MR Lawrence, the ISI, the Army, and the FC are in bed with the T-ban. You cannot tell the P-stani's of impending ops, it goes from our mouths-to the T-ban's ear. 6 months ago there were 30+ camps, the P-stani's, when they clearly were not going to stand up, the number shot up to almost 100. Now, there are over 157 camps. So, who let that happen? Why does former ISI chief Hamid Gul attend Taliban meetings? Wake up. They are NOT going to help. NATO can do a whole lot better, but they have let us down. We need to smash those camps ourselves, then put a couple Batts. on choppers to clean out the rats nests. Man, people keep thinking we can stop this w/out hitting them where they live. No way. We are sitting ducks in some of those OP's on the border. Wish we could hit them where they live, NOT where I live. Good day, Sir.
The Problem Is Pakistan
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Barack Obama has said that the United States needs to send an extra 10,000 troops to Afghanistan. John McCain wants to send 15,000. But before ordering more soldiers into the fray, the next U.S. president should think about Afghanistan's history—and how such surges there have failed in the past.
Three decades ago, the Soviet Union tried to subdue a fundamentalist Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan by deploying 108,000 troops (at the conflict's height in 1985–86), including special forces and substantial air power. But in 1989 the Red Army withdrew in defeat, having lost 13,000 soldiers, killed and maimed more than a million Afghans and sent 5 million refugees fleeing into nearby countries.
The single biggest reason for the Soviets' failure was Pakistan. And if Washington isn't careful, Pakistan could have the same effect today.
To understand why, start with the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 2,250-kilometer-long, highly porous border. During the Soviet occupation, Pakistan served as the essential conduit for U.S. and Saudi aid to the Afghan mujahedin. The Pakistanis funneled massive amounts of weapons to the Afghan fighters; the flow reached $1 billion annually by the late 1980s, some of it new, advanced U.S. arms.
At times the Soviets, knowing full well where the mujahedin's guns and Stinger missiles were coming from, must have considered invading Pakistan or conducting cross-border strikes. In the end they decided against it, fearing a wider conflict and thinking they had the military means to deal with the problem inside Afghanistan proper. Had the Soviet Union moved against Pakistan, it's impossible to know how things would have turned out. As it is, the Soviets' Afghan strategy failed, and the mighty Red Army, despite its sophisticated equipment, was ultimately beaten back by bands of local insurgents.
The similarities between then and now are striking. The U.S.-led Coalition has been in Afghanistan for seven years. There are now 70,000 Coalition troops in the country, including approximately 36,000 Americans. To date, more than 800 service members have been killed, and the numbers and pace of casualties are rising. Worse, despite the presence of these forces and billions of dollars in Western reconstruction aid, the Taliban seem to be getting stronger.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss