Taliban to Meet With Northern Foes

[randolph85]

First of all, this is a think tank that has proposed talks between the two to end the ongoing war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.

If a NATO alliance of 50+ nations have failed in Afghanistan (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030), and lost, then what makes you think that their Northern Alliance supporters can win on their own or with NATO support?... If they have not been winning for the last decade?

The 50 nation NATO alliance is the most advanced military alliance the world has ever seen, and they have been defeated in Afghanistan. Are you telling me that the Northern Alliance is stronger force than the NATO alliance?

what you don't seem to realize for some reason is that the taliban are fighting a guerrilla war against the foreigners today, something that is possible as long as there is plenty of cannon fodder in the way of soldiers. the taliban and northern alliance were not fighting a guerrilla war against each other in the 90s. they were fighting conventionally with aircraft, tanks, standing armies and the like. guerrilla tactics only work when a force is on the outside looking in, not when they are the government. when they are a central power, that makes them vulnerable to guerrilla tactics.

once a group takes power, they have infrastructure that support their regime like bases, govt buildings and so on. how do you think the americans made the taliban flee so quickly after the war began? all they had to do was bomb strategic taliban positions.

look at what happened with jamiat, hezb i islami, and others after they defeated the soviet union. they eventually crumbled under the taliban, by your logic is the taliban more powerful than a super power?

in the past, the talibans enemies were drained by fighting against each other, today they are fresh and stocking modern weaponry.

[randolph85]

So you think the 'Northerners' can keep up a fight? Care to explain what you mean by 'Northerners?'

It is actually a Paris based think tank that has proposed this conference to talk about the solution to the war. It has nothing to do with the Taliban wanting to talk to the 'Northerners' as you term this group.

In fact, I could ask why the 'Northerners' want to talk? Arent they going to pick up the fight where the US-NATO-Pak alliance has dropped off? Or are they going to continue oppressing people and dealing in drugs, pimping and prostitution- their Mode of operations?

northerners as in the northern alliance, a group of mostly northern non pashtun military and political leaders, easy right? what do you want me to call them? the stupid different names they come up for themselves every few years?

As it is mentioned in the article, it is a Paris based initiative to discuss peace in Afghanistan.

What NA are you referring to?

It is highly doubtful that after a decade of getting rich and building mansions in Dubai (by supporting the US/NATO/Pak war) that anyone is going to respond to their leaders call to arms.

why wouldn't they call their leaders call to arms? haven't over 100,000 afghan soldiers been called to arms by the karzai gov't? the talib foot soldiers been raised to arms by leaders who are safely living in quetta and karachi.

For completely different reasons. The Karzai government has been supportive of the NA, and made many of their leaders ministers in 'government positions.' It has also supported the US/NATO war which focus predominantly in the Pashtun heartland. The Amarulleh Salehs, Zia Masoods, Fahims, etc, etc have been satisfied in this regard. They in fact want more war, and are only angry with the talks of peace. I can past a long list of quotes from all the aforementioned about how they want the US/NATO war to go on forever..

what you don't understand is that by including these people in the inner circle of the gov't cabinet, karzai has neutralized their powers. he split the NA in half by bringing the likes of fahim, ismael khan and rabbani into his camp against the likes of abdaullah x2 and saleh. for example, ismael khan was herat, meaning that when someone thought of herat or western afghanistan, they would conjure up the image of ismael khan. this is a man who even mullah zaeef gave credit to for developing herat before the taliban took herat, but karzai turned him into a lowly minister. an important ministry and one he sucks at, but it shows the contrast of the northern alliances fall from grace.

[Shah-i-Kot]

what you don't seem to realize for some reason is that the taliban are fighting a guerrilla war against the foreigners today, something that is possible as long as there is plenty of cannon fodder in the way of soldiers. the taliban and northern alliance were not fighting a guerrilla war against each other in the 90s. they were fighting conventionally with aircraft, tanks, standing armies and the like. guerrilla tactics only work when a force is on the outside looking in, not when they are the government. when they are a central power, that makes them vulnerable to guerrilla tactics.

once a group takes power, they have infrastructure that support their regime like bases, govt buildings and so on. how do you think the americans made the taliban flee so quickly after the war began? all they had to do was bomb strategic taliban positions.

look at what happened with jamiat, hezb i islami, and others after they defeated the soviet union. they eventually crumbled under the taliban, by your logic is the taliban more powerful than a super power?

in the past, the talibans enemies were drained by fighting against each other, today they are fresh and stocking modern weaponry.

Ok, I understand what you are saying now.

