Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Wikileaks Publishes Classified Records of Afghan War

Jul 26, 2010#1

JONJONAUG

Link to Wikileaks

Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation | World news | The Guardian

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and more than 1,000 US troops.

Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama's "surge" strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US naval personnel captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday.

The war logs also detail:

• How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial.

• How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles.

• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

• How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.

In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."

The White House also criticised the publication of the files by Wikileaks: "We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners, and local populations who co-operate with us."

The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians exacted by coalition forces: events termed "blue on white" in military jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents.

Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have led to Afghan government protests, but a large number of previously unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from suicide bombers.

At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in total, but this is likely to be an underestimate as many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence analysts.

Bloody errors at civilians' expense, as recorded in the logs, include the day French troops strafed a bus full of children in 2008, wounding eight. A US patrol similarly machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers, and in 2007 Polish troops mortared a village, killing a wedding party including a pregnant woman, in an apparent revenge attack.

Questionable shootings of civilians by UK troops also figure. The US compilers detail an unusual cluster of four British shootings in Kabul in the space of barely a month, in October/November 2007, culminating in the death of the son of an Afghan general. Of one shooting, they wrote: "Investigation controlled by the British. We are not able to get [sic] complete story."

A second cluster of similar shootings, all involving Royal Marine commandos in Helmand province, took place in a six-month period at the end of 2008, according to the log entries. Asked by the Guardian about these allegations, the Ministry of Defence said: "We have been unable to corroborate these claims in the short time available and it would be inappropriate to speculate on specific cases without further verification of the alleged actions."

Rachel Reid, who investigates civilian casualty incidents in Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said: "These files bring to light what's been a consistent trend by US and Nato forces: the concealment of civilian casualties. Despite numerous tactical directives ordering transparent investigations when civilians are killed, there have been incidents I've investigated in recent months where this is still not happening.

Accountability is not just something you do when you are caught. It should be part of the way the US and Nato do business in Afghanistan every time they kill or harm civilians." The reports, many of which the Guardian is publishing in full online, present an unvarnished and often compelling account of the reality of modern war.

Most of the material, though classified "secret" at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its "uncensorable" servers.

Wikileaks published in April this year a previously suppressed classified video of US Apache helicopters killing two Reuters cameramen on the streets of Baghdad, which gained international attention. A 22-year-old intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, was arrested in Iraq and charged with leaking the video, but not with leaking the latest material. The Pentagon's criminal investigations department continues to try to trace the leaks and recently unsuccessfully asked Assange, he says, to meet them outside the US to help them. Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of the Guardian's articles.

They have a bunch of the reports up. Some of this stuff is just plain sickening.

EDIT

Also CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/25/wikileaks.afghanistan/index.html?hpt=C1

(CNN) -- A whistle-blower website has published what it says are more than 90,000 United States military and diplomatic reports about Afghanistan filed between 2004 and January of this year.

The first-hand accounts are the military's own raw data on the war, including numbers killed, casualties, threat reports and the like, according to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.org, which published the material Sunday.

"It is the total history of the Afghan war from 2004 to 2010, with some important exceptions -- U.S. Special Forces, CIA activity and most of the activity of other non-U.S. groups," Assange said.

CNN has not independently confirmed the authenticity of the documents. The Department of Defense will not comment on them until the Pentagon has had a chance to look at them, a Defense official told CNN.

Assange declined to tell CNN where he got the documents. He claims the documents reveal the "squalor" of war, uncovering how many relatively small incidents have added up to huge numbers of dead civilians.

Just In blog: What is WikiLeaks?

The significance lies in "all of these people being killed in the small events that we haven't heard about that numerically eclipse the big casualty events. It's the boy killed by a shell that missed a target," he told CNN.

"What we haven't seen previously is all those individual deaths," he said. "We've seen just the number and like Stalin said, 'One man's death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic.' So, we've seen the statistic."

The New York Times reported Sunday that military field documents included in the release suggest that Pakistan, an ally of the United States in the war against terror, has been running something of a "double game," allowing "representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders."

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, issued a statement Sunday saying the reports "do not reflect the current onground realities."

Rather, they "reflect nothing more than single source comments and rumors, which abound on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and are often proved wrong after deeper examination," Haqqani's statement said.

