Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Greatest military strategic victory of the 21st century goes to the Talebans
Le Zookeeper    10/12/2009 1:01:29 AM
8 yrs on, Omar returns to haunt US Scott Shane, NYT News Service 12 October 2009, 02:36am IST Print Email Discuss Bookmark/Share Save Comment Text Size: | WASHINGTON: In late 2001, Mullah Muhammad Omar?s prospects seemed utterly bleak. The ill-educated, one-eyed leader of the Taliban had fled on a motorbike after his fighters were swiftly routed by the Americans invading Afghanistan. Eight years later, Mullah Omar leads an insurgency that has gained steady ground in much of Afghanistan against the much better equipped American and Nato forces. ?This is an amazing story,? said Bruce Riedel, an ex-CIA officer who coordinated the Obama administration?s review of Afghan policy in the spring. ?He?s a semiliterate individual who has met with no more than a handful of non-Muslims in his entire life. And he?s staged one of the most remarkable military comebacks in modern history.? Mullah Omar heads the Taliban?s Rahbari Shura, or leadership council, often called the Quetta Shura since it relocated to the Pakistani city in 2002. The shura, consisting of the Taliban commanders, ?operates like the politburo of a communist party,? setting broad strategy, said Yusufzai. Rahimullah Yusufzai, of the News International, a Pakistani newspaper, who interviewed Mullah Omar a dozen times before 2001, called him ?a man of few words.? But his reputed humility, his legend as a ferocious fighter against Soviet invaders in the 1980s, and his success in ending the lawlessness and bloody warlords? feuds of the early 1990s cemented his power. ?His followers adore him, believe in him and are willing to die for him,? Yusufzai said. Mullah Omar ?remains an inspiration, sending out letters and audiotapes to his commanders and fighters,? he said. A recent assessment by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, identified the Taliban as the most important part of the insurgents, who currently have the initiative? and ?the overall situation is deteriorating.? link (my comment)In the red corner the Talebans, in the blue corner nearly half of the civilized world. The mujahadeen clearly remains the greatest military force of all time. The curse stands!! Empires come to die in Afghanistan.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
lurker       10/12/2009 2:55:14 AM
"since it relocated to the Pakistani city in 2002. "
 
Seems to say it all right there to me
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       10/12/2009 3:04:47 AM

"since it relocated to the Pakistani city in 2002. "

 

Seems to say it all right there to me

The civilized world plays by the rules so much so that we dare not hold the rules against those who constantly break them.That is how the North Vietnamese won the war back then, zero accountability. No different now!
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Yes Lurker, the nukes are closeby in Pakistani cities   10/12/2009 5:07:39 AM
Issue is can Obama raise the force levels? The commitment seems to be waning, and if thats true then surely Taleban wins the war as the fall of Kabul would be quick, the only and last bastion of the NATO war effort. It waould be Vietnam repeated all over again. ANd this time the US has the justification and world sympathy to clean out the Talebans.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       10/13/2009 5:20:09 PM
Stupid and premature.
Talebans have not recover Kabul and power in Aghanistan.
Gaining some ground in baren moutains because coalition did not commit more than few % of its military power is not a victory.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

lurker       10/14/2009 12:17:49 AM

Issue is can Obama raise the force levels? The commitment seems to be waning, and if thats true then surely Taleban wins the war as the fall of Kabul would be quick, the only and last bastion of the NATO war effort. It waould be Vietnam repeated all over again. ANd this time the US has the justification and world sympathy to clean out the Talebans.


 
Well I feel its either go all in or get the hell out. If we aren't planning to have a long lasting commitment to Afghanistan, then we might as well leave, accept defeat, rest up etc, and come back with a vengeance after the next attack has firmed our resolve.
 
Another option is to not win the peace, but prevent the Taliban from being able to effectively turn their operations abroad, and instead fight US backed warlords at home. This is probably one of the less tasteful options.
 
I've also noticed, however dubious, that single Taliban spokesmen have occasionally made overtures for peace in return for the disavowment of Al-Qaeda, who are the terrorists we are truly after. Seeing Obama now emphasizing Al-Qaeda over Afghanistan, perhaps there is something happening there?
 
This is also part of the question of what we are doing in Afghanistan. Are we there simply for the dissolution of Al-Qaeda, and must the Taliban also be destroyed for this to work? Is it necessary to build a democratic governing body in the region to prevent the enemy from gaining a safe haven in the region?
 
 
 
Also of note is that an extra 13,000 troops have been approved for deployment apart from the troops request.
 