I agree with this assessment. Although, the US/NATO has refused to give the "Afghan National Army" aka (the Western hired mercenaries) aka the Karzai hired mercenaries any modern technology beside some jeeps. They have not given them tanks or aircraft either. So either Ismail Khan has got weapons from his Iranian masters (which is doubtful) or the West has armed him to the teeth (which is also doubtful).

The reason they are not giving F-16 jets and whatnot is the obvious fact that the ANA has been infiltrated by the Taliban.


What modern weapons are you then saying that the NA (if they even exist anymore) will have? Some M16 rifles and a few tanks/Armored personal carriers? Thats not modern weapons.

[randolph85]

Ok, I understand what you are saying now.

I agree with this assessment. Although, the US/NATO has refused to give the "Afghan National Army" aka (the Western hired mercenaries) aka the Karzai hired mercenaries any modern technology beside some jeeps. They have not given them tanks or aircraft either. So either Ismail Khan has got weapons from his Iranian masters (which is doubtful) or the West has armed him to the teeth (which is also doubtful).

The reason they are not giving F-16 jets and whatnot is the obvious fact that the ANA has been infiltrated by the Taliban.


What modern weapons are you then saying that the NA (if they even exist anymore) will have? Some M16 rifles and a few tanks/Armored personal carriers? Thats not modern weapons.

western training goes a long way in any potential "civil war" in the future. there was a video from the taliban jail break i think in dostums stomping grounds back in 2001, the way the NA soldiers fought was ridiculous. not taking cover, wasting ammo, no tactical formations, it was hilarious to watch. it just goes to show that afghans are bad at conventional warfare but pretty good at guerrilla warfare.

the west doesn't want to equip the ana with a modern air force because it is expensive and impractical for a fight with an insurgency. bombing enemy positions does not take a huge amount of money or resources, just look at the damage that relatively cheap drones have done in pakistan. the US knows that afghanistan will not be at war with its neighbors and has no intentions for it to do so, so a modern air force for afghanistan is pointless from a western perspective.


as for weaponry, modern light weaponry is vastly superior than chinese knock offs of the ak which is what most pashtuns in the tribal regions carry. with the west dictating this war, its likely that they would transfer heavy weaponry of the ana up north in the event of a taliban takeover of the south/east if it comes to that. as for tanks and armored personal carriers, that goes a very long way against those who don't have them. this is in addition to whatever covert arms have been accumulated by way of iran, india, russia, and the like. this is not even talking about the southern and eastern commanders that will stand in the way of a taliban takeover, but allah knows.

the taliban were successful in the past because of the circumstances, the right place at the right time. 2014 will not be like 1994-1996, and inshallah there will be progress in negotiations. all sides have softened their stances and realize that more useless war in not the answer.

[Kushan Prince]

The northen alliance has commited just the same or more crimes as the Taliban.

[abassinafghan]

hhohohohohoho

did you hear the statement of the talib lalas on bbc ?

no emirates , they will accept a constitutional order with certain changes..

woman can go to work and get education ...


but here comes the real smart move , where i have to say , at least ones some one among them showed some brains ....

they demand the creation of a mili urdu/faus consisting of conscripts , so every man has to do askari .... and because we are the majority .... guess what is less likely to happen ? right , that people use it as a private army ...

they will also tend to agree to a more federalistic order , the last thing a state like ours ( failed institutional order since 92 , chaos , civil war ) need .

first they demand federalism then session ... considering that our natural ressourcess are mostly in the north and the given level of coruption you can be sure that a proper allocation of funds is less likely ...

you will see a flourishing north and stones and sand for the rest ....

let alone the finger liking of the iranians and the central asian rest ...


on the one hand its good , that finally peace will come if they are serious and came to some reason


but it just showed what i always expected , they will get their share of power and money and as soon one party acts out of order they will be threatend by the others ...

and it also shows the hypocrisy , the ones working with the sowjets were kafirs and mardar and should be qataled ....

the ones working with americans and europeans, who insult islam straight forward in the most obscene way , the ones openly say they come to kill muzzies , and who say on the highest levels that the enemie of the day are muslims , who public announces to burn the quran , and who ask for nuking " ****holes "

the ones who worked in the last 12 years with this people , are still good enough to shake hands with them , to eat with them to pray together with them and on namaz with them .....

i guess the dollar is not so bad afterall , and its anotherthing if they do it .......

[Shah-i-Kot]

[QUOTE]

western training goes a long way in any potential "civil war" in the future.

Really? Are you telling me that the NATO has been training and arming the NA militias (like Ismail Khan's)? Do you mind providing your sources for this?

Or are we to assume that you mean the "ANA?"

