# British commander says war in Afghanistan cannot be won



## Sunni Man (Oct 5, 2008)

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban cannot be won, the Sunday Times reported. 


It quoted Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith as saying in an interview that if the Taliban were willing to talk, then that might be "precisely the sort of progress" needed to end the insurgency.

"We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army," he said.

He said his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008" but that troops may well leave Afghanistan with there still being a low level of insurgency.

But Afghanistan's Defense Minister expressed his disappointment on Sunday at the commander's statements, maintaining the insurgency had to be defeated.

"I think this is the personal opinion of that commander," Abdul Rahim Wardak told reporters.

"The main objective of the Afghan government and the whole international community is that we have to defeat this war of terror and be successful," he said.

Wardak said success also depended on how British forces were approaching the problems they faced in Helmand but did not say whether their current strategy was the right one.

Asked if the commander's comments came as a disappointment, Wardak said: "Yes, it is disappointing, for sure."

Britain has around 8,000 troops based in Afghanistan, most of them in the volatile southern province of Helmand, where they face daily battles with a growing insurgency.

NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH "INVADERS"

NATO commanders and diplomats have been saying for some time that the Taliban insurgency cannot be defeated by military means alone and that negotiations with the militants will ultimately be needed to bring an end to the conflict.

"If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this," Carleton-Smith said. "That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

But a spokesman for the Taliban said on Sunday there would be no negotiations with foreigners and repeated calls made by Taliban commanders for the unconditional withdrawal of the more than 70,000 international troops from Afghanistan.

"They should know that Taliban will never hold talks with the invaders," Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf told the Pakistan-based Afghan news agency, AIP.

"What we had said in the past, we also say once again, that foreign forces should leave without any condition," he said.

Violence in Afghanistan has increased to its worst level since 2001, when U.S.-led and Afghan forces overthrew the ruling Taliban following the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said last week he had asked the king of Saudi Arabia to mediate in talks with the insurgents and called on Taliban leader Mullah Omar to return to his homeland and to make peace. 

(Writing by Myra MacDonald; additional reporting by Jonathon Burch in Kabul; Editing by Valerie Lee)


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2008)

Go home imperialist dogs... you cannot win.

signed 

Tokyo Rose


----------



## Gurdari (Oct 6, 2008)

Hmm... diplomacy, huh?
 Sounds like very, very late common sense.


----------



## tt0936a (Mar 6, 2009)

The insurgency in Afghanistan cannot be won until we come up with an effective counterinsurgency strategy that takes into account the grievance based conflict occurring in the framework of fourth generation warfare (4GW). We need to start addressing the social networks and identity politics behind the insurgency. Despite the massive media confusion surrounding the war in Afghanistan, it is not a single monolithic war. The war in Afghanistan is being waged on many different fronts: international, regional and local. Internationally, there is a NATO ISAF mission fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan; regionally, President Karzai is competing with regional governors for political power, as he is sarcastically referred to as the &#8216;President of Kabul&#8217; and is seen as corrupt and inefficient by many in the international and Afghani community; and locally, governors, especially in the south-west, are in competition with local insurgent groups that use social networking to create parallel shadow governments/economies to take away legitimacy from the official authorities. The problem of rebuilding a functioning government in Afghanistan is the most complicated on the local level. The Taliban insurgency cannot be defeated solely by military means, and enhanced civ-mil cooperation is vital if NATO is to ensure a lasting end to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Civilian cooperation in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, NGOs, and most importantly &#8211; social outreach need to go hand in hand with effective military COIN strategy to combat this specific instance of insurgency. 

It is impossible to formulate an effective strategy without understanding the history of this country. Afghanistan is a country that is not ethnically homogenous, and does not fit the mold of western Westphalian states, but the active COIN strategy unfortunately has been slow to take this into account. In Iraq, the 2007 refocus on the tribal level seems to have quelled much of the violence, as the US begins plans for troop withdrawal. The current strategy mirrors Westphalian and Weberian states, focusing on democracy and rule of law, while disregarding the individual cultural and societal backdrops that influence the conflict. Afghanistan is not a western state, it never has been. There is no way that a tribal fractured state like Afghanistan can be molded in the image of a modern American/European democracy, because there has never been a conflict like this in the western world. After the Cold War, with the exception of the Balkans, most conflicts have taken place outside of the west, in fragile, decolonized and weak states. These states often are unstable, having inherited European-styled centralized national structures that did not compliment the local, decentralized population. The Europeans tried to make countries out of ethnically, linguistically and geographically diverse people &#8211; setting the scene for massive grievance conflicts. In Afghanistan, the conflict is mostly grievance based. There is no oil or precious resources in contention, no greed to control this vast territory, but instead the pride of a humiliated people. There is a wrong the Taliban feels needs to be set right. The history of humiliation from being conquered by various empires, the Soviet invasion, and most recently the American declaration of war has pushed many Afghans to demand more sovereignty and more independence, feeling wronged for the last time by the international community. While there is a greed-based aspect to the insurgency (the Taliban makes millions in illegal poppy trade every year and have extensive criminal networks to transport drugs and arms), the proceeds of the illicit activities go into undermining the Karzai government and the international forces. 

