"3,500 more U.S. troops headed to Afghanistan" Topic

"It is unclear what the additional U.S. forces plan to accomplish in the nearly 16-year-old war and how long that might take. Last month President Trump outlined a broad strategy for Afghanistan and the surrounding region, saying that "conditions on the ground — not arbitrary timetables" would guide his administration's approach. He also said that he would take a stronger stance against Pakistan — a country long accused of harboring militants within its borders — and that American forces would "have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work."

While President Barack Obama approved more aggressive airstrikes against the Taliban in 2016, Trump's new rules of engagement could allow U.S. forces to target Taliban forces faster than they have in the past and attack them even if they are not directly threatening Afghan forces, according to U.S. officials familiar with the possible changes who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the changes had not yet been authorized…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Absurd to risk lifes of US Servicemen for this kind of war…the only way to win that war is'nt enforce peace …another possibility would be to send there, duly paid, third word armies,

Sigh….best wishes to our service personnel that are having to be deployed over there. Be safe and thanks for your service.

Why do we care in the first place?
Any damn fool can conquer Afghanistan. The problem is that that doesn't accomplish anything.
Doesn't anyone read history anymore?
Afghanistan has managed to get itself conquered since before Alexander the Great. And nothing ever changes. The conquerors leave, if they have any sense, and police chiefs go on raping little boys.

I can see a Russian diplomat getting drunk with an American diplomat. ", Francis. I could have told you that."
And the American replies, "I know Sergei. But nobody listened."

The Russians tried ITALWARS approach, bar the foreign mercenaries bit. It worked so well the Soviet Union collapsed.

I should be President. I would have a novel approach to foreign policy. "I don't care."

The Russians tried ITALWARS approach, bar the foreign mercenaries bit. It worked so well the Soviet Union collapsed."
i agree with you WS…my suggested "approach" was a last resort action..in fact nobody should go in Aghanistan
also if i'm thinking that, except unavoidable public opinion and later Perestroyka influence, the Russian failed in Afghanistan also because the Mujaidin once armed with Stingers partially deprived Soviets of their great asset which was being able to strike with no mercy and from the air without any risk to be retailed….should'nt this new weapon appeared in the arsenal of those warriors in sandals..i don't know if they had succeeded in expulsing the Soviet Army

The number "3,500" tops the headline, but that is really the least important part on the change of strategy. What are the changes in the ROE? As pointed out, we can win on the battlefield, but will that lead to long term success and stability in Afghanistan? Only time will tell.

Winston for President!!! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

As a wise man once said, "Afghanistan is easy to get into but hard to get out of." Like "Winston" I constantly ask if none of these Politicians and Generals ever bothered to read the history of Afghan Wars? The only thing Afghans unite against is foreign invaders. Left alone they go on killing one another like they have been doing for all of recorded history. And the best our leaders can come up with is more of the same.

I said it in 2001 and have been saying it ever since – we shouldn't have gone in, and, having gone in, should have left immediately or sooner, and, having not done that, should either a) occupy the country in the old style, or b) actually negotiate with the Taliban to bring a power-sharing government or similar in to enable ISAF to leave prior to the inevitable civil war and social collapse (again). Eventually the country would settle down and sort itself out.

Sort. ITSELF. Out.

Afghanistan is only a case study but EVERY third word country has the same feelings toward us: that are refusal of our way of life and envy….so why trying to teach them anything..is like to take out blood from a stone..
They are only 2 solutions:
- occupy and colonise them the old way
- isolate and exploit them economically from outside
Everything different is just a comedy

Maybe there are some economical reason floating in the air…?

Amicalement
Armand

i hope so …but what have they to offer except goats and carpets?

Reinforcing failure is seldom a good idea. Nor is playing for a tie.

Rubbish, I've done 5 tours as an infantryman in that 3rd world hole. All this "nobody has ever conquered Afghanistan" tripe is giving them a warrior reputation they don't deserve. We could easily tame that country, we never had the political and popular will to do it though. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

what have they to offer except goats and carpets?

Heroin, or at least the raw material to make it. I've heard their exports of the drug have greatly increased since our invasion. It's a cash crop over there. If people didn't buy that junk they wouldn't grow it.

And I watched the poppy eradication programme at its pathetic best, we could have achieved that if it wasn't so political.

And I watched the poppy eradication programme at its pathetic best"

i'v the very bad feeling that, all over the word , there is a strong will to do not eradicate that sort of rubbish