Afghanistan

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

A a quick search on Unocal should get you started in what I believe is the right direction

here are a few articles to start with

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm


http://books.google.be/books?id=MqrO...Cheney&f=false

So its a modern version of "The Great Game"?

As far as the gas pipeline. What possible interest does the US government have in seeing Turkmenistan send gas to India? We can't use that gas.
This goes along with my view that the US military is being used as corporate muscle and not to defend the US as it supposed to be used. If anything this makes the US less safe in the long run in my opinion.

[D-Mack]

Re: Afghanistan

So its a modern version of "The Great Game"?

As far as the gas pipeline. What possible interest does the US government have in seeing Turkmenistan send gas to India? We can't use that gas.
This goes along with my view that the US military is being used as corporate muscle and not to defend the US as it supposed to be used. If anything this makes the US less safe in the long run in my opinion.

If you control it you can do whatever you want

Iraq War Part Of Previous Geopolitical Plans

"Today, we are focusing on the next phase of Caspian development, looking to the Caspian Basin and Iraq to help reduce Europe’s dependence on a single Russian company, Gazprom, which provides 25 percent of all gas consumed in Europe.

"Our goal is to develop a 'Southern Corridor' of energy infrastructure to transport Caspian and Iraqi oil and gas to Turkey and Europe. The Turkey-Greece-Italy (TGI) and Nabucco natural gas pipelines are key elements of the Southern Corridor.

"Potential gas supplies in Turkmenistan and Iraq can provide the crucial additional volumes beyond those in Azerbaijan to realize the Southern Corridor. Washington and Ankara are working together with Baghdad to help Iraq develop its own large natural gas reserves for both domestic consumption and for export to Turkey and the EU." [1]

Bryza took no little personal credit for accomplishing the above objectives, which as he indicated weren't limited to a comprehensive project of controlling if not monopolizing oil and natural gas flows to Europe but also in the opposite direction to three of the world's four major energy consumers: China, India and Japan. Since the delivery of the presentation from which the above is quoted the U.S. and its Western European NATO allies have also launched the Nabucco natural gas pipeline which intends to bring gas from, as Bryza mentioned, Iraq and also eventually Egypt and possibly Algeria to Turkey where Caspian oil and gas will arrive via Azerbaijan and Georgia.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14779

[Diarmuid]

Re: Afghanistan

So its a modern version of "The Great Game"?

believe so


The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

As far as the gas pipeline. What possible interest does the US government have in seeing Turkmenistan send gas to India?

India is seen as the the counter weight to China and Russian power in the region, hence part of the reason for the nuclear technology transfers despite the fact it contrevenes the NNPA, and Washington generally cosying up to Delhi these days.

- do as we say not as we do = real polotik.

http://www.worlddialogue.org/content...1c7bc1a6bded37

"The Singh–Bush declaration of March 2006, which finalised a July 2005 “landmark” agreement between the two leaders, ended these sanctions on India’s civilian nuclear-energy programme. The United States will assist India in the development of its nuclear-energy capabilities, which hitherto had expanded on indigenous technology and resources. The agreement remains within the framework of Articles III and IV of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which urges nuclear-weapon states to provide non-nuclear-weapon states with nuclear technology “for peaceful purposes”. Since nuclear-energy technology and resources can assist in the development of nuclear-weapon capabilities, Articles III and IV have remained a standing contradiction of Articles I and II, which prohibit nuclear-weapon states from transferring nuclear-weapons technology to non-nuclear-weapon states.

The NNPA prohibits US aid to states seeking nuclear weapons. :p>
:p>
:p>:p>Critics have argued that the Singh–Bush agreement formally recognises India as a nuclear-weapon state and amounts to a flagrant violation of the NNPA.
"

Of course maybe it is all about bringing democracy to the Afghans and protecting the American population from the terrorists. That's the story on the bubble vision anyway.

[0tr]

Re: Afghanistan

A a quick search on Unocal should get you started in what I believe is the right direction

here are a few articles to start with

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm


http://books.google.be/books?id=MqrO...Cheney&f=false

Was Mega wondering if 911 was a black op? Like burning the Reichstag, absolutely perfect cover for...

Too real to be true? Too true to be real?