In regards to Western training...

here is a snippet from the Lt. Davis report. I would suggest you read the whole report to get a better grip of the ground reality from someone who was there.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

Davis: “Here you have many units of the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF]. Will they be able to hold out against the Taliban when U.S. troops leave this area?”
Adviser: “No. They are definitely not capable. Already all across this region [many elements of] the security forces have made deals with the Taliban. [The ANSF] won’t shoot at the Taliban, and the Taliban won’t shoot them.
“Also, when a Taliban member is arrested, he is soon released with no action taken against him. So when the Taliban returns [when the Americans leave after 2014], so too go the jobs, especially for everyone like me who has worked with the coalition.


Putting aside the fact that the ANA has been infiltrated by the Taliban/Afghan insurgency with the "Green on Blue" attacks, Western training hasnt accounted for that much if anything. At first glance, the high attrition rates of the Western trained ANA is enough of a hint.

The Lt. Davis report as well as the high attrition rates shows that the army formed to prop up Karzai's regime is perhaps the most ineffective group in this conflict.

Here is another snippet.

"In January 2011, I made my first trip into the mountains of Kunar province near the Pakistan border to visit the troops of 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry. On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier.
Through the interpreter, I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.
“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”
As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.
“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”
According to the cavalry troopers, the Afghan policemen rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints. In that part of the province, the Taliban literally run free.

the west doesn't want to equip the ana with a modern air force because it is expensive and impractical for a fight with an insurgency.

Well, the NATO alliance would obviously know that after a decade of using the most advanced fighter jets and modern technology, that does little to no damage against a guerrilla war. However, that most definitely is not the reason that NATO refuses to equip the "ANA" with an air force at all. They simply do not trust giving air force capability to an army that may have a few Pashtuns lingering in it. Thats my opinion formed from the fact that with respect to the "Green on Blue" attacks, almost all the ANA members were Pashtuns.

bombing enemy positions does not take a huge amount of money or resources, just look at the damage that relatively cheap drones have done in pakistan.

Actually, the drone program has been largely ineffective in battling the Taliban/Afghan insurgency- this according to the fact that the majority of victims of drone attacks are civilians.

more later..

[randolph85]

Really? Are you telling me that the NATO has been training and arming the NA militias (like Ismail Khan's)? Do you mind providing your sources for this?

where do you think all these warlords men went to after the warlords became politicians? they blended into the ana. your report is based on a sustained conventional vs guerrilla war type of conflict, its conclusions are a given. what i was talking about was a 90s type civil war when it becomes low level conventional warfare, no more guerrilla war.

Well, the NATO alliance would obviously know that after a decade of using the most advanced fighter jets and modern technology, that does little to no damage against a guerrilla war. However, that most definitely is not the reason that NATO refuses to equip the "ANA" with an air force at all. They simply do not trust giving air force capability to an army that may have a few Pashtuns lingering in it. Thats my opinion formed from the fact that with respect to the "Green on Blue" attacks, almost all the ANA members were Pashtuns.

you are very much overestimating these insider attacks. 1 or 2 insider attacks a month by lowly police officers or ana recruits is not going to stop the building of a conventional air force if they wanted to build one. the educated trained pilots who train for years are not the type of people who turn their guns on their allies. hell, you could start training a pilot to fly an f-16 and by the time he is done training, there will probably be a peace deal in place in the country. i mean there is already an airforce right now, a crappy one, but still an airforce and there have been no problems. these insider attacks, like i said, are done by the very lowest of ranking security personel and not very often out of nearly 200,000 police and ana.

Actually, the drone program has been largely ineffective in battling the Taliban/Afghan insurgency- this according to the fact that the majority of victims of drone attacks are civilians.

since there are no statistics on civilian/combatant deaths in drone attacks in afghanistan, i don't know where you get that info. considering drones have killed several commanders in pakistan and afghanistan, id say its pretty cost effective for what its operators want to accomplish.

[abassinafghan]

armchair dagarwals among themself ....

[Khostai]

This is how NA and talib dogs will look like when they are sitting together LOL

[Shah-i-Kot]

since there are no statistics on civilian/combatant deaths in drone attacks in afghanistan, i don't know where you get that info. considering drones have killed several commanders in pakistan and afghanistan, id say its pretty cost effective for what its operators want to accomplish.

Here is a report about the ineffectiveness of the drone programs against what is termed Taliban safe havens/sanctuaries in FATA.

http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/us-air-strikes-pakistan-ineffective/p20012

Another study shows how drones have generally missed their intended militant targets.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/26/study_finds_us_drone_strikes_in

"The study concludes that most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United States any safer. Just 2 percent of drone attack victims are said to be top militant leaders. "

[Shah-i-Kot]

[QUOTE]

where do you think all these warlords men went to after the warlords became politicians? they blended into the ana

Well thats the point I already made. Assuming the NA has melted into the ANA, the ANA as the previous Lt.Davis report shows is the most ineffective group that is part of this NATO war with infiltration and collusion with the Taliban as well as high attrition rates, contradicting your statement that Western training goes a long way in regards to a civil war

your report is based on a sustained conventional vs guerrilla war type of conflict, its conclusions are a given.