The idea behind 4GW is that sufficient political will can defeat a superior military force. The Taliban seems to have adopted a strategy drawn upon both Mao&#8217;s war of attrition and Che&#8217;s foco, while taking advantages of the revolutions in modern technology and mass communication. The Taliban are actively engaging in a PR campaign to the local population and fighting a war of attrition and movement to wear down the occupying forces, while adopting the foco&#8217;s &#8216;hit and run&#8217; philosophy, believing they can win a war with guerilla movements, without shifting into conventional warfare. What makes this insurgency part of the 4GW model of warfare is their focus on identity and ideology. This war is a grievance based war - the insurgents want justice (in addition to territorial control and authority) &#8211; that takes advantage of social networks and coalitions. It is ideas, more than any other factor, which mobilizes people to channeling their grievances into insurgent actions. They use kinetic tactics such as ambushes, raids, and explosions to compliment the non-kinetic political and information campaigns. The structure of the Taliban is decentralized and fragmented, as an all channel network with no clear command and control, making it hard for troops to effectively counter these loosely organized cells. These cells are a part of a broader problem of social network and organization, because no longer is the state the center of gravity in the insurgency. This war is not about state actors, but the non-state actors that blend into local populations and have a base in the almost untouchable FATA on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. 

The spread of insurgency via social networking is a new phenomenon that is posing a great challenge to the international community&#8217;s understanding of warfare. In order to combat this type of warfare effectively, there must be better analysis of the social networks that contribute to insurgency, and a better picture of how exactly these groups are connected, because their strength lies in their ability to mobilize grievances into actions. The government of Afghanistan must find an acceptable federal solution, as the federal-regional rift only emboldens the local actors to undermine the government, before they can focus on the local social network threats. These threats, while largely neglected because of their local character, need to be the main unit of analysis when calculating COIN strategy in Afghanistan. It is important that policy makers look at the explanations and theories behind 4GW and social networks as it applies to the Taliban and Afghanistan, because without an understanding of the causes of war, the policies produced will be ineffective and useless. The war in Afghanistan is winnable, but the strategies need to be tweaked to better fight the 4GW local and identity based warfare that is the Taliban insurgency.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 6, 2009)

Let's see, the Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan (and they were right next door), The UK failed in Afghanistan and we have a president who is cutting the military budget while ramping up to......fail in Afghanistan.

Seriously what do we expect to "win"?


----------



## roomy (Mar 8, 2009)

You can't defeat roadside bombs or suicide bombers.Our position is untenable, we need to bring them home.Our boys are dying for absolutely nothing as far as I can see, unless they are allowed to flatten the fucking place.At the moment they are tied to chasing the odd raggy arsed bastard through towns full of raggy arsed bastards to no avail.The government is selling it to us as "We are training the Afghanny police and military".Bulfuckingshit.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 8, 2009)

roomy said:


> You can't defeat roadside bombs or suicide bombers.Our position is untenable, we need to bring them home.Our boys are dying for absolutely nothing as far as I can see, unless they are allowed to flatten the fucking place.At the moment they are tied to chasing the odd raggy arsed bastard through towns full of raggy arsed bastards to no avail.The government is selling it to us as "We are training the Afghanny police and military".Bulfuckingshit.





This bullshit about securing human rights and ousting Taliban extremists has to end.  it is none of our business.

Those of you who will allow more of our brave young men and women to die in the futile attempt to capture Bin Laden or dismantle the Taliban or Al qaeda  need a reality check.


----------



## Neser Boha (Mar 8, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this," Carleton-Smith said. "That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."



I like especially this part... where is the thread bitching at Obama for willing to hold talks with the Taleban?  This only proves that he is not pulling this strictly out of his ass being an unwise fool as many anti-Obamists have been trying to (very badly) argue.  