Na, couldn't be. Oh look, idols on.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Afghanistan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0P189UMfT

Hundreds of soldiers from a leading infantry regiment are to be sent to the frontline in Afghanistan with just six weeks' specialised battlefield training - instead of the usual minimum of six months.

It is believed to be the first time the Army has allowed men to put their lives on the line with so little preparation for the tough fighting conditions against the Taliban.

The training cutback led to claims last night that soldiers' lives could be put at risk as a result.

Officers in charge of the 400 soldiers from the 1st Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, are being recalled from leave early next week to prepare and plan for their men to deploy to Helmand province at the end of October.

[sishya]

Re: Afghanistan

My Hunch is US will *win* in Afghanistan even where Russia failed.
US is doing lots of calculated moves. It has friends on the East and North of Afghanistan. Iran is also aligned with US there. US is also talking to Taliban, arming tribal militia's against Taliban. SO let's see how this turns. But I am positive.

No one thought US would bring Iraq to this state 2 years ago, when bombs were flying everyday. I am inherently a pessimist, but not here.

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

These future historians will wonder about our leaders and the American populance complete ignorance of the fact that the same Soviet Imperial state (which by the way sits right next door, so no real problem with 5000 mile supply lines) could not beat an Afghan peasant army with over 300,000 + troops...

Covert American support for the Mujahedin helped neutralize Soviet technical superiority. Tanks aren't as useful in the mountains, and after we gave the Afghans a way to fight back against Soviet gunships, Afghanistan became too costly to the Soviets.

We don't have enough troops or time to passify Afghanistan directly, and I suspect Afghanistan is too fragmented to form an effective national army or police force. That means we probably won't succeed in using Afghan manpower to solve the security problem for us unless we're willing to deal with a lot of small groups, and give up on building a modern nation-state.

However, there is no superpower supplying the Taliban with advanced weapons. We're not going to be shown the door in the same way as the Soviets.

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

I'm still not clear what the mission goal in Afghanistan is. I don't think most Americans are either.

Actually, I haven't ever heard a convincing argument against the obvious security explanation.

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

Russian conscripts in Chechnya got maybe a week of inferior training. Lambs to the slaughter. By comparison our boys are special forces right out of boot camp.

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

Covert American support for the Mujahedin helped neutralize Soviet technical superiority. Tanks aren't as useful in the mountains, and after we gave the Afghans a way to fight back against Soviet gunships, Afghanistan became too costly to the Soviets.

We don't have enough troops or time to passify Afghanistan directly, and I suspect Afghanistan is too fragmented to form an effective national army or police force. That means we probably won't succeed in using Afghan manpower to solve the security problem for us unless we're willing to deal with a lot of small groups, and give up on building a modern nation-state.

However, there is no superpower supplying the Taliban with advanced weapons. We're not going to be shown the door in the same way as the Soviets.

I agree, not the same war. We can "win" militarily, but what have we really won? Most insurrections are un-winnable. Its not like traditional war you just march in and take the capital and declare the war is over.The Afghans have shown their tenacity throughout their history. They have time on their side. Very expensive to maintain an army overseas these days in a war zone. They know this. Ash, I know you already know this, I'm just speaking rhetorically.

Ash,what security problem are you referring to? The training of terrorists I presume? If so, does that mean we are going to have to occupy every nation that is too weak to prevent these people from opening training camps? That's going to open a real can of worms, as they can border hop a lot cheaper than we can occupy them. It's a game of terrorist Whack-a-mole. I still prefer the "Big Stick" method over occupy and nation build.

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

Ash,what security problem are you referring to? The training of terrorists I presume? If so, does that mean we are going to have to occupy every nation that is too weak to prevent these people from opening training camps? That's going to open a real can of worms, as they can border hop a lot cheaper than we can occupy them. It's a game of terrorist Wack-a-mole. I still prefer the "Big Stick" method over occupy and nation build.

Yes -- I was referring to the counter-terrorist mission. That, and the "you break it; you buy it" aspect (mostly national credibility). It has been less than a decade, but I look at Afghanistan as a half-baked mission that we inherrited from a time when we were feeling stronger than we are now (hadn't worn ourselves out in Iraq; hadn't experienced the financial collapse), which has evolved from a "quick fix" to a long occupation on a shoestring budget. The planners of the initial invasion didn't have much time to think, and what they did think of was a "small footprint" and reliance upon local proxies. But then our proxies let Bin Laden escape, we had displaced the Taliban government of Afghanistan (and couldn't responsibly just leave), and our resources and attention got diverted to Iraq. So yeah -- I was trying to answer "why?" we are in Afghanistan, rather than "should we still be in Afghanistan?". That was probably cheating... not what you were really pondering.