"Pakistan's government under the democratically elected leadership of President (Asif Ali) Zardari and Prime Minister (Yousuf Raza) Gilani is following a clearly laid out strategy of fighting and marginalizing terrorists and our military and intelligence services are effectively executing that policy," the statement said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, said in a statement Sunday that the documents -- regardless of how they came to light -- "raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan.

CNN iReport: Help crowdsource the documents

WikiLeaks publishes anonymously submitted documents, video and other sensitive materials after vetting them, it says. It claims never to have fallen for a forgery.

It has made headlines for posting controversial videos of combat in Iraq.

The site gained international attention in April when it posted a 2007 video said to show a U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq killing a dozen civilians, including two unarmed Reuters journalists.

At the time, Maj. Shawn Turner, a U.S. military spokesman, said that "all evidence available supported the conclusion by those forces that they were engaging armed insurgents and not civilians."

Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, suspected of leaking a classified 2007 video, has been charged by the U.S. military with eight violations of the U.S. Criminal Code for transferring classified data, according to a charge sheet released by the military earlier this month.

Attempts to reach Manning's military defense attorney, Capt. Paul Bouchard, were unsuccessful Sunday. However, U.S. Army spokesman Col. Tom Collins has said Bouchard would not speak to the media about the charges.

Assange says WikiLeaks has attempted to put together a legal team to defend Manning, something it will do for any "alleged" whistle-blower that runs into legal trouble because of WikiLeaks.

Assange, a former teen hacker who launched the site in 2007, denies that WikiLeaks has put troops in danger.

"There certainly have been people who have lost elections as a result of material being on WikiLeaks," he said.

"There have been prosecutions because of material being on WikiLeaks. There have been legislative reforms because of material being on WikiLeaks," he said. "What has not happened is anyone being physically harmed as a result."

The website held back about 15,000 documents from Afghanistan to protect individuals who informed on the Taliban, he said.

But he said he hoped his website would be "very dangerous" to "people who want to conduct wars in an abusive way."

"This material doesn't just reveal occasional abuse by the U.S. military," he said. "Of course it has U.S. military reporting on all sort of abuses by the Taliban. ... So it does describe the abuses by both sides in this war, and that's how people can understand what's really going on and if they choose to support it or not."

Assange said the organization gets material from whistle-blowers in a variety of ways -- including postal mail. He said WikiLeaks vets it, releases it to the public and then defends itself against "the regular political or legal attack."

He said the organization rarely knows the identity of the source of the leak. "If we find out at some stage, we destroy that information as soon as possible," he said.

Jul 26, 2010#2

Krisken

I think I am staying way clear of this one. Good luck people

I hope you all play nice.

Jul 26, 2010#3

Troll

You just live for this shit, don't you? All these "damn the man!!" threads are starting to blend together.

Jul 26, 2010#4

crono1224

Saw this on reddit, which was annoying enough with the uber-leftist anti government whatever. As long as none of this hurts our troops or is classified for a reason then I don't see a huge problem with releasing it, but it's obviously hugely inflammatory.

Jul 26, 2010#5

Chibibar

I am not a history major, but all the history I have read, there isn't a war where civilians AREN'T killed in one form or fashion.

There are things (especially on the internet age) that moral is important. The current wars (Afgan and Iraq) are pretty unpopular at this time. What can you do? the U.S. can't certainly just pull out. The military is stuck fighting a group of zealots that well.... don't follow the convention of war. So while the U.S. is trying to follow it to the best of its ability, there will be time where such action is not enough. Is it justify? I don't know. I am not a general or a commander where I have all the information on hand. Would we be as bad as the Taliban if we don't follow the convention of wars? possible.

while it is interesting to read all these information, my question is that, how is that helping our brothers and sisters who are fighting a battle that can't be won? How is that helping the moral of our troops who have to fight this battle? What is your propose solution to it?

It is quite difficult when working with someone who don't follow the same rules as you, much less fighting a war that don't follow the same rules.

It is even MORE difficult when the people you are fighting against are base upon their religious belief. The current wars are nothing like anything in the past. It is not like you can take over a place, seize the capital, kill the generals and people surrender. No, the more leaders and groups we go after, the more it will "activate" the next cell and continue doing what they are doing.

