Kunduz Falls

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Sep 30, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Several days ago the strategic city of Kunduz fell to the Taliban, and the Afghan government's first attempt to retake it ended in abject failure.

    When I hear the name Kunduz I can't help thinking of Kontum, another strategic city that fell to the NVA in 1975 and was one the the last ARVN bulwarks. When Kontum's defenses collapsed the NVA rapidly moved south and within a few weeks, Saigon fell.

    Obama has pledged to end America’s longest war before he leaves office in January 2017; however, as far as I know he hasn't commented on the fall of Kunduz and it's effect on his timeline.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    Obama is going to declare the war over just the same way Bush said "mission accomplished", nothing but lies.
     
  3. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #3
    And have either of you thought of or even take into account how much the Afghan Government has failed with this incident? You want to talk about sovereignty and sovereign responsibility, complain about why we shouldn't be in other places like Libya, Syria, and others.. well, here's your perfect time to complain about it. How about telling Afghanistan to get off their arses and govern their own country? Then perhaps things like this won't happen internally.

    But no.. rip on the POTUS. Perhaps we should take your side: WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE!! Let Afghanistan take care of it!!! So let's get us the hell out of there, and let them deal with it. Their land, their responsibility.

    BL.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    oh please spare me. this is the same Afghan govt that protected bin laden. they complained about the raid because we killed their golden goose. this POTUS is WORTHLESS , just an extension of the last worthless clown . and yes, we should leave the countries to settle their own affairs.
     
  5. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    Umm.. Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

    Then you really have no crux for argument here, do you?

    BL.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6

    [​IMG] I'll sit corrected.

    we are on the interweebs, there is always something to argue about.
     
  7. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    Yep. My Walther P-38 will whoop your AR15's ass any day.

    But then again, your AR15 can't transform. ;)

    BL.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    well played. [​IMG]
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    We should have pulled out completely instead of insisting on renewing the agreement to keep some troops there. The Afghan government isn't going to be able to hold the country for long, and there are enough US troops there for it to look really bad when they have to get evacuated, but not enough to retake the country unless we decide to send in more troops and keep them indefinitely.
     
  12. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #12
    Not only that, but the meddling Obama administration demands that our troops stand down when witnessing the Afghan soldiers rape boys.

    Which led to the ouster of Sergeant 1st Class Charles Martland, the Green Beret being separated involuntarily from the U.S. Army for kicking and body slamming an Afghan police commander he describes as a “brutal child rapist,”

    That Afghan should have pulled out completely.

    The kids mom objected to the child being raped and having been tied to a post to facilitate it.
     
  13. Scepticalscribe, Oct 1, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2015

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #13
    As of this morning, most of Kunduz has been re-taken by the ANSF (aided in various ways by the Resolute Support - i.e. international forces who remain in the country).

    Actually, the situation in Afghanistan is a lot more complex than most western commentary seems able to recognise.

    Granted, this is a significant blow for the Government - even after they have managed to re-take the city - not least because their narrative had been one of conceding that while the Taliban were strong in parts of rural Afghanistan they were unable to take, or hold, urban areas.

    However, this attack on Kunduz - while it does represent an appalling failure of anticipation and planning on the part of the Government - above all because security forces in Kunduz had warned for months that the situation in the province was deteriorating - signifies much more than that, and does not mean imminent, or likely, state collapse.

    Of course, it should be serve as a stark wake up call for the Government, an administration which, a full year after it came to office, has still, for example, to appoint a Defence Minister (the first three nominees, for various reasons, were unable to take up the position). An administration which has been unable to agree on the key appointment of who should hold the post of Defence Minister at a time of armed conflict, insurrection, and - sometimes - outright war - with both the Taliban and ISIL, needs to be held to account. A significant number of key positions remain unfilled, and the administration of Mr Ghani and Dr Abdullah remains profoundly divided as to how best to make some of these appointments.

    Since the death of Mullah Omar (who, we now know, had been well dead for over two years as had been rumoured in some quarters) was announced at the end of July, a vicious power struggle had broken out in the Taliban between his successor, Mullah Mansour, - who had been the de facto leader for a few years - and those supporting members of the late Mullah Omar's family.

    In order to secure his succession, see off dissent and internal opposition, (and send a signal to ISIL that the Taliban were still a potent force in Afghanistan where ISIL are attempting to make inroads), Mullah Mansour needed to be in a position where he could be seen to have secured a significant military success, and the fall of Kunduz, timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the formation of the National Unity Government, fitted that need exactly.

    It doesn't matter that the Taliban cannot hold the city. What matters is that it fell in the first place, - which signifies a degree of sophisticated planning and preparation - and that Mullah Mansour succeeded in embarrassing the Government, secured his own dominance and succession within the Taliban, and sent a strong signal to ISIL/Daesh that the Taliban are still a potent force to be reckoned with in Afghanistan.

    Much of the western commentary is missing the fact that the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces, i.e. both police and army) have been taking horrendous casualties since the drawdown of the international mission (ISAF) at the end of last year. Estimates suggest that around 15,000 members of the Afghan security forces have been either killed or injured in the first six to eight months of this year.

    They are fighting, and taking huge casualties. Now, while these figures are unsustainable, the vast majority of the country loathes the Taliban. In essence, the Taliban were mostly Pashtun, - and were an expression of ardent Pashtun nationalism, an identity which took the form of implementing a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam - and the other ethnic groups in the country, Tadjiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks (to name a few) utterly detested them.

