Afghanistan

[WILF 44,332]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

How about this. Given the disastrous history of regime change, since at least the Iran coup of '53, is limited operations with the aim of 'containment' the most viable strategy?

It's certainly the direction the British government is taking with military reforms. Light, highly trained, highly equipped, highly informed, forces with short reaction times and global reach. No intention of holding ground or forcing change, just go in at a moments notice and leather them then f**k off, as and when necessary until the regime naturally collapses through internal pressure, rather than external.

Seems a bit "cross your fingers and hope" but what's a realistic alternative?

The “f**k about and we will kill you” strategy outlined there seems very sensible.

The major difference that comes to my uneducated mind is that with the former Soviet Union we were dealing with a political ideology that didn’t quiet make 100 years old…….these people are different !

We are dealing with the second largest religious group on the planet and that ideology has existed for 2000 years……it has conquered continents and spawned empires.

I think it’s a mistake to think about Islamic groups in isolation……hurt one Muslim and you hurt them all.

They will all hate you equally wherever they are in the world.

I think that statement by the government is rather based on our own deluded ideas of a multi cultural utopia and ignoring the reality of Islam’s relationship with and attitude to the west and western people.

Edited to add:

I don’t know if this is a fact but I would imagine the highest casualty rate is when the military is trying to establish a bridgehead, surely to keep on having to establish bridgeheads would be a reckless use of the lives of personnel ? 
 

Maybe letting them know that we will just take their country away from them long term does make better sense ?

What we should definitely do is look at how they go to work on each other and slaughter these people if they don’t play ball.

If you can trace a terrorist attacking to Kabul or wherever……wipe it off the face of the earth.

Edited August 20, 2021 by WILF

[mC HULL 10,440]

1 hour ago, shovel leaner said:

lol your about the 4th to put that up you all on the same sheeple facebook pages lol

[tatsblisters 7,952]

On 19/08/2021 at 10:06, tatsblisters said:

Rotherham can't get any worse a couple of thousand Afghans won't make a deal of difference.

A young 5 year old Afghan lad fell out of an hotel window in Sheffield the other day sad fleeing the Taliban to fall to his death when being in a safe country.

[Greb147 6,808]

51 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Someone would need to give him a heads up that the mujahedeen aren't on our side this time round.... bit awkward like. 

I've no idea, I've only seen the first one.

[Greb147 6,808]

8 minutes ago, tatsblisters said:

A young 5 year old Afghan lad fell out of an hotel window in Sheffield the other day sad fleeing the Taliban to fall to his death when being in a safe country.

Heard that on the local news, terrible mate.

I think they are now moving them all to another accommodation.

[Neobliviscaris1776 1,998]

19 minutes ago, Greb147 said:

I think they are now moving them all to another accommodation.

Moving them to safer accomodation or upgrading them to 5star?

They'll probably sue the hotel now.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

1 hour ago, WILF said:

The “f**k about and we will kill you” strategy outlined there seems very sensible.

The major difference that comes to my uneducated mind is that with the former Soviet Union we were dealing with a political ideology that didn’t quiet make 100 years old…….these people are different !

We are dealing with the second largest religious group on the planet and that ideology has existed for 2000 years……it has conquered continents and spawned empires.

I think it’s a mistake to think about Islamic groups in isolation……hurt one Muslim and you hurt them all.

They will all hate you equally wherever they are in the world.

I think that statement by the government is rather based on our own deluded ideas of a multi cultural utopia and ignoring the reality of Islam’s relationship with and attitude to the west and western people.

Maybe but I'm inclined to disagree. Though typical Islamic cultures are not good fits with our Western cultures, they're not all one cohesive organised mob of extremists/jihadis. For instance I doubt that Sunni Arabs give a f**k about Shia Iranians. Do you think the Kurds feel the pains of Turkey or Baathist Iraq? They're too easy to play off against each other for them to be all 'Islamic brotherhood'. I think the only reason that belief exists in the West is because in our countries all the brown people are mobbed together. I don't believe that is representative of the wider world.

1 hour ago, WILF said:

Edited to add:

I don’t know if this is a fact but I would imagine the highest casualty rate is when the military is trying to establish a bridgehead, surely to keep on having to establish bridgeheads would be a reckless use of the lives of personnel ? 
 

Maybe letting them know that we will just take their country away from them long term does make better sense ?

What we should definitely do is look at how they go to work on each other and slaughter these people if they don’t play ball.

If you can trace a terrorist attacking to Kabul or wherever……wipe it off the face of the earth.

That had occurred to me but I imagine the model for this would be similar to that of the operations against the Islamic State. Heavily focussed on special operations and air strikes with airborne or commando ground forces being deployed at the battalion (not sure if that's the right word) level rather than brigade level for more substantial fights and/or in support of local forces like France's involvement in Mali.

