What accounts for "US loosing" in Afghanistan.

[ghundal]

here are some links to reports on Taliban in Afghanistan. I can provide more if the need be, if say some ISI agent is behind one of these reports.

Sigh. This discourse with Comrade was a waste of time, and his failure to back his claims about Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the US holds.

US report shows Taliban support in Afghanistan, blames Karzai | America-Canada | World Bulletin


The report concludes that Afghan people support or are sympathetic to the insurgency in 92 of 121 districts identified by the U.S. military as key terrain. Popular support for Karzai's government is strong in only 29 of those districts, it concludes.

Here are a few good reads on growing Taliban support in Afghanistan.

Virginia M. Moncrieff: Taliban Support Increasing, Holds 72 % Of Afghanistan: Report

Why the Taliban Is Gaining Ground in Afghanistan - TIME

And even this puppet Zardari chimes in with his addition this past August

Zardari: Taliban winning war, Afghan support - Washington Times

[ghundal]

Again Comrade, back all the claims you made in your initial response. Till then, do not waste my time. I am not interested in what people say about me to you, nor about your silly rants.

Stick to the facts, and present your case. I have still not gone to your level of throwing 5-year old temper tantrums .

[khushal]

Barakzai I didn't say it was a success, but it did to an extent maintain US interests in the region. I am more libertarian than even the CATO so I can see their point of view on it. French did even worse, they used their money and supported their military in Vietnam. What I alluded to in my questioning, was what nation building did he have in mind? A little specifics would help.

I am aware that the Marshall plan will not work in Afghanistan. I did not in any way say that it should be adopted. So I don't know why you felt the need to point that out.

BA, he has to first define the parameters of punitive expeditions before I can assess (with my limited knowledge) them. I can't go blindly into it. One needs to be specific.

Did those investments increase insurgency or where they a failure for different reasons? These are two different things. Scheur's trendline is not by this standard workable or usable.

British did not need to hold on to Afghanistan, they did what they had t do with Pashtuns. They politically divided them, took away their strategic areas, contained Russian influence and took away Afghanistan's right to foreign policy. That is success.

Why are the Americans Losing, the same reason why everyone, including the British, that has came to Afghanistan has lost. The American's objective just like all other invader's objective is to have a Kabul government in place where a few elites can deliver all the Afghans at a wholesale price. That would be success.

Mubarak and gang, for example, were paid very well by the Imperialists to deliver the 70 million Egyptian Arabs at a wholesale price. Today the Imperialist fears that system guaranteeing wholesale delivery has been taken out. A retail price would be to pay every Egyptian to do the bidding of the Imperialist, It is not possible to afford such a price so a system has to be set up where payment to a few elites can deliver all of them for a fraction of the price.

In Afghanistan, Many puppets have been set up to this task and all have failed. The Pashtunwali code prevents this delivery at the wholesale price. It is possible to bribe the Afghans, but they can only be bribed at a retail price and it is impossible to afford this. The Cost of keeping Afghanistan always out weighs the benefit. Every Invader has realized that going into Afghanistan is like going into a business where every employee demands a contract equal to everyone else, if one employees contract has better terms, then a strike will ensue. It eats up resources like crazy and at the end of the day, you have nothing but losses to show for it.

When you go into rural Afghanistan where the majority of the people live, you will quickly notice that individual independence is prized over everything else. No one has a master, and if any one tries to impose their way on anybody else, they will certainly be looking down the barrel of a gun, resistance will be fierce. Disputes and all other matters are handled through Pashtunwali not by any Authority(because recognizing any authority is giving up individual independence). Zahir Shaws police and Army never really intervened in these peoples lives because they knew the consequences. The Communists knew this and the Americans know this, arrogance has temporarily blinded them.

So wholesale price delevery is the key.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Why are the Americans Losing, the same reason why everyone, including the British, that has came to Afghanistan has lost. The American's objective just like all other invader's objective is to have a Kabul government in place where a few elites can deliver all the Afghans at a wholesale price. That would be success.

