US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

The war is very unpopular now in the US. And they want to move out asap. That was the goal of Bonn Conference … to ask Afg neighbors to work for the security. But first Pak’s boycott put a dent to those hopes. And now Iran is unhappy for US drone getting into Iran’s air space.

So if both Iran and Pak back off from US plans then those plans are doomed. Then who will pay the bill?

America might have been powerful, but it looks like its bad days are not far away. There already is talk of cutting of defence budget after their super committee failed to agree on how to cut deficit.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-afghanistan-karzaitre7b30nc-20111204,0,5153244.story
U.S.-Iran row overshadows Afghan conference

BONN (Reuters) - A conference meant to show governments would unite to support Afghanistan was overshadowed on Sunday by a row between Washington and Tehran after Iran said it had shot down a U.S. spy drone in its airspace.

Iranian threats of retaliation over the alleged intrusion added to a storm brewing in the region afterPakistan boycotted the conference in protest against NATO air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on its border with Afghanistan on November 26.

International forces in Kabul said the drone may have been one lost last week while flying over western Afghanistan.

Iranian television quoted a military source as saying Tehran had shot down the drone in eastern Iran.

… **with Western countries struggling to cope with economic downturn, the United States andEuropean powers are arguing about who should foot the bill to keep Afghanistan afloat after most foreign combat troops leave in 2014.

AWorld Bank study released last month said Afghanistan was likely to need around $7 billion a year from the international community to help pay its security and other bills long after foreign troops leave.

In such an environment, and with Western public opinion already weary of the 10-year-old war in Afghanistan, the tensions between the United States and Afghanistan’s neighbours Iran and Pakistan could not come at a worse time.
**
Only weeks ago,Turkey hosted a regional conference in Istanbul at which countries including rivals Pakistan and India, along with Russia, China and Iran pledged to work together to bring peace to Afghanistan.

Yet the NATO airstrikes on November 26 – in circumstances which are fiercely contested by Washington and Islamabad - have plunged U.S.-Pakistan relations to a new low, and also worsened a difficult relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The United States and Afghanistan say leaders of the Afghan insurgency are based in Pakistan – a charge it denies – and want the Pakistanis to bring them to the table for peace talks.

2

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

Afghanistan has always been difficult to occupy. It has proven it throughout history.

But the Indian subcontinent has always been easy to occupy. Pakistan is largely part of the Subcontinent and therefore the Americans will probably shift their attentions to it as historically the people here were less difficult than the Afghans. I hope I am wrong though.

3

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

Pak will be even difficult to occupy due to its sheer size and complicated ethno-religious issues.

4

Re: US troubles in Afg: It’s easy to invade, difficult to occupy

How history repeats itself especially in Vietnamistan.

Soviet invasion of Vietnamistan..

The Mujahideen proved to be a formidable opponent. They were equipped with old rifles but had a knowledge of the mountains around Kabal and the weather conditions that would be encountered there. The Russians resorted to using napalm, poison gas and helicopter gun ships against the Mujahedeen - but they experienced exactly the same military scenario the Americans had done in Vietnam.

By 1982, the Mujahideen controlled 75% of Afghanistan despite fighting the might of the world’s second most powerful military power. Young conscript Russian soldiers were no match against men fuelled by their religious belief. Though the Russian army had a reputation, the war in Afghanistan showed the world just how poor it was outside of military displays. Army boots lasted no more than 10 days before falling to bits in the harsh environment of the Afghanistan mountains. Many Russian soldiers deserted to the Mujahideen. Russian tanks were of little use in the mountain passes.

5

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

America had the best chance of all (technological superiority and no superpower backing taliban) to fix afghanistan, but bush lost his marbles in "remaking middle east" in his neocon dreams and invaded iraq. The iraq exercise provided enough time for taliban to regroup and come back when they were on the run after 2001.

British successfully partitioned off the durand line, but failed in afghanistan proper. I remember reading a US spec ops soldier article in FP that compared the moral superiority of the US army and how AMERICA could have won now if it were the Mongols, who ransacked cities and destroyed life as we know it when it came to their opponents. They destroyed the irrigation works of afghanistan and iraq for centuries to come (i don't think afghanistan ever recovered) and I am sure they did the same in Persia.

[quote]
Young conscript Russian soldiers were no match against men fuelled by their religious belief. Though the Russian army had a reputation, the war in Afghanistan showed the world just how poor it was outside of military displays. Army boots lasted no more than 10 days before falling to bits in the harsh environment of the Afghanistan mountains. Many Russian soldiers deserted to the Mujahideen. Russian tanks were of little use in the mountain passes.
[/quote]

This is why America bribed the warlords and used spec ops successfully to oust taliban. I don't know why the soviets underestimated afghanistan's terrain, when they had used Spetnaz to blitzkrieg afghanistan in 1979

6

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

the redneck elephant is down and down. If only the shameless pakistanis would grow a pair and say no to feet licking of americans. But alas no, for dollars they are ready to even sell their --------.

7

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

Amerreeka is in Vietnamistan because of North South divide, Plain and simple.

No way in hell Amreeka gets involved directly if there isn't one.

historical examples such as Noko v Soko, N. Nam v S. Nam, Iraq - Shia v Suni.

Drug pushers from the North v Taliban/Pashtuns in the south in Vietnamistan is no exception.

Sit tight and just wait for the spin masters to find a face saver.

8

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

There has been talk of a de facto partition of the country, where the south is pretty much left to fend for itself while "allied forces" keep on hammering away at targets of opportunity with drones and air attacks with surgical spec ops. I guess the thinking is that there is nothing in southern afghanistan, and this would "straighten up" those "pakis" as well, since much ado about nothing afghans head up to Pakistan for mischief.

9

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

america and her cronies may wish so. if they dare shift the war "openly" into pakistan, they will face the worst fate here, much worst than they faced in afghanistan.

10

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

and there is a talk of this being proposed, discussed and potential getting "approved" in bonn conference, hence pakistan not joining (yet). and its actually 3 parts, south (taleban), central (america/nato) and north (northern alliance).

11

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

not very long ago such talks were there about Iraq as well, Kurd in North, Sunni in Center and Shia in South.... but that plan was failed or was not approved by Iraqies i guess and same will be the fate of this plan which talks about dividing Afghanistan..

12

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

Just as much as I would like to believe that, but sadly I cant. No one hs ever had that kindof fate in Indian subcontinent and I doubt anyone ever will.

People say that the awam is different to the leaders but in reality the leaders reflect the rest of us.

Pakistan has long been on a slippery slope. The Americans will not need to declare a war on Pakistan to get their will. Its not just the leaders fault but the awams. We gave upon on Pakistan long ago because we just want to take, take, take and very rarely give.

13

Re: US troubles in Afg: It's easy to invade, difficult to occupy

Kurdistan is de facto independent anyway, though "Eye-rak" is trying to assert its authority over them regarding oil deals etc. The rest of Iraq is shiite, except for the "sunni triangle" which doesn't have oil anyway.