The report (not my report) is a report from many credible reports on the failed NATO war.

what i was talking about was a 90s type civil war when it becomes low level conventional warfare, no more guerrilla war.

Well, you actually contradict your earlier statement when you say "2014 will not be like 1994-1996" aka the 90s.

the taliban were successful in the past because of the circumstances, the right place at the right time. 2014 will not be like 1994-1996, and inshallah there will be progress in negotiations. all sides have softened their stances and realize that more useless war in not the answer.

In fact, the current conflict is a Afghan insurgency/guerilla war against 50 member NATO conventional forces. The 50 + nation NATO alliance with all the conventional weapons you can think of (tanks, jets, drones) have failed to win against the Afghan insurgency. The "ANA" has had the NATO alliance's help for the last decade as well as Pakistan support( supply routes for both NATO/ANA)

you are very much overestimating these insider attacks. 1 or 2 insider attacks a month by lowly police officers or ana recruits is not going to stop the building of a conventional air force if they wanted to build one.

Actually, you are very much underestimating the insider attacks.

Do you think Gen John Allen is overestimating the insider attacks too?

Here is what Gen. John Allen (the commander of NATO/ISAF if you did not know said about insider attacks/green on blue)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...sider-attacks/

Asked if he could explain the increase in such treacherous attacks, the general replies, "Well, I'm mad as hell about them, to be honest with you. We're going to go after this. It reverberates everywhere across the United States...We're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we're not willing to be murdered for it."It is the nail in the coffin of this failed NATO war.

the educated trained pilots who train for years are not the type of people who turn their guns on their allies. hell, you could start training a pilot to fly an f-16 and by the time he is done training, there will probably be a peace deal in place in the country. i mean there is already an airforce right now, a crappy one, but still an airforce and there have been no problems. these insider attacks, like i said, are done by the very lowest of ranking security personel and not very often out of nearly 200,000 police and ana.

Please see above.

since there are no statistics on civilian/combatant deaths in drone attacks in afghanistan, i don't know where you get that info. considering drones have killed several commanders in pakistan and afghanistan, id say its pretty cost effective for what its operators want to accomplish.

Actually, there are statistics for those that ever wanted to look. There have been statistics for quite some time.

Here is a US study that reveals the majority of http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...a-drone-deaths

"The report is "based on over 130 detailed interviews with victims and witnesses of drone activity, their family members, current and former Pakistani government officials, representatives from five major Pakistani political parties, subject matter experts, lawyers, medical professionals, development and humanitarian workers, members of civil society, academics, and journalists." Witnesses "provided first-hand
accounts of drone strikes, and provided testimony about a range of issues, including the missile strikes themselves, the strike sites, the victims' bodies, or a family member or members killed or injured in the strike"."

Another study has shown that the drone campaign has killed 98% civilians. Clive Stafford Smith of repreive talks here.

US drone attacks in Pakistan kill 98% innocent civilians: Analyst
Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:10PM GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10...-98-civilians/


The idea that they’re not civilians killed is silly. The British independent journalists have investigated this very carefully and there was just a recent study by Stanford University and New York University that studied the drone hits and what they found was that only about 2% of the casualties were considered militant leaders and that the rest were either civilians or sort of collateral damage."



A prominent American journalist says recent studies show that 98 percent of people killed in US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan are innocent civilians.


“The idea that they’re not civilians killed is silly. The British independent journalists have investigated this very carefully and there was just a recent study by Stanford University and New York University that studied the drone hits and what they found was that only about 2% of the casualties were considered militant leaders and that the rest were either civilians or sort of collateral damage,” said Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan in a recent Press TV interview.

[Sher Malang]

May Allah (swt) save Afghanistan from these *******s - everyone of them is fighting for power and oppressing the ordinary Afghans.

[khushal]

I doubt any peace deal would actually work even if everyone agrees to it. Look at what happened with the Majahadeen where they would go to Mecca and swear on the Quran to bring peace but a day later they would be shooting at each other. The only way to do this is have the Afghans fight it out and have one group overwhelm the other, and only afghans have to do the fighting, foreigners siding with one side will just prolong the conflict.

[khushal]

This is how NA and talib dogs will look like when they are sitting together LOL

There are no turbans, so this is a picture of the commies sitting with the soviets.