I don't have a good solution to the "you break it; you buy it" problem for our national credibility. It would be best if we tried to set up a stable government of some sort, and I think that's what we're trying. But otherwise, I doubt very much that the cost of the occupation is commensurate to the security threat it ostensibly controls. Were it me, I would go with intelligence collection and targetted assassination from drones in future "failed states" where we are worried about terrorists. You're right that this whole occupation thing costs too much. I don't think it's going to end well.

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

I thought the US did an amazing job in Afghanistan initially, considering the limited force sent there. Kicked out the Taliban. And of course we needed to stick around until stability arrived. But its been 7 1/2 years! They stuck Afghanistan on the back burner and now the pot is boiling over.

There is no easy answer now, but the long term solution is that we need to quit making promises we can't make good on. In your words, quit breaking things so we don't have to buy them! I know we needed local support, but they give away the farm sometimes in order to get it. I sometimes doubt much thought was given at high levels to the long term implication of taking on Islamic Fundamentalists on their own turf. For all we know the Taliban would not be back in Afghanistan if US troops were not there. These people gain strength by having a foreign devil to whip up support. We shouldn't forget what started this whole mess, US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. The sooner we can disengage from that whole region the better in my opinion. Be it electric cars, wind, solar, pedal cars or whatever.

Oh, and all this fuss about health care reform. Just to put things into perspective, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would pay for it and then some. Short wars we can afford. Perpetual ones are Empire killers.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Afghanistan

Russian conscripts in Chechnya got maybe a week of inferior training. Lambs to the slaughter. By comparison our boys are special forces right out of boot camp.

That's not exactly true.

Without going into graphic detail of the Soviet Order of Battle, it's worth noting the Soviet's made considerable use of their own Spetznaz and special mission units.

The successful Soviet forced entry and takedown of Afghanistan would rank up there with US operations in late 2001.

I've had the opportunity to discuss with and learn from Soviet operations in Afghanistan directly from a member of a special mission unit directly involved in interdiction missions along the Pakistani/Afghani frontier.

I think a lot of folks would be surprised at the level of success achieved by Soviet special mission units once they adjusted their orientation and doctrine away from rear echelon disruption in a conventional conflict in Western Europe to disrupting logistical supply chains from "secure" Mujahideen bases in Pakistan.

I've seen photos of Spetznaz posing with a LOT of Stinger tubes.

Of course, ultimately the Soviets failed......but I think it would be dangerous to assume the reasons why are largely due to a difference between a conscription based, officer centric force and a professional based, NCO centric force.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that opposition strategy in Afghanistan is exceptionally difficult to counter.

Go for a few high profile political/media wins specifically targeting weaker coalition members..the weak links in the chain...to hasten their departure

Combine this with efforts to temporarily cease insurgent operations and allow the coalition to declare political victory and get the hell out....then the real party starts.

Good guys have training, tactics, kit, and resources to win the battles....but a relatively short attention span.

Bad guys have unlimited patience to wait for the coalition to leave and win the war.

[D-Mack]

Re: Afghanistan

Russian conscripts in Chechnya got maybe a week of inferior training. Lambs to the slaughter. By comparison our boys are special forces right out of boot camp.

I don't know about the training, but the uniforms are non existent, at least what I have seen from pictures in the Georgia conflict.

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551

Instead of boots, some have normal shoes, different uniforms without matching colors and probably nobody has a bulletproof vest.

I hope they are getting enough food.

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

The successful Soviet forced entry and takedown of Afghanistan would rank up there with US operations in late 2001.

I don't know about the training, but the uniforms are non existent, at least what I have seen from pictures in the Georgia conflict.

Good posts, guys, but I think you may be talking at cross purposes. Flintlock said Chechnya. Lakedaemonian said Afghanistan. D-Mack is saying Georgia. My guess is that the Soviet Army was in better condition entering Afghanistan in 1979 than the Russian Army was fighting in Chechnya and Georgia, after the fall of the Soviet Union.