I don't have answers, but I got tons of unanswered questions

Jul 26, 2010#6

D

Dubyamn

Chibibar said:
I am not a history major, but all the history I have read, there isn't a war where civilians AREN'T killed in one form or fashion.

Don't know how exactly that ever excuses the killing of civilians. Just because it happens doesn't mean we should ever forget the fact that innocent people have died because our country went to war.

In my mind civilian casualties are like friendly fire incidents. No matter what they'll probably happen. Doesn't mean the military should ever stop trying to get the number to zero.

while it is interesting to read all these information, my question is that, how is that helping our brothers and sisters who are fighting a battle that can't be won? How is that helping the moral of our troops who have to fight this battle? What is your propose solution to it?

Do you really believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can't be won? If so why on earth do you continue to speak out against a pullout? I really hope you don't believe that American lives are a proper price for American pride like LBJ did during the Vietnam war.

It is quite difficult when working with someone who don't follow the same rules as you, much less fighting a war that don't follow the same rules.

It's difficult but I believe it's still winnable. Betraying our ethics for an easy win will only make the following wars more bloody and harder to win.

It is even MORE difficult when the people you are fighting against are base upon their religious belief. The current wars are nothing like anything in the past. It is not like you can take over a place, seize the capital, kill the generals and people surrender. No, the more leaders and groups we go after, the more it will "activate" the next cell and continue doing what they are doing.

Jul 26, 2010#7

Chazwozel

You mean the government is killing civilians and doing black ops in Afghanistan? Seriously, if this surprises you in the least bit you need your head examined.

Jul 26, 2010#8

AshburnerX

This thread is going to go places... probably places none of us want to go to, but those are ALWAYS the best kind.

Jul 26, 2010#9

Math242

i'm with Chaz on this one. Bad stuff happens to civilians during wars, news at 11.

Jul 26, 2010#10

Dave

Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki want a word with current alarmists. Yes, civilians have been killed and that is a tragedy. But you also have to look at the level of civilian killings in the modern military as opposed to past wars. I posit that fewer civilians are getting hurt/killed per action than ever before. Add in the fact that the insurgents are hiding among civilian population and acting as these civilians only makes it more difficult to discern the bad guys.

But that doesn't matter to you in the least.

Jul 26, 2010#11

Covar

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

So leaked reports reveal that civilians have been killed in unreported incidents? Modern Journalism ladies and gentlemen.

Jul 26, 2010#12

JONJONAUG

Actually I'm more concerned that looking over this data shows that we are much less in control of the situation than the government says we are. I think that's a pretty big deal.

But yeah that civilian death thing is pretty bad too.

Jul 26, 2010#13

Dave

Nobody has ever been in control of a war in Afghanistan. Ever. I still fail to see where the surprise is.

Jul 26, 2010#14

Math242

even John fucking Rambo said so.

Jul 26, 2010#15

The Lovely Boehner

I can't wait for the American Public to read this and give a shit.

Jul 26, 2010#16

Math242

lol?

Jul 26, 2010#17

SpecialKO

This leak doesn't seem to say much that we didn't already know or could reasonably infer. If an insurgency with links to the country's drug warlords can have 5 zillion RPGs, I'm not sure why it would be difficult to get a bunch of Stinger missiles.

I am more concerned about the Pakistani angle though. We send Pakistan a billion dollars a year to fight terrorists, but now it seems like we may be funding them instead.

EDIT: I wonder if the FBI/DEA/ATF could get involved, somehow. The military are aces at blowing the crap out of armed groups with ridiculous accuracy, but following the money and negotiating with criminals to nab bigger criminals who are hiding within civilian populations that support them isn't exactly their forte.

Jul 26, 2010#18

Chibibar

Dubyamn: I am not saying killing civilian is a good thing. I never have, I am a realist, while it is NICE to have a military to bring the civilian casualty to near zero, but in reality, it can never happen unless we fight "virtual" war. Like that one Star Trek episode where virtual wars are fought and people go into suicide pods.

I believe the war on Terror is not winnable. Why? To kill the money flow/supply line is to fight the world. As you have probably read articles that terror cells popping up all over the worlds. It could be your neighbor whom you know for 20 years and don't even think about it and next day, BAM! killing the whole neighborhood via suicide bombing or some such. Maybe it is winnable if you decides to commit genocide to all Taliban members and all cells. These people don't fear for their own death cause they truly believe dying for their cause will have the reward at the end in heaven. Cutting supply line in Afgan and Iraq might slow them down, but people are still funneling supply to these terrorist. The war has been going on for what? almost 10 years now? you don't think the U.S. military has been trying to cut off supply lines? resources and such? You would think with modern technology, spy satellites, drones, computers, spy planes and billions of dollars of equipment can really cut off/ blockade, or just shut the enemy down? doesn't seem to be case IMO cause we are STILL fighting the war.

unlike war in the past, when the military takes over a capital, kill/capture general or defeat x number of troops, the enemy surrenders and reform (well you know, follow the surrender treaty and such) but the Taliban? They don't believe in surrender. They will fight to the last men, women and child (if you have learn later that the Taliban start to employ suicide bombers of children and women now) killing their leader will just make them MORE vigilant in their tactics. Taking over the city will just make them fight harder, cutting supply line will just call in their alternate oversea, out of country, or whatever resources and bring them in.

Sure maybe, just maybe the U.S. can put in a leader that could run the country, but the U.S. put Saddam in that place already and look how that turn out (well I don't have all the facts but read many theories that U.S. help on that)

Both countries infrastructures are in ruins, the people are poorer than dirt and yet these people still fight against all odds cause that is what they truly believe in. I don't know about you, but that is as winnable as winning an argument over the internet (again, my opinion)

Jul 26, 2010#19

Chazwozel

The Lovely Boner said:
I can't wait for the American Public to read this and give a shit.

Lord knows I don't.

Jul 26, 2010#20

Krisken

The Lovely Boner said:
I can't wait for the American Public to read this and give a shit.

Jul 26, 2010#21

Chazwozel

Krisken;419515][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner said:
I can't wait for the American Public to read this and give a shit.

Jul 26, 2010#22

Rob King

Dubyamn;419367][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
It is even MORE difficult when the people you are fighting against are base upon their religious belief. The current wars are nothing like anything in the past. It is not like you can take over a place, seize the capital, kill the generals and people surrender. No, the more leaders and groups we go after, the more it will "activate" the next cell and continue doing what they are doing.

Which is why we should be focusing on supply lines, and money sources instead of actually fighting them. You knock out their money and their equipment you can watch as the remainders vanish into the woodwork never to raise arms again.[/QUOTE]

I've been reading a bit lately about the Great Game, and am just finishing up a section of the book I'm reading about the first Anglo-Afghan war, and it would seem that you could never "take over a place, seize the capital, kill the generals and people surrender." Not in Afghanistan, at least.

The only way for Afghanistan to not be a problem is to hand it back over to the people of Afghanistan and show them that they can have a good government without having to submit to the Taliban. Everything I've read says that Joe the Afghan Plumber dislikes the Taliban almost as much as we do. That is why the UN mission is there: to train the Afghan National Army so that they can keep the Taliban at bay long after everyone leaves. To make sure that the government gets a good start with free elections, and that those elected are governing in the interests of the Afghan people.

Are there other motives for various nations to be there? Probably. Oil is a big deal, for example, and it would be stupid to think that the various involved countries don't think about this every morning when they get up. But if two centuries of conflict in the region taught the world anything about Afghanistan, it's that nobody who takes it can hold it with force. Not the Persians, not the English, not the Russians, and not the USA/NATO/UN. The only winning strategy is to let the Afghans sort it out, and to remain on good terms with them while they do.

Jul 26, 2010#23

Chibibar

Chazwozel;419517][QUOTE=Krisken;419515][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner said:
I can't wait for the American Public to read this and give a shit.

Don't hold your breath. It won't be until it is our citizens being killed.