Mubarak and gang, for example, were paid very well by the Imperialists to deliver the 70 million Egyptian Arabs at a wholesale price. Today the Imperialist fears that system guaranteeing wholesale delivery has been taken out. A retail price would be to pay every Egyptian to do the bidding of the Imperialist, It is not possible to afford such a price so a system has to be set up where payment to a few elites can deliver all of them for a fraction of the price.

In Afghanistan, Many puppets have been set up to this task and all have failed. The Pashtunwali code prevents this delivery at the wholesale price. It is possible to bribe the Afghans, but they can only be bribed at a retail price and it is impossible to afford this. The Cost of keeping Afghanistan always out weighs the benefit. Every Invader has realized that going into Afghanistan is like going into a business where every employee demands a contract equal to everyone else, if one employees contract has better terms, then a strike will ensue. It eats up resources like crazy and at the end of the day, you have nothing but losses to show for it.

When you go into rural Afghanistan where the majority of the people live, you will quickly notice that individual independence is prized over everything else. No one has a master, and if any one tries to impose their way on anybody else, they will certainly be looking down the barrel of a gun, resistance will be fierce. Disputes and all other matters are handled through Pashtunwali not by any Authority(because recognizing any authority is giving up individual independence). Zahir Shaws police and Army never really intervened in these peoples lives because they knew the consequences. The Communists knew this and the Americans know this, arrogance has temporarily blinded them.

So wholesale price delevery is the key.

Khaana did the British really fail? Let us be honest when using examples. Yes we won the wars, but in the long term we lost out a lot. We have to see both sides when looking at the issues at hand.

Individual pride can only go so far, when politically, socially and in many economic indicators we are off.

Zahir Shah was also an inept King, who at best maintained a modicum of peace but at the end of the day was unable to centralize the very state he was the King of. That wasn't entirely in the benefit of our people.

[khushal]

Khaana did the British really fail? Let us be honest when using examples. Yes we won the wars, but in the long term we lost out a lot. We have to see both sides when looking at the issues at hand.

Individual pride can only go so far, when politically, socially and in many economic indicators we are off.

Zahir Shah was also an inept King, who at best maintained a modicum of peace but at the end of the day was unable to centralize the very state he was the King of. That wasn't entirely in the benefit of our people.

Did the British succeed in Afghanistan. Did the Soviets succeed in Afghanistan. Of course Afghanistan lost a lot and is still losing a lot today while the Americans are there but that does not mean the Americans are succeeding, the Americans would be the first to tell you that. When the battle is fought in the country, that country is automatically the loser whether they win the war or not.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country and it is far from being an economically viable state, it has not been an economically viable state for over a 150 years. that is not the argument here. The argument is what accounts for Americans losing.

[khushal]

Zahir Shah was also an inept King, who at best maintained a modicum of peace but at the end of the day was unable to centralize the very state he was the King of. That wasn't entirely in the benefit of our people.

I agree that Zahir shaw was an enept king but for different reasons then you mention. Centralizing Afghanistan is an almost impossible task, every attempt that has been made to centralize the country has ended up as a disaster.
Lets be realistic here, first step is to have a modicum for peace and at least he accomplished that first step with very little resources and no one has done so since even with far greater resources..

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Did the British succeed in Afghanistan. Did the Soviets succeed in Afghanistan. Of course Afghanistan lost a lot and is still losing a lot today while the Americans are there but that does not mean the Americans are succeeding, the Americans would be the first to tell you that. When the battle is fought in the country, that country is automatically the loser whether they win the war or not.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country and it is far from being an economically viable state, it has not been an economically viable state for over a 150 years. that is not the argument here. The argument is what accounts for Americans losing.

Soviets did not succeed, but Afghans lost more than they ever gained. In the end we were used at the expense of others. It hurts me to see some many of people suffering from that era. That doesn't mean Soviets were good, but we have accept the bitter truths.

Americans are not succeeding because they have not made any real strategic and political strides (at least not what we perceive them to be, but then again time will tell). The fact that their economy is going through a downturn makes the war an even bigger issue. However their economic downturn is not directly an outcome of the war, the war is just an added catalyst that may further weaken them.

And if you ask me, Britain did gain, because the lost battles were one thing, they gained politically. They cornered the Russian influence, kept Afghanistan relatively neutral, cut off their access of sea, and divided Afghanistan into political entities. How is that a loss?

[khushal]

And if you ask me, Britain did gain, because the lost battles were one thing, they gained politically. They cornered the Russian influence, kept Afghanistan relatively neutral, cut off their access of sea, and divided Afghanistan into political entities. How is that a loss?

By that argument, the Soviets succeeded as well. They invaded to prevent a US proxy(the majahadeen) from taking over Kabul(curb US influence). Only when the soviet union was no more did the Kabul regime fall. By that same argument the American also have success. The only reason they invaded is to topple the Taliban, neutralize Al Quada, and prevent terrorist training camps from operating in Afghanistan(curb islamic extremist influence). But we all know that is not success for the invader. You don't have to take my word for it, the british, the soviets admit the did not succeed in afghanistan and the americans are admitting they are also not succeeding.

Success is like I said before to install a kabul regime that can deliver the afghan nation at the whole sale price I talked about in the previous post.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

By that argument, the Soviets succeeded as well. They invaded to prevent a US proxy(the majahadeen) from taking over Kabul(curb US influence). Only when the soviet union was no more did the Kabul regime fall. By that same argument the American also have success. The only reason they invaded is to topple the Taliban, neutralize Al Quada, and prevent terrorist training camps from operating in Afghanistan(curb islamic extremist influence). But we all know that is not success for the invader. You don't have to take my word for it, the british, the soviets admit the did not succeed in afghanistan and the americans are admitting they are also not succeeding.

Success is like I said before to install a kabul regime that can deliver the afghan nation at the whole sale price I talked about in the previous post.

Actually Soviets didn't succeed. What political goals did they manage to achieve? Their strategic goals as well? How did they curb US influence? US managed to influence Afghanistan via their proxy Pakistan quite successfully. The success of the British comes from the fact that despite the loss they managed to gain politically and strategically. US ha shifted their rhetoric many times, again that is why I said percieve, since in my opinion their goals are not mere democracy or nation building..rather strategic. In that instance they haven't really gained much have they? They toppled the same government they are now wanting to negotiate with? That is an odd for of toppling isn't it?

Every super power would want to push their interests whole sale on the other state, or even regional power.

[khushal]

Actually Soviets didn't succeed. What political goals did they manage to achieve? Their strategic goals as well? How did they curb US influence? US managed to influence Afghanistan via their proxy Pakistan quite successfully. The success of the British comes from the fact that despite the loss they managed to gain politically and strategically. US ha shifted their rhetoric many times, again that is why I said percieve, since in my opinion their goals are not mere democracy or nation building..rather strategic. In that instance they haven't really gained much have they? They toppled the same government they are now wanting to negotiate with? That is an odd for of toppling isn't it?

Every super power would want to push their interests whole sale on the other state, or even regional power.

The British did the same. They negotiated with the same government they toppled in Kabul.

but we are going in circles here. We have to realize what is the goal of an empire when it invades a land. It wants the people of that land to submit to its will and it has to figure out an efficient way for their loyalty and obedience. the British failed in Afghanistan because it wanted something of the same obedient regime in Kabul that could deliver the whole nation to them just like they had done to the many princely states in India. It was not a success because they did not accomplish this goal.

I agree with you that they settled for the next best thing which was to have a buffer and prevent any direct conflict with Russia. But the British invasion had more excessive goals. You don't need to invade a country to create a buffer, there are easier ways to go about that.

