Taliban on the ropes...the beginning of the End?

[M.Dancer]

you are probably are old enough...

do you also remember when we invaded Russia in effort to stop the revolution? no? selective history memory?

Yes I do. Had Great Briton been able to help the White army defeat the Bolsheviks, how many Ukrainians would have Stalin murdered??

Now honestly, after saving Stalin's ass in 1941, do you think that the events of 1919 were all that relevent in Berlin, in 1948?

[ToadBrother]

ah so do I...but as an adult I've learned it takes two to tango and you really do have to walk in another man's shoes to see the world from his perspective...

The Soviet perspective was hardly a secret. Everyone was relatively happy to let the Bolsheviks do what they wanted prior to WWII (well, no one could or would do anything about it), but when it became clear that the USSR was going to create a ring of friendly regimes around its parameter, not to mention parking a lot of military might along the borders, with their guns very firmly aimed at Western Europe, what choices did the West have? I guess we could have fought WWIII right then and there, and there are some arguments for that, but the Europeans certainly didn't want another war on the turf, and who can blame them. So the US and its allies opted for the longer-term and probably much more expensive strategy of Containment.

The Soviet perspective was that they didn't want Germany, or any country, really, ever being able to threaten and invade them the way Nazi Germany had been able to. I can't blame that point of view, in and of itself, but when coupled with the stated purpose to export revolution to create more friendly states to not just protect itself, but to undermine its chief competitors, well, you can't just ignore that.

[wyly]

The Soviet perspective was hardly a secret. Everyone was relatively happy to let the Bolsheviks do what they wanted prior to WWII (well, no one could or would do anything about it), but when it became clear that the USSR was going to create a ring of friendly regimes around its parameter, not to mention parking a lot of military might along the borders, with their guns very firmly aimed at Western Europe, what choices did the West have? I guess we could have fought WWIII right then and there, and there are some arguments for that, but the Europeans certainly didn't want another war on the turf, and who can blame them. So the US and its allies opted for the longer-term and probably much more expensive strategy of Containment.

try look at it from their perspective...

they've come through a revolution toppling a hated oppressive government and are attacked by a coalition of western forces to undo their revolution, to have lost meant certian death at the hands of the old regime and a return to that regimes ways...it was only natural for then to prepare themselves for another invasion from a hostile west, and it happened again(WW2)...this wasn't ancient history the same people involved in the revolution were still in charge they were very aware the west wanted them dead and gone...they had a justified seige mentality, no different then the US has after 911 when in their eyes the entire islamic world is apparently out to kill them which is silly, but in the USSR's case it had happened twice and they no reason to doubt it wouldn't happen again...

The Soviet perspective was that they didn't want Germany, or any country, really, ever being able to threaten and invade them the way Nazi Germany had been able to. I can't blame that point of view, in and of itself, but when coupled with the stated purpose to export revolution to create more friendly states to not just protect itself, but to undermine its chief competitors, well, you can't just ignore that.

which is what the west started as well, western imperialism couldn't let a socialist doctrine undermine it's domination... Edited March 17, 2010 by wyly

[DogOnPorch]

A regular Jack Reed here...minus the class, of course.

[ToadBrother]

which is what the west started as well, western imperialism couldn't let a socialist doctrine undermine it's domination...

Do you think all the Soviets were selling was some brand of socialism? I mean, are you that naive?

[DogOnPorch]

Thus the Jack Reed comment...lol. Wyly must be a big fan of the movie 'Reds'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjjRDJ039FI

[M.Dancer]

Do you think all the Soviets were selling was some brand of socialism? I mean, are you that naive?

Absolutely....but the return policy sucked...ask the Hungarians, Czechs....etc etc....

[eyeball]

The Soviet perspective was that they didn't want Germany, or any country, really, ever being able to threaten and invade them the way Nazi Germany had been able to.

Now you're apologizing for the Soviets? Oh well, I guess the commies are our friends now aren't they? Christ if it wasn't for China much of the West would probably be kaput, like the fascists.

I can't blame that point of view, in and of itself, but when coupled with the stated purpose to export revolution to create more friendly states to not just protect itself, but to undermine its chief competitors, well, you can't just ignore that.

Yeah but you don't have stoop to the same level and emulate the practice of exporting revolution to create more friendly states to....well, you obviously know the drill, who am I to think I could put it any better than you?

[wyly]

Do you think all the Soviets were selling was some brand of socialism? I mean, are you that naive?

Do you think all the Imperial powers were selling some brand of free enterprise? I mean, are you that naive?

[wyly]

asking seemingly intelligent rational adults for a moment to put aside their myopic view of the world is a challenge I would've never guessed would be so difficult...that's probably why enjoyed teaching kids...

[ToadBrother]

Do you think all the Imperial powers were selling some brand of free enterprise? I mean, are you that naive?

I never said any such thing. The Western powers were attempting to prevent a Communist encirclement.

[wyly]

I never said any such thing. The Western powers were attempting to prevent a Communist encirclement.

no the western powers were preserving imperialism, they had the world carved up to suit their own agenda...the west had a economic monopoly and weren't about to share it with a different economic concept...

[M.Dancer]

a different economic concept...

If be different, you mean unworkable and doomed, I think you are correct. But we were certainly willing to sell our grain and consumer products to anyone willing to pay market rates...more power to us/them...

[DogOnPorch]

If be different, you mean unworkable and doomed, I think you are correct.

Before Stalingrad, the Soviets used a system where Commisars gave the orders collectively to masses of troops led by toothless/powerless 'officers'. Mass death ensued. After Stalingrad, regular rank was brought back including gold braid and other fancy trappings. The NKVD's Commisars lost their power and the Red Army began to look more like a Western army than ever before.

[Sir Bandelot]

Just a few weeks since the start of the operation here, the Taliban have “reseized control and the momentum in a lot of ways” in northern Marja, Maj. James Coffman, civil affairs leader for the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, said in an interview in late March.

Since their offensive here in February, the Marines have flooded Marja with hundreds of thousands of dollars a week. The tactic aims to win over wary residents by paying them compensation for property damage or family members killed during the operations in February.. The Marines hoped that the programs would be a quick way to put to work hundreds of “military-aged males,” as they call them. But the programs have run into jeopardy.

The programs are “completely dead in the water”, Major Coffman said. “We have to change tactics to get the locals back on our side. My greatest fear right now is not knowing if I have put money into the pockets of the Taliban.”

Despite those reservations, the Marine strategy depends on showering this community with buckets of cash. The money is a bridge to a day when, in theory, the new Marja district government will have more credibility than the Taliban.

One woman who came to the base and asked for help, saying that her husband had been killed during the February operation. First Lt. Aran Walsh offered her $1,700 worth of Afghan currency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/world/asia/04marja.html?hp

Current indications are that this operation is not going to work. The invasion took much longer than originally thought, and cost the locals too many lives. The belief that they would accept money in compensation for the loss of their families due to coalition attacks, and then happily embrace a change in governance is extroardinarily naive. These people seem to prefer the Taliban. And as soon as the troops leave, they will probably revert back to their old ways. Lives lost, money spent, but nothing gained. How is this going to bring meaningful victory.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Lives lost, money spent, but nothing gained. How is this going to bring meaningful victory.

Not doing so would guarantee meaningful defeat.

[Bonam]

try look at it from their perspective...

they've come through a revolution toppling a hated oppressive government and are attacked by a coalition of western forces to undo their revolution, to have lost meant certian death at the hands of the old regime and a return to that regimes ways...it was only natural for then to prepare themselves for another invasion from a hostile west, and it happened again(WW2)...this wasn't ancient history the same people involved in the revolution were still in charge they were very aware the west wanted them dead and gone...they had a justified seige mentality, no different then the US has after 911 when in their eyes the entire islamic world is apparently out to kill them which is silly, but in the USSR's case it had happened twice and they no reason to doubt it wouldn't happen again...

Do me a favor and STFU. You pretend to be speaking "from the perspective" of the people of the Soviet Union when in fact you are speaking on behalf of the tyrants who condemned tens of millions of their people to their deaths. Try living and suffering under the yoke of a totalitarian communist regime before you jump so eagerly to defend it.

