MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, I don't base my entire argument on "lefties" as do you folks.



When have I said otherwise? Another creation of your imagination I suppose.



Have at it.



Ranting =/= teaching.

Come on now..... Much of that was just good nature humor. I do not hold that you are half as silly as some of your posts would leave some people to believe.

I base most my views on this, the lib/dem/leftist, anti-God, anti-gun, anti-American cadre deserves only utter contempt and maybe a damn good ass kickin'. Preferably given by my left foot on their silly asses as hard as I can deliver it. Sort of like kicking a football for distance.--Tyr

[fj1200]

How about socialist Americans in regards to opposition on the Afghan war?

What about them?

Come on now..... Much of that was just good nature humor. I do not hold that you are half as silly as some of your posts would leave some people to believe.

I base most my views on this, the lib/dem/leftist, anti-God, anti-gun, anti-American cadre deserves only utter contempt and maybe a damn good ass kickin'. Preferably given by my left foot on their silly asses as hard as I can deliver it. Sort of like kicking a football for distance.--Tyr

That explains your utter inability to have a rational discussion on many topics.

[revelarts]

Necro Thread 2013

the 1st post was basically

UK: Ministry of Defense admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-8535291.html

British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

The internal study says that Nato forces have been unable to “establish control over the insurgents’ safe havens” or “protect the rural population”, and warns the “conditions do not exist” to guarantee the survival of the Afghan government after combat troops withdraw next year.

The report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, says that when troops leave, Afghanistan “will be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base”, which means that the West will have to continue to fund “large-scale support programmes” for many years to come.

Even if the internal situation were stable, the Afghan government may not survive the destabilising activities of its neighbours. “Regional players do not have a vested interest in the success of the Kabul government”, states the document in a clear reference to Pakistan.

The report, Lessons from the Soviet Transition in Afghanistan, is an internal research project produced in November last year by the MoD’s think-tank, the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). Based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, the DCDC’s reports “help inform decisions in defence strategy, capability development and operations” across all three branches of the armed forces.

The study examines the “extraordinary number of similar factors that surround both the Soviet and Nato campaigns in Afghanistan” and highlights lessons that military commanders could learn.

“The highest-level parallel is that both campaigns were conceived with the aim of imposing an ideology foreign to the Afghan people: the Soviets hoped to establish a Communist state while Nato wished to build a democracy,” it says. “Equally striking is that both abandoned their central aim once they realised that the war was unwinnable in military terms and that support of the population was essential.”

It continues: “Both interventions have been portrayed as foreign invasions attempting to support a corrupt and unpopular central government against a local insurgent movement which has popular support, strong religious motivation and safe havens abroad. In addition, the country will again be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base, heavily dependent upon external aid.”

In unusually frank terms, it goes on: “The international setting for both campaigns has significant similarities with world opinion judging both as failed interventions. Both faced a loss of confidence in their strategic world leadership and increasing domestic and financial pressure to abandon the enterprise.”

Turning to lessons for the armed forces, it says: “The military parallels are equally striking; the 40th Army [of the Soviet Union] was unable decisively to defeat the mujahedin while facing no existential threat itself, a situation that precisely echoes the predicament of Isaf [the Nato-led security mission]. Neither campaign established control over the country’s borders and the insurgents’ safe havens; both were unable to protect the rural population.”

The report states that the Soviet withdrawal plan was handicapped by a publicly announced timetable. Western commanders have blamed the British and American governments for publicly presenting just such a timetable....

one Definition of insanity ... doing the same thing and expecting different results.

[Gunny]

Necro Thread 2013

the 1st post was basically

UK: Ministry of Defense admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-8535291.html

British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

The internal study says that Nato forces have been unable to “establish control over the insurgents’ safe havens” or “protect the rural population”, and warns the “conditions do not exist” to guarantee the survival of the Afghan government after combat troops withdraw next year.

The report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, says that when troops leave, Afghanistan “will be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base”, which means that the West will have to continue to fund “large-scale support programmes” for many years to come.

Even if the internal situation were stable, the Afghan government may not survive the destabilising activities of its neighbours. “Regional players do not have a vested interest in the success of the Kabul government”, states the document in a clear reference to Pakistan.