But I don't want to make it only about Obama, of course.  

I just think the whole black and white view of the world - with us or against us - no negotiating with terrorist kinda bull-crap is gonna have to end if we're to succeed.  Simply that is my main point.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 8, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this," Carleton-Smith said. "That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."
> ...



We don't have to negotiate with the Taliban or Al qaeda. We can simply leave Afghanistan and never deal with them again.

If we are truly and honestly concerned about preventing terrorism, we should concentrate on our borders, the defense of our citizens and our immigration policies and stop policing the world under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. Do none of you see the contradiction of promoting a democracy at gunpoint?


----------



## Neser Boha (Mar 8, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > You can't defeat roadside bombs or suicide bombers.Our position is untenable, we need to bring them home.Our boys are dying for absolutely nothing as far as I can see, unless they are allowed to flatten the fucking place.At the moment they are tied to chasing the odd raggy arsed bastard through towns full of raggy arsed bastards to no avail.The government is selling it to us as "We are training the Afghanny police and military".Bulfuckingshit.
> ...



I agree with roomy that it is a tough war to win.  But I believe there are ways through which it can be won.  What firstly needs to be done is that our focus returns back on Afghanistan where it SHOULD HAVE stayed at the first place.  As much as I am against wars, interfering in other people's business, etc.... we've once committed ourselves to this and we can't just now simply withdraw.  No way no how!  That'd be so damn stupid.  The Taleban - and Al Qaeda would have their 'victory' - whether just perceived or real - and that is the very last thing we want.  We already played into their hands by invading Iraq, now we have to clean this shit up.  And maybe it's not about 'winning', but rather concluding this mess in the most favorable way... maybe talking with those _raggy arsed bastards_ is just the thing...


----------



## Neser Boha (Mar 8, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> We don't have to negotiate with the Taliban or Al qaeda. We can simply leave Afghanistan and never deal with them again.
> 
> If we are truly and honestly concerned about preventing terrorism, we should concentrate on our borders, the defense of our citizens and our immigration policies and stop policing the world under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. Do none of you see the contradiction of promoting a democracy at gunpoint?



Honestly, I think that old tired argument of promoting democracy is not applicable nor being applied in this case.  This is about dealing with the people that planned and executed the 9/11 attacks as well as numerous other attacks around world.  This is about this amoeba of a group that is recruiting extremists even from European Muslim immigrant communities ..  They are a threat, a real threat. And Taleban is helping them.  I think Europe should get even more involved in this and really take it as their own war ... I think the wordage: War on Terror is the most unfortunate and least thought-through one, but there is a war going on and we can't close our eyes to it and pretend that it's not happening.

PS: Actually - by 'we' in the previous response I meant not only US, but also all the European countries.


----------



## editec (Mar 8, 2009)

Cannot win in AFghanistan

We can't even DEFINE what a win means, for goodness sakes.

Let the AFghanitani Taliban drag Bin Ladens dead body to us.

Pay them off in Viagra.

Wrap it up, and get out.


----------



## Neser Boha (Mar 8, 2009)

editec said:


> Cannot win in AFghanistan
> 
> We can't even DEFINE what a win means, for goodness sakes.
> 
> ...



Now that's a strategy  There might be hope after all...


----------



## editec (Mar 8, 2009)

Neser, I happen to be one of the millions of Americans who understand and are okay with the fact that not everybody in the world wants to be just like us.

As to Afghanistan?

Invading to topple the government there which supported Alqada was fine by me, but staying there to impose our own form of government is simply a waste of time and resources.

Afghanistan needs to be run by Afghani's, not by an American puppet who is protected by his very own contingent of US Marine Corps bodyguards.

If he cannot find support among his own people to protect him and to carry out his orders, then we are backing the WRONG GUY.

But if the USA is attacked again by still a AFghanistani Taliban backed Alquada team of terrorists, then I'd be for vaporizing the place, do you understand THAT, too?

I'm a nationalist AND a liberal. And know that American liberalism is NOT a suicide pact

I don't take too kindly to having my nation attacked by terrorists.

And if you think the IDF is bad for the Palestinians, just imagine what the full force of the American people's ire could be when it is unleashed -- not to take a place over to change its government -- but simply to destroy it to keep it from_ ever again_ being a threat to our nation or our people.

Americans appear to be patient people and pushovers _until they're not._

If you ever doubt that, just ask every tyrant in the last 200 years which EVER made the mistake of_ truly pissing off_ the American people.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 8, 2009)

I say get out of those hell holes, we have no "national interest" there, it's a damn desert with no resources and the people there are stuck in their own 1237 B.C. views, leave em be!


