pay if it did sponsor terrorism as had been demonstrated by us by the price paid by the previous regime that the new regime replaced at the time of regime-change.

Regimes are too changeable, and can change in less than a week.

Changing regimes quickly in the right way is good. We should encourage rapid change in the right direction. 1 week is good. 1 day is better.

Changing regimes in the wrong direction is bad. We should establish deterrents against changing in the wrong way which come into play as soon as the change happens however quickly or slowly.

Right now, however, with Pakistan we see no attempt at regime change by the US.

On the contrary, we see the US propping up the current terror-sponsoring nuclear-weapons Pakistani regime with aid of several kinds in particular financial - allowing Pakistan US funds with which to sponsor more terrorists and to build more nuclear weapons.

Far from using all necessary means to force through a dramatically improved regime change the US policy has to been "invest", or perhaps that should be "waste" billions of dollars in the current regime and the problem of Pakistani-sponsored terrorism and Pakistani nuclear weapons has grown every year this US self-defeating policy of not regime-changing Pakistan has been maintained.

The one well-intentioned but ultimately disappointing change that the US has insisted upon was that Pakistan had to abandon overt military dictatorship and establish elected governments.

However the existing regime of military dictatorship has refused to let go of real power and only allowed the window dressing of an elected but powerless government.

So there's been little significant regime change only a presentation change by the same old military regime.

It's not been like Iraq when Saddam and his sons were put to death or killed in battle and many top henchmen of the dictator likewise eliminated.

Pakistan has merely had a makeover. If Iraq had been given the soft US touch that Pakistan has had then Saddam Hussein would have "retired" and be calling the shots behind the scenes instead of in the full glare of publicity.

Currently there are 2 main reasons for US troops to be in Afghanistan (which has nothing to do with "winning")

1. To keep al Qaeda from using the non-nation as a place to operate training camps (bomb-making schools)

2. To be in a close enough proximity to Pakistans 100+ nuclear warheads, such that, in the event the Pakistani govt were to fall, the US troops could move quickly enough into Pakistan to secure those nukes, lest they fall into the hands of al Qaeda, Taliban, or other assorted Islamist lunatics.

Well with respect you are not the president who commands US troops and they are in Afghanistan on his orders and that's the reason they are currently there.

I've followed the statements for years of first President Bush and then President Obama as to why troops were sent to Afghanistan so I don't need you to explain.

I've not heard the President say very much about Pakistan. He didn't mention "Pakistan" at all in his recent state of the union speech. So I'd be more worried than you appear to be that the president may be forgetting or overlooking the value of the troops in Afghanistan for confronting a very dangerous Pakistan.

I hear from the president or his spokesman daily that he will pull US troops out of Afghanistan altogether if he doesn't get a BSA signed by the Afghan president.

So whatever we think the troops are there for we need to bear in mind that it is important to advise the president as to their usefulness in Afghanistan and not pretend to each other that they are there because of reasons of our own.

We can provide reasons and advice to the president but the danger is that the president may be seized more with the political pressure from Americans, from his own Democratic Party to withdraw troops unless he has a BSA signed.

Frankly, if I had my way, we would move quickly into Pakistan NOW, and grab those warheads, and remove them, and bring them back to the US, or some other safe place, well away from the centers of power of Islamist loons.
Then, once the nuclear threat is off the table, we could dictate to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (if they haven't already received nukes from Pakistan), Iran, et al, on OUR terms, not theirs.

Note: it's been reported that in order to shield their nuke warheads from Islamist crazies (who have mounted attacks to get them), Pakistan is now keeping the nukes away from a central location, by driving them around the country in ordinary (UPS type) cargo vans, through ordinary streets. This might work if govt communications are secure. If communication intercepted however, it would place the nukes at a very high level of INsecurity, and open to attack.

Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans | Danger Room | Wired.com

Afghan pullout seen as new threat for U.S. | Tampa Bay Times

Pakistan's nuclear weapons vulnerable to theft: report

Which is why an attempt to seize or to destroy the Pakistani nukes using raiding parties would be a disastrous failure. Most of the raiding parties would be lucky to escape Pakistan with their lives never mind having achieved the capture or destruction of any nuclear weapons. I absolutely do not approve of this plan.

I would refer you to all my posts in the the whole of this topic as to what are much better strategies to deal with a Pakistan that cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

 

[protectionist]

I've not heard the President say very much about Pakistan. He didn't mention "Pakistan" at all in his recent state of the union speech. So I'd be more worried than you appear to be that the president may be forgetting or overlooking the value of the troops in Afghanistan for confronting a very dangerous Pakistan.

What keeps Obama awake? - DAWN.COM

George Clooney on Obama and Pakistan - POLITICO.com

 

[Peter Dow]

Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda

WSJ: U.S. to Curb Pakistan Drone Program
U.S. to Curb Pakistan Drone Program - WSJ.com

The CIA has long added new targets to a longer "kill list" on a rolling basis as old targets are hit.

Now, U.S. officials say, the "kill list" is not self-replenishing, a change long sought by Islamabad. "By taking one off, we're not automatically putting one on," a senior U.S. official said. As a result, the number of targets on the list are decreasing as the CIA's drones focus on a more limited number of high-level targets that "will enable us to conclude the program," the official said.

And here are the headlines of the next few years (maybe)

• US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list' - Threat Matrix

• US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.

• US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.

• Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.

• Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.

• Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.

• US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".

• Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.

• US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.

• Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.

• Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.

• Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes he can?

 

[bianco]

Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda


#####

Seems to be.