    Given their dismal experience of - and bleak and dark memories of - Taliban rule, I don't believe for one minute that all of Afghanistan will fall to the Taliban, irrespective of whatever happens. Even during the period of Taliban rule (1996-2001) parts of the (Tadjik) north - led by Ahmad Shah Massoud - held out against the Taliban. A civil war is a much more likely outcome.
     
  14. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #14
    JK: You can't have it both ways.

    You can't complain in one thread about Obama being a "warmonger". And in the next one moan that he's not doing enough, or the the right thing, when it comes to Syria.

    Syria is, as it stands right now, a no-win situation. It was a situation that arose because the Syrian people started protesting against the Assad regime, And rather than skip away, the way other mid-east autocrats had been doing, Assad chose to dig in and fight back. And out of the chaos in Syria - and an Iraq destabilized by a decade of US occupation, ISIL arose.

    There simply aren't good, quick answers to that sort of problem. Iran has an interest in Syria. So does Russia. For a host of very good reasons, we don't want to put in the sort of massive military presence that would (temporarily) "solve" the Syrian civil war and the ISIL insurgency. Because it would cost trillions of dollars; hundreds if not thousand of American lives; and it wouldn't solve the fundamental problems underlying Syria.

    If nothing else, Obama - and the people advising him - are smart enough to have learned the dreadfully costly lesson of Iraq.

    The best we can do is take whatever steps we can to minimize the civilian and humanitarian carnage. Offer support to refugees. Coordinate with the Iranians and Russians on limiting the spread of ISIL. And do selected airstrikes to destroy the most egregious of ISIL strongpoints.

    But one thing is certain: There is nothing any President of the US can, or could, do that is going to magically make the Syria problem "go away".
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    have you considered that you might be reading things wrong? he is doing too much in Syria, we had no business there , it is a CIVIL WAR. and yes the war monger should have never armed the rebels there or bombed Libya for that matter.
    the "right" thing in the M-E could be to leave them the F alone to deal with their own affairs instead of propping up dictators & removing dictators as the U.S sees fit

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #16
    I wonder how things would have played out if Reagan had had a brain and just let the Soviets have Afghanistan.
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    wish Obama had a brain & left the M-E alone.
     
  18. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #18
    Well, we can all play 'what if' history.

    In such circumstances, my own personal 'what if' question would be to ask what would have happened if Mr Gore had been allowed to take office as a result of a possibly different outcome from that disgraceful electoral process in Florida in 2000?

    While 'what if' history allows for a sometimes useful adjustment of perspective, I think we could safely predict that the Iraq war (and all of its grotesque consequences such as ISIL/Daesh) might not have come to pass…...
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    war would be the same , Obama was elected & the U.S entered 2 more conflicts.
     
  20. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #20
    No. I beg to differ, and think it would not necessarily have been the same.

    For that matter, Iraq was a war based on a lie, and, as such, was militarily and politically unjustified. The US started that war, it was not inevitable.

    Moreover, not all political leaders make the same choices. This is because there are political leaders who choose - or chose - to make - or take - different decisions on similar matters. As is well known, Mr Blair chose to link himself, his administration and his country to the unjustified war in Iraq, with dismal consequences which are all too event today, and, in the UK, a Labour Party that is struggling to redefine its moral compass.

    However, in the 1960s, Mr Harold Wilson refused to join or support the US war effort in Vietnam, and, as a consequence, Britain was not tainted by association with the debacle of the Vietnam. There is nothing inevitable about choices until the time comes to face the sometimes grotesque consequences of having made those same choices.
     
  21. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    re: the first sentence in my post.
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    Re: Post #2.

    BL.
     
  23. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #23
    I don't think having Gore in office would have effected the faulty intelligence that started the war, and the original vote was fairly bipartisan, so I think it still would have happened. I'm pretty sure a lot of the positions that the parties have today would be switched, after 9/11 Bush did the only thing that he could have done politically, and even though the intelligence was wrong suggesting that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat would have likely still happened and politically the government had to show that they were doing something to protect the US from another 9/11 style attack. the main difference is that had Gore been in office once things started to fall apart the Republicans would have been in the position to take up the anti-war movement and would have taken up many positions that the Democrats have today.
     
  24. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #24
    No. I really don't think so.

    Al Gore doesn't believe Saddam Hussein was plotting to assassinate his father. And, likewise, Al Gore wasn't toting around the emotional baggage of watching his dad go down to electoral defeat a couple years later. Al Gore was pretty unlikely to have chosen Dick Cheney to be his Vice President and chief advisor on National Security matters.

    "Faulty intelligence" is a mendacious euphemism for what the GW Bush/Cheney White House cooked up. The CIA knew darned well that CURVEBALL was a lousy source (which is why he got the codename he did), and the stories about Niger and yellowcake uranium were b/s. But the Bush White House people seized upon intelligence the CIA knew was suspect and heralded it as fact - despite the objections of the intelligence analysts at Langley.

    I doubt, with all seriousness, Al Gore would have done that.
     
  25. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #25
    This. I always believed Dubya was working out a father-son psychodrama when he invaded Iraq, the main reason being Bush, Sr's incompetent resolution of the first Gulf War after a non-tactical but soundbite-friendly "100-Hour War," in addition to what's stated above.

    That said, this Taliban-vs-central government conflict is beginning to resemble the last days of Qing China. Tribes and warlords, grabbing what they can because they perceive the utter weakness of the central government.
     

Share This Page