----------



## tigerbob (Mar 13, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> "We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army," he said.
> 
> He said his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008" but that troops may well leave Afghanistan with there still being a low level of insurgency.



That, for my money, would be a victory.  Leaving the country with the insurgents largely defeated and capably of being managed locally is all that can be expected.  You can't win a hearts and minds battle militarily, all you can do is keep the lid on it and maybe turn down the heat.  Putting out the flame can only be done if the fire is denied oxygen.  While foreign troops are there, there will always be a degree of antagonism, even among moderate Afghanis.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 14, 2009)

jillian said:


> Go home imperialist dogs... you cannot win.
> 
> signed
> 
> Tokyo Rose



I was thinking more like:



> Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.
> 
> We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
> 
> ...



Walter Cronkite Broadcast


----------



## Terral (Apr 2, 2009)

Hi Sunni:



Sunni Man said:


> LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban cannot be won, the Sunday Times reported.



No kidding. Just ask the Russians (story) who pulled out and went home after nine years of failure (Feb. 15 is the anniversary). The top ten reasons for pulling out of Afghanistan today are listed here. The ridiculous 'War On Terror" is nothing but a bogus LIE.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3EB25J-wI"]A War For Liars And DUPES[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## editec (Apr 2, 2009)

Oh, it CAN be won.

All we need do is redefine our definition of winning.

What Afghanistan apparently  cannot be is SUBDUED.

_Good for them!_


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

You are such a fucking idiot.

The Western world needs to wake up to the fact that these are ISLAM FUNDAMENTALISTS. The Koran and Haddiths are explicit in that they do not allow for compromise, and that it's okay to lie if that's what it takes. They are not going to "talk" in any meaningful way (fucking Brits, what the hell are they thinking?). Nor will they ever surrender. Ever.

The Brits need a flipping wake up call. Islam laid siege to Vienna in 1683, (a siege which was broken on 9/11) after conquering all of the primarily Christian middle east. They also were in France, and had to be driven out.

And once a Muslim territory, ALWAYS a muslim territory. They have not forgotten, and they will not quit. They don't want peace, they want us to die so they can continue to spread and conquer. And they will continue to do so until we kill them. It's pretty simple. No shit this isn't a war that will be won with "discussion". If that's the way they've been trying to fight it, damn straight we'll lose.


----------



## RoadVirus (Apr 7, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban cannot be won, the Sunday Times reported.



That's what was said about Iraq. After Bush's surge, everything got better.


----------



## Phate (Apr 14, 2009)

Afghanistan can not be won through military means. But through the people.

Yes, sending troops can help control territory for a certain amount of time. But unless you are able to convince the Afghanis that you are there to help them. Unless you are there to convince them you are there to give them opportunities. Unless you are able to create a centralized government that can control ALL of Afghanistan...unless you do that groups such as the taliban and Al-qaeda will always find safe-havens in tribal villages.


----------



## Phate (Apr 14, 2009)

RoadVirus said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban cannot be won, the Sunday Times reported.
> ...



Do you even know what the surge was?


----------



## Bootneck (Apr 16, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> And once a Muslim territory, ALWAYS a muslim territory. They have not forgotten, and they will not quit. They don't want peace, they want us to die so they can continue to spread and conquer. And they will continue to do so until we kill them. It's pretty simple. No shit this isn't a war that will be won with "discussion". If that's the way they've been trying to fight it, damn straight we'll lose.



No one is attempting to change it from being a muslim territory. That isn't why we're there.
As for not quitting or not wanting peace, many do and only a minority of extremists, mainly from Pakistan, don't.



> *Were sick of war: a Taleban leader risks his life to point out a new route to peace *
> 
> Facing another bloody summer of fighting in Helmand province, the Taleban commander uttered words that could cost him his life. We all want peace. We want to put down our guns, he said quietly.
> 
> ...



Something else you're obviously not aware off:

4,500 Taleban insurgents defected between 2005 and last year 

95% want reconciliation if they can be assured of security, according to the Governor of Musa Qala 

7,000 to 11,000 Insurgents in total, according to 2008 estimates 

5% are hard core 

25% estimated as uncertain or wavering 

70% fighting for the wage alone. $8 a day - a king's ransom to an Afghan. 

_Sources: Jobsforafghans.org; CIA world factbook; Times archives_


----------