Quote    Reply

Ringo       10/15/2009 10:32:57 PM

I simply respect the mujahadeen as a true fighting force. I may not like them , but I respect them. Soviets did not respect them and they got their rears handed to them, and now comes the next group of opponents who go HAHAHHAAHA...well the mujahadeen are still going AHA AHA another team to play with---I thought the cardinal rule of cnfrontation is respect the enemy. Hmmm...strange you do not recognize the Mujahadeens historical military achievements- nobody from a foreigncountry has ever beaten them. Nobody.


That's interesting, since they don't actually DO much fighting.  To be accurate, you would have to say that they have failed to ever beat a foreign military.  The only thing they've ever done is rely on the attention span of foreign civilians to be too short.  
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       10/16/2009 12:26:33 PM
2009 is a bit early to talk about "great strategic victories of the 21st century" ... 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       10/17/2009 6:10:33 PM

2009 is a bit early to talk about "great strategic victories of the 21st century" ... 


 


Not for propaganda purposes it isn't.
 
Barnum will always be right: "There will always be a sucker born every minute."
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/17/2009 9:43:39 PM

I simply respect the mujahadeen as a true fighting force. I may not like them , but I respect them. Soviets did not respect them and they got their rears handed to them, and now comes the next group of opponents who go HAHAHHAAHA..
You do realise that up until the point that the british and americans started giving them supplies and stingers that the muj were at risk of falling over?  The reason why then went to the brits and americans was because they needed a technology tipping point - and it was comms and stingers which made soviet air support untenable.
.well the mujahadeen are still going AHA AHA another team to play with---I thought the cardinal rule of cnfrontation is respect the enemy. Hmmm...strange you do not recognize the Mujahadeens historical military achievements- nobody from a foreigncountry has ever beaten them. Nobody. 
you seem a tad confused on who the players are.  the muj are decidedly anti-taliban and viciously anti al quaeda- they've been at war with each other for a long time.  the muj are the ones who comprise the 3 major tribes in the northern alliance.  under massoud they were routing the taliban - hence why AQ under bin ladens direction targeted and murdered him.  when massoud was murdered the muj allied themselves with the US and Brit to take on the taliban and al quaeda.  they regard the taliban as their enemy and al quaeda as foreigners.  they despise the urghuirs, chechyans, saudis and pakistanis who are the principle cohorts within AQ as much as they despise the soviets
you do realise that the muj are still allied with the west because they want the taliban out, and al quaeda out.  they'd also like karzai out as he's regarded as an usurper.  again.  taliban = northern alliance - and all 3 tribal leaders are allies of the west.





That's interesting, since they don't actually DO much fighting.  To be accurate, you would have to say that they have failed to ever beat a foreign military.  The only thing they've ever done is rely on the attention span of foreign civilians to be too short.  

 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    taleban getting bolder   10/23/2009 8:35:54 PM

Tom Coghlan in Kabul

British and Afghan forces repulsed an attempt by hundreds of Taleban fighters to attack the provincial capital of Helmand, Lashkar Gah, on Saturday night in the most audacious Taliban attack in the province since 2006.

Up to 100 Taleban fighters were killed in a series of airstrikes and firefights around the city outskirts in fighting that began in the early evening as Taleban fighters were concentrating to attack the city of three sides and continued into the early hours of Sunday morning.

It was the first time that the Helmand capital has been attacked.

The Taleban plan appeared to be for a "Tet Offensive" style infiltration of the city, the seat of the Afghan provincial government and home to the headquarters of the British commander in Helmand and the civilian reconstruction component of the British mission in Helmand.

Had the infiltration succeeded then British and Afghan forces would have faced confused street fighting in which Western airstrikes would have been impossible without the risk of causing mass civilian deaths in the city.

A British army spokesman said that the Taleban operation displayed "a level of co-ordination that wasn't expected." He estimated the Taleban forces at around 170, though some Afghan estimates were much higher.

However, British officials insisted that there was absolutely no threat of the British base falling. "Whatever their military objectives were, we didn't get to find them out, because they were defeated on the edge of the city" said the Helmand Task Force spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Woody Page.

"At around 1700hours we detected terrorist vehicles moving in just to the west of the river (on the western edge of Lashkar Gah). By 1730 there were three or four separate groupings. There appeared to be a plan to attack on three different sides, with a blocking force on the fourth side. We waited until the terrorists were concentrated and then attacked with maximum effect," he added.

The British Army spokesman said that an initial airstrike in a wooded area called Bolan, west of the city, killed 27 Taleban fighters and injured approximately the same number.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy