We all know Russia was ousted from Afghanistan by CIA+Mujahideen+ISI. There was weapon support, cash support, training support and to an extent manpower support provided to ‘freedom fighters’ / Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight against USSR. They fought against the invasion successfully for long time till USSR bleeded to bankruptcy and eventually fell apart.
USSR was almost alone vs the combo mentioned above.
Currently in Afghanistan there is resistance to US but not to that scale. There is ‘insurgency’ in Iraq which to some extent playing similar role against US. US has thousands of troops in Iraq, billions of dollars already spent on war and billions will be spent more, coalition military personnel still dying, no peace in sight, US is not winning hearts (probably thinking that it doesn’t need to) around the globe on this issue.
USA is not alone, but it is the major player in the conflict.
Who is supporting the ‘insurgency’? Is it France? Russia (returning the favor)? or could it be Iran? What are possible outcomes?
Do you really think that Taliban holds a better future for Afghanistan than the current government?
Read the post again and come back, don't jump to conclusions without reading full post.
In Afghanistan the support is coming from their cohorts across their southern mountains (the ones who have alwayas supported the TalISIban) and the mountains of money they are making from the opium trade.
In Iraq the support is coming from foreign maddrassah inspired fighters, Iran, Syria, and the Sunni community which can't stand not being in charge and suppressing the shias any longer.
I don't think any non-Muslim countries are 'supporting the insurgency', but they aren't doing anything to support the new government either.
Taliban didn't use opium money when they were starving, the opium was banned and all farmers were moving out of this trade, 'surprisingly' the trade is gone up after Taiban are gone and the blame now lies on Taliban for using the opium money for fighting against US. Pakistan alone cannot support Taliban to fight US there, Pakistan might be supporting logistically/training-wise but not financially/weaponry.
[quote]
In Iraq the support is coming from foreign maddrassah inspired fighters, Iran, Syria, and the Sunni community which can't stand not being in charge and suppressing the shias any longer.
[/quote]
If 'university' inspired fighters are unable to dominate/control Iraq then don't blame madrassah-inspired fighters.
[quote]
I don't think any non-Muslim countries are 'supporting the insurgency', but they aren't doing anything to support the new government either.
[/quote]
It is possible that there are no non-Muslim countries supporting the insurgencey but France and Russia still have big interests in that country. What is possible outcome if Iraq continues to need US support (financially/militarily) for another 5-10 years? Can US sustain that support?
I have read history to my satisfaction and I don't wish to spend anymore time on this.
[quote]
If 'university' inspired fighters are unable to dominate/control Iraq then don't blame madrassah-inspired fighters.
[/quote]
Since one group can't control the country, it means the other can't be contributing to the fighting? Very strange logic.
[quote]
It is possible that there are no non-Muslim countries supporting the insurgencey but France and Russia still have big interests in that country. What is possible outcome if Iraq continues to need US support (financially/militarily) for another 5-10 years? Can US sustain that support?
[/quote]
No, they can't.
Their government is very weak, the representatives do not speak for the people and since the invasion (Iraq and Afghanistan) people have seen things go only downhill.
USA went in hoping that people will reject the previous oppression and accept them as libreators; what they missed in their memo is how to rebuild and manage a country after the invasion?
[quote]
Since one group can't control the country, it means the other can't be contributing to the fighting? Very strange logic.
[/quote]
What is strange? 'university inspired' or 'madrassah inspired'? Remember, I didn't say that some group is not contributing to the fighting.
[quote]
No, they can't.
[/quote]
So what do you think would happen? How long will US support the invasion? US would hand over Iraq to UN? What will happen with Iraq?
Pakistan does not want a stable Afganistan, so they will do whatever to keep it like it is.
As for Iraq, shias' and sunnis' will keep fighting to gain control. They cannot live in peace and they both have countries supporting them.
Much like FARC in Colombia or LTTE in Sri Lanka they may control a portion of Afghanistan but will never control the entire country
mercenary2k: Again, where did I say that I want Taliban to rule Afghanistan? The dicussion is about the where the support for 'insurgencies' are coming from for Iraq and Afghanistan for weapons, finance and manpower (if any), what the consequences could be for US if it remains entangled in the conflicts for longer duration? etc.
Are you suggesting that Pakistan is the only entity behind supporting Taliban financially, logistitcally and weaponry wise? Why would Pakistan want Afghanistan unstable? What dangers does stable Afghanistan pose to Pakistan?
[quote]
As for Iraq, shias' and sunnis' will keep fighting to gain control. They cannot live in peace and they both have countries supporting them.
[/quote]
You are just stating what we and you see in media. The discussion is who is providing so much ammunition/weapons to the fighting elements? Who is giving them financial support? What does it all mean to US economically, politically and militarily?
heheh..may be just coz of Jealousy Captain coz Hamid Karzai is always against Pakistanz policies towards Afghanistan and why did u delete my post ??? heheh may be that is also coz of jealousy.
This is not ‘arcade’ forum, but World Affairs which post are you talking about? Simply opposing Pakistan’s policy doesn’t warrant Pakistan’s support of ‘insurgents’.
The war facing the USSR is very different to what the NATO force is up against. The USSR faced a force organized and trained externally, provided intelligence about troops composition, armaments, locations and with satellite photography. A force with extensive armaments (the NATO force is not facing the massed rocket barrages the Soviets were attacked with) . A force with a large safe haven (Pakistan).
In Afghanistan today, NATO faces a local force, based in local locations, using local resources, locally sourced weapons, and lacking a safe haven.
In Iraq as well, the same situation applied. Both countries were swarming with weapons before the US invasion (Iraq’s weapons were in government armouries that were looted with Baathist encouragement as US troops swept in). Enough arms abound for local militants to not need foreign support.
heheh.. did i say this is an Arcade Forum ??? .. If you simply dont want me to post here so I’ll never post but what was in my previous post what u’ve deleted ??? Did i say that Pakistan is behind all these insurgencies ???
They are not mounting major campaigns like the Viet Cong did against the US and SVA forces in Vietnam in December 1968....
This kind of insurgency usually last for about 10 years or so when all the core fighters are dead the 2nd generation are much more reluctant and less fanatic than their predessors to continue the fight and also the significant strides made by the country being subjected to this kind of violence to curtail it.
As for Iraq.....
It is being partially funded by Islamic extremist groups based in Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia mostly by the local population rather than the government.
That Insurgency can only be defeated if the population which hosts the insurgency can be made to beleive that the current government of Iraq is a better future than what the Insurgency provides.
I agree that 'insurgency' both in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't have same support as one against USSR but both are causing damage to the 'invading' army. But they are getting training from people who were trained against USSR.
[quote]
In Afghanistan today, NATO faces a local force, based in local locations, using local resources, locally sourced weapons, and lacking a safe haven.
In Iraq as well, the same situation applied. Both countries were swarming with weapons before the US invasion (Iraq's weapons were in government armouries that were looted with Baathist encouragement as US troops swept in). Enough arms abound for local militants to not need foreign support.
[/quote]
That is very understandable that most of weapons in Iraq (or may be all) being used by 'insurgents' was originally army's weaponry and must be in substantial amounts. Some point of time all that ammunition must be expected to last, how long? Can US bear that long?
Iraq must have had enough ammunition to fight a full scale conventional war for weeks, months, even years.
In a low-intensity war such a guerilla campaign, even part of such a supply will last for years or decades.
Quite simple, America and her allies are rather screwed in Iraq. Starving out the insurgents is almost certainly not going to work on an acceptable timescale.
Captain don’t answer him, stay on topic and answer serious posters who have something to contribute to the thread.
Coming to the topic: I would like you to detach the Afghanistan conflict from Iraq, consider them in isolation.
Taliban can never be put on the same pedestal as a dictator or a totalitarian. The Taliban were just a harsh, medieval policing force with no proper form of government.
Please convince me that the Taliban’s who are fighting a war to get the allied forces out of Afghanistan are freedom fighters.
I am all ears, and might get convinced if you have a strong argument. Unlike many people here who are dogmatic in their approach.
heheh may be that is also coz of jealousy.