Could Kandahar be next? by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Could Kandahar be next?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1034
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, February 19, 2010 1:08 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Now THIS would/will be interesting. Southern Afghanistan has always been the stonghold of the mullahs, who no doubt align themselves closely with the Taliban, given that both are extreme conservatives where Islam is concerned. Wonder what this will mean? Also interesting that Canada is going to take the leading role...

Quote:
The next target for coalition forces in Afghanistan could be Kandahar, report two Canadian publications.

“If everything runs true to current form, Canadian Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard will soon loudly announce a major combat operation in Kandahar that will look a lot like the one launched by NATO on Saturday in neighboring Helmand — which came after weeks of very public propaganda about when and where it was going to take place,” writes Matthew Fisher in a report published by the Vancouver Sun.

“As the operation in central Helmand winds down, all eyes will inevitably turn to Kandahar, which is now the last major Taliban stronghold in the south.”

Canadian troops might be heavily involved in such an offensive, reports Josh Wingrove for The Globe and Mail.

“By late spring or early summer, Canada will be at 'the tip of the spear' of NATO's efforts in Afghanistan, leading a massive push in Kandahar province on the scale of this month's attacks in nearby Helmand, a top coalition soldier says,” Wingrove writes.

“Canadian Brigadier-General Craig King, the coalition's director of future plans in Afghanistan's volatile south, said allied forces and government agencies are preparing for an attack that will take place in the coming months, and draw largely from the playbook of this month's assault on Marjah and Nad Ali in Helmand in a bid to push the Taliban from restive pockets in Kandahar province.”

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/17/around-the-web-could-kanda
har-be-next/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 3:01 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Interesting.

You must be quite torn over these new offensives I imagine, Niki?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 3:56 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Particularly with the announced pullout coming next year these offensives are meaningless...

The mujahideen will put up token resistance as they go to ground, then wait for an opportunity to comeback. In the meantime the increased troop presence will hit more IEDs take sniper fire etc,

I could provide cites where the fathers of these guys did the same against the Soviets, or even more so the Viet Cong against the Americans. The lack of respect thing as well as custom will allow them to hide and be fed by the locals in safety from NATO, and the puppet Afghan army.

BTW Canada has been in Kandahar since the beginning, NATO assigned areas of operations when they moved in and we drew that short straw.

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:24 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Particularly with the announced pullout coming next year these offensives are meaningless...

The mujahideen will put up token resistance as they go to ground, then wait for an opportunity to comeback. In the meantime the increased troop presence will hit more IEDs take sniper fire etc,

Well, we'll see.

Ideally we weaken the hand of the Taliban and strengthen that of the 'puppet' Afghan government enough, that by the time we leave the Taliban are not quite up to seizing the country by force, and take a peaceful, political settlement.

The second scenario is having weakened the Taliban a little bit we leave Afghanistan but continue to provide backing to the Afghan government for a protracted counter-insurgency fight. A civil war similar to when we invaded the country, perhaps.

The third scenario I guess is your pessimistic one. But I'll bet you were similarly convinced of inevitable failure around the time of the Iraq surge?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:03 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Particularly with the announced pullout coming next year these offensives are meaningless...

The mujahideen will put up token resistance as they go to ground, then wait for an opportunity to comeback. In the meantime the increased troop presence will hit more IEDs take sniper fire etc,

Well, we'll see.

Ideally we weaken the hand of the Taliban and strengthen that of the 'puppet' Afghan government enough, that by the time we leave the Taliban are not quite up to seizing the country by force, and take a peaceful, political settlement.

The second scenario is having weakened the Taliban a little bit we leave Afghanistan but continue to provide backing to the Afghan government for a protracted counter-insurgency fight. A civil war similar to when we invaded the country, perhaps.

The third scenario I guess is your pessimistic one. But I'll bet you were similarly convinced of inevitable failure around the time of the Iraq surge?