People shrug off the deaths of innocent civilians of another country. Details follow previous 11:00 story of civilians dying in a warzone.[/QUOTE]

This is true. The real question is why should we give a shit unless it's our own? Don't demonize our general populace. Do you honestly think the Afghan populace would give two shits over hearing about U.S. citizens dying in Zimbabwe? People die. Some in horrible, awful ways. Nothing is ever going to stop that. It's silly and naive to think otherwise. There's always going to be some gun happy asshole in the U.S. Marines, there's always going to be a suicide bomber dipshit out to blow innocent people up, there are always going to be people going about their daily lives that get blown the fuck to kingdom come.[/QUOTE]

Yea. Sad but true. Isn't the first lesson in military is to NOT think of the enemy as human? (psychological stuff right?)

I remember going to Bars and my college when 9/11 happen (we all took the day off) and tons of people are blood thirsty of going to war since it was U.S. people that died (plus tons of international people since it was World Trade center) now, years later, people are pissed that the war is still going on

how quickly people forget.

Jul 26, 2010#24

The Lovely Boehner

I was kidding mostly because no one is going to care about this.

Jul 26, 2010#25

Espy

Wait a minute, there are black ops teams hunting down bad guys?

Where is my protest sign?

Seriously though, there should be more pressure to lower civilian death rates. In fact, I would bet, despite what some of the high and mighty might think, more Americans care than you think, they just don't know what to do to make a difference. Now don't let that anyone stop themselves from judging people they don't know, because what fun would that be? :cool:

Jul 26, 2010#26

Chibibar

Espy said:
Wait a minute, there are black ops teams hunting down bad guys?

Where is my protest sign?

Seriously though, there should be more pressure to lower civilian death rates. In fact, I would bet, despite what some of the high and mighty might think, more Americans care than you think, they just don't know what to do to make a difference. Now don't let that anyone stop themselves from judging people they don't know, because what fun would that be?

Yea. Maybe voting the right people or actually have more non-money grubbing politician.

wait... is that possible?

Jul 26, 2010#27

Espy

See, I think the biggest problem the average person faces is feeling helpless in the face of things that they can't touch. Sure you can vote, and you should, but what people really need are some positive steps to help. Honestly I'm not sure what those are in this case but really, of all the things to worry about in these documents it sounds like the Pakistan stuff is #1. I still vote GTFOASAP. I don't see how this can end well no matter what.

Jul 26, 2010#28

JONJONAUG

Chazwozel said:
This is true. The real question is why should we give a shit unless it's our own?

Basic human morals?

Jul 26, 2010#29

Dave

Estimates say 146,000 - 250,000 people die every day worldwide. How many of those do you care about?

Me? Hardly any, unless I know them or they affect me in some way. Is that egocentric? Yes. But it's also human nature.

Jul 26, 2010#30

sixpackshaker

Dave said:
Estimates say 146,000 - 250,000 people die every day worldwide. How many of those do you care about?

353015 births per day...

That makes it difficult to get really worked up over most deaths.

Jul 26, 2010#31

Espy

Dave said:
Estimates say 146,000 - 250,000 people die every day worldwide. How many of those do you care about?

Jul 26, 2010#32

Chazwozel

Espy;419647][QUOTE=Dave said:
Estimates say 146,000 - 250,000 people die every day worldwide. How many of those do you care about?

Jul 26, 2010#33

Krisken

Chazwozel;419663][QUOTE=Espy;419647][QUOTE=Dave said:
Estimates say 146,000 - 250,000 people die every day worldwide. How many of those do you care about?

I'd give lots of people the benefit of the doubt and say probably they care about many of them.

Which is great, except that all the "caring" and feeling outraged in the world never actually did anything unless it was backed up by action (posting articles on a forum or facebook don't count as "action" BTW.)[/QUOTE]

THANK YOU!

Those that complain about what's going on in Afghanistan for instance, should fly over post-hast and see what they can do to make a difference. You'll see first hand how much more compassionate the Taliban are over US soldiers.[/QUOTE]
No one is saying it is a contest to see who is more compassionate. Just maybe, you know, not pretending the bad shit doesn't happen and undermine our efforts there. You want to win hearts and minds? Don't kill innocent people. Even the military recognizes that.

Jul 26, 2010#34

D

Dubyamn

Chibi every time we have a debate I am utterly floored by the width and breadth of your ignorance.

Really would it kill you in the time you take to read an learn something?

Chibibar said:
Dubyamn: I am not saying killing civilian is a good thing. I never have, I am a realist, while it is NICE to have a military to bring the civilian casualty to near zero, but in reality, it can never happen unless we fight "virtual" war. Like that one Star Trek episode where virtual wars are fought and people go into suicide pods.

Of course it is unreachable however any civilian casualties should always be followed by the question "How did this happen and how do we stop it from happening again." A question that these reports indicate is never asked in military circles.

I believe the war on Terror is not winnable. Why? To kill the money flow/supply line is to fight the world. As you have probably read articles that terror cells popping up all over the worlds. It could be your neighbor whom you know for 20 years and don't even think about it and next day, BAM! killing the whole neighborhood via suicide bombing or some such. Maybe it is winnable if you decides to commit genocide to all Taliban members and all cells. These people don't fear for their own death cause they truly believe dying for their cause will have the reward at the end in heaven. Cutting supply line in Afgan and Iraq might slow them down, but people are still funneling supply to these terrorist. The war has been going on for what? almost 10 years now? you don't think the U.S. military has been trying to cut off supply lines? resources and such? You would think with modern technology, spy satellites, drones, computers, spy planes and billions of dollars of equipment can really cut off/ blockade, or just shut the enemy down? doesn't seem to be case IMO cause we are STILL fighting the war.

unlike war in the past, when the military takes over a capital, kill/capture general or defeat x number of troops, the enemy surrenders and reform (well you know, follow the surrender treaty and such) but the Taliban? They don't believe in surrender. They will fight to the last men, women and child (if you have learn later that the Taliban start to employ suicide bombers of children and women now) killing their leader will just make them MORE vigilant in their tactics. Taking over the city will just make them fight harder, cutting supply line will just call in their alternate oversea, out of country, or whatever resources and bring them in.

We're talking about the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban not about the worldwide war on terror. You do get extra points for sticking to your usual retoric of the Islamic boogeymen.

Fortunately for the world your dreams of elite Taliban shock troopers fighting in villainous last stand refusing to give up their fight is just... wrong. Taliban fighters surrender when battles turn against them just like everybody does.

Also you seem confused about what exactly the Taliban is. The Taliban isn't a world wide terrorist network they don't have alternates overseas, they don't have cells operating around the world. THey are a regional military junta. They fight for control of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. You cut off their resources they can't call in resources from Taliban global all they can do is try to carry on the fight with whatever weapons and equipment they have on hand.

Sure maybe, just maybe the U.S. can put in a leader that could run the country, but the U.S. put Saddam in that place already and look how that turn out (well I don't have all the facts but read many theories that U.S. help on that)

Yes and we installed Pinochet and numerous other tinpot dictators. I am not a fan of those solutions nor have I ever advocated that kind of arraignment so I'm wondering why you even bring it up.

Both countries infrastructures are in ruins, the people are poorer than dirt and yet these people still fight against all odds cause that is what they truly believe in. I don't know about you, but that is as winnable as winning an argument over the internet (again, my opinion)

You're an idiot. The Afghanies don't believe in the cause of the Taliban. They sign up because the Taliban will kill them and their families if they don't. They don't sign up to fight Americans, or to gain power and wealth. They sign up because the Taliban is holding a fucking gun to their head. You take away the Taliban's weapons their fighting force will desert en masse.

@Rob King

Yeah Afghanistan is the guerilla fighter's wet dream: Unstable region with plenty of groups who will supply you weapons to make trouble for their neighbors, mountainous terrain that is perfect for hiding supply caches and blending away into the night and a native population used to not seeing anything.

Which is why the current idea of coming down hard on the Taliban and crushing the resistance out of them causes me to laugh myself silly. No matter how many civilians we don't care about the approach isn't going to work.

Jul 26, 2010#35

Rob King

Dubyamn said:
@Rob King

Yeah Afghanistan is the guerilla fighter's wet dream: Unstable region with plenty of groups who will supply you weapons to make trouble for their neighbors, mountainous terrain that is perfect for hiding supply caches and blending away into the night and a native population used to not seeing anything.

Which is why the current idea of coming down hard on the Taliban and crushing the resistance out of them causes me to laugh myself silly. No matter how many civilians we don't care about the approach isn't going to work.

I've been reading a little bit about Canada's activities in Kandahar over the last year or so, and I get the impression that we're finally figuring out how to make progress. Inside the Canadian sphere of influence there have been irrigation projects, school construction, immunization drives and I think at least one hospital built. The Canadian forces have been working to keep the people in their controlled region safe, prosperous, and free, while simultaneously reaching out a little farther and hitting insurgents wherever they can.

This is the way to win in Afghanistan. Show the Afghan people that a higher standard of living is possible, and that life is better and possible without the Taliban. In Maclean's (news magazine) I have been reading that because of this new philosophy, that what territory the Canadian forces in Kandahar have recently gained they have had a much easier time keeping it. Those just outside the Canadian sphere of influence are seeing that life is good in the Taliban-less areas. Recruitment goes down, as does trouble.

It's a downright tragedy that public opinion of the conflict is so low, and we've committed to pulling out in 2011. I only hope that the ANA and whoever else from the UN stays on both see the value in this development-centered philosophy.

[Also, I realize that I'm likely receiving a vaguely propagandized version of events in Kandahar, but even if things aren't going as well as I have been lead to believe, I still feel like the development-centered philosophy is the winning strategy in Afghanistan.]

Jul 26, 2010#36

Espy

@Dubyamn Lay off the insults. Heated debate is fine. Name calling, etc only serves to a)undermine any point you want to make and b)get yourself some quick infraction points.

Jul 26, 2010#37

Chibibar

@epsy: thanks

@dubyamn: yea, I might be an "idiot" to you but if that was true, why the war takes 10 years and still going with little progress? I say little progress cause if we pull out say today, it is a whole mess over there that the government itself can't sustain itself. I guess I'm mixing Taliban with Al Quada. my bad, two separate group with no relation to each other. I misread the articles where U.S. citizen join the Al Quada and get training to bomb places (and some fail thank goodness) and link them to Taliban.

edit:
I usually get the two mix up
Iraq = Al Quada
Afgan = Taliban

sorry for the mix up.

Jul 26, 2010#38

D

Dubyamn

Chibibar said:
@dubyamn: yea, I might be an "idiot" to you but if that was true, why the war takes 10 years and still going with little progress?

Variety of reasons but I think it really boils down to a mismanagement of resources following the invasion and the fact that we didn't build a stable governmental institution.

I could go into detail but mostly it's because the people in charge aren't that good at planning.

I say little progress cause if we pull out say today, it is a whole mess over there that the government itself can't sustain itself.

Oh my no we set up a really crappy government in Afghanistan and unfortunately our "ally" Karzai is too corrupt to think of how he can use his position to make the government better.

I guess I'm mixing Taliban with Al Quada. my bad, two separate group with no relation to each other. I misread the articles where U.S. citizen join the Al Quada and get training to bomb places (and some fail thank goodness) and link them to Taliban.

Ah okay your post makes allot more sense now. Though even Al Queda don't believe in fighting to the last man they routinely surrender and defect.

Jul 26, 2010#39

Rob King

Chibibar said:
edit:
I usually get the two mix up
Iraq = Al Quada
Afgan = Taliban

sorry for the mix up.

Jul 26, 2010#40

Chibibar

Rob King;419724][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
edit:
I usually get the two mix up
Iraq = Al Quada
Afgan = Taliban

sorry for the mix up.

Uuh, unless I'm horribly misinformed that's not it at all.

Both Al Queda and the Taliban were in Afghanistan at the beginning of the war. The Taliban had control in most of the country (not the North) and was letting Al Queda hang out and plot terrorist attacks. Post 9/11, the world took a serious look at the Taliban for harboring Al Queda, and when the Taliban refused to kick Al Queda out then they had essentially cast their lot in with the terrorists.

Aerial bombardments began, and then we joined the fight alongside the Afghan Northern Alliance (who were generally regarded as the legitimate but powerless government of Afghanistan).

As far as I understand it, the 'enemy' in Iraq was the Iraqi army, but is now a mish-mash of terrorist groups and guerrilla fighters.

Correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

I dunno. that is what I was thinking, hence the argument I made. It is really really hard to win a war when you fight against someone who is devout religion. Now of course there will be some who will defect and see the whole moral thing, but there are devout leaders who can convince the people to follow their way either by religion (hard to turn), intimidation (easier to turn, but only when it is safe) and desperation (need improve infrastructure and opportunity)

Jul 26, 2010#41

SpecialKO

"Defect" doesn't necessarily mean "see the whole moral thing", incidentally. I would imagine, most of the time, it's "we'll take care of your family, get you out of the country, and set you up comfortably".

Jul 26, 2010#42

Chibibar

SpecialKO said:
"Defect" doesn't necessarily mean "see the whole moral thing", incidentally. I would imagine, most of the time, it's "we'll take care of your family, get you out of the country, and set you up comfortably".

yea. that is a good motivation as well

Jul 26, 2010#43

Chibibar

Why Afghanistan's Proving to be "Catch-22-ville" - CBS News

Ok. I take it all back. It is possible that the U.S. training program doesn't involve local knowledge at all. Trying to train U.S. only stuff to people and spend billions on them (at least that is what I understand). The article does give some insights, but I don't think it is the whole picture.

Jul 26, 2010#44

JONJONAUG

Initial assessment by Pentagon finds no threat to national security

Jul 26, 2010#45

Espy

JONJONAUG said:
Initial assessment by Pentagon finds no threat to national security

Thats some good news.

Jul 28, 2010#46

Necronic

Avoiding the death of civilians should be an absolute priority of our military. And here's why you should care.

1) Basic Morals? We, as the people of a democratic nation, are responsible for starting this war. It doesn't matter who you voted for. We are responsible for seeing it fought correctly. Funny thing, this is more a dig at the left than anyone else though, as they have made grossly irresponsible statements about leaving the warzones ASAP leaving the countries in a worse place than we started.

2) Military Strategy? Killing civilians undermines every bit of our mission there. It destroys infrastucture (workers). It destroys local Afghan support. It destroys foreign support. It gives support to our enemies.

3) Money? Ok, am I speaking your language now? Killing civilians costs money. Like lots of money. By damaging the military strategy it ends up taking us longer to rebuild the infrastructure without local support or workers. Worse though it makes it harder to beat the enemy, as it fuels their forces. And if we kill more civilians to kill those enemies then...you see where I am going? 3 steps foreward 2 steps back.

Do I think we have killed a lot of civilians? I don't know. I know we don't target them. But the concept of Total War is dead, has been for more than a century. It doesn't work. Any time that civilians are targeted it backfires massively. Look at 911. The pentagon getting destroyed was one thing. The world trade center? We started 2 wars for that. And people are still so pissed about that there has been the tenuous possibility of another world war founded on religion for almost a decade.

But, we don't target civilians, thank god. But we sure as hell should do our best to make sure they don't die. I mean, ffs that's what we're there for right? To free them? To liberate them? This ISN'T A PUNITIVE WAR RIGHT? It's interesting that Dresden was mentioned earlier. That was part of a purely punitive measure. Hiroshima was a bit more complex (was also showing off to the Russians and keeping them from getting the surrender.) Firebombings in general were almost entirely punitive. The only reason that Japan and Germany didn't end up totally fubared is because their armies surrendered and we were able to peacefully rebuild them, and we rebuilt them in a way we haven't done for any country since.

Punitive measures are stupid, dangerous, self defeating, and immoral. Sherman's march did so much damage to the South that it never fully rebuilt, and is considered one of the sources of the rise of the KKK.

All the other stuff listed, meh. The use of Reapers is great, because they actually limit civvie casualties. Special forces going after leaders? Awesome, surgical strikes limit civvie casualties.

Jul 28, 2010#47

Necronic

Also, I want to make my view clear on this. I believe that our soldiers are for the most part doing the best they can in a very difficult situation right now. Because of how the Taliban/Al Qaeda fight this war it is exceptionally difficult to avoid civilian casualties. They fight out of uniform, in urban areas, and hide amongst the civilians. That is a recipe for civilian casualties if there ever was one.

So I am not passing judgement on the abilities of our troops to avoid civvie casualties. What I am passing judgement on is the attitude of 'it happens, it's war' because that is a terrible mindset, from a military, moral, and economic standpoint.

Jul 28, 2010#48

SpecialKO

I wonder how much of the Wikileaks stuff applies to our actual troops and how much to private contractors? The news organizations don't mention anything about that.

Forums