[Sir Bandelot]

Not doing so would guarantee meaningful defeat.

Yeah, but there's also a time to know when to call it a day.

U.S. leaves Afghanistan’s ‘Valley of Death’

“There’s never a perfect answer,” General McChrystal said as he visited this outpost on April 8 for a briefing as the withdrawal began. “I care deeply about everybody who has been hurt here, but I can’t do anything about it. I can do something about people who might be hurt in the future.

“The battle changes, the war changes,” he added. “If you don't understand the dynamics you have no chance of getting it right. We’ve been slower here than I would have liked.”

Never mind the hawkish rhetoric. As McChrystal says, you have to understand the dynamics. Sounds like he has decided to cut his losses.

[M.Dancer]

Never mind the hawkish rhetoric. As McChrystal says, you have to understand the dynamics. Sounds like he has decided to cut his losses.

That can and does mean many things...the least of which is your assumption.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, but there's also a time to know when to call it a day.

Sure...it's only been four years. Very dynamic!

Never mind the hawkish rhetoric. As McChrystal says, you have to understand the dynamics. Sounds like he has decided to cut his losses.

Never mind defeatist rhetoric...sounds like he re-deployed limited resources to a different objective. You have to understand the dynamics.

[Sir Bandelot]

Never mind defeatist rhetoric...sounds like he re-deployed limited resources to a different objective. You have to understand the dynamics.

I guess we'll ignore what McChrystal says about it then. Don't read the article.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess we'll ignore what McChrystal says about it then. Don't read the article.

Apparently you didn't read all the fine print:

After years of sustained fighting and casualties with little evident progress, the US military closed Korangal Outpost on April 14, 2010.

Military officials speculate that their presence in the valley may have actually created Taliban sympathies

among the previously neutral Korangalis, who have rejected American aid have wished the Americans to leave. Forty-two American service men died fighting in the Korangal and hundreds were wounded, primarily between the years of 2006 and 2009

[eyeball]

Apparently you didn't read all the fine print:

Apparently you overlooked the finer point it contained

After years of sustained fighting and casualties with little evident progress, the US military closed Korangal Outpost on April 14, 2010. Military officials speculate that their presence in the valley may have actually created Taliban sympathies among the previously neutral Korangalis,

who have rejected American aid have wished the Americans to leave.

Forty-two American service men died fighting in the Korangal and hundreds were wounded, primarily between the years of 2006 and 2009

Someone (McChrystal) finally got the message I guess.

Edited April 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Sir Bandelot]

Obama reaffirms 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal

Speaking in an interview with Australian television broadcast Thursday, Obama said of Afghanistan that United States and its allies "can't be there in perpetuity."

Obama told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that he did not agree that the situation in Afghanistan was getting worse, saying the Taliban's momentum had been "blunted" since he came to office.

But winning the nearly nine-year-old war remained a difficult task, he said.

"We can't succeed unless President Karzai moves forward on the reforms that are so necessary for Afghans to see a real investment in their lives day-to-day and improvement in their lives day-to-day."

Obama is politicizing the war for his benefit, trying to take credit for something that never happened. Clearly his own statements are contradictory. The troops are pulling back, the mujahideen remain, defiant. These rag-tag warriors with bent Kalishnikovs have endured the most high-tech army in the world. What is it about Afghanistan that makes it so difficult a place to defeat militarily?

[Sir Bandelot]

Apparently you didn't read all the fine print:

After years of sustained fighting and casualties with little evident progress, the US military closed Korangal Outpost on April 14, 2010.

Military officials speculate that their presence in the valley may have actually created Taliban sympathies

among the previously neutral Korangalis, who have rejected American aid have wished the Americans to leave. Forty-two American service men died fighting in the Korangal and hundreds were wounded, primarily between the years of 2006 and 2009

No shit, Sherlock.

Gee those officials must be smart as Albert frikkin Einstein to figure that one out.

But even the soldiers on the ground could have told you that, a couple of years ago.

During the period Specialist Soto served there half of his platoon was wounded or killed, according to the unit’s commanding officer. “It confuses me, why it took so long for them to realize that we weren’t making progress up there,” he said.