Heads should roll

1. It is not just the Taliban we are facing anymore, other anti propped up gov groups have started up since last year, but they are painted as Taliban for convenience sake

2. That would be something like propping up the Shahs Iran, or Bastisas Cuba wouldn't it ?

only took 30 years for them to out the shah, and people wonder why they hate us... Karzai still uses foreign mercenary bodyguards, kind of a sign how much he trusts his army

3. Surge in Iraq... haha what did the surge do ?

the Shia and al-Sadr stepped aside and watched as the sunni groups were eliminated.
and they are still pushing the advantage that gave them today

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102146324248939
8.html

If the US attacks Iran, Iraq may very well rise against you. Until then they will simply take the government over through their own means against the opposition the US thinned out for them... through elections

There are some factual errors, in my opinion in this interview.. but it is intersting non the less

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/02/20102176529736333.html

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
The third scenario I guess is your pessimistic one. But I'll bet you were similarly convinced of inevitable failure around the time of the Iraq surge?

So you're suggesting we should buy off the Taliban, the way we did the militias in the "surge"? 'Cause that was the most effective part of that whole "surge" thing - the surge in money being paid to them NOT to attack our troops, not the increased troop levels.

Occasionally, we really DO negotiate with terrorists.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It'd be hard to compete with the opium money. Though I read marijuana is replacing opium.

HEY ! Maybe that will do the trick.

Dude, we we supposed to, like, go fight somewhere ?

Hey man, I can't remember that shit.

Dude, do I remember your mom made some, like, bread or something ?

... ... ... What ?

What what ?

I dunno - what ?

Dude, this is like some good shit ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 5:50 PM

CHRISISALL

Rue, you're makin' me LOL here...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 19, 2010 6:33 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Been there..... here is the T shirt

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:46 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Torn over the new offensives? Well, yes and no. Viscerally, I hate the mullahs, always have, for their iron grip over the people, which has always been especially strong in the South—particularly Kandahar, and I don’t want to see us give up on Afghanistan. Intellectually, I hate that we’re going in to do more damage, and the death of our soldiers that will inevitably result. It’s an issue I’ve been torn about on both sides since this began. When the Russians were the occupiers, it was easy; now, not so much, obviously.

I’d love to see Kandahar ridded of the mullahs, which means the Taliban because as I said, they’re ideologically identical and the South has always been on their side. It’s how we go about it that I hate.

As to the eventual outcome. Gino, I disagree that

Quote:
The mujahideen will put up token resistance as they go to ground, then wait for an opportunity to comeback. In the meantime the increased troop presence will hit more IEDs take sniper fire etc,

In Kandahar and most of the South, I think they will fight like crazy not to lose the territory. It’s their stronghold; losing it could well lessen their hold overall. I don’t think they’ll go to ground, it would hurt their cred. I’m not sure many of the rural areas or tribes will back them very seriously, either, as they may be more hated by the PEOPLE there than anywhere else. When Shah Zahir actually outlawed the chadri—just that one issue—there were bloody riots in Kandahar, but nowhere else, even the rural areas in the South...just over the chadri. Yes, that has a huge hold over the minds of the people, but if they’d impel their followers to riot against THAT, you can imagine how hard they’ll fight to maintain their entire hold!

And of course I could be completely wrong.

Actually, the major offensives against the Russians were in the South, despite the Northern Alliance getting most of the publicity. It, like most of Afghanistan, is run by various tribal leaders, despite having a “governor” appointed by the official government. Karzai came from there, and the current governor is a Canadian-Afghan. We’ll see how much influence that has, if any. It used to provide great fruits, especially grapes, apricots, melons, and pomegranates (pomegranates were always the most popular fruit; we ate them surrpetitiously In class, but of course it was pretty obvious when someone was caught, as their red hands gave them away!). From what I hear, most of their fruit crops were destroyed in the rebellion against the Russians, or made useless by land mines. We’ve been bombarding the area for years with Cruise Missles from the Persian Gulf. Now the offensive is to be more serious, we’ll see what happens.

