Moscow Reacts to US Buildup in Afghanistan

[Sunni Man]

Moscow has correctly assessed that the announced Obama troop buildup in Afghanistan has no relevance to the stated aim of combatting the ‘Taliban’, but rather with a new attempt by the Pentagon strategists to encircle both Russia and China on Eurasia in order to retain US global military dominance. It is not waiting for a new policy from Washington. Rather Russia is acting to secure its perimeter in Central Asia through a series of calculated geopolitical moves reminiscent of the famous Great Game of more than a Century ago. The stakes in this geopolitical power game could not be higher—the issue of world war or peace in the coming decade.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen are asking Obama to double US troop presence in Afghanistan. Both Gates and Mullen said that while they're thinking about the war in Afghanistan in terms of a 3-5 year time frame, their immediate goals are ‘unclear.’ That’s highly revealing. It is clear from the deliberate pattern over months, despite vehement protest from Pakistan’s government, of US bombing attacks on villages inside Pakistan, allegedly to hit Taliban targets, that the US intends to widen the conflict to Pakistan as well. What could be the possible aim?

Militarily, adding 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan could never secure peace in that wartorn tribal region. It has been documented that many of the groups whom the US Command labels ‘Taliban’ are in fact armed bands controlled by local warlords, and not ideologically close-knit Taliban cadre in any sense. By labelling them Taliban, Washington hopes to convince its NATO allies such as Germany to send their troops to fight in an unwinnable war. Afghanistan presently has an estimated 40% unemployment and some five million living below the poverty line. It has been ravaged by more than four decades of continuous war.

Adding a mere 30,000 more for a total of 60,000 US troops in Afghanistan where the current killing rate for US soldiers is running fifteen times above that in Iraq, is ludicrous. According to the official US Marine Corps counterinsurgency guidelines, to run a country-wide counterinsurgency strategy with the absolute minimum force levels required by US Army and Marine Corps doctrine, the US would need almost 655,000 troops, or an escalation roughly 600,000 troops higher than the force levels in the proposed Gates strategy. In fact the US strategy as it now appears seems to be a replay of the gradual escalation strategy the US pursued in Vietnam in the early 1960’s.

http://www.globalresearch.ca

 

[Mr. President]

I have an issue with the first half of the first sentence. It kind of turned the story bias right from the start.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You're forgetting a few things SunniMan, or intentionally leaving them out.

This is not the Pentagons' war, it's Barack Obamas' war. He's the Commander in Chief and the military doesn't roll without his permission.

Critics like you have been saying that the middle east can never be returned to democracy but look at what just happened in Iraq: Free Elections. Who won those elections? Moderates.

Also, your source, Global Outreach Canada, is no better than than the Daily Kos. Plenty of Bush, America and "Evil Jew" bashing can be found within.

But hey, what else are we to expect from you huh?

Also, you're supposed to only post a few paragraphs and then add commentary to it. Those are the board rules. Are you too stupid to follow them? Any moron can just copy and paste.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Russians were in Afghanistan for almost 10 years with 1.5 million troops and finally had to give up.

Yet we are going to attempt to conquer the Afghans with 60 thousand soilders.

To a get perspective of how idiotic this strategy is.

Just the Pashtun tribe alone is 40 million people.

Most of the Taliban are Pashtun.

(The total population of Iraq is only 28 million.)

There are also other large tribes that are friendly to the taliban.

There is NO way we are going to win.

We just need to declare "Victory" like we did in Vietnam and get out of Afghanistain.

 

[Mr. President]

The amount of cooperative Afghani civilians is by far greater than the amount of insurgent or anti American forces which is why we don't need millions of soldiers. The country as a whole did not like the russians.

 

[Sunni Man]

The amount of cooperative Afghani civilians is by far greater than the amount of insurgent or anti American forces which is why we don't need millions of soldiers. The country as a whole did not like the russians.

You either are self deluded or watch too much Fox News

The Afghan people don't like us anymore than they liked the Russians.

 

[mightypeon]

As example like the Roman Invasion of ancient Germania indicate, occupation can actually become more difficult if the cultural and technological differences are greater.
This is also true for Afghanistan.

Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.

Just looking at number, I fail to see why a US success in Afghanistan should be more likely than a Soviet one.