We're never going to eliminate risk and neither should we become so risk averse we're afraid to act. But I can't help but feel those who have seen mates hang themselves due to the trauma of war, seen mates get mutilated in war, would have an easier time justifying such loss to themselves when they clearly and proudly achieved what they were tasked with. Vs the feelings of pointlessness some are having to face now re Afghanistan.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Born Hunter

[WILF 44,332]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Maybe but I'm inclined to disagree. Though typical Islamic cultures are not good fits with our Western cultures, they're not all one cohesive organised mob of extremists/jihadis. For instance I doubt that Sunni Arabs give a f**k about Shia Iranians. Do you think the Kurds feel the pains of Turkey or Baathist Iraq? They're too easy to play off against each other for them to be all 'Islamic brotherhood'. I think the only reason that belief exists in the West is because in our countries all the brown people are mobbed together. I don't believe that is representative of the wider world.

My own opinion (and I stress the word opinion) is that, yes, they have infighting between certain sects within Islam and they may not care about each other in that way……but when it comes to us, they will stick together.

That bond of common faith is something I admire very much about them……they are stronger for it imho.

They use us……it’s as simple as that.

If we cease to be useful this idea that we can have some sort of common bond of humanity will very quickly be shown for what it is, a fantasy.

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

That had occurred to me but I imagine the model for this would be similar to that of the operations against the Islamic State. Heavily focussed on special operations and air strikes with airborne or commando ground forces being deployed at the battalion (not sure if that's the right word) level rather than brigade level for more substantial fights and/or in support of local forces like France's involvement in Mali.

I would imagine that the operations you speak of have never stopped happening, we are cutting about the world offing people all the time….make no mistake about it.

Life is cheap to these people (imho)…..you can go round offing specific targets until the cows come home, they couldn’t care less….the next one just steps forward into the ranks.

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

We're never going to eliminate risk and neither should we become so risk averse we're afraid to act. But I can't help but feel those who have seen mates hang themselves due to the trauma or war, seen mates get mutilated in war, would have an easier time justifying such loss to themselves when they clearly and proudly achieved what they were tasked with. Vs the feelings of pointlessness some are having to face now re Afghanistan.

I think we are risk adverse, but the bizarre thing seems to be that we are worrying about them not us ? 
let’s be honest here, other than a small minority, nobody bats an eyelid if some 19 year old British infantryman steps on an IED and is vaporised…..bit of government PR and we all move on.

BUT……if a drone go’s through the roof of a hospital in some far flung Islamic armpit of a town the whole world and it’s dog is in uproar !

In WW2 we absolutely rinsed Dresden, something like 4 days ?……and 25,000 casualties ?

Wiped out thousands of acres of the place…….I just don’t think we have the stomach for that any more because this war (and it is a war) only touches “other people”…….but (again just my opinion) make no mistake, we are in a fight for our lives every bit as serious as WW2…….the worst bit is, our government don’t seem to know who’s side it’s on yet ! 

[Neobliviscaris1776 1,998]

It's too convenient the speed at which all of these events have occurred and the urgency in which people are being brought to this country and elsewhere.

There's clearly a goal to quickly bring in some extreme terrorist elements and have them all ready and primed to go when their needed. 

[shovel leaner 7,648]

1 hour ago, mC HULL said:

lol your about the 4th to put that up you all on the same sheeple facebook pages lol

What about this one then

[WILF 44,332]

@Born Hunter Mate, you obviously have an interest and a knowledge of military and geo political things and evaluate them with the keen mind of someone who is obviously well educated.

I like reading what you write for that very reason as most lads on here are just like me, half educated bar room loud mouths who express their opinion as if it was fact……I know it isn’t fact, I hope I’m big enough to admit that.

However, lads off the plot like me do know one thing that the academic mind is rather inclined to miss…..sometimes, you just can’t be too clever about things.

When you have tried gifts and sweet talk and trying to be reasonable and it still isn’t working, then you have to resort to hitting people round the head with a bit of wood……that always solves the problem.

Hit enough people hard enough and eventually nobody wants to f**k about with you.

I believe the time for reasoning with these people is over. 

[SheepChaser 8,082]

15 minutes ago, WILF said:

@Born Hunter Mate, you obviously have an interest and a knowledge of military and geo political things and evaluate them with the keen mind of someone who is obviously well educated.

I like reading what you write for that very reason as most lads on here are just like me, half educated bar room loud mouths who express their opinion as if it was fact……I know it isn’t fact, I hope I’m big enough to admit that.

However, lads off the plot like me do know one thing that the academic mind is rather inclined to miss…..sometimes, you just can’t be too clever about things.

When you have tried gifts and sweet talk and trying to be reasonable and it still isn’t working, then you have to resort to hitting people round the head with a bit of wood……that always solves the problem.

Hit enough people hard enough and eventually nobody wants to f**k about with you.

I believe the time for reasoning with these people is over. 

I don’t agree with the sentiment “hit enough people hard enough and nobody wants to f**k with you”

 

I would say if you hit enough people hard enough there will always be someone willing / wanting to have a crack at knocking you over.

That my friend is what makes us human.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

20 minutes ago, WILF said:

My own opinion (and I stress the word opinion) is that, yes, they have infighting between certain sects within Islam and they may not care about each other in that way……but when it comes to us, they will stick together.

We're all just sharing opinions mate. I've never exactly planned a war, so I'm not speaking from any kind of experience.

21 minutes ago, WILF said:

I would imagine that the operations you speak of have never stopped happening, we are cutting about the world offing people all the time….make no mistake about it.

Life is cheap to these people (imho)…..you can go round offing specific targets until the cows come home, they couldn’t care less….the next one just steps forward into the ranks.

Oh for sure, special operations which are not discussed in Parliament or publicly are ongoing forever and always, granted. I think what's being suggested though is something that does involves sufficient combat mass of conventional forces to not go unnoticed. Something like intelligence that there is once again a large Al-Qaeda camp somewhere in the mountains which rather than a full invasion is responded to by a combined air strike, airborne assault and special forces operations. Very much hit and run.

31 minutes ago, WILF said:

Life is cheap to these people (imho)…..you can go round offing specific targets until the cows come home, they couldn’t care less….the next one just steps forward into the ranks.

I don't think any remotely stable regime wants to provoke an attack by the West. Osama and the Taliban originally tried to evade responsibility for 911, only admitting after the US had shown total and utter commitment to action. Saddam ended his WMD programmes when it became clear the US wouldn't stand for his behaviour. These sorts of regimes aren't stupid. They have face to save but equally don't want to be on the sharp end of a revolution or a TLAM strike.

It might just be a game of whack-a-mole with no end, but if we're playing never ending games, better the cheap ones.

52 minutes ago, WILF said:

In WW2 we absolutely rinsed Dresden, something like 4 days ?……and 25,000 casualties ?

Wiped out thousands of acres of the place…….I just don’t think we have the stomach for that any more because this war (and it is a war) only touches “other people”…….but (again just my opinion) make no mistake, we are in a fight for our lives every bit as serious as WW2…….the worst bit is, our government don’t seem to know who’s side it’s on yet ! 

I agree, we have no stomach for strategic strikes here. We're not willing to annihilate chunks of 'enemy' civilisations, bit by bit, in that way. Even during WWII it was controversial. Tactical strikes against recognised legitimate military targets is all that is on the table and imo is workable.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

38 minutes ago, WILF said:

@Born Hunter Mate, you obviously have an interest and a knowledge of military and geo political things and evaluate them with the keen mind of someone who is obviously well educated.

I like reading what you write for that very reason as most lads on here are just like me, half educated bar room loud mouths who express their opinion as if it was fact……I know it isn’t fact, I hope I’m big enough to admit that.

However, lads off the plot like me do know one thing that the academic mind is rather inclined to miss…..sometimes, you just can’t be too clever about things.

When you have tried gifts and sweet talk and trying to be reasonable and it still isn’t working, then you have to resort to hitting people round the head with a bit of wood……that always solves the problem.

Hit enough people hard enough and eventually nobody wants to f**k about with you.

I believe the time for reasoning with these people is over. 

I appreciate the respect and you're right I am interested in this stuff. But again, it's not born of experience. We're just sharing opinions.

I think we disagree on the nature of muslims and the Islamic world but right there at the bottom in boId I agree with. If these places are going to change for the better they have to do it in their own time and by their own initiative, we can't force it and need to respect that fact I think.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

1 hour ago, SheepChaser said:

I don’t agree with the sentiment “hit enough people hard enough and nobody wants to f**k with you”

 

I would say if you hit enough people hard enough there will always be someone willing / wanting to have a crack at knocking you over.

That my friend is what makes us human.

That's essentially how we feed radicalisation right? That fact isn't lost on me. But personally I think the extremist terrorist groups need to be distinguished from the recognised regimes in power of the countries where they reside. IMO Western forces are very adept at counter terrorism. Where we have continually failed or seen questionable success is with regime change. Which is why I think the containment strategy suggested has better potential than regime change.

But I really don't think there are any right answers and trialling anything costs blood and treasure. It's an easy and convenient question for us to avoid but I think getting clarity on how and when to use force is going to be essential over the coming decades. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Born Hunter