[khushal]

Actually Soviets didn't succeed. What political goals did they manage to achieve? Their strategic goals as well? How did they curb US influence? US managed to influence Afghanistan via their proxy Pakistan quite successfully. .

By your argument, they succeeded just like the British succeeded. They curbed US influence(majahadeen) from taking over kabul, like I said, the kabul regime was only toppled when the soviet union had collapsed almost a year earlier.

In reality no one did because all these puppets had failed to deliver the nation wholesale to its imperial masters.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

The British did the same. They negotiated with the same government they toppled in Kabul.

but we are going in circles here. We have to realize what is the goal of an empire when it invades a land. It wants the people of that land to submit to its will and it has to figure out an efficient way for their loyalty and obedience. the British failed in Afghanistan because it wanted something of the same obedient regime in Kabul that could deliver the whole nation to them just like they had done to the many princely states in India. It was not a success because they did not accomplish this goal.

I agree with you that they settled for the next best thing which was to have a buffer and prevent any direct conflict with Russia. But the British invasion had more excessive goals. You don't need to invade a country to create a buffer, there are easier ways to go about that.

Wrora I understand what a super power or any power would want, I am not debating that. However, those were done in duress and esssentially the British were able to topple the Kings (like Amanullah and some say the son of Abdur Rahman as well) their interests were not being put forward. I think we have to be fair when we look at that portion of our history.

Other than that, we can agree to disagree :-).

[khushal]

Wrora I understand what a super power or any power would want, I am not debating that. However, those were done in duress and esssentially the British were able to topple the Kings (like Amanullah and some say the son of Abdur Rahman as well) their interests were not being put forward. I think we have to be fair when we look at that portion of our history.

Other than that, we can agree to disagree :-).

I don't know why you say the British succeeded when the british themselves admit they did not succeeded because their goals were not met when they invaded and had to settle for the next best thing.

But you are correct when you say Afghanistan lost a lot with the conflict it had with the British, but it also lost a lot with the conflict it had with the soviets and it is losing a lot in the current conflict with the americans, but that is not the argument here.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I don't know why you say the British succeeded when the british themselves admit they did not succeeded because their goals were not met when they invaded and had to settle for the next best thing.

But you are correct when you say Afghanistan lost a lot with the conflict it had with the British, but it also lost a lot with the conflict it had with the soviets and it is losing a lot in the current conflict with the americans, but that is not the argument here.

Wrora the British admit to their military defeat in the first and third Anglo-Afghan wars, but do not accept complete loss politically, they just changed their policy and succeeded in it to a large extent, which is a sign of a clever and tactical empire.

I think the losses against the British really signaled major problems for us. If we look at it in perspective, Soviets would not have gained such ground had their not been the issue of Pashtunistan involved, Pakistan interference, divided buffer zones, etc. I think that is where we really lost a lot of our political leverage and to a large extent are still suffering.

[khushal]

Wrora the British admit to their military defeat in the first and third Anglo-Afghan wars, but do not accept complete loss politically, they just changed their policy and succeeded in it to a large extent, which is a sign of a clever and tactical empire.

I think the losses against the British really signaled major problems for us. If we look at it in perspective, Soviets would not have gained such ground had their not been the issue of Pashtunistan involved, Pakistan interference, divided buffer zones, etc. I think that is where we really lost a lot of our political leverage and to a large extent are still suffering.

While you are correct If there was no durand line that the soviets would never have been in Afghanistan because the pashtunistan policy would not be an issue with pakistan(if there would have been a pakistan in that scenerio), but even then I believe Daud Khan should not have pursued this pashtunistan policy the way he did because he backed himself into a corner where he was forced to completely depend on the Soviet Union and isolated himself from everyone else. Once Daud Khan realized it was a failed policy and wanted to diversify his economic partners, thats when the soviets supported a coup against him and forced the Islamists to take to the hills and were forced to depend on Pakistan.

I think Daud should have executed a more moderate approach toward Pakistan and should not have backed himself into a corner with the soviets.