It will certainly be an easier place to fight, climate-wise, as its climate is pretty arid—temperature actually close to ours here in Marin, and gets mostly rain (tho’ much less than we do), hardly any snow, unlike the North. That doesn’t mean it will be easy, as it was the Taliban’s “capital city” From 1994 until they were ousted in 2001, and I imagine they’ve returned in strength since then.

My sympathies to you guys for drawing the short straw—because that’s certainly what it is! It’s going to be tough to truly kick the Taliban out, even tougher to hold.

Yes, Gino, I hold the same pessimistic view you do of Iraq; the “surge” gave one faction control, which allowed them to hold the area “for us” and look like a success to the outside world. I don’t really expect “democracy” to take hold in Iraq or Afghanistan. I found both links interesting, but have to say the interview, given Gul is/was ISI, is factually incorrect, as you said, on a number of points—and is also speaking from his own ideological beliefs.

Rue, thanx for the giggle, I appreciated it muchly. I think we could have some influence by providing employment and money in the South just as in the North...how much, I couldn’t say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 20, 2010 9:25 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
have to say the interview, given Gul is/was ISI, is factually incorrect, as you said, on a number of points—and is also speaking from his own ideological beliefs.

I felt he was wrong about India / Mossad supporting the Taliban, that was ideology and expected

That he feels the west is going to pull out and the Taliban will take over again, well that is policy ( remember the German post )

They are trying to leave themselves in a position to be king makers and pick who is going to run the Taliban after NATO pulls out.

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

...you may be right...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:16 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, it's also worth remembering that the Mullahs, the Qaidas and the Talitubbies ain't the only factions out there - and the US puppet on a string is also a fundamentalist prick, which means engaging now would bring the US military down on their ass, see ?

And so, there's a lot of folk looking at the weakened, wounded fundamentalist pricks with ill intent, sharpening thier knives, and just waiting for us to leave....

No, they don't like us, but once we get the hell out of their country they'll cool off, cause most serious fights in Afghanistan are over turf, they're very, VERY territorial - but the other side of that is that they are very reluctant to go chasin folk past the edges of that turf, our lack of understanding about that has ever been a problem.

To put it in Ghetto terms, we needs be steppin OFF their damn corner before the talkin can start.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 20, 2010 4:31 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Well, it's also worth remembering that the Mullahs, the Qaidas and the Talitubbies ain't the only factions out there - and the US puppet on a string is also a fundamentalist prick, which means engaging now would bring the US military down on their ass, see ?

And so, there's a lot of folk looking at the weakened, wounded fundamentalist pricks with ill intent, sharpening thier knives, and just waiting for us to leave....

No, they don't like us, but once we get the hell out of their country they'll cool off, cause most serious fights in Afghanistan are over turf, they're very, VERY territorial - but the other side of that is that they are very reluctant to go chasin folk past the edges of that turf, our lack of understanding about that has ever been a problem.

To put it in Ghetto terms, we needs be steppin OFF their damn corner before the talkin can start.

-F

The saddest thing was the approach to take ( down south in particular ) is go in light... show respect for the elder for that area. Ask him to consider taking more controlling role over his area... Offer some gifts ( like a herd, and a couple cases of rifles ) then leave.

I'd put money down that the local Taliban would be either very quiet, or dealt with by the elder and his boys. This whole chase down the Taliban thing has be a waster of epic proportions. Roads and Infrastructure could be offered later on, and then built if they accept the help. By accepting the help, if I understand the culture from my reading would have the elder accept some responsibility for the safety of the guys putting in the road.

Instead, we went with the Drug Dealers, the Warlords, and the ex pat sockpuppets we always seem to. I guess the folk in Washington can recognize a kindred spirit half the planet away.

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:37 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Gino, we are in complete agreement on every point you just made, dammit!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE