19 true things US generals can't say in public about the Afghan war

[Faiez]

Sure.

But a chowkidar's responsibility is defense of the house and safekeeping its contents. That is his job and he should do that to the best of his ability, and not take on any additional roles. Simple, really.



Well, look around you: do you see any other superpower at present. There is your answer; what do you want me to say?

so destroying the whole world for ill purposes is better than a military leadership?


now that u have asked, repeat after me :

"America is Evil. It has ill intentions and wants to destroy everyone and everything for its own benefit and will stop at nothing. It destroys any country that stands in its path."

 

[VCheng]

so destroying the whole world for ill purposes is better than a military leadership?

Why are you so intent on derailing the thread?

This thread is about what US generals are not allowed to say and why.

 

[Faiez]

Why are you so intent on derailing the thread?

This thread is about what US generals are not allowed to say and why.

They are not allowed to say that they serve the devil..

 

[VCheng]

They are not allowed to say that they serve the devil..

That is NOT one of the 19 items in the OP, and not worthy of any further response.

 

[Faiez]

truth hurts...

 

[VCheng]

truth hurts...

Of course!

Like the fact that US generals are under civilian control, and while the chowkidar owns the house on fire in a certain part of the world!

 

[Raftar]

@RazPak

Bhai mera khayal ha ka aap un kay nuksan pay khus hotay huay ya bhool gay ho ka 1 un kay aik banday kay badlay hamaray 100 maray ha.

YARAA BUBLE APP ATHEEK KEH RAHEY HO PAK KO BAHUT NUKSAAN hua hei per RAZPAK BHAI KUCH OR KEH RAHEI HEIN


AGER NATO AFGHAN CHOR KER JATI HEI TO ZIADA NAHI ko kam z kam 80 % region mein aman qaem ho jaye ga.. WAJAH yeh hei k PAR ki economy theek ho gi no more war against TTP no more drones so it means k NO MORE SUCIDE ATTACKS etc......

 

[Respect4Respect01]

its clear that usa is losing this war,

worlds largest military with latest weapons cant beat cavemen.

 

[rockstarIN]

• The situation American faces in Afghanistan is similar to the one it faced in Vietnam during the Nixon presidency: A desire a leave and turn over the war to our local allies, combined with the realization that our allies may still lose, and the loss will be viewed as a U.S. defeat anyway.

The only difference between Vietnam & Afghanistan is, you get out of Viet, everything ended there...

You get out of Afgan, next attack on US soil count down starts...

 

[Vinod2070]

Afghanistan will live with the name as the most stupid nation on earth.

Of course, some can feel good making claims of Islamic bravery by the Afghans when it is the Afghans who are the ones paying the costs.

 

[PakShah]

Is the US winning the war in Afghanistan?


Is the US winning the war in Afghanistan?
As the US prepares to withdraw more troops, we ask whether training Afghan forces is sufficient to ensure security.
Inside Story Last Modified: 15 Dec 2011 09:33

Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, has arrived in Afghanistan on a surprise visit. His mission: to speed up the training of Afghan soldiers as Washington starts drawing down troops.

"It is essential to stability in that region that we not only achieve a peaceful resolution with regards to Afghanistan, but that we are able to develop a more stable relationship with Pakistan as well."

- Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary

As the US prepares to withdraw 33,000 troops from the country by the end of next year, Panetta was keen to point out that the US is winning the war there.

But Afghanistan remains unstable. And while the hope is that American-trained Afghan forces will take over, US military leaders remain concerned that a hasty withdrawal will be disastrous, leaving the country to fall back into the hands of the Taliban.

In June, Barack Obama, the US president, announced a plan to get all US troops out of Afghanistan by 2014. It was the first step toward ending a decade-long war.

At present the US has more than 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Five thousand were pulled out following Obama's speech and a further 5,000 are set to leave before the end of this year. Another 33,000 are scheduled to leave by the end of next year; leaving around 70,000 troops. The plan is to get everyone out by 2014, and to hand power back to an American-trained Afghan fighting force.

So, is the US really winning its war in Afghanistan? Is training Afghan forces enough to secure the war-torn country? And what role will Pakistan play when the US leaves?

Inside Story, with presenter Hazem Sika, discusses with guests: Waliullah Rahmani, the executive director of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies; Simbal Khan, the director of the Afghanistan and Central Asia Institute of Strategic Studies; and Richard Weitz, a Hudson senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis.


"There should be a strategic shift in the US strategy and in international community strategy; it should be towards granting support for another decade, until 2024 ... in order to have strong national Afghan security forces to guarantee the survival of our past 10 years' achievement and to guarantee the survival of a stable Afghanistan which should not be a safe haven for terrorists."

Waliullah Rahmani, the executive director of the Kabul Center for Strategic studies



Source: Al Jazeera

Is the US winning the war in Afghanistan? - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did anyone notice that Al Jazeera did not give the Pakistani aurat(woman) the chance to give the complete Pakistani POV.

Seriously Al Jazeera can so ******* stupid!

If I was her I would have shouted out my opinion!

 

[S-2]

Good article. Ricks states the obvious. Still, most needed saying. Ahmed is to be applauded for his brutal self-assessment of the parlous state of the Afghan people. The cost to America has largely been negligible. To be sure we've lost 1000+ soldiers and more wounded, many of whom are permanently maimed. Still, over the ten years of this conflict, the greater loss is probably treasure and time.

Pakistan's loss has been far closer to Afghanistan than America. It's proved a ludicrous policy choice to promote an afghan taliban without expecting that rationale to motivate the same among sympathetic Pakistani pashtuns. Thus the TTP and all the resultant misery associated with such.

Our objective has largely been achieved if such was the security of America from further 9/11 style attacks by Al Qaeda. How much of that achievement can be traced to our involvement in Afghanistan isn't quantifiable. The metric simply doesn't exist which can measure such. No doubt, though, our presence has had some impact in that result. Our departure may be the only guage available to determine such. Even then, many (such as myself) might ask if the same or more couldn't have been achieved with less men and for less treasure.

Nation-building appears to be mission-creep in extremis. Nice try but there must be some viable foundation upon which to build. Such might exist in Iraq. None, though, was present in the Afghanistan of 2001 and that which exists now is largely a house of cards ready to tumble with the first serious wind.

That wind will come in the form of civil war. God knows there are plenty enough guns, ammo, and mutual hatred to see such through long after the GIRoA collapses from its own weight. The internal players will be the Afghan taliban, the various pashtu tribes, and (likely) the hazara, tajiks, uzbeks and turkomen in varying iterations of a northern alliance semblance. Nothing formal, though, even as each presents a public face to the rest of the world. Down in the dirt the same shifting patterns of temporary alliance of convenience will rule the afghan way of war.

External players? Easy-those whom are immediately external. Iran, Pakistan, Russia, India and the CAR states will all have some say and play some role.

In Afghanistan, the last decade has seen some afghans enriched, some impoverished, some dead and most just as they've lived since 1978-amidst war and unrecognizable violence.

Oh! CENTCOM? He's real enough though a laughable mouthpiece. His pro Pakistan/America propaganda couched in rosy platitudes of mutual respect and firm commonly-shared resolve is nothing short of pathetic. Still, he has a job to do and somebody has to do it. It must be a tiresome task dragging himself from bed daily faced with a responsibility to spin the same ol', same ol' in some fresh new light.

See Thomas Ricks for the reasons why...

 

[Awesome]

1. The US will still run away
2. We won't rest till there's a pro-Pak or a non-anti-Pakistan government in Afghanistan

---------- Post added at 09:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------

• Pakistan is now an enemy of the United States.

That's an unfair assessment since its more than likely that the US is now an enemy of Pakistan. We have no working plans of invading the US, disabling its nuclear armament or surgical strikes within US territory.

 

[Vinod2070]

the only beaten people i see around is the Afghans. Afghanistan have been under occupation for the last 40 years.

I am sure you realize how many people get on a high claiming this and that on the part of the Afghans.

The Afghans themselves don't matter. Their suffering doesn't matter.

All that matters is they get to make claims like "two superpowers defeated by the Muslims".

Now, how does a 12,000 body count for USSR versus millions of Afghan dead and a ruined country for decades, equates to victory is never made clear.

Same as half of destroyed Lebanon and no rockets fired afterwards is still a "victory" for Hizbollah for some reasons.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now, how does a 12,000 body count for USSR versus millions of Afghan dead and a ruined country for decades, equates to victory is never made clear.

'Victory or failure' would depend upon whether the goals of the occupying entity were achieved - that is after all a definition of 'victory' that many Indians use when arguing with Pakistanis over who was 'victorious' in the 1947/65 India-Pakistan wars.

What were Soviet goals in occupying Afghanistan? Did they achieve them?

What are US goals? Arguing that it/they were 'get OBL' is nonsensical - OBL was irrelevant and isolated as a 'leader of AQ' when he was killed.