 

[Mad Scientist]

As example like the Roman Invasion of ancient Germania indicate, occupation can actually become more difficult if the cultural and technological differences are greater.
This is also true for Afghanistan.
Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.
Just looking at number, I fail to see why a US success in Afghanistan should be more likely than a Soviet one.

You guys said the same thing about Iraq. Look at the elections they just had.

 

[Sunni Man]

As example like the Roman Invasion of ancient Germania indicate, occupation can actually become more difficult if the cultural and technological differences are greater.
This is also true for Afghanistan.
Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.
Just looking at number, I fail to see why a US success in Afghanistan should be more likely than a Soviet one.

You guys said the same thing about Iraq. Look at the elections they just had.

LOL!!!

Polling stations surrounded by armed troops and gun ships flyin over head.

Yea, this forced democracy is an outstanding success!!!

 

[toomuchtime_]

As example like the Roman Invasion of ancient Germania indicate, occupation can actually become more difficult if the cultural and technological differences are greater.
This is also true for Afghanistan.

Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.

Just looking at number, I fail to see why a US success in Afghanistan should be more likely than a Soviet one.

First off, the US aided the Mujahadeen, which included those who eventually became the Taliban as well as those who fought against the Taliban, the Northern Alliance. Second, success in the near term is preventing Afghanistan from being a safe haven for terrorists who wish to attack US interests or US allies, and in that sense, the US is already successful.

Success in the longer term in Afghanistan cannot reasonably be looked at in isolation. The Taliban and al Qaeda only parts of a movement of radical militant Islam that began in the 1970's with the Saudi royal family signing over enormous wealth and authority to the Wahhabi clergy and the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is really a struggle within Islam in which the US, as well as most of the developed world, has allied itself with the more moderate elements in Islam that are trying to free themselves from the tyranny imposed on them by radicals such as the Taliban.

The US's role in this struggle is to provide sufficient security for the more moderate elements within Islam to organize and develop their own ability to fight the radicals and to provide additional assistance to them as needed. This is true whether the current hot spot is in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran. This struggle, hot, warm or cold, within the Islamic world will likely go on for decades, and there is no way the US or much of the rest of the world can assure its own safety without coming to the aid of moderate elements within Islam in their struggle against the tyranny imposed on them by these radical militants.

 

[Sunni Man]

As example like the Roman Invasion of ancient Germania indicate, occupation can actually become more difficult if the cultural and technological differences are greater.
This is also true for Afghanistan.

Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.

Just looking at number, I fail to see why a US success in Afghanistan should be more likely than a Soviet one.

First off, the US aided the Mujahadeen, which included those who eventually became the Taliban as well as those who fought against the Taliban, the Northern Alliance. Second, success in the near term is preventing Afghanistan from being a safe haven for terrorists who wish to attack US interests or US allies, and in that sense, the US is already successful.

Success in the longer term in Afghanistan cannot reasonably be looked at in isolation. The Taliban and al Qaeda only parts of a movement of radical militant Islam that began in the 1970's with the Saudi royal family signing over enormous wealth and authority to the Wahhabi clergy and the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is really a struggle within Islam in which the US, as well as most of the developed world, has allied itself with the more moderate elements in Islam that are trying to free themselves from the tyranny imposed on them by radicals such as the Taliban.

The US's role in this struggle is to provide sufficient security for the more moderate elements within Islam to organize and develop their own ability to fight the radicals and to provide additional assistance to them as needed. This is true whether the current hot spot is in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran. This struggle, hot, warm or cold, within the Islamic world will likely go on for decades, and there is no way the US or much of the rest of the world can assure its own safety without coming to the aid of moderate elements within Islam in their struggle against the tyranny imposed on them by these radical militants.

Good luck with this fools errand!!!

 

[Annie]

As example like the Roman Invasion of ancient Germania indicate, occupation can actually become more difficult if the cultural and technological differences are greater.
This is also true for Afghanistan.

Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.

Just looking at number, I fail to see why a US success in Afghanistan should be more likely than a Soviet one.

First off, the US aided the Mujahadeen, which included those who eventually became the Taliban as well as those who fought against the Taliban, the Northern Alliance. Second, success in the near term is preventing Afghanistan from being a safe haven for terrorists who wish to attack US interests or US allies, and in that sense, the US is already successful.

Success in the longer term in Afghanistan cannot reasonably be looked at in isolation. The Taliban and al Qaeda only parts of a movement of radical militant Islam that began in the 1970's with the Saudi royal family signing over enormous wealth and authority to the Wahhabi clergy and the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is really a struggle within Islam in which the US, as well as most of the developed world, has allied itself with the more moderate elements in Islam that are trying to free themselves from the tyranny imposed on them by radicals such as the Taliban.

The US's role in this struggle is to provide sufficient security for the more moderate elements within Islam to organize and develop their own ability to fight the radicals and to provide additional assistance to them as needed. This is true whether the current hot spot is in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran. This struggle, hot, warm or cold, within the Islamic world will likely go on for decades, and there is no way the US or much of the rest of the world can assure its own safety without coming to the aid of moderate elements within Islam in their struggle against the tyranny imposed on them by these radical militants.

Carter again, that still is proud of his record:

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the United States (by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) - Media Monitors Network

 

[Dr. T. Sanchez]

The amount of cooperative Afghani civilians is by far greater than the amount of insurgent or anti American forces which is why we don't need millions of soldiers. The country as a whole did not like the russians.

You either are self deluded or watch too much Fox News

The Afghan people don't like us anymore than they liked the Russians.

Have you BEEN to Afghanistan? I'd suggest that you rethink your last statement if you have no experience on the ground there.

 

[Sunni Man]

The amount of cooperative Afghani civilians is by far greater than the amount of insurgent or anti American forces which is why we don't need millions of soldiers. The country as a whole did not like the russians.

You either are self deluded or watch too much Fox News

The Afghan people don't like us anymore than they liked the Russians.

Have you BEEN to Afghanistan? I'd suggest that you rethink your last statement if you have no experience on the ground there.

No, I have never been to Aghanistain.

But I do have several personal friends that are from there.

What Fox News says and what my Afghan friends tell me are completely opposite.

I tend to believe my Afghan friends

 

[Munin]

Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.

We don't know that for sure, the SU didn't know either that the US supported the Taliban.

The Taliban could be secretly supported by nations like Iran or maybe even by the Russian Federation. And China isn't completely innocent either, they re selling weapons to almost anyone who wants to buy from them.

 

[Dr. T. Sanchez]

You either are self deluded or watch too much Fox News

The Afghan people don't like us anymore than they liked the Russians.

Have you BEEN to Afghanistan? I'd suggest that you rethink your last statement if you have no experience on the ground there.

No, I have never been to Aghanistain.

But I do have several personal friends that are from there.

What Fox News says and what my Afghan friends tell me are completely opposite.

I tend to believe my Afghan friends

Stop watching Fox News, then. Duh.

 

[mightypeon]

@ Munin, the Soviet Union did know that, precisly where else where the Mudjahedin Stingers were supposed to come from



It is certainly possible that Iran and/or pakistan secretly supports the Taliban, they defintly have intelligence links to them which would be enough to make such an allegation. My point was more that US support to an armed insurrection will likely be more annoying than well, pakistani support to an armed insurrection. Sure, they are closer, but they actually have to worry about beeing exposed (Giving more powerful nations a Casus Belli on you is not a good idea, unless you are also very powerfull) . Thats was not really the case for the US.


From what I got from German soldiers serving in the north: Well, the Dutch did not like to show their flags since that could make the Afghans confuse them with Russians (the Dutch flag looks a bit like the Russian one), also, if Russia really wanted the US to be out of Afghanistan they could propably achieve that by reducing the supply lines to a trickle and focing the US to airlift everything, which would hugely increase the Bill associated with the War.
I also know that the German always take steps to clarify that they are not Americans when doing any kind of exchange with Afghans.

 

[shock]

Sunniman

shock
I believe your post to be well thought out, well reasoned and clearly expressed.

Your critics responses arewell stated but provide no reason for our being in Afghanistan other than the reason you haved stated and so I consider your conclusion to be the issue before us and for lack of a better one, I join in your conclusion.
SIZE]

 

[Mr. President]

Ohhhhh

he's as stupid as you sunni

 

[editec]

Not that I'm especially pleased with how the USA is dealing with Afghanistan, but Russia has ZERO credibility when it comes to Afghanistan.