The report, Lessons from the Soviet Transition in Afghanistan, is an internal research project produced in November last year by the MoD’s think-tank, the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). Based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, the DCDC’s reports “help inform decisions in defence strategy, capability development and operations” across all three branches of the armed forces.

The study examines the “extraordinary number of similar factors that surround both the Soviet and Nato campaigns in Afghanistan” and highlights lessons that military commanders could learn.

“The highest-level parallel is that both campaigns were conceived with the aim of imposing an ideology foreign to the Afghan people: the Soviets hoped to establish a Communist state while Nato wished to build a democracy,” it says. “Equally striking is that both abandoned their central aim once they realised that the war was unwinnable in military terms and that support of the population was essential.”

It continues: “Both interventions have been portrayed as foreign invasions attempting to support a corrupt and unpopular central government against a local insurgent movement which has popular support, strong religious motivation and safe havens abroad. In addition, the country will again be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base, heavily dependent upon external aid.”

In unusually frank terms, it goes on: “The international setting for both campaigns has significant similarities with world opinion judging both as failed interventions. Both faced a loss of confidence in their strategic world leadership and increasing domestic and financial pressure to abandon the enterprise.”

Turning to lessons for the armed forces, it says: “The military parallels are equally striking; the 40th Army [of the Soviet Union] was unable decisively to defeat the mujahedin while facing no existential threat itself, a situation that precisely echoes the predicament of Isaf [the Nato-led security mission]. Neither campaign established control over the country’s borders and the insurgents’ safe havens; both were unable to protect the rural population.”

The report states that the Soviet withdrawal plan was handicapped by a publicly announced timetable. Western commanders have blamed the British and American governments for publicly presenting just such a timetable....

one Definition of insanity ... doing the same thing and expecting different results.

It was and is not an unwinnable war. The war can easily be won.

Just not by the West. A people who have shackled themselves to their own ideology to the point that it has hamstrung itself. Nobody in Afghanistan is capable of beating us, or most any other modern nation in the world. We're beating ourselves.

[JakeStarkey]

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

[JakeStarkey]

Gunny, thank you for realizing that We the People will not even entertain a war that would require such expenditures of people and assets to beat Afghanistan. Americans, in general, are correct that this is not the war for us: wrong time, wrong people, wrong place. Alexander the Great found that out the hard way.

[Gunny]

Gunny, thank you for realizing that We the People will not even entertain a war that would require such expenditures of people and assets to beat Afghanistan. Americans, in general, are correct that this is not the war for us: wrong time, wrong people, wrong place. Alexander the Great found that out the hard way.

I realize the futility of half-assing a war by not even understanding the enemy nor how to defeat it, then just quitting.

Alexander the Great died of food poisoning. He was on top at the time and had subjugated Persia. Try again.

[fj1200]

It was and is not an unwinnable war. The war can easily be won.

Would it be safe to say that the war is winnable but the peace is not?

[Gunny]

Would it be safe to say that the war is winnable but the peace is not?

War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.

[fj1200]

War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.

I guess that's a completely different thing. Good post.

[SassyLady]

War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.

Mic drop, Gunny

[Black Diamond]

War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.

I feel like that's what we did with Germany and Japan. Japan especially fitting your post. Many are upset about us nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan but I can't seem to get a rebuttal out of them when I bring up the Marshall plan.

[fj1200]

I feel like that's what we did with Germany and Japan. Japan especially fitting your post. Many are upset about us nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan but I can't seem to get a rebuttal out of them when I bring up the Marshall plan.

Didn't we essentially do that? Or try to?

[Black Diamond]

Didn't we essentially do that? Or try to?

Yes but why the different result? We didn't win the hearts and minds of afghans. There weren't many Nazi believers left in 1960 Munich. From a military standpoint did we not fight to win?

[fj1200]

Yes but why the different result? We didn't win the hearts and minds of afghans. There weren't many Nazi believers left in 1960 Munich. From a military standpoint did we not fight to win?

Good questions. But we still have a